SSPC-TU 3

May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE NO. 3
Overcoating
1. Scope Loose coating: Coating that has delaminated and disbond-
ed from the substrate or other coats, but has not fallen off.
1.1 This technology update discusses the risks associated
with the maintenance painting practice known as overcoating. Marginally adherent coating: A coating that exhibits
Factors affecting overcoating application, service and costs tape adhesion of 2A or less (per ASTM D 3359), such that the
are discussed. overcoating risk is moderate or high.

1.2 This document is intended to serve as a resource Overcoating: Application of coating materials over an
for facility owners and others charged with developing and existing coating in order to extend its service life, including use
implementing maintenance painting programs. of the appropriate cleaning methods. The procedure includes
preparation of rusted or degraded areas, feathering edges of
1.3 Overcoating is one of several maintenance painting existing paint, low-pressure water washing of the entire structure
options. This document is not intended to provide a detailed to remove contaminants, application of a full intermediate coat
description or comparison of the relative merit and cost consider- over repaired areas, and optional application of a full topcoat
ations of overcoating versus other maintenance painting options. over the entire structure. Overcoating may be a cost effective
For a more complete and detailed discussion of maintenance alternative to complete coating removal and repainting. When
painting practices, the reader should refer to SSPC-PA Guide the old coating contains lead, cadmium, or chromium, over-
5, Guide to Maintenance Painting Programs. coating may be a particularly attractive option due to economic
considerations. Overcoating presents certain risks as well.
2. Description and Definitions
Repaint: Complete removal of the existing coating system
2.1 DESCRIPTION followed by application of a new coating system (including
2.1.1 This document contains discussions of the risks appropriate cleaning methods.)
associated with overcoating, methods of assessing risk, and
means by which risks may be managed and reduced. Risk: As used herein, “risk” refers to the chance that the
overcoated system (old paint plus newly applied overcoat) will
2.1.2 Overcoating is generally defined as the practice of either fail catastrophically (e.g., delamination of the system)
painting over an existing coating as a means of extending its or will not provide the desired period of protection (e.g., early
useful service life. Overcoating may be a cost-effective alter- rust back).
native to complete coating removal and repainting. When the
old coating contains lead, cadmium, or chromium, overcoating Spot repair: A procedure entailing surface cleaning of
may be a particularly attractive option due to economic consid- isolated corrosion or paint breakdown areas using appropriate
erations. Overcoating presents certain risks as well (see risk cleaning methods, and subsequent coating of these areas.
definition below).
Zone painting: A procedure entailing surface preparation
2.2 DEFINITIONS using appropriate cleaning methods and painting of a defined
area of a structure. Zone painting may involve (a) many spot
For the purposes of this document, the following defini- repairs within a defined area or (b) removal of all coating in a
tions will be used: defined area, followed by application of a new coating system
to that area.
Coating stress: The tension that a coating has, which
is capable of being imparted to the steel substrate or other 3. Discussion
coating.
3.1 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OVERCOATING
Embrittled coating: Coating that has degraded to a fri-
able condition but still has enough elasticity to adhere to the 3.1.1 Delamination: A primary risk associated with over-
substrate or existing coating. coating is that the overcoating system could cause delamination.
If a delamination failure occurs, the overcoating investment is
Flaking: The detachment of small pieces of the coating lost. Delamination is difficult to predict; however, an understand-
film, usually preceded by cracking, checking or blistering. ing of the underlying principles will help the coatings engineer

10-51
SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

reduce the chance of a delamination failure. 3.2.2.3 Thickness: Thicker, aged coatings tend to be more
Delamination is primarily the result of internal stresses in highly stressed. Strong peeling forces can be generated during
the overcoat material being transferred to underlying or exist- curing and aging of the overcoat. When overcoated, thicker,
ing coating layers. Internal stress occurs as the applied paint more highly stressed coatings are more likely to delaminate than
shrinks. Several factors affect the degree of internal stress thinner coatings with lower internal stress. Delamination may
in the overcoat material, including the type of coating, the also be caused by thermal cycling that may disrupt the integ-
formulation, the film-forming conditions, the temperature and the rity of thick, aged coatings that have been overcoated. Rapid
coatingʼs age and thickness. A good example of an increased thermal cycling may accelerate system deterioration. Thicker,
internal stress is the oxidative curing of alkyds. Temperature more highly stressed coatings are also more likely to sustain
fluctuations may also affect the level of internal stress. Brittle damage from blast media or other mechanical processes. This
coatings are more apt to crack during temperature changes. often results in a subsequent loss of adhesion that may affect
The application of an overcoat may also affect the internal the performance of the overcoat system.
stress of the existing coating because the stress present in the
overcoat is transmitted to the existing coating. 3.2.2.4 Number of Coating Layers: Many layers of paint
The internal stress of the overcoat is counteracted by increase the chance of poor intercoat adhesion and may lead
its adhesion to the existing coating. A loss of adhesion of the to delamination.
existing paint system at either the steel/coating interface or
within the layers of the existing coating may result in cracking 3.2.2.5 Coating Age: Depending on the curing mechanism,
of the overcoat. certain coatings tend to embrittle more with age than others.
Good overcoating systems should be designed so that Alkyds are particularly susceptible to embrittlement with age.
there is higher tensile strength and rigidity in the existing or
original coating than in the overcoat. 3.2.2.6 Chalking and Erosion: Epoxy and alkyd coat-
ings may chalk and erode with prolonged exposure. Generally
3.1.2 Early Rust Back or Poor Coating Performance: this does not present a problem for overcoating as long as the
Another primary risk involved in overcoating is that the system loose chalk is removed prior to painting. Even severely eroded
will not provide an adequate period of service. The overcoat coatings with exposed primer may be good candidates for
may not experience a catastrophic failure, such as delamination, overcoating, provided the remaining coating has good adhesion
but nonetheless may fail prematurely because of the severity and rusting is nominal.
of the service environment. This type of degradation may be
manifested by pinpoint rust, undercutting at small breaks in the 3.2.2.7 Delaminated Paint Films: Paint films that exhibit
coating system, or blistering. The amount and type of surface delamination or other undesirable characteristics, such as crack-
preparation used prior to applying the overcoat can also affect ing, are not good candidates for overcoating.
the degree of protection afforded by the overcoat material.
3.2.2.8 Coating Brittleness: Embrittled coatings tend to
3.2 FACTORS AFFECTING RISK IN OVERCOATING crack, providing sites for stress-induced peeling.

