778

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS COVER A

diverse range of coatings for use in a wide variety of indus-
tries. For example, coatings such as alkyds, acrylics, vinyls,
epoxies, urethanes, polyureas, silicones, and silicates can be
used to coat structures of such variety as bridges, railroad
cars, chemical process vessels, elevated water tanks, and
concrete floors. Therefore, it is obvious that because of the
many different coating chemistries and the vast range of
environments to which they might be exposed, the testing
of industrial maintenance coatings can be a broad topic.
Furthermore, a particular physical property which may be
important in one application, such as temperature resis-
tance for a stack coating, may be of little importance for
a different coating in a different environment. Therefore,
it is important to know not only what type of tests can be
run, but to appreciate the relative importance of various
tests, realizing that their ranking may change from project
to project.
In broad terms, the testing of coatings falls into one
of two categories: determining the properties of the liquid
paint, and determining the properties of the dried film.
The testing of liquid paint can involve not only determin-
ing compositional related parameters such as density or
solids content, but also application related parameters such
as dry time and sag resistance. Although dried films can
certainly be subjected to a barrage of analytical techniques
to investigate chemical composition, this would generally
be considered a separate topic, and in the context of this
chapter most of the testing on dried films is done to deter-
mine performance or physical properties, such as abrasion
resistance or adhesion.
In the past, much emphasis, not only in testing but in
specification writing, was placed on the chemical composi-
tion of the coating. In the last decade or so, the emphasis
has shifted more toward performance based requirements.
Although the performance of the coating on the substrate
is certainly of more fundamental importance than which
ingredients are in the can, the latter should not be ignored.
Indeed, it is fairly common when screening coatings for a
Qualified Products List (QPL) to base acceptance on their
performance characteristics, but also to do some basic
compositional testing of the specific batch which was sub-
mitted. The results of these compositional tests are then
used to define the characteristics of any future batches
which may be provided for specific jobs, to help insure that
production batches have similar composition (and there-
fore hopefully similar performance characteristics) to the
batch which passed the QPL testing.
TESTING OF LIQUID COATINGS
Density
The density, or weight/gallon, of a liquid coating is a rapid,
inexpensive test which, when combined with a few other
simple tests, provides a measurement indicative of the types
and relative amounts of ingredients making up the coating.
Indeed, a significant variation in density is a sign that a
production error has probably occurred.
The density of a material is generally performed with
a pycnometer, which is simply a device which has a spe-
cific, known volume at a certain temperature. In the paint
industry, the pycnometer is known as a weight-gallon cup,
and the test is performed in accordance with ASTM D1475
(Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks,
and Related Products). Briefly, a slight excess of material
is placed in the cup, such that when the lid is attached the
excess is forced out through a small hole in the center of
the lid. This assures that the cup is completely filled. The
cup and lid are weighed before and after, and the grams of
liquid paint can then be used to determine the density of
the paint, in lbs/ gal. Often, the density of the paint in lbs/
gal is simply the weight of the paint contained in the cup,
in grams, divided by 10.
Solids by Weight
The percent solids by weight of a coating, often referred to
as its percent nonvolatile by weight, is usually determined
in accordance with ASTM D2369 (Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings). Basically, a liquid coating
consists of four types of ingredients: resins or polymers,
pigment, additives, and solvents. By determining the solids
by weight, one is determining the combined amount of the
first three ingredients. Since these are the ingredients left
behind in the dried film, it is important that a particular
production batch have the correct solids content.
Basically, the test method involves weighing a certain
amount of liquid coating into a previously weighed thin, dis-
posable aluminum dish, baking this in an oven for 1 hour at
105 to 115C, and dividing the weight of solid material left
behind by the initial weight of liquid material used.
The procedure is simple and straightforward, although
the precision and accuracy for thick, high solids multi-
component coatings is not quite as good as for simple low
solids coatings such as alkyds. In some such cases, these
coatings contain curing agents which are volatile at the
temperature of the test, meaning that they can evaporate in
the oven before they get a chance to cross-link and become
nonvolatile. This possibility is recognized by ASTM, and
63
Testing of Industrial Maintenance Coatings
Dwight G. Weldon
1

1
Weldon Laboratories, Inc., 1188 Route 30, P.O. Box 40, Imperial, PA 15126.
