Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 251: Spot Painting to Extend Highway Bridge Coating Life Volume 2: Research Overview Theodore Hopwood II Sudhir Palle Bobby Meade Rick Younce Danny Wells Christopher Goff Kentucky Transportation Center University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Contractorâs Final Report for NCHRP Project 14-30 Submitted January 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
NCHRP Project 14-30 iv LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. vii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 Background, Project Objectives, and Research Approach .............................. 3 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3 1.3 KTC Research Approach .................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2 Laboratory Accelerated Performance Testing of Spot Coating Systems........ 6 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 KTC Test Protocol ............................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Results of Accelerated Laboratory Performance Testing .................................................. 21 2.4 Laboratory Coating Testing Discussion ............................................................................. 29 CHAPTER 3 Field Spot Painting Work ................................................................................... 32 3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Bridge Selection and Field Coating Assessments ............................................................. 32 3.3 Field Work Protocol ........................................................................................................... 37 3.4 Follow-up Evaluations off Field Work ................................................................................ 45 3.5 Field Work Discussion ....................................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 4 Overview of Project Tasks/Conclusions ........................................................... 51 4.1 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................ 51 4.2 KTC Field Testing .............................................................................................................. 53 4.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 54 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 55 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS AND SYMBOLS ............................................. 56 APPENDIX A Mill Certification for ASTM A 572 Steel ......................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Protocol for Repair Test Coatings ..................................... B-1 Contents
NCHRP Project 14-30 v LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1. KTC Cyclic Corrosion (Dry/Fog) Test Chambers. ................................................................. 9 Figure 2. KTC QUV Accelerated Weathering Testers. ......................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Accelerated Performance Type I Test Panel (0.25 in.-Thick ASTM A572 Steel) ............... 10 Figure 4. Test Matrix for Type I Panels ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Surface Preparation of Conditioned Panels to SSPC-SP 3, âPower Tool Cleaning,â Standard. ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Feathering Exposed Edge of Existing Coating on Test Panel by Hand Sanding. .............. 13 Figure 7. Type I Flat Panel Specimen Surface Prepared to SSPC-SP 3 with Feathered Existing Coating. ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8. KTC Technician Brushing a Spot Coating on a Test Panel. ............................................... 14 Figure 9. Test Specimens with Grease âRepairâ Coatings Ready for Testing. .................................. 15 Figure 10. Tape Specimens Prepared for Testing (Note the Smudges on the Tape). ...................... 15 Figure 11. Polyurethane over Epoxy Sealer âRepairâ Coating System Tested over Test Panels with an Alkyd/Alkyd Existing Coating on a Test Panel. .......................... 16 Figure 12. Polyurethane over MIO-Epoxy âRepairâ Coating System Tested over Test Panels with an Epoxy/Urethane Existing Coating on a Test Panel after 5,040 Hours of ASTM B117 Testing. ............................................................................ 18 Figure 13. Moisture Cure Polyurethane (2 Coats) âRepairâ Coating System Tested over Test Panels with an Epoxy/Urethane Existing Coating on a Test Panel after 5,040 Hours of ASTM B117 Testing. ........................................................................................ 18 Figure 14. Accelerated Performance Type II Test Panel (0.25 in.-Thick Steel). ................................ 19 Figure 15. Test Matrix for Type II Panels. ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 16. Surface Preparation of Complex Shape (Type II) Test Specimen to SSPC-SP 3 Standard Using a Needle Gun. ................................................................................... 20 Figure 17. Grease Coated Type II Specimen Prepared for Accelerated Corrosion Testing per ASTM B117. ................................................................................................. 21 Table 1. Type I Test Results for Mill Scale Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM D5894 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ............................................................... 23 Table 2. Type I Test Results for Blast Cleaned Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM D5894 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ......................................................... 24 Table 3. Type I Test Results for Mill Scale Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM B117 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ........................................................... 25 Table 3 Cont. Type I Test Results for Mill Scale Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM B117 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ........................................................... 26 Table 4. Type I Test Results for Blast-Cleaned Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM B117 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ........................................................... 27 Table 4 Cont. Type I Test Results for Blast-Cleaned Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM B117 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ........................................................... 