3.2.1 Influential Factors: The risk of delamination or other 3.2.2.9 Coating Adhesion: The adhesion of the existing
coating failure described in 3.1 is influenced by the condition coating to itself and to the substrate is a critical factor. However,
of the existing coating, substrate factors, compatibility of it is difficult to precisely define a satisfactory adhesion value.
new and old system, the type of structure and the exposure At present, adhesion is generally evaluated by either ASTM D
environment, etc. 3359 or ASTM D 4541. Systems exhibiting low adhesion values
in these tests are more likely to delaminate when overcoated
3.2.2 Condition of Existing Coating than are aged coatings with higher adhesion values. Generally,
the aged coating system will fail at its weakest point. Coating
3.2.2.1 Existing Conditions: Visual and physical type, age, thickness, and surface preparation all affect the
inspections, patch testing, and previous experience with similar adhesion of the aged coating system.
systems for the expected exposure and conditions are proven
tools in assessing the risk. 3.2.2 Substrate Factors and Corrosion Pattern: The
condition and type of the substrate under the existing coating
3.2.2.2 Existing Coating System Type (Oil, Alkyd, Vi- system must be determined. Mill scale, because it is smooth
nyl, Epoxy, Urethane): It is important to be able to determine and slick, generally presents the weakest point of adhesion of
if multiple coating system types exist on the structure and to the coating, even if the mill scale itself is tightly adherent to
identify them in order to determine basic chemical composition, the steel. Filiform rust or undercutting could continue beneath
so that the proper overcoat system can be selected and special the film unless the source is removed. The condition of the
hazardous conditions can be identified. substrate may affect the performance of the overcoat system.
Generally, the more corrosion present, the higher the degree

10-52
 SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

of surface preparation required. This may cause localized causing delamination at the weaker interfaces.
problems on structures that were not cleaned uniformly prior
to receiving the original coating. Localized rusted areas may 3.3 APPLICATION, SERVICE AND COST CONSIDER-
dictate a different strategy than would spot rust over the entire ATIONS: The items below should be considered when determin-
surface area. There is a point at which it may no longer be ing whether overcoating is the most appropriate maintenance
cost-effective to overcoat. strategy for a particular situation.