MNL17-EB/Jan. 2012
Copyright 2012 by ASTM International www.astm.org

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
CHAPTER 63 TESTING OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS 779
for such coatings it is recommended that they be allowed
to air dry for one hour after mixing and prior to placing
them in the oven. Single component reactive coatings, such
as moisture cured urethanes, are not specifically addressed
by ASTM. However, it would seem logical to treat them in
a similar fashion to the reactive two component coatings.
Volume Solids
The percent solids by volume of a coating, often referred
to as its volume solids, is determined in accordance with
ASTM D2697 (Standard Test Method for Volume Non-
volatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings). This is a
somewhat more complicated test than either the density
or weight solids tests described above, and indeed requires
that these two tests be done in order to perform the neces-
sary calculations. Essentially, the liquid coating is applied
to small metal disks and allowed to dry. The disks are then
weighed in air, and again while suspended in water, and the
appropriate calculations are done to determine the percent,
by volume, of the nonvolatile material in the coating.
Not only is volume solids an important property relat-
ing to the composition of the coating, but it has important
practical significance. If the coating is supposed to be 70 %
solids by volume and is to be applied at 10 mils wet, it will
dry to a thickness of 7 mils. If a batch were low in solids,
say 50 % versus 70 %, and if the applicator still applied it at
the recommended 10 mils wet, he would only get a dry film
thickness of 5 mils, rather than the expected 7 mils.
Viscosity
There are many ways to measure the viscosity of a coating.
These include determining the time it takes for a coating
to drain from a cup of known volume through an orifice of
known size (ASTM methods D4212Standard Test Method
for Viscosity by Dip-Type Viscosity Cups, and D1200Stan-
dard Test Method for Viscosity by Ford Viscosity Cup), the
use of rotational viscometers using spindles, such as Brook-
field viscometers (ASTM D2196Standard Test Methods
for Rheological Properties of Non-Newtonian Materials by
Rotational (Brookfield type) Viscometer), and rotational
viscometers using paddles, such as the Stormer viscometer
(ASTM D562Standard Test Method for Consistency of
Paints Measuring Krebs (KU) Viscosity Using the Stormer-
Type Viscometer). Brookfield viscometers can produce a
much more accurate viscosity profile than a Stormer vis-
cometer, because they allow one to obtain viscosity data
over a wide range of shear rates. In contrast, a Stormer
viscometer (Fig. 1) provides only a single data point, with
the viscosity (expressed as Krebs Units, or KU) being deter-
mined under a single, low shear condition. Nevertheless,
partly because of its simplicity, the standard quality control
test for viscosity is done with the Stormer type viscometer.
When performing viscosity testing, it is important that
the temperature requirements be observed, as this can sig-
nificantly affect the results. It is also important to realize
that the viscosity of a multi-component coating can change
over time, and that viscosity should be determined as soon
after mixing as possible.
Pigment Content
The weight solids test described above provides a measure
of the total amount, by weight, of solid material in the
liquid coating. It says nothing, however, about the ratio
of pigment to vehicle, which can have a significant influ-
ence on the performance of the coating. The common
procedures for determining percent pigment are ASTM
D2371 (Standard Test Method for Pigment Content of
Solvent-Reducible Paints) for solvent borne coatings, and
ASTM D3723 (Standard Test Method for Pigment Content
of Water-Emulsion Paints by Low-Temperature Ashing) for
water-borne coatings. The first procedure involves using a
centrifuge to separate the pigment from the vehicle and sol-
vents, while the latter involves ashing a dried film of coating
after first determining its weight solids. Once a sample has
been analyzed for percent pigment and weight solids, the
percent vehicle can be calculated simply by taking the dif-
ference between the two. The only error in this procedure,
which is usually quite minor, is the inclusion of any addi-
tives as vehicle.
Sag Resistance
Sag resistance provides a measure of how thick a coating
can be applied to a vertical surface before it begins to sag.
This is important, because if the coating is intended to be
applied at 10 wet mils but sags at 5, it will have to applied
in two coats rather than one.
Sag resistance is commonly tested in accordance with
ASTM D4400 (Standard Test Method for Sag Resistance
of Paints Using a Multinotch Applicator). This involves
preparing a drawdown using a notched applicator (Fig. 2)
which applies the coating in a pattern of stripes covering a
range of thicknesses. The drawdown is then immediately
hung vertically, with the thinnest stripe at the top and
the thickest at the bottom, and subsequently evaluated to
determine the heaviest thickness which does not sag into
the stripe below it.
