CORROSION TESTS OF FLAME-SPRAYED COATED STEEL 19-YEAR REPORT Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997us ce-24 24 mm o7sueES 0002235 § MM AWS €2.14-74 CORROSION TESTS OF FLAME-SPRAYED COATED STEEL 19-YEAR REPORT Prepared by AWS Commitize on Thermal Spraying Under the Direction of AWS Technical Activities Committee Jay Bland Technical Director AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY, INC. 2501 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33125 Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997‘AUS C2-L4 74 mM O7B4265 002236 & mm Cena by he ein eg Sack Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 73-91825 International Standard Book Number: 0-87171-111-7 American Welding Society, 2501 N.W. 7th Street, Miami, Florida 33125 © 1974 by American Welding Society, All rights reserved. Note: By publication of this report, the American Welding Society does not insure anyone utilizing the report against liability arising from its use, A publication of a report or standard by the American Welding Society does not carry with it the right to make, use or sell any patented items. Each prospective user should make an independent investigation, Printed in the United States of AmericaAUS C2-24 74 WM O7S42b5 0002237 8 mm CONTENTS Personnel w PART | TEST PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION eee eee 1 TEST SITES 1 ‘TEST PANELS 1 PANEL PREPARATION 2 INSPECTION .. 3 CONCLUSIONS 4 RESULTS .... 1 ‘Sea Water Exposure: Total Immersion and Mean Tide 10 Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina—Mean Tide 10 Wrightsville Beach, North Carolinn—Total Immersion .. : SooC GOCCCEE 10 Freeport, Texas pene 10 Marine Atmosphere nt Kure Beach, North Carolina 80 ft Lot— Severe Marine Environment . Pe u Kure Beach, North Carolina 800 ft Lot— Mild Marine Atmosphere .... n Brazos River, Texas «.e.ese.e0e 4 Point Reyes, California “ Industrial Atmosphere 1s New York City Area 15 Columbus, Ohio 15 East Chicago, Indiana . 15 PART It TABULATED INSPECTION DATA TABLES 7-1 ....+ 20-27 Acknowledgments .... ee Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat ul 05 1442 37AUS C234 74 mm 0764265 OO0Z238 T mm, PERSONNEL AWS Committee on Thermal Spraying /.N. Childs, Ir., Chairman Metalweld Incorporated J. Hermanek, Vice Chairman General Electric Company J. Olivera, Secretary American Welding Society Bender Machine Incorporated Brooks Flame-Spray Inc. Consultant. Neteo B. W. Gartner Company Alcoa Process Development Labs ‘Airco Welding Products Norton Company Hayden Corporation Bay State Abrasives ‘Monsanto Research Corporation Naval Air Engineering Center Kuhar Metallizing Company Wall Colmonoy Corporation General Electrie Company AMMRG, Watertown. Metco Incorporated Metal Cladding Inc. ‘Motallizing Company of America Elame-Spray Industries Incorporated ‘Columbia Cable & Electric Corporation ‘St, Louis Metallizing Company Nehfeo Alloys & Equipment Incorporated Eastern Airlines Engineering Lab Sylvester and Company Consultant ‘Naval Ship Systems Command Consultant Hard Face Welding & Machine Company ‘Third Coast Guard District ‘Subcommittee If — Corrosion Applications W. Gartner, Jr. Chairman FW. Gartner Company T. J, Olivera, Secretary American Welding Society U.N. Childs, Tr Metalweld Incorporated S.K. Coburn Consultant D.1. George Alcoa Process Development Labs BW. Horvick ‘American Zine Institute M. Levy AMMRC, Watertown E.N. Longo ‘Metco Incorporated CR McElroy ‘Metal Cladding Incorporated W. H. MeMakin Metallizing Company of America 1H. Marantz Columbia Cable & Electric Corporation C.F. Sohrieber Dow Chemical Company LI Williamson Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997“AUS C2024 74 Mm O7a42E5 0002239 1 a PART I