3.2.3.1 Surface Preparation: The performance of the 3.3.1 Application Considerations

system is influenced by surface preparation prior to initial coat-
ing application. A surface that was previously blast cleaned is 3.3.1.1 Limitations on Surface Preparation Methods: In
more likely to have satisfactory adhesion values, and is gener- some locations, because of noise or emission considerations,
ally a better overcoat candidate, than a surface with existing some methods of surface preparation cannot be used. As a
mill scale. result, complete removal and replacement of existing coating
may not be an option. The preferred treatment would then be
3.2.3.2 Surface Contaminants: Surface contaminants, a limited surface preparation and overcoating.
such as chloride and sulfates, can lead to decreased coating
life and vastly accelerated corrosion, while grease and oil can 3.3.1.2 Limitations on Application Methods: Some
result in poor wetting and adhesion of the overcoating system. environmental or local restrictions prohibit certain application
Coatings differ widely in their ability to protect under these condi- methods or coating products. It must be determined if the per-
tions. The problems associated with surface contaminants are missible application methods (e.g., brushing and rolling) are
not necessarily specific to overcoating; however, contaminants suitable for the overcoating product selected or considered.
are less likely to be removed during overcoating because
typically much less surface preparation is done. Less surface 3.3.1.3 Overcoatability of the Coating: Certain existing
preparation holds down costs and reduces environmental coatings can only be overcoated after major surface preparation
and worker exposures to hazardous dusts. Extensive surface such as scarifying the surface by sweep blasting or power tool
preparation is also more likely to cause mechanical damage cleaning. This situation may reduce or eliminate the economic
to an old, marginally adherent, embrittled coating that may and environmental advantages of the overcoat strategy.
later delaminate.
3.3.2 Service Considerations
3.2.3.3. Pitting: Pits often contain active corrosion cells
(due to chlorides or sulfates) which can cause early failure of 3.3.2.1 Expected Remaining Service Life of the
overcoat materials. Structure: The specifier should determine the remaining service
life (in years) of the structure. The cost of overcoating (including
3.2.4 Coating Compatibility: Patch testing is a good surface preparation, containment, materials, application, etc.),
method of determining whether the new coating is compatible may not be justified for a structure to be replaced or decom-
with the existing one. The test should be performed so that the missioned in a short time.
worst-case exposure to the patch is achieved. A method for patch
testing is described in SSPC-PA Guide 5 and ASTM D 5064. 3.3.2.2 Expected Life of the Overcoat System (in years):
(See Appendix A.1.2 for an example utilizing a test patch.) The expected service life of the overcoat system is also a criti-
cal factor. Unfortunately there is a high degree of uncertainty
3.2.5 Type of Structure in these projections. This uncertainty can be conveyed by
assigning a range of years for the overcoating system lifetime
3.2.5.1 Configuration of Surfaces: Wide planar areas (e.g., 4-12 years).
may delaminate first, particularly if the coating is applied over
mill scale. 3.3.2.3 Risk Threshold of Failure: The specifier must
recognize that there is some chance of a catastrophic or
3.2.5.2 Flexing: The rigidity of the coated surface premature failure of an overcoat system. Overcoating may
affects how the internal stresses in the coating are translated not be a viable option if the risk of a coating failure cannot be
to interfaces. Flexible beams and wide planar areas tend to tolerated. While the decision to use an overcoating strategy is
contribute more stress to a coating system than more angular, independent of the lead paint issue (lead may not be present),
smaller planar areas. the presence of lead makes all the options more costly. If the
overcoat causes a catastrophic failure, the environmental risks
3.2.6 Exposure Environment: The coating selected must are significantly increased. There are various means to reduce
be able to withstand the environmental conditions to which it the risk of a catastrophic failure. For example, total removal
will be exposed, as well as the surface conditions over which it of a poor to marginally adhered existing coating, with new
is applied. Rapid thermal cycles tend to stress aged coatings,