Fig. 1Stormer viscometer used to obtain viscosity of coatings.
(Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
780 PAINT AND COATING TESTING MANUAL 15TH EDITION
Drying Time
How long it takes a coating to dry to touch, or dry hard,
can be an important practical consideration. Furthermore,
if the drying time of a particular batch is very much lon-
ger than expected, it could be an indication of a compo-
sitional problem. Drying time is commonly measured in
accordance with ASTM D1640 (Standard Test Methods for
Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at
Room Temperature). The tests are simple but subjective,
and involve such techniques as touching with ones finger
to determine set to touch times, or using a twisting motion
with ones thumb to determine dry to handle times.
Infrared Spectroscopy
Most of the above tests are rapid, require relatively inex-
pensive equipment, and provide a quick screening method
to determine if a particular batch of coating falls within
specification requirements. However, they essentially mea-
sure some type of bulk property which, although dependent
to some extent on the specific ingredients of the coating,
does not in any way actually identify these ingredients. A
powerful tool for providing compositional information on
paints and coatings, whether in the solid or liquid state, is
infrared spectroscopy.
Infrared spectroscopy is described in great detail else-
where in this volume. Simply put, it allows a material to
be identified by measuring the amount of infrared light
absorbed (or transmitted) at various frequencies. Indeed,
a spectrum is simply a graph showing the amount of
absorbed (or transmitted) infrared light as a function of fre-
quency. Two examples of infrared spectra are shown in Fig.
3. Even without understanding the underlying theory of the
process, it is obvious that the spectrum of the vinyl latex
is much different in appearance than the spectrum of the
Fig. 2A multinotch applicator used to evaluate sag resis-
tance. (Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)
Fig. 3Infrared spectra of an epoxy (top) and a vinyl latex (bottom). (Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
CHAPTER 63 TESTING OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS 781
epoxy. The fact that different materials each have their own
unique infrared spectrum has led to them being referred to
as fingerprints.
In recent years there has been a trend in product test-
ing to obtain an infrared spectrum of the batch of coating
submitted for testing. If the batch passes all the testing
requirements and is approved, the spectrum is kept on file
in the event that a problem occurs with a later, production
batch of coating. If the spectrum shows a marked devia-
tion in composition from the originally approved batch,
it is likely that the problem is a coating one. On the other
hand, if the various bulk properties are consistent, and the
spectrum is a good match to the spectrum of the approved
batch, it is likely (but not certain) that the problem lies
elsewhere.
Although an extremely useful technique, infrared spec-
troscopy is not without its limitations. First of all, there is
more than one way to actually obtain a spectrum of a sam-
ple, and the analyst must be consistent in his methodology
in order to obtain reproducible spectra. Secondly, infrared
spectroscopy generally cannot detect ingredients which are
present at less than 4 % or 5 % unless they are somehow
separated or at least partially isolated from the mixture.
Therefore, a minor additive which might have a crucial bear-
ing on the performance of a coating, such as an ultraviolet
light absorber, would not even be detected by this technique.
TESTING OF APPLIED COATINGS
Because of the diversity of coating types, structures, and
environments encountered in the industrial maintenance
field, there are numerous tests which could be appropriate
for a given situation. Because of this, the first question to
ask when putting together a testing program, or evaluat-
ing the manufacturers published literature, is what is
this coating going to be used for?. This simple question
will help greatly in deciding which tests are appropriate,
and how much emphasis to place on each test. The follow-
ing is a list of many of the common tests which could be
appropriate for evaluating the performance of an industrial
maintenance coating. ASTM D6577 (Standard Guide for
Testing Industrial Protective Coatings) provides a good list
of the many tests available.
Adhesion
Of all the physical and chemical properties of a coating, this
one is arguably the most important. The best coating will
offer little protection if it does not stick to the substrate.
There are several methods to measure adhesion, including
such subjective, unofficial techniques as prying with a
hammer and chisel to rubbing with the edge of a coin. The
three more widely used standardized ASTM techniques,
however, include D3359, D4541, and D6677.