28 Table 5. Type II Test Results for Blast-Cleaned Plates Tested for 5000 Hours per ASTM B117 Test Durations in Hours vs. Performance* ........................................................... 29 Figure 18. Bluegrass Parkway Bridge over US 60 Near Lexington, KY. ........................................... 32 Figure 19. KY 922 Southbound Bridge over KY 4 in Lexington, KY. ................................................. 33 Figure 20. Corrosion on Beam Ends and Cross-Bracing under Leaking Deck Joint on the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge at Pier 1 (Area 2). ............................................................. 34 Figure 21. Disbonding of Existing Coating on Girder near East Abutment (Area 1). ......................... 34 Figure 22. Corrosion and Rust Staining on Beam Ends and Diaphragm at the KY 922 Southbound Bridge South Abutment. .............................................................................................. 34 Figure 23. Coating Assessment Area on the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge at Pier 1. .......................... 35
NCHRP Project 14-30 vi Figure 24. XRF Testing the KY 922 Bridge Coating for Lead. ........................................................... 35 Table 6. Coating Assessment for Beams 1, 3 & 4 Near East Abutment on KY 9002 Bluegrass Parkway Bridge over US 60. ........................................................................... 35 Table 7. Coating Assessment for Beams 1, 2 & 3 Over Pier 1 (West) on KY 9002 Bluegrass Parkway Bridge over US 60. ........................................................................... 36 Table 8. Coating Assessment for Test Areas 1, 3 & 7 Near the South Abutment on KY 922 Bridge over KY 4. .......................................................................................... 36 Figure 25. A Ground Tarp Placed under the Bluegrass Parkway Area 1 to Collect Leaded Paint Chips. ............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 26. Surface Preparation to SSPC-SP 3 Standard Using a Pneumatic Needle Gun. ............. 40 Figure 27. Surface Preparation to SSPC-SP 3 Standard Using an Electric Sander. ........................ 40 Figure 28. Area 2 Test Location on the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge with SSPC-SP 3 Surface Preparation. .................................................................................................... 40 Figure 29. Test Location on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge with SSPC-SP 3 Surface Preparation. .................................................................................................... 40 Figure 30. Dew Point Meter Used to Monitor Ambient Conditions on the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge Prior to Coating Application. ................................................................ 41 Figure 31. KTC Technician Brushing an Alkyd Coating on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge. ........... 41 Figure 32. KTC Technician Applying Grease Coating with a Glove before Smoothing It out with a Scraper. ...................................................................................................... 42 Figure 33. Green Tape Used to Supplement Beige Tape Due to a Shortage. .................................. 42 Figure 34. Rust Bleed Problem with the Direct-to-Metal Acrylic Primer. ............................................ 42 Figure 35. Calcium Sulfonate Alkyd Repair Coating (2 Coats) on Area 1 of the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge. .............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 36. MIO-Epoxy/Polyurethane Repair Coating on Area 2 of the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge. . 44 Figure 37. A Moisture Cure Urethane Repair Coating on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge. .............. 44 Figure 38. A Grease Repair Coating on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge. ......................................... 44 Table 9. Dry Film Thicknesses for Liquid-Applied Coatings on KTC Field Tests (Topcoat/Primer) .. 45 Figure 39. The Moisture Cure Urethane Spot Repair in Good Condition on the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge. .............................................................................................................. 46 Figure 40. The Tape Spot Coating in Good Condition on Area 1 of the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge. 46 Figure 41. The Alkyd Spot Coating in Area 2 of the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge in Good Condition. 47 Figure 42. The Acrylic Spot Coating in Area 2 of the Bluegrass Parkway Bridge in Poor Condition 47 Figure 43. The Epoxy Sealer/Polyurethane Repair Coating on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge in Fair-to-Good Condition. ............................................................................... 47 Figure 44. The MIO-Epoxy/Polyurethane Repair Coating on the KY 922 Southbound Bridge in Good Condition. ........................................................................................... 47 Table 10. KTC Ratings of Power Tools .............................................................................................. 49 Table 11. KTC Rating of Coatings ...................................................................................................... 49
NCHRP Project 14-30 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP 14-30 by the Kentucky Transportation Center at the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky is the contractor for this study, and Theodore Hopwood II P.E., Program Manager â Bridge Preservation, is the principal investigator. The other contributing authors of this report are Sudhir Palle, Bobby W. Meade, Rick Younce, Danny Wells and Christopher Goff. The authors would like to thank Mr. David Steele of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (ret.) for assisting us in accessing several Cabinet bridges for performing field spot painting tests. The authors would also like to acknowledge all of the officials from state highway agencies and other transportation authorities who participated in our spot painting survey. Finally, the contribution and guidance of the NCHRP Panel should be mentioned. Without their hard work and diligence in providing comments, this work would not have been successfully completed.