10-53
SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

coatings subsequently applied, provides less risk than some overcoated, this information may also be useful. Information
overcoat strategies. specific to the structureʼs exposure environment such as the
presence of acid precipitation, chemical splash or vapors, or
3.3.3 Cost Considerations wind-borne or de-icing salts, may also be useful.
If no historic records of coating types exist, ASTM D 5043 can
3.3.3.1 Comparing Cost of Overcoating and Full be used to determine the types of coatings on the structure.
Removal: The specifier should estimate the cost of overcoating The original surface preparation and substrate condi-
versus the cost of total removal of coating versus replacement tion may be determined by using a chemical paint stripper to
of the steel. Assessment of these options, along with expected remove the aged coating from a small area. Intact mill scale,
coating lifetimes and risks of failure, will aid in determining if underfilm corrosion, and blast profile can then be determined
overcoating is the most cost-effective option. If the overcoat in this way.
option causes a catastrophic failure, not only is the cost of the
investment lost, additional costs for repair and environmental 3.4.2 Visual Inspection: A quantitative visual inspection
cleanup could be incurred. of the aged coating system should be conducted to determine
the extent of degradation including underfilm corrosion, chalk-
3.3.3.2 Continued Presence of Lead: Another important ing, peeling, flaking, cracking, checking, rusting, and blistering.
difference between overcoating and full removal is that full Visible surface contaminants including mildew, debris, grease,
removal permanently eliminates the lead hazard. If the struc- and oil should be identified. Representative components or
ture is coated with material that must be treated as a hazard- areas of the structure should be individually evaluated. ASTM
ous waste, such as a lead-based coating, a latent hazard will D 5065 provides a detailed description of the visual inspection
exist (whether or not an overcoating system is applied) until the techniques that should be utilized.
lead-based coating is removed. In cases requiring elimination
of potential hazards resulting from disturbance of lead-based 3.4.3 Physical Inspection: A physical inspection of the
coatings, overcoating is not a feasible maintenance strategy. structure and aged coating system should be conducted to
determine the film thickness, number of layers of paint, adhe-
3.3.3.3 Necessity of Structural Preservation: The speci- sion, underlying substrate condition, coating type, and presence
fier should determine if the structure is still needed or whether of soluble salt contamination. The number of test locations
demolition or abandonment is a possibility. This option will also examined must be enough to provide a representative picture
entail costs; in particular, there would be a need to address of all major conditions existing on the structure.
worker handling of the lead coated structure components. Table 1 in Appendix A.1 contains a simple algorithm for
assessing the risk of overcoating based on film thickness and
3.3.3.4 Cost and Logistics of Structural Replacement: adhesion of the existing coating. Coatings are categorized by
Depending on where a structure is in its design life, it may be thickness in three ranges: 0 to <10 mils (0 to 254 micrometers),
more cost-effective to replace the structure than to repaint or 10 to 20 mils (254 to 508 micrometers), and >20 mils (>508
overcoat it. Factors such as usage, alternate traffic routes (for micrometers). Adhesion is measured in accordance with ASTM
bridges), and the availability of alternate structures can affect D 3359 and film thickness by SSPC-PA 2. The algorithm works
this decision. The costs for demolition must also be taken into on the principle that the risk of failure increases with increasing
account. film thickness and decreasing adhesion. Risk is categorized
as OK (essentially no risk), LR (low risk), MR (moderate risk),
3.3.3.5 Urgency of Action: The specifier should also HR (high risk), and NO (not a candidate for overcoating). See
determine if maintenance can be put off for a period of time. Appendix A, section A.1.1.
Alternatively, ASTM D 4541 can be used to assess the
3.4 Assessing Risk in Overcoating: The coatings adhesion of the aged coating. In a survey of SSPC member
engineer may assess the risk associated with overcoating by paint manufacturers, minimum tolerable pull-off adhesion values
compiling historical data, performing visual and physical inspec- of 50 to 300 psi (340 to 2040 kPa) were cited as necessary for
tions, and by applying coating test patches. overcoating. Lenhart and El-Naggar have suggested the pull-off
adhesion values of 100 to 200 psi (680 kPa to 1360 kPa) are
3.4.1 Coating History and Previous Overcoat Experi- marginal for overcoating and that adhesion of 250 to 600 psi
ence: The designer should compile as much historical informa- (1700 to 4080 kPa) is acceptable for overcoating.
tion on the aged coating, surface preparation, and structure as The thickness of the aged paint system may also be de-
possible. Historic data is commonly available on types of coating, termined using ASTM D 4138. The method is convenient for
number of coating layers, coating thickness, surface preparation, assessing the number and thicknesses of individual coating
periodic maintenance, and periodic inspections. It should be layers.
determined if lead or any other hazardous material is present Various methods have been used to determine the level of
in order to properly assess the risks. If other structures have soluble salt contamination on steel structures including swab-
been painted in a similar or identical manner and subsequently bing retrieval, retrieval by magnetic limpet cell, and retrieval by