ASTM D3359 (Standard Test Methods for Measur-
ing Adhesion by Tape Test) is often referred to as tape
adhesion. There are two methods to choose from, A and
B, depending on the thickness of the coating. Method A
is recommended for films greater than 5 mils thick, and
involves using a cutting tool to scribe an X cut into the
specimen, followed by the application of a special pressure
sensitive adhesive tape. The tape is then rapidly removed,
and the adhesion is assessed in accordance with the
methods descriptive rating system. The ratings range from
a 5 for no peeling or removal, to a 0 for removal beyond
the area of the X. Method B, for thinner films, involves
scribing a cross-hatch pattern into the specimen, again fol-
lowed by the application and removal of tape. The ratings,
which also range from 5 to 0, are assessed in accordance
with pictorial representations of the percentage of coating
removal.
The technique has the advantage of being quick,
simple, and inexpensive, and can even be done on curved
surfaces. However, occasionally problems can be encoun-
tered with the tape not adhering well to the paint, resulting
in artificially good results. A more common problem, how-
ever, especially with thick, tough coatings, is not being able
to scribe completely through to the substrate.
ASTM D4541 (Standard Test Method for Pull-Off
Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers) is
often referred to as tensile adhesion. It involves using an
adhesive to attach aluminum or steel dollies or stubs to
the coating, and then using some sort of portable adhesion
tester (Fig. 4) to measure the force required to pull the stub
from the surface, hopefully taking the coating along with it.
The result is reported in psi. A variation of this test is cur-
rently being evaluated for use on coated concrete.
The advantages of this method compared to D3359
include less subjectivity and less operator error associ-
ated with not cutting completely through the coating. It
has several potential drawbacks, however, not the least of
which is the fact that the various instruments on the mar-
ket can produce widely varying results. Thus, it is critical,
when performing the test, to report which instrument was
used, and results between one coating and another should
only be compared if they were tested using the same type
of instrument. It is also not uncommon for the precision
to be relatively poor, at least for certain types of instru-
ments, so it is advisable to perform testing in duplicate or
triplicate.
The method can usually not be used on curved sur-
faces, as this changes the degree of contact and hence the
surface area tested, and, once the stubs are applied, it can
take from a few hours to overnight before the adhesive has
cured enough to test. Furthermore, some adhesives do not
bond well to the surfaces of some coatings, resulting in glue
failures rather than coating delamination. It should also be
pointed out that it is not unusual for tensile adhesion and
tape adhesion results to appear to be inconsistent. This is
Fig. 4A type of commonly used portable adhesion tester.
(Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
782 PAINT AND COATING TESTING MANUAL 15TH EDITION
likely because tape adhesion applies a significant degree of
shear stress to the coating, which is absent in the tensile
testing. Thus, the coating adhesion, when assessed by tape
adhesion, can sometimes appear to be worse than the ten-
sile adhesion values would indicate.
A third, relatively new ASTM method for assessing
adhesion, is D6677 (Standard Test Method for Evaluating
Adhesion by Knife). This method involves using a knife to
cut an X into the sample, and then uses the tip of the knife
to pick or probe at the intersection of the cuts. There is a
rating system based on the ease with which the coating can
be removed. Investigators and inspectors have used similar
methods for years in subjectively determining coating adhe-
sion, and one of the main reasons for establishing D6677
was to try to standardize, at least to some extent, the vari-
ous subjective methods in use.
Corrosion Resistance
When the structure being painted is made of steel, assess-
ing the corrosion resistance of the coating is very impor-
tant. By far the most commonly used procedure is the salt
spray test, ASTM B117 (Standard Practice for Operating
Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus). The test involves placing the
painted panels in a salt spray cabinet (Fig. 5), which essen-
tially produces a fog of warm (95F) saltwater (5 % sodium
chloride). After an agreed upon period of time, such as
1000h, the panels are evaluated for such things as blister-
ing (ASTM D714Standard Test Method for Evaluating
Degree of Blistering of Paints), rusting (ASTM D610Stan-
dard Practice for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted
Steel Surfaces), and undercutting at the scribe (ASTM
D1654Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or
Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments),
if the panels were scribed (an option) before placing them
on test.
The procedure has been used for decades, and is firmly
entrenched in many specifications. Over the last ten years
or so, however, it has become somewhat controversial, and
there is a body of evidence that salt spray results do not cor-
relate very well with real world performance.