TEST PROGRAM, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION ‘This report presents the results of a 19-year study of the corrosion protection afforded by wireslame- sprayed aluminum and zine coatings applied to low- carbon stesl. The program was initiated in July 1950 by the Committee on Metallizing (now the Committee on Thermal Spraying) of the American Welding Society. The first panels were exposed in January, 1953, This report presents the results of fan inspection’ of the flame-sprayed coated steel panels made after all panels had beon exposed for 19 years. Originally, exposure periods of one, thres, six, and twelve years were scheduled. At’ the end of each of the above periods, a complete set of pancls, consisting of three identical panels of each type, was to be removed from the exposure racks for laboratory examination. At the same time, the panels of each type remaining on site were to be Inspected and their condition recorded. However, the results of early inspections indicated that nearly all coatings would last for more than twelve years, at each site, Accordingly, the panels scheduled for removal at six years were exposed for twelve years, and the twelve-year set was exposed for nineteen years, Results of the six-year and twelve-year in spections are reported in AWS publications C2.8-62 and C2.11-67, respectively. The initial program details discussed here, with ‘minor deletions, were taken directly from the AWS. 12-Year Report, C2.11-67. Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 TEST SITES ‘Test sites wero solected to provide a wide variety of environmental conditions. These exposure sites and the exposure dates for the panels inthis program. are listed in Table 1. All locations were recognized ASTM test areas, No rural exposures were included; some degree of atmospheric contamination, either saline or industria, exists at all sites. Sea water tests included full and half-tide immersion in quiet sea water, and full immersion in flowing sea water (approximately three knots). Test panels for atmospheric exposure were mounted on racks inclined 30 deg from the horizontal, Panels for sea water immersion were mounted in ‘a vertical position TEST PANELS Test panels were made of low-carbon steel sheet (carbon—0.08%; manganese—0,30%; phosphorous —0.08%%; sulfur—-0.03%; silicon—0.0034%; copper— 0.309%). The sizes of the steel panels for atmospheric and sea water exposure were 4 x 6x Ye in, (102 x 152 x 3.2 mm) and 4 x 12 x ¥ in, (102 x 305 x 32 mm), respectively. The aluminum and zinc wirelame-sprayed coat ing thicknesses for atmospheric exposure tests were 0,003, 0.006, 0.009, 0.012, and 0.015 in. (0.08, 0.15, 0.23, 0.30, and 0.38 mm). In addition to these, a coating thickness of 0.018 in. (0.46 mm) was in- cluded in sea water exposure tests.AUS C2.14 2 / 19-Yar Corrosion Test Revorr PANEL PREPARATION ‘The panels were hot-rolled steel which had been pickled to remove ral seale, Surfaces were inspected and panels showing gross defects were rejected. The next operation was the marking of the panels using a suitable and enduring identileation system, a primary requirement in any test program. Experi- ence had shown that notching the edges of the test panels was the most suitable method of ientifiea- tion. All notching was done before: blast cleaning and metallizing. The panels were then thoroughly blast cleaned using a foree-foed blast gonoretor and minimum pressure of 90 psi (620 kPa) at the generator with the types and mesh sizes of abrasives shown in Tablo2, ‘The flame-spraying operation was done 40 8 74 mi O7842b5 oD0z2 special automatic machine on which 36 panels were flame-sprayed at once. The speeds of rotation and traverse of both panels and wire