10-54
 SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

adhesive blister patch cell. The percent retrieval is dependent Overcoat materials should have good penetration and wetting
on the method of retrieval, degree of contamination, and the characteristics. They should have relatively low film thicknesses,
length of time the salt has been on the surface. Ionic concen- good flexibility, and should not contain strong solvents. Some
tration may be determined by measuring the conductivity of commercially available coatings have been specifically for-
the extracted fluid, using ion selective electrodes, or by using mulated for overcoating. Some products have been validated
proprietary indicator test strips for chloride (silver dichromate in use as overcoats and should be considered as candidates.
indicator) and sulfate (2,2'-bipyridine indicator). Many types of products are sold for overcoating including acrylic
latex, calcium sulfonate alkyd, epoxy, oil and oil modified alkyd,
3.4.4 Conducting a Patch Test: One or more patch polyurethane, polyester, wax, petrolatum tape, urethane-latex,
tests should be performed to assess the risk of overcoating. and epoxy-urethane coatings. The epoxy coatings are predomi-
Representative areas or components of the structure should be nant in terms of the number of coatings available. Within this
selected for testing. It is important that any test patch include class there are thicker film epoxy mastics and the relatively
the feathered edges of the existing paint at prepared rusted or low-build unpigmented penetrating epoxy sealers. Overcoating
degraded areas. Areas in poorer condition as well as areas materials should also afford adequate corrosion protection in the
that typify the overall condition of the aged coating should be intended service environment. The coating material indicated
selected for evaluation. The condition of areas to be evaluated during patch testing should be specified.
should be characterized using the visual and physical methods
described in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. Surface preparation 3.5.3 Surface Preparation and Coating Inspection: As
methods and overcoating materials should be selected for with any painting job, a thorough inspection of the prepared
evaluation. The selected overcoat materials should be applied to and painted surfaces should be conducted. The removal of
the prepared test areas, inspected after cure, and documented. soluble salts and other surface contaminants should be verified,
The test patches should be inspected a second time after 6 to in compliance with contract documents or a mutually agreed-
12 months of exposure. The test exposure period should span upon procedure. A maximum permissible level of soluble salt
at least one winter season. ASTM D 5064 and SSPC-Guide 9, contamination should be specified. Special attention should be
Section 6.2.2, provide more detailed descriptions of patch test- paid to wet film thickness application to ensure that the DFT is
ing. See Appendix A, Section. A.1.2, Method B for a procedure within the specified range. The adhesion of the overcoat system
utilizing a patch test. should be determined and compared to the values obtained
Interpretation of patch test results is rather straightforward. from the patch tests.
Delaminated test patches imply a very high risk. Intermediate
levels of risk are indicated by poor or reduced levels of intercoat 3.5.4 Risk Management: Risk management involves
or substrate adhesion. Signs of early rusting or blistering may also determining which of the factors listed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3
indicate a high risk associated with overcoating. Other warning apply to the maintenance situation in question, determining
signs include wrinkling, mudcracking, lifting, and peeling. their relative importance, and balancing these factors with the
considerations described in Section 3.4.
3.5 Mitigating Risk in Overcoating: The methods In many cases overcoating has been used inappropriately.
described above in sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 are useful in Because of the potentially large initial cost savings associated
assessing the degree of risk associated with overcoating. If with overcoating, when compared to containment and complete
the risks associated with overcoating are deemed acceptable removal, the temptation to overcoat is high. The large initial cost
to the owner, then specific actions can further mitigate the difference between these maintenance options has meant that
risks associated with the process. Surface preparation, coating owners are more tolerant of the risks involved in overcoating.
selection, and inspection are key elements in reducing the risk Owners should first properly assess the risks associated with
associated with overcoating. overcoating. If overcoating risks are deemed acceptable, then
the facility owner should take additional steps to mitigate the
3.5.1 Surface Preparation: Surface preparation methods risk of overcoating.
should be selected to minimize damage to the aged coating
while providing a clean surface free of contaminants, corrosion, 4. Conclusion
and poorly adherent coating. Sweep and brush-off blasting may
disrupt the adhesion or fracture the aged coating, leading to When considering whether to overcoat, factors affecting the
failures of the overcoat system. Similarly, when spot or area internal stresses of the original coating and the overcoat must be
cleaning using an abrasive method, care should be taken not considered, as should alternatives to overcoating. The lowest risk
to allow blast media to impinge on areas adjacent to the clean- is likely to be associated with the highest cost, due primarily to
ing zone. The cleaning method indicated during patch testing the surface preparation and containment required. The highest
should be specified. risk will probably be associated with lower cost options due to
the lower surface preparation costs. The specifier is urged to
3.5.2 Coating Selection: Coating materials with a high consider preventive maintenance programs in which surfaces
degree of internal stress should not be used for overcoating. are painted when they first show signs of degradation. At this

10-55
SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

stage, little or no surface preparation is needed, the existing 6.2 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND
paint exhibits good adhesion and all risks are minimized. MATERIALS (ASTM) STANDARDS:

5. Disclaimer D 522 Standard Test Methods for Mandrel Bend

Test of Attached Organic Coatings
5.1 This technology update is for information purposes D 610 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree
only. It is neither a standard nor a recommended practice. of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces
While every precaution is taken to ensure that all informa- D 1654 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of
tion furnished in SSPC technology updates is as accurate, Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to
complete, and useful as possible, SSPC cannot assume Corrosive Environments
responsibility nor incur any obligation resulting from the use D 2370 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties
of any materials, coatings, or methods specified herein, or of of Organic Coatings
the technology update itself. D 3359 Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhe-
sion by Tape Test
5.2 This technology update does not attempt to address D 3960 Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
problems concerning safety associated with its use. The Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints
user of this specification, as well as the user of all products and Related Coatings
or practices described herein, is responsible for instituting D 4138 Standard Test Method for Measurement of
appropriate health and safety practices and for ensuring Dry Film Thickness of Protective Coating
compliance with all governmental regulations. Systems by Destructive Means
D 4541 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength
6. Referenced Standards of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion-
Testers
D 4940 Standard Test Method for Conductimetric
6.1 SSPC AND JOINT STANDARDS:
Analysis of Water Soluble Ionic Contami-
nation of Blasting Abrasives
PA 1 Shop, Field, and Maintenance
D 5043 Standard Test Methods for Field Identifica-
Painting of Steel
tion of Coatings (Withdrawn 1997)
PA 2 Measurement of Dry Paint Thick-
D 5064 Standard Practice for Conducting a Patch
ness with Magnetic Gages
Test to Assess Coating Compatibility
PA Guide 4 Guide to Maintenance Repainting
D 5402 Standard Practice for Assessing the Solvent
with Oil Base or Alkyd Painting
Resistance of Organic Coatings Using
Systems
Solvent Rub
PA Guide 5 Guide to Maintenance Painting
D 5065 Standard Practice for Assessing the Condi-
Programs
tion of Aged Coatings on Steel Surfaces
SP 1 Solvent Cleaning
SP 2 Hand Tool Cleaning
6.3 OTHER PUBLICATIONS
SP 3 Power Tool Cleaning
SP 5/NACE No. 1 White Metal Blast Cleaning
AASHTO, Guide for Painting Steel Structures, 1994.
SP 6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast Cleaning
Appleman, B. R., “Overcoating Vs. Removing Lead Paint:
SP 7/NACE No. 4SP Brush-Off Blast Cleaning
A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Protective
SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Blast Cleaning
Coatings and Linings, Vol. 10, No. 11 (November,
SP 11 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare
1993), pps. 60-83.
Metal
Byrnes, Geoffrey, “Delamination by Design”, Materials
SP 12/NACE No. 5 Surface Preparation and Clean-
Performance, Volume 32, No. 2 (February, 1993),
ing of Steel and Other Hard
pps. 45-47.
Materials by High- and Ultrahigh-
Boocock, Simon K., “SSPC Research on Perfor-
Pressure Water Jetting Prior to
mance Testing of Abrasives and Salt Retrieval
Recoating
Techniques,”Journal of Protective Coatings and
Guide 6 Guide for Containing Debris
Linings, Vol. 11 No. 3 (March, 1993), pps. 28-44.
Generated During Paint Removal
Combatting Adhesion Problems When Applying New Onto
Operations
Existing Finish Coats of Paint, NACE Publication
6H194, (Houston: NACE International, 1994).
Guide 7 Guide for the Disposal of Lead-
Effect of Surface Contaminants on Coating Life, (Pittsburgh:
Contaminated Surface Prepara-
SSPC, 1991), SSPC Publication 91-07.
tion Debris
Flores, S., J. Simancas, and M. Morcillo, “Methods for