A second commonly used test procedure which has
increased substantially in popularity over the last several
years is what is known as Prohesion testing, which is
described in ASTM D5894 (Standard Practice for Cyclic
Salt Fog/UV Exposure of Painted Metal). The terminology,
however, is somewhat confusing, as Prohesion testing refers
to a procedure involving a cyclic salt fog test, which is only
one component of D5894 (the other component being accel-
erated weathering).
In D5894, the test panels (either scribed or unscribed)
are placed in a cyclic salt fog cabinet (sometimes referred to
as a Prohesion cabinet), which introduces a fog of dilute salt
water (0.05 % sodium chloride/0.35 % ammonium sulfate)
at room temperature for one h. After one h, the cabinet is
purged with warm, dry air for one hour, and the cycle is
repeated. The panels remain in the cyclic salt fog cabinet
(also described in ASTM G85, Standard Practice for Modified
Salt Spray (Fog) Testing) for a specified period of time (typi-
cally one week), after which time they are manually trans-
ported to an ASTM G154 accelerated weathering cabinet,
which uses ultraviolet light, heat, and moisture to weather
the panels, again typically for one week. The panels alter-
nate between the two cabinets, typically for a total duration
of 1000 h, and are then evaluated in the manner described
above for salt fog testing.
It is generally felt that D5894 gives better correlation
to the real world performance of coatings than does B117.
However, in both cases, and indeed with all accelerated
laboratory test methods, it is extremely difficult to use
the tests to actually predict the service life of a coating
system. The tests are primarily used to compare one coat-
ing with another, allowing them to be ranked as to which
can be expected to perform the best. There is also concern
that D5894 gives artificially poor results for zinc-rich
primers.
Accelerated Weathering
A commonly asked question of a coating is how durable
is it, or how well does it weather. The best, but also the
slowest way, to answer this question is to expose painted
panels outdoors in an environment similar to what might
actually be expected. As this can take years, there have been
various accelerated laboratory test methods developed. All
of these methods employ a combination of heat, ultravio-
let light, and moisture to weather or degrade the coating.
Broadly speaking, they fall into two categories, depending
on the source of ultraviolet light: arc devices, and fluores-
cent tube devices.
Arc devices produce ultraviolet light by passing an
electrical current through an electrode. Devices include
enclosed and open-flame carbon arcs described by ASTM
G153 (Standard Practice for Operating Enclosed Carbon
Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materi-
als) and D822 (Standard Practice for Filtered Open-Flame
Carbon-Arc Exposures of Paint and Related Coatings), and
Fig. 5An ASTM B117 salt fog cabinet. (Photograph courtesy
of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
CHAPTER 63 TESTING OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS 783
xenon arc machines described by ASTM G155 (Standard
Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for
Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials). In all cases, water is
sprayed intermittently onto the specimens as a fine mist,
and exposure to light and darkness is alternated. A com-
monly used cycle is 102 min of light at 145F and 18 min
of light and water spray at 60F. The xenon arc devices
have become much more common than the carbon-arc
devises.
Fluorescent UV bulb devices are described in ASTM
G154 (Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Light-
Apparatus (for UV) Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials),
formerly known as ASTM G53. Briefly, they use fluorescent
tubes to provide the ultraviolet light, and moisture in the
form of condensation is produced by heating a trough of
water located in the bottom of the instrument. Many differ-
ent types of bulbs are available which have different spec-
tral characteristics, although most fall into what is known
as either the UV-A or UV-B region of the electromagnetic
spectrum. The UV-B region is more aggressive and can pro-
duce results in less time, but the UV-A region is generally
felt to be a more realistic test.
Regardless of which type of test is selected it must be
kept in mind that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
predict an actual lifetime for a coating based upon accel-
erated weathering data. Weather varies dramatically from
geographic region to geographic region, and even from year
to year in the same region. Therefore, the primary use of
accelerated weathering is to compare or rank one coating
versus another.
Chemical Resistance
When one considers all the industrial environments that
painted structures can be exposed to, as well as the fact
that coatings are used to protect such things as waste
water treatment plants, off shore oil platforms, secondary
containments, and even the interiors of railroad tank cars
and chemical process vessels, it is apparent that chemical
resistance is an extremely important property. The two rel-
evant test methods for determining chemical resistance are
ASTM D1308 (Standard Test Method for Effect of House-
hold Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes),
and ASTM C868 (Standard Test Method for Chemical Resis-
tance of Protective Linings).