flame-spray-gun across the surface were automatically controlled in, ‘order to obtain uniformity of coating thickness Coating thickness on all panels was checked with a magnetic thickness gage and by weight gain, Complete records were kept. The edges of the panels were then coated separately, ‘Three types of wire were used: (1) % in, (32mm) diam alominum—99,0% min purity. (2) % im. (32 mm) diam zine-09.9% amin purity (3) W in. (3.2 mm) diam steel, SAF 1010 grat carbon-008-0.12%; phosphorns—0.04% ‘max; sulfur—0,05% max, TABLE 1— TEST SITE DESCRIPTION 5 Teas roameat - No.of Pansla Date taposed ‘Aaoapheie Exposur ‘Alumina Zin ‘Brazos River, Tongs (salt 156 Is6 March 1954 Columbus, Ohio indus) 120 20 November 1953 sat Chicago, Tiana (indus) 120 0 November 1953 ‘Kore Beseh, North Caroline 7 (24 m) lot (severe marine) 336 336 January 1953, ‘ogpoute (248 m) lot (elt ait) 156 156 Sanuary 1953 Now York City Area ( 120 20 Noveanber 1953 Point Reyes, California ( 156 156 December 1983, 4x6 in, (102 mim x 152 mm) pane reserved Be 136 Sea Weter Exposure Freeport Texas 136 156 October 1983, ‘Walghtsile Beach, Noxth Caroling telowlowetide 156 156 October 1983 srean-tide 336 335 (October 1953 412 In (102 mm x 305 mm) panels reserved i856 156 Total ia aad *80 ft Gam) from shoreline #800 £1 (24m) from sh TABLE 2—TYPES OF ABRASIVE USED FOR BLAST CLEANING SPECIMENS IN THIS TEST PROGRAM* Types of Abraave ‘Mesh Dit Dawei “Tyler Seren Sieve Analyse id seah = 5% Abrasive is washed angola silica ee ciaa20" ase 21096 sand, dry and reo of feldspar, olay | 20428 "aoe 10% for other tiable conttuent, | 28435 610s 10% 3s 5% TS, Standard Sereen Anaipais 420 mesh S 5% Abrasive Is washed angular sica Fine ilea Sand Troe s0 6795 10% sandy dty ad free of feldspar, clay 30440" 249% 10% or other Irlable constituent Aig 210% Chilled Toa Grit ‘Conforms to SAE specification for ‘Abrasive i angular chilled ron 6-28" angulae chilled ron art, it “Fie precie mesh dlstibulons shown would probably not festa purposes, Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 bo obialnable iw all afeas, and thay should not be used Tor epee“The steel wire was used for a flash-bonding cost on some specimens and was applied automatically toa thickness of 0,001 in. (0.03 mm). This bonding coat isnot considered part of the coating thickness Sealing treatments, whore used, were applied by spraying, Table 3 shows the composition of the sealing matecals, These formulations were thinned Sulclently to ensure. good penetration and wore applied sparingly. The purpose wast il the surface and subsurface pores of the sprayed metal, rather than to overcost. BY actual messuromonts, the sealers used added little to the coating thicknes ‘The types of aluminum and zinesprayed panels exposed are listed in Tables 4 and. 5; Types 14 through 28 were inchided in order to determine the effect of preparation of the sec! onthe life of the coating. Ail ofthese panels had a coating thickness of 0.009 in, (023 mm) and were located at only two of the test sites: Kure Beach, North Carolina G0 ft [24m] tot) for atmospheric exposure and Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (mean tide) for sea waler expostre Bus C224 74 mm 0784265 GD02242 T ma Inspection | 3 INSPECTION ‘Standard practice in evaluating hotdipped alumi um, zinc, or other metallic coatings on steel has ‘been to report the percentage of rusted base met area. When the present program was adopted, it was felt that the appearance and condition of the coating itself should be fully described to accurately assess the status of coating deterioration. In this connection, the inspectors reported separately on the condition of the seal coats, the flame-sprayed coatings, and the base metal, as