10-56
 SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

Sampling and Analyzing Soluble Salts on Steel preparation and coating material) which are to undergo field
Surfaces: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Pro- evaluation on a small area of the structure.
tective Coatings and Linings, Vol. 11 No. 3 (March,
1993), pps. 76-83. The following steps are typically followed:
Hare, Clive H., “Adhesive and Cohesive Failure: Defini- 1. Identify structures to be evaluated for the potential of
tions and Fundamental Macro-Effects,”Journal of overcoating.
Protective Coatings and Linings, Vol. 12, No. 10 2. Identify representative portions of the structure for
(October, 1995), pps. 102-104. locating patch tests.
Kline, Eric, and William D. Corbett, “Beneficial Procrasti- 3. Assess condition of existing coatings using one or more
nation” Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, of the methods described previously (e.g., adhesion,
Vol. 9 No. 3 (March, 1992), pps. 48-56. film thickness, age, number of layers, coating type,
Korobov, Yuly, and Linda Salem, “Stress Analysis as a Tool physical condition, presence of contaminants).
in Coatings Research,” Materials Performance, Vol. 4. Select method or methods of surface preparation.
29, No. 4 (April, 1990), pps. 30-35. 5. Select overcoat material and method of application.
Lenhart, Charles F., and Kareem S. El-Naggar, “Evaluat- 6. Conduct and document patch testing (e.g., based on
ing Lead-Based Paint for Overcoating,” Journal of ASTM D 5064 or SSPC-Guide 9, Section 6.2.2).
Protective Coatings and Linings, Vol. 12, No. 7 (July, 7. Assess condition of existing coating/overcoat system
1995), pps. 91-112. using similar techniques (adhesion, coating degrada-
Sandler, Melvin H. and Sam Spring, “Chemical Cleaning,” tion, appearance).
in SSPC Painting Manual, Volume 1, Good Painting 8. Analyze results.
Practice, 3rd ed.,1993, pps. 90-97. • Determine which existing condition or conditions
Trimber, Kenneth A., Industrial Lead Paint Removal are appropriate for being overcoated.
Handbook, Second Edition. (Pittsburgh, KTA-Tator, • Assign relative ratings to surface preparations
Inc.,1993), SSPC Publication 93-02. and overcoat material.
Trimber, Kenneth A., and Thomas W. Neal, Jr., “New • Determine adequacy of test procedure and
Procedure for Field Classification of Paint Condi- results.
tion,” Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, 9. Select maintenance painting strategy.
Vol. 4, No. 11 (November, 1987). • Decide on overcoating, full removal, or other
option.
A. APPENDICES • If overcoating is decided upon, determine surface
preparation and material to use.
A.1 METHODS FOR ASSESSING OVERCOATING
RISK A.2 PAINTING SCENARIOS:The following two hypothetical
examples outline how the decision to overcoat can be made.
A.1.1 Method A: Assessing Risk Based on Adhesion The first example describes the criteria for deciding whether or
and Thickness. This method assesses the risk of failure from not to overcoat a simple bridge. The second example describes
overcoating using a combination of adhesion and film thickness the decision-making process for a water tank overcoat, based
of the existing coating. The thickness is categorized as <10 mils on field evaluation of test patches.
(254 micrometers), 10-20 mils (254-508 micrometers), and >20 It is assumed, in both cases, that overcoating the structure
mils (508 micrometers). The degrees of adhesion are based on is economically feasible (i.e., the overcoating is significantly
ASTM D 3359. The principle is that the risk of failure is greater less expensive than removal of the existing lead paint coating).
for thicker films and lower adhesion. The data are organized It is also assumed that the structures will not be demolished,
into a matrix shown in Table 1. The risks are categorized as: decommissioned, or undergo a major structural rehabilitation
OK = essentially no risk, LR = low risk, MR = moderate risk, HR for at least 10 years. In the bridge example, it is assumed that
= high risk, NO = integrity too poor to salvage. This method is the structure cannot be taken out of service (i.e., that replace-
intended primarily for oil and alkyd coatings. The method has ment is not a possibility at this point), and that preservation
not been independently verified, but is believed to represent has been presumed.
good practice based on field experience.
See Section A.2.1 for an example of the use of this A.2.1 Bridge Painting Using Risk Table: This example
table. uses a simple bridge and presents the criteria for deciding
whether or not to overcoat.
A.1.2 Method B: Assessing Risk of Overcoating Using
a Patch Test and Other Parameters. This method features a 1. Structural Factors: Determine where the structure is in
patch test to assess the compatibility of the new overcoat with its life expectancy. Is any major rehabilitation, such as a deck
the existing coating. This method is used when the specifier repair or widening, scheduled to take place? Can the structure
has identified one or more candidate systems (including surface be taken out of service completely, or does overcoating have