The title of D1308 is somewhat misleading, as the
methodology can be applied to harsh industrial chemicals
as well as mild household ones. The method is broadly
written, and covers such possibilities as simple room tem-
perature spot testing, where a small amount of chemical is
applied to a test panel and covered with a watch glass for
an hour or so, to high temperature immersion testing. The
method does not go into much detail as to apparatus, time,
or temperature, and basically leaves these decisions up to
the investigator. Obviously, chemicals should be chosen
which could reasonably come into contact with the coating,
and realistic, although perhaps slightly elevated, tempera-
tures should be chosen. Although in service the coating may
be expected to perform for several years, laboratory testing
is usually carried out for no more than a few months, with
the panels being evaluated for such things as rusting, blis-
tering, cracking, softening, or delamination. If the coating
goes for a few months with little or no sign of deterioration,
it is generally assumed to be acceptable for that chemical,
even though it is not possible to predict the actual service
life in years.
While D1308 involves immersion testing, C868 is often
referred to as one-sided immersion testing, or sometimes
Atlas Cell testing, even though there may be a number of
companies which manufacture the equipment. A virtually
identical test is described in NACE TM-01-74 (Laboratory
Methods for the Evaluation of Protective Coatings and Lin-
ing Materials in Immersion Service). The apparatus used
in C868 (Fig. 6) consists of a glass cylinder, typically 5 to 7
in. in diameter, fitted with ground glass take offs for such
things as condensers, thermometers, or immersion heaters
(one variety jackets the outside of the cell with a flexible
heating element). The gasketed test panels actually form the
two ends of the cell. The cell is then filled halfway to two
thirds full with the chemical of interest, and the heating ele-
ment set to maintain the desired test temperature. The test
duration is typically from 3 to 6 months.
One of the main advantages to C868 testing is that,
since the test panels are not immersed, there are no edge
effects to worry about. Sometimes it is difficult to seal
sharp edges, and failures can occur near edges which are
more application related than coating related.
Another advantage to C868 testing, which depending
on circumstances may be more perceived than real, is the
belief that it mimics the cold wall effect. The cold wall
effect has been observed numerous times, and occurs when
the outside, non-immersed surface of the steel is colder
than the inner surface which is exposed to the contents of the
vessel. This is a more aggressive condition than if the inner
and outer temperatures are the same, and can more readily
cause blistering of the interior coatings.
Fig. 6An ASTM C868 chemical resistance cell. (Photograph
courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
784 PAINT AND COATING TESTING MANUAL 15TH EDITION
At first glance, this condition would appear to be
simulated in Atlas Cell testing. However, unless the steel
test panels are rather thick, there is actually very little dif-
ference in temperature between the inner and outer walls.
A temperature gradient can be imposed by jacketing the
outer surface with a cell containing circulating water, but
in practice this is rarely done.
When doing chemical resistance testing, it is tempt-
ing to choose a temperature much higher than the actual,
expected temperature, in order to accelerate the test. Care
must be taken, however, not to choose too high of a tem-
perature. If the coating is below its glass transition temper-
ature when in actual service, but has been artificially raised
above its glass transition temperature during laboratory
testing, the possibility exists that it will have been made
more permeable as a result. Thus, it could fail in the labora-
tory, yet in actual service it could perform very well.
Abrasion Resistance
Coatings used to protect handrails or used in areas sub-
jected to heavy foot traffic need to be resistant to abrasion.
By far the two most popular methods to evaluate abrasion
resistance include Taber abrasion and falling sand.
Taber abrasion testing is described by ASTM D4060
(Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic
Coatings by the Taber Abraser). The test panels, which are
4 4 in.
2
with a hole in the middle, are mounted on a device
called a Taber abrader. This is essentially a turntable with a
pair of weighted abrading wheels which rest on the panel.
As the panel rotates, the abrasive wheels turn along with
it, resulting in removal of some or all of the coating. The
panels are weighed before and after testing, and the result
is usually reported as a weight loss per so many cycles
(usually 1000 cycles). Coatings with better abrasion resis-
tance lose a smaller amount of weight. When evaluating
Taber abrasion results, it is important to know the number
of cycles, the load on the wheels, and the type of wheels.