well as on any ‘ther conditions. The panels were inspected visually, 1nd therefore the results depended on the interpre- tation of the individual inspectors. To avoid this, the inspections for the 19-year report were made using a standardized inspection form (see Table 6) ‘Where factors other than normal corrosion processes affected the panels, the results were noted. For example, at one site (Kure Beach 80 ft [24m] lot) some of the racks were damaged by a hurricane. ‘A few panels were lost, but most were recovered; TABLE 3— COMPOSITION AND DESCRIPTION OF SEAL COATS Seal Coat "Resin component ine bre utyrat ‘Acid composes: ‘Phosphoric acd phe water ‘Aluminum Vinyl mont: nonleating ‘aluminum fake Composiion ‘Pigment: insoluble tye, inert, ‘Nonvolstil while: poly Volatile vabicle: butyl and isopropyl alcoliot Nonvostle vebele: vinyl ‘copolymer and platicer 209% Volatile vice: toluene esstpion Ba aie diving, two-part, waiting ‘chromate ash cost primer 2% 93% 123% 160% Eyl (or isopropyl) aleobot Balance Mix four parts of the resin component with ose part of the acid component to oblain final primer composition, ‘A vinyl copolymer aluminum fakes, 10% ——aedrying type of coating material ‘Chlorinated Rabbor ‘olvente Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 and ketones 10% Clear Vingt Piament: none Fleas, vinyl wopalymer, aidry= [Nonvolatie vehicle: vinyl ing couting material chloride sostate "Resin 16 % Platcier 14% Volaile-vebiele: ketones 316% aromatic hydrocarbons Coluene, benzo), xylol) 45.0% ‘oli! chlorinated rubber—plus two types of chlorinated parafne ps.e sablizer 3496, Solvents: sromatie petroleum clear, sirdrving, clorinated te type coating mate 666%AUS C2-44 74 Mm O76NZb5 0002242 1 mm 4// 19-Yean Connosion Test Report ‘TABLE 4— PANEL TYPES FOR ATMOSPHERIC EXPOSURE! "ALUMINUM FLAMESPRAYED PANEIS ZING FLAMESPRAVED PANELS Coating Coating Ponet Panel Thickness, Seat, | Panet Panel Thickness, Seal ‘Type Preparation? in. (anm) Gout | Type Preperation? in. (am) Cot 1 T ‘00 (0.08) T T oor (oa8y 2 1 eee werava | 2 1 wee Weyavat 3 i oe wesav2 | 3 1 "oe Rt ‘ 1 0.06 (0.15) 4 1 0.006 (0.15) 3 1 eet wesava | 5 1 nor WeLAVt 6 1 os wrtav—2 | 6 1 . cre 7 1 0.009 (023) 7 i 0.008 (023) 3 1 ae weravn | 8 1 eee wrEAV—t 5 1 ae wrrav—2 | 9 i ae cre 10 2 012 (030) 10 2 0.012 (030) uw 2 ee wetav—a | ir 2 oe WPEAV—1 2 2 eles werav—2 | 12 2 ae cR—2 a 2 ots (038) a 2 ors (038) 4 2 0.009 (023) rs 2 0.009 (023) is 2 nor wesava | is 2 7 west 6 2 nos wepav—2 | 16 2 ce cR—2 "7 4 soe 7 4 sof is 4 sos wepavaa | 18 4 ed wryavet » 4 « werav—2 | 19 4 oe cra Ey 6 * 2» 6 og 2 6 . werav—a | 2b 6 "of weyav—t 2 ‘ : weyav—2 | 2 6 soe cra 2 3 : 2 3 sof Fr y . 2 3 soe a5 3 * 23 3 soe 26 3 . 6 3 oe 2 4 * ” 3 as 24 5 " 2h i] 58 Tif a comparion Setveen The aluniauny and zinc-sprayed_ panel in a seriain environment i dasrable, i should only bs made between panele where coating thicknes, panel preparation, and seal coat are the same, ark 6 Chilled iron grit and see fash some of these had sustained minor mechanical damage. All panels were removed from the exposure sites, assembled in one location, and inspected by the committee that reviewed the observations of fleld inspectors, CONCLUSIONS (1) Aluminum-sprayed coatings 0.003 in. to 0.006 in, (0.08 mm to 0.15 mm) thick, both sealed and unsealed, gave complete base metal protection from corrosion in sea water and also in severe marine 1nd industrial atmospheres. (2) Unsealed zine-sprayed coatings required 0.012 in. (030 mm) minimum thickness for complete protection .in sea water for 19 years. In severe ‘marine and industrial atmospheres, 0.009 in. (0.23, ‘mm) of unsealed zine oF 0.003 in. to 0.006 in. (0.08 Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 ‘Types of Seal Coat WP -— Wash primer AV — Alumistum vinyl ‘CR—Chlorineted rubber 1 One coat of specie seat coat “2 — Two coats of spciied seal coat mm to 0.15 mm) of sealed zinc are needed for 19- ‘year protection. (3) In severe marine atmospheres, the applica- tion of one coat of wash primer plus one or two coats of aluminum vinyl enhanced the appearance and extended the life of zinc coatings at least 100%, With aluminum, the sealing system primarily en- hanced appearance, beeause both systems showed zo base metal rust after 19 years. (4) Thin coats of aluminum perform better be- ‘cause they have less tendency to develop pits and blisters and therefore extended life is expected. ‘Vinyl also seems to perform better because it must penetrate to the base metal. (5) Where aluminum coatings showed damage such a8 chips or serapes, corrosion did not progress, suggesting the occurrence of galvanic protection. (©) The corrosion protection afforded by zine and aluminum coatings is not affected by theAUS C2.34 74 MH 0764265 Ooo2243 3 Conclusions | 5 Fig, to—Blamesprayed aluminum coating 0.006 in, (0.15 Fig. 1b—Same area, as shown in Fig. 1a, but ‘nm thick, no scaler, over a lash coat of carbon steel, This ized light 10 show the amount of coating thet Dhotomloroarep snares the condition of the aluminum to aluralnum corrosion product (whe) and reralning elu outing after exposure for 18 years at Wrighsille Beach, inum (black). (Reduced 22% In reproduction) Nic. ih sen woter at mean tide Tovel, 250 Nial etch, (Re ‘duced 229% In reproduction) ‘TABLE 5— PANEL TYPES FOR SEA-WATER EXPOSURE! "ALUMINUM FLAME SPRAYED PANELS ‘ZINC FLAME-SPRAYED PANELS Coating Coating Panel — Panel Thickness, Seat, |ponet Panel Thickness, Seal ‘Type Reparation in. (eum) Coats [Type Preparation? in. (rm) Soa 1 | ‘00 (O08) wrrov-t | i a ‘oar (008 caI 2 2 res wrrev2 | 2 2 ve cut 3 2 0.006 (0.15) 3 2 0.006 (0.15) 4 5 seal wrsov-t | 4 2 cena crt 5 2 oe wetev2 | 5 2 es cet 6 2 0.008 (023) 6 2 0.009 023) 7 2 " weycvt | 7 2 ee cra 4 2 ne wrtov2 | 8 A ee Re 5 2 0.012 (030) ° 2 oar @30) 10 2 TOF weyev1 | 10 2 ca cr rT 2 ama werev2 | 2 os cx 2 2 ots (038) 2 2 01s (038) B 2 2.018 (046) B 2 ois (046) 4 1 8.009 (023) is t 0.008 (0.23), is 1 tet wetev-a | 15 1 sage crt 16 1 of wetev2 | 16 1 oof ce i 3 so a 3 noe ie 3 Pa wrevt | 18 3 DG Ro 9 3 " wetov2 | 9 3 nd Rt 20 3 nos 0 3 noe 2 5 oon werev—t | 20 3 noe crt 2 5 eae wetev—2 | 2 5 ca eR 2 4 oe 2 4 soe 24 4 oe wesey—1 | 24 4 ee crt 28 4 soe wetev—2 | 25 4 toe case 26 6 oon 26 6 soo Fa 6 nd weseva | 27 6 soe crt Ey 6 ad wecv2 | 28 6 noe RD THF a comparison between the aluminum: aad Zine-sprayed pala in s coain environment i desabie, Wshowkd only Be ‘made between panels where coating thickness, panel preparation, aad seal cot are the same. “Type of Surface Preputation ‘Types of Sel Coat T Goaree sien sand ‘WP Wash primer 2 ‘sand and steel Mach CV — Clear vinyl 5: Fin sien sand (CR— Chlorinated rubber 4 Fine slice sand and steel dash 1 — One cont of speciied cea. coat 55 Chilled iron anit 2— "Two eoats of specified seal coat 6. Chilled iron grit and set fash Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AUS C2.U4 74 0724265 aooze44 § : - 6 / 19-Yvan Corrosion Test Revont Fin, 2a—Plame sprayed alininum coating 0.003 in. (0.08 rum) thick plus one coat of primer and fo cous 2f Vinyl This photomicrograph Mlusreter the overall condition of the ‘lumtauon couting efter expacire for 8 yours below low te at Wrighaville Beach, N.C. 250%, Nil ech, (Reduced 229% in reproduction) Fig. 2b-—This photomicrograph shows the sare aren oxi Fig. 2o, bul under polarized Tilt fo Mustrate the rtatvely imal aroun! of aluminum corrosion. (Reduced 22% tn 76- production) ‘TABLE 6 — TERMINOLOGY