10-57
SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

TABLE 1
RISK OF SALVAGING EXISTING COATING BASED ON ADHESION/THICKNESS
CHARACTERISTICS
ADHESION CLASSIFICATION COATING THICKNESS
ASTM D 3359 Percentage ASTM D 3359 < 10 mils 10-20 mils > 20 mils
Method B* * Removed Method A (< 254 µm) (254-508 µm) (> 508 µm)
(using 5 mm guide)
5B 0% 5A OK OK OK
4B 1% to 5% 4A OK OK OK
3B 6% to 15% 3A OK OK OK
2B 16% to 35% 2A LR LR MR
1B 36% to 65% 1A MR HR HR
0B > 65% 0A NO NO NO

OK = essentially no risk * Method B is not recommended for use on films above 5 mils in
LR = low risk thickness unless otherwise agreed upon between the contracting
MR = moderate risk parties.
HR = high risk
NO = integrity too poor to salvage

to be performed while maintaining traffic flow? Is the structure If the rating is NO, this is not a likely candidate for overcoating
historically significant? Does the location of the structure affect or any coating. This is a possible “do nothing” situation. Because
the choice of removal method? the existing coating is providing excellent corrosion protection,
although poorly adhered, there is no imminent danger of section
2. Condition of Steel: Determine the condition of the steel loss except (possibly) in localized areas, and some type of spot
surface from both a coatings aspect and a structural aspect. or zone repair may be considered. The paint work needs to be
Are there fatigue-prone areas that must be addressed? Has deferred until a total removal is warranted or replacement of
there been excessive section loss? the structure is viable during a major rehabilitation.
If the risk rating is MR or LR, the decision-makerʼs attitude
toward risk will enter into the scenario. Spot or zone painting is
3. Condition of Coating: What is the adhesion rating of
an option, but full overcoating has to be questioned.
the existing coating? How much rust is present and how is it
distributed (is it localized or spread over the entire structure?)
1-15% Rust: The amount of surface preparation has just
What is the thickness of the existing coating?
gone up, and so has the cost. If the adhesion and thickness
ratings are OK, overcoating of this structure is an excellent alter-
4. Environmental Factors: Determine whether there
native. A decision will have to be made as to the type of surface
are any special environmental considerations that should be
preparation needed, e.g., minimal scraping or blasting.
addressed (e.g., proximity to sensitive water body or resi-
If the risk rating is NO, the paint job needs to be deferred
dences).
until a total removal is done or replacement of the steel is viable
It is possible to develop a strategy based on the amount
under a rehabilitation.
of rust and paint to be removed. This strategy is based on the
If the risk rating is MR or LR, spot or zone painting may be
cleaning of rusty areas to an SSPC-SP 6 and the removal of
less risky than a full overcoat, depending on rust distribution.
loose or non-adherent coatings. The strategy is keyed to the
The service life remaining has to be weighed against the cost
percentage of surface area that is rusted and degraded.
of a total removal now or in the future.

0–1% Rust: If the coating, based on its adhesion rating 16+% Rust: At this amount of surface preparation, the
and thickness, has an OK risk based on the risk table (Table cost of spot or zone painting is approaching that of full removal
1, Section A.1.1), overcoating will be most successful. This is of the existing paint. The AASHTO Bridge Painting Guide in-
a “paint when it doesnʼt need re-painting” situation, and should dicates that, whenever the surface preparation area exceeds
be the lowest-cost option with the least amount of risk. The use 15 to 20 percent of the surface area, the economics are such
of a surface-tolerant coating with washing of the surfaces is that a total removal of the lead paint is the most viable option.
very viable in such an instance. Overcoating may not be as viable an alternative, depending