CS-17 wheels are the most common, but wheels of lesser
and greater abrasiveness can be used.
The falling sand test is described by ASTM D968 (Stan-
dard Test Methods for Abrasion Resistance of Organic
Coatings by Falling Abrasive). Essentially, the test panel is
mounted at a 45 angle beneath a tube which is attached
to a hopper. A known quantity of sand is dumped into the
hopper and impinges upon the test panel. The amount of
sand required to wear through the coating is reported. On
relatively thin, ordinary coatings such as an acrylic latex or
an alkyd, the test is relatively simple to do. On a thick, high
performance coating such as an epoxy or an elastomeric
urethane the test can be extraordinarily time consuming,
and requires large quantities of sand (an individual quan-
tity of sand is to be discarded after a certain number of
uses).
Impact Resistance
Examples of coatings which would require good impact
resistance would include coatings for overseas shipping
containers, and coatings for use on locks and dams. Most-
impact resistance tests involve dropping a weight onto a
coated panel and looking for cracking or disbonding. The
most common procedure is ASTM D2794 (Standard Test
Method for Resistance of Organic Coatings to the Effects
of Rapid Deformation (Impact), where a hemispherical
tup is rested on the panel, and a falling weight, housed in
a guide tube, is dropped from varying heights to determine
the greatest force, expressed in in-lbs, which will not crack
or disbond the coating (Fig. 7). The procedure calls for
the use of a thin gage steel panel which will deform under
the conditions of the test, although many users prefer to
use thicker steel representative of the actual article to be
coated. If the weight is dropped on the coated face, the
result is referred to as direct impact. If it is dropped on
the back of the panel, it is referred to as indirect or reverse
impact. Coatings nearly always have lower reverse impact
than they do direct impact resistance.
Flexibility
A certain amount of flexing or movement is common with
many structures. Electrical transmission towers flex and
move in the wind, thin galvanized decking can flex when
walked upon, and metal can change dimensions slightly
upon freezing and thawing. Furthermore, instantaneous
flexing can occur when a surface is subjected to a sharp
impact. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a case where flex-
ibility would not be a desirable property of a coating. The
fact that not all coatings are flexible is because to impart
flexibility to a coating, one must often sacrifice other
properties, such as chemical resistance or resistance to
permeation.
Coatings are commonly tested for flexibility by bend-
ing a coated, thin gauge steel or aluminum panel over a
mandrel and examining the coating for cracking, in accor-
dance with ASTM D522 (Standard Test Methods for Man-
drel Bend Test of Attached Organic Coatings). The method
Fig. 7A variable impact tester used to measure the impact
resistance of coatings. (Photograph courtesy of Weldon
Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
CHAPTER 63 TESTING OF INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS 785
describes two procedures, one using a conical mandrel, and
one using cylindrical mandrels.
The conical mandrel consists of a metal cone, 8 in. in
length, with a diameter of 1/8 ft at the narrow end to 1 1/2
in. at the wide end (Fig. 8). There are clamps for mounting
the panel, and a rotating arm which is used to bend the
panel around the mandrel. If the coating is being evaluated
for percent elongation, it is bent slowly (over a period of
15 s). If it is being evaluated for crack resistance it is bent
quickly (approximately 1 s). If cracking occurs, the distance
which the cracking extends from the small diameter end
towards the large diameter end is measured and used to
determine the coatings percent elongation. If no cracking
occurs, the percent elongation is greater than approxi-
mately 32 percent. When using cylindrical mandrels, one
usually simply reports the smallest diameter mandrel over
which the panel can be bent without cracking, although %
elongation can also be estimated.
The mandrel testing described in D522 is usually
sufficient for testing most industrial maintenance coat-
ings. However, for very flexible elastomeric coatings it is
of little use, since these coatings will have elongations of
100 % or more, far above the maximum 32 % which can
be determined by D522. In such cases, it may be desirable
to test such coatings using the so-called universal test-
ing machines, which essentially use clamps to hold free,
unsupported films of coatings between the jaws of the
machine. The sample is then stretched apart at a known
rate and a stress-strain curve obtained. Such properties as
percent elongation, tensile strength, and modulus (essen-
tially the stiffness of the sample) can be determined.
Applicable test procedures include D2370 (Standard Test
Method for Tensile Properties of Organic Coatings) and
D638 (Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plas-
tics). It is often difficult, however, to test very thin free film
coatings by these methods, although coatings thicker than
about 5 mils can usually be tested.