10-58
 SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

on the type of surface preparation specified. The overcoating then be applied over the power tool cleaned surface.
of a structure having such extensive corrosion should probably
be limited to structures with less than 10 years of expected C. Full Removal and Abrasive Blast Cleaning Option.
remaining service life. Otherwise, do nothing until a full removal This option would require full containment and ventilation, and
or replacement is an option. would cause major disruptions to the tank operation and the
nearby area. This option was eliminated prior to the patch
A.2.2 Water Tank Painting Using Test Patch Method: testing.
This example is of a potable water tank with a lead containing
coating system, requiring repair of the coating system. The 4. Patch Testing
owner wishes to repaint the structure with minimal impact on the
surrounding sensitive area. The owner has agreed to conduct A. Three areas representative of the coating and steel
a patch test to determine the viability of proposed overcoating condition were selected for patch testing. The areas were
systems. The following procedure has been utilized to determine approximately 2 x 3 ft (610 cm x 914 cm).
a recommended course of action.
B. The patches were prepared using the methods identi-
1. Structure and Coating History fied above:
• No precleaning
A. The structure is a potable water tank (elevated). • Solvent cleaning
B. The tank has been coated with a three-coat alkyd • Detergent cleaning
system using a lead-containing primer. C. The penetrating primer and the two-coat waterborne
C. The tank was last painted 18 years ago. acrylic were applied by conventional spray application over
the areas in B.
2. Evaluation of Existing Coating System
D. The patches were allowed to weather for approximately
A. The coating thickness of the existing coating was five months, running from October to March.
measured and determined to be between 9 and 12
mils (229 and 305 micrometers). 5. Patch Test Evaluation
B. Adhesion testing was performed on representative
areas of the structure, using ASTM D 4541. The tensile
A. Tensile adhesion tests (ASTM D 4541) were conducted
adhesion was determined to be satisfactory on the
on the patch test areas.
intact portion of the coating.
C. Chips were taken from the structure for analysis of the
B. The adhesion increased from an average of 300 psi
existing coating.
to 800 psi (2040 to 5440 kPa) compared to the testing before
D. Analysis revealed that the generic type of the coating
the application of the penetrating sealer. The adhesion of the
was oil-containing alkyd.
surfaces cleaned by solvent cleaning and detergent cleaning
E. Analysis determined the presence of 11% lead by
were about equal (i.e., 300 psi [2040 kPa] in both cases) and
weight in the total film. No cadmium or chromium was
were slightly greater than the area which received no cleaning
detected.
(e.g., 200 psi [1360 kPa]).

3. Selection of Maintenance Options

C. There was no visible delamination or cracking of the
existing coating.
A. Overcoating Options. In this example, the recom-
mended coating was a two-coat waterborne acrylic, which was
6. Decision
claimed to be compatible over existing alkyd paint and over tight
rust and mill scale. A penetrating sealer to improve wetting and
On the basis of the above information, the owner decided
adhesion of the acrylic coating was also recommended. Three
on the following system:
alternate precleaning methods were selected as follows:
• Detergent cleaning of the entire surface
• No precleaning
• Power tool cleaning (SSPC-SP 3) of the visibly
• Solvent cleaning per SSPC-SP 1
degraded or peeling coating and the rusted
• Detergent cleaning per SSPC-SP 1
areas.
The visibly degraded and rusted areas would be cleaned
• Penetrating sealer over the entire surface.
by power tool cleaning according to SSPC-SP 3.
• Two coats of waterborne acrylic over the entire
surface.
B. Removal Option. With this option, the entire surface
would be cleaned to bare metal using SSPC-SP 11, “Power Tool
Cleaning to Bare Metal.” A two coat waterborne acrylic would

10-59
SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

COATING HISTORY

Original Coating System First Maintenance Coating System Second Maintenance Coating System

Surface Preparation

Year Applied

Primer

Midcoat

Topcoat

Indicate how coating systems were identifed:

□ Historic Records
□ ASTM D 5043
□ Other (describe) __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Risk Assessment (use Table 1 of SSPC-TU 3, Technology Update on Overcoating)

□ Essentially no risk
□ Low Risk
□ Moderate Risk
□ High Risk
□ Integrity Too Poor To Salvage

Remarks:

10-60
 SSPC-TU 3
May 1, 1997
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

INSPECTION OF COATING SYSTEM TO ASSESS RISK OF OVERCOATING

Inspector: _____________________________________________________________ Date: ___________________________________

Structure: _____________________________________________________________ Hazardous Coating Present? (circle one): Yes No

Describe Overall Environment: ____________________________________________

ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURE
Structure Describe Local Rust Underfilm Peeling Blistering Cracking/ Chalking Film Adhesion Level of Salt Condition of
Component Environment SSPC-VIS 2 Corrosion ASTM D 714 Checking ASTM D Thickness ASTM D Contamination Underlying
ASTM D ASTM D 4214 SSPC-PA 2 3359 or (List Method Substrate
1654 660/ or ASTM D ASTM D Used)
D 661 4138 4541

10-61