Moisture Resistance
A coating intended to line the interior of a potable water
tank obviously requires good moisture resistance. While
salt spray and accelerated weathering tests have a moisture
component to them, they introduce other elements which
the potable water lining would not be exposed to. Since
water could certainly be considered a chemical, some type
of water immersion test could certainly be carried out in
accordance with the general chemical resistance testing
previously described by ASTM D1308. However, water or
moisture resistance is more commonly done in accordance
with either ASTM D4585, D2247, or D1735.
ASTM D4585 (Standard Practice for Testing Water Resis-
tance of Coatings Using Controlled Condensation) involves
generating water vapor by heating a pan of water located in
the bottom of the chamber. The test panels form the roof or
walls of the chamber, and since their back side is exposed to
the cooler air of the laboratory, condensation forms on the
coated front surfaces. Although this sounds like a relatively
gentle test, it is actually quite aggressive since the condens-
ing water is relatively pure and it is conducted at a slightly
elevated temperature. Coatings typically fail by blistering.
ASTM D2247 (Standard Practice for Testing Water Resis-
tance of Coatings in 100 % Relative Humidity), is somewhat
similar, except that the cabinet is designed differently and
the specimens are completely suspended inside the chamber.
Considerably different than the above methods is
ASTM D1735 (Standard Practice for Testing Water Resis-
tance of Coatings Using Water Fog Apparatus). This method
uses a chamber similar to an ASTM B117 salt fog cabinet to
expose the panels to an actual mist of water.
Hardness
Industrial maintenance coatings are commonly rated for
hardness using the pencil hardness method described in
ASTM D3363(Standard Test Method for Film Hardness by
Pencil Test). In this method, a series of pencils is used to
determine the hardest pencil lead which will not scratch or
gouge the coating. The pencil ratings, from softest to hard-
est, are as follows:
6B-5B-4B-3B-2B-B-HB-F-H-2H-3H-4H-5H-6H
The test is somewhat subjective, not only because of
operator variability, but also because of possible variations
among different sets of pencils. ASTM lists a reproducibility
of plus or minus one pencil.
For thick coatings, hardness is sometimes determined
using some type of indentation tester. The two most
commonly used are the Barcol (D2583) and Durom-
eter (D2240Standard Test Method for Rubber Property-
Durometer Hardness) types. In both cases, hand pressure
is used to drive a spring loaded indenter into the coating,
and the ease of penetration is reflected on the scale (higher
numbers indicate harder coatings).
Water Vapor Permeability
It is not surprising that a coatings resistance to the perme-
ation of water vapor can have a significant bearing on its
ability to protect the substrate. In many cases, this is tested
in a very practical way by subjecting painted test panels to
wet or humid environments, such as the salt spray, accel-
erated weathering, and humidity tests described above.
A more direct way to actually measure the rate of water
vapor permeation, however, is described in ASTM D1653
(Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of
Organic Coating Films). In this test method, free films of
coating (or films attached to a thin, porous paper substrate)
are sealed to the open mouth of a cup or dish, and essen-
tially form the lid of the cup (Fig. 9). In Method A the cup
Fig. 8A conical mandrel tester used to determine per cent
elongation. (Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
786 PAINT AND COATING TESTING MANUAL 15TH EDITION
contains a desiccant, and the assembly is placed in a humid
environment. The cup is weighed periodically to measure
the amount of moisture which has passed through the
coating and into the desiccant. In Method B, which is the
more common procedure, the cup contains water, and is
placed in a dry environment. It is then weighed periodically
to determine the amount of moisture which has passed
through the coating and out of the cup.
Theoretically the procedure sounds very simple and
straightforward. In practice, however, it is not quite so
simple. It can sometimes be extremely difficult to obtain,
as the method calls for, smooth and completely continu-
ous films of uniform thickness throughout the test area.
Furthermore, if the coatings are very thin, or very brittle, it
can be a frustrating task to remove them from the release
paper or even mount them on the cups without tearing or
fracturing them.
Fig. 9A permeability cup used to determine water vapor
transmission. (Photograph courtesy of Weldon Laboratories.)

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Mon Feb 4 01:24:12 EST 2013
Downloaded/printed by
North Carolina State Univ pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.