USED TO DESCRIBE CONDITION OF TEST PANELS (BY INSPECTORS) Appearance and Condition Terms R—Red rast, originating from the baso meta. Usually well-defined and entrly diffrent from red rast stain. D— Foreign depost, such 2 dit, ete. — White rst, the corcetion product of rine or aluminum, Not necessarily white in colar; may be stained by contamination, S— Stain, any dscoloration otber than white rust or red rst sai, [RS— Red rus stain, ocsinating from the baso metal with no evidence of blister, coating flue, o¢ loss of adhesion, DS—Depost stain, orisin ‘B— Bilsers in seal costs or sprayed meta P— Pits in sprayed meal, esltng from corrosion. N— Nodes, welldefined growths or map of corrosion product F— Floke, loose segments of seal cout or sprayed meta ing fom some source other than panel, Degree and Descriptive Terms bb *Large defect over % in. (9.5mm) diam. me— "Medium defect over ¥ 10% in. (3.2-9.5 mm) diam, "Small defect es than 6 in. (32mm) diam. Do *Pinpoint defect. 1 — Few—tess than 6 per in. (65 oq em) of surfoce. 1 Intermediate to 20 por sq in (6.45 09 om) of surtace m— Many—over 20 por eq in, (6.48 sq om) of surface, 8 — General—eovering ll or most ofthe panel {I= Blotohy—eny irregular pater, er — Gray in color. 4 Dark in color Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 ly used to describe sizeof nodes, pts, Wisters, o stsAUS C2-34 74 MM 078425 GO0224S 7 mm Results [71 Fig. 2c—Seme coating at in Fle. 24, but Nital etched on a rel panel wich ws nave epoed, Reed 22% reproduction) Fig, 36—Flamespraved zIne 0.012 in. (030 mmm) thick ‘oth no aeler after exposure for 1B years at Wrighvile Beach, Nic, in tee water at mcan tide Tevel. This photo litutrater the remaining tine and. tine. corrosion produc. 0X. (Reduced 22% bn reproduction) method of surface preparation used for this test. Specifically, a steel-lash-bond coat is not essential. For large parts, or where coating thickness will exceed 0.006 in, (0.15 mm), a coarse abrasive is recommended, (See Table 2.) (7) The use of flame-sprayed aluminum and zine coatings is recommended as a means to extend the life of such iron and steel structures as bridges, highway or street light poles, marine piers or pilings, ship hulls, storage tanks, industrial structures, etc. Corrosion is thereby combated, and the natural re- sources needed in the manufacture of iron and steel are conserved. (8) Chlorinated rubber is an unsatisfactory seal coat for both aluminum and zinc flame-sprayed coatings. Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 Fig. 24—Unexposed aluminum, Compare with Fig, 2b (Re- duced 22% tn reproduction) Fig. 36—Same crea as shown in Fi. 3a, but under polarized Tight, The tine carosion product eppeare white and he tne back. RESULTS ‘The following results are divided into three sepa- rato sections: (1) Sea Water Exposure—Total Immersion and ‘Mean Tide (2) Marino Atmosphere (3) Industrial Atmosphere Ie should be kept in mind that these are the results of the test panel inspections at each of the above three types of exposure sites. ‘The results of each panel inspection are presented in Part II of this report. Although not included in this report, an analysis of the corrosion products of, the zinc- and aluminum-sprayed panels would be of interest.AUS C2.24 74 mm 0764265 COO2246 9 mm SEA WATER EXPOSURE — TOTAL IMMERSION AND MEAN TIDE Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina Fle, 4—Test rack of flame-sprayed aluminum-cocied steel Fl. So-—Flamesprayed aluminur-coated steel panlt, with Danels Being removed from test site alter 19 years in sea foulants removed, ater 19 years tn toa water Fig. Sb—A closer view of one ofthe panels n Fig. Sa. Ths Fl, 6—Test rack of fame-prayed zine-coated panels tm ‘pane! has 0.099 in, (023 mm) of flamesprayed aluminum, ‘medlately after removal from the mean tide se after 19 ‘wath primer, and one vinyl seal coal. The white markings Years exposure, Foulanis have not been removed. ‘re the remalns of some of the tighiy adherent foulants, an Welg Society he 37 Copia by the Sat ul 05 1442Copia by Satu O51 AUS C2-14 74 Mm 0784265 OOD2247 O mm SEVERE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ‘Kure Beach, North Carotina 80 ft Lot Fig. 7o—Flamesprayed aluminum with and wihhout sealers ‘ofter exposure for 19 years, 80 ft (26 m) from the normal ‘mean te level, facing the sur. Fig. Zod closer view of some of the panels in Fle, 7a (above), The tp row, left tree ponels have 0.003 tn. (0.08 ‘nom) aluminum without a sealer. The upper second 70s, {eft three panels have 0.003 fn. (0.08 mn) alertnum, 2 wash valnum vinyl. The third row (rom the same except for two coats primer and one coat The top) left three pa f aluminary vinyl, The remalning unidentified pancls are ‘lod in (0.13 mma) and 01009 tn, (028 mm) olunum with ‘nd without sealers, ian Weldag Society Ie aT Fig, 7—Flamesprayed zine with and without sealers after exposure for 19 years, 80 f¢ (24 m) from the normal mean {de level, focing the surf. Fig. 74—A closer vlew of some of the panels in Fig. 76 (above) The top rom left ree panels show the condition of 0.003°tn, ne panels without a sealer. ‘The upper second ‘row, lft two panels have 0.003 be. ait, a wash per, andAUS C2-24 74 mu O7A4265 OODZeya 2 mm 10 / 19-Yea Connosion Test Report ‘SEA WATER EXPOSURE: TOTAL IMMERSION AND MEAN TIDE ‘Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina—Mean Tide Aluminum Sprayed Panels (Figs. 10, 1b, 20-24). Unsealed aluminum-sprayed panels at this site show a few blisters which originate at the coating-steel Interface. The heavier the coating, the larger the blisters (as large as 5/16 in. [8.0 mm} diam, in some cases). In those cases where a blister had broken ‘open, the exposed steel was relatively free of cor- rosion. A layer of iron oxide was present, but no ‘measurable loss of steel was evident. While the ‘aluminum surrounding these broken blisters prob- ably contributed to the protection of the steel, there ‘was no significant evidence of aluminum corrosion. ‘See Figs. 2c and 2d for the typical structure of alumi- num. Scraping the aluminum surface results in a bright, metallic lustre. All vinylsealed panels were in excellent condition —including those which were coated with only 0.003 (0.08 mm) of aluminum. A few small blisters ‘were present on some of the sealed panels but were considerably smaller than those on the unsealed aluminum panels. When opened, these blisters re- veal typical voluminous aluminum corrosion prod- ucts and a thin layer of rust on the steel, No measurable loss of steel was evident, This is also true where the coatings were mechanically damaged af the edges by the ceramic mountings insulators. ‘Areas as large as ¥4 in, (12.7 mm) x % in. G2 mm) of exposed steel showed no significant loss of, steel, No progressive corrosion of the aluminum sur- rounding these areas was evident, There is no noticeable difference in costing per- formance as a funetion of the variations in surface preparation methods tested (see Table 2). ZincSprayed Panels (Pigs. 30, 36). All unsealed zine-sprayed panels of less than 0.012 in. (0.30 mm) in coating thickness have failed. The 0.012 in, (0:30 ‘mm), 0.015 in, (0.38 mm), and 0.018 in, (0.46 mm) thick’ unsealed zinc coatings show little or no rust ‘but, as shown in Figs. 3a and 3b, the coatings have been almost completely converted to a protective corrosion product, Chlorinated rubber sealers on zine did not per- form satisfactorily. The steel was deeply pitted where the coatings had failed, and the appearance indicated that the residual zine corrosion product hhad become cathodic to the exposed steel. ‘There ‘was no evidence of any difference in coating per- formance as a result of the surface preparation ‘methods tested. Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina— Total Immersion Aluminum-Sprayed Panels (Figs. 4, 5a, 5b). Une sealed aluminum coatings at this site appeared to blister slightly more than those at the mean-tide level. The steel was still being protected, even where the blisters had broken open, as in the case of the aluminum-sprayed panels exposed at the mean-tide level. The vinylsealed panels were in excellent condi- tion, showing only a few, small, unbroken blisters. The coatings on these panels were in a condition similar to aluminum-sealed panels exposed at the ‘mean-tide level, Zinc-Sprayed Panels (Fig. 6). Zine coating per formances in this exposure were very similar to those of the coatings exposed at the mean-tide level. ‘Sealed and unsealed zine coatings of less than 0012 in. (0.30 mm) thick had failed. Zine coatings of 0.012 in. (0.30 mm), 0.015 in. (0.38 mm), and 0.018 in. (0.46 mm), sealed and unsealed, had pro- tected the base metal, but the zinc had been con- verted to corrosion products. This tightly adherent mixture of white rust and foulants appeared to be providing corrosion protection to the base metal. All panels that failed were very deeply pitted. Freeport, Texas Panels at this site were lost in a hurricane, The only documented test information is that available from the AWS 12-year Report, AWS C2.L1-67. The results are given below. AluminumSprayed Panels. At this site, panels ‘wore suspended in a large concrete flume where the sea water velocity was approximately three. knots. All panels were removed here because the ex posure racks were breaking up, and the panels could hhave been lost had they not been removed. ‘The aluminum-sprayed panels at this site showed extensive mechanical damage at the edges. This was due to the velocity of the water in the flume and the looseness of the insulated mountings which allowed the panels to shift about freely. Corrosion had not progressed in from the damaged edges, however. The unsealed aluminum panels all showed blisters, Some of the larger blisters had broken open. and showed rust stains, and in many cases, the base metal had apparently been exposed at this site for several years. There was no measurable loss of steel, and the original blast pattern could be seen after the superficial rust was removed. The vinyl-sealed aluminum panels of 0.003 in.AWS C2.24 74 Mm 078425 DO02245 4 mm (0.08 mm) thickness showed several areas where the sprayed aluminum and sealer were gone, leaving the aluminum corrosion product with red rust, The vinylsealed panels of heavier aluminum coating thickness were in good condition showing light coating of white rust, and on some of these panels, 2 fow small blisters. There was no evidence of base ‘metal corrosion on these heavier-coated panes. ZineSprayed Panels. Zinc panels of Types 8-13 are not reported because that rack of panels was dropped and lost in July 1965 when all the panels Were being sifted to another point in the fume. Unsealed zine panels were in better condition then sealed panels, On the unsealed panels, sprayed zine ‘was covered with heavy white rust. Only one panel showed corrasion pits in the base metal and red rust stains. This otcurred on a panel of 0,008 in. (0.08 mm) thickness of zine. Thicker zine coatings showed no evidence of red rust staining. All zine-sprayed panels sealed with chlorinated rubber showed evidence of base-metal corrosion. ‘The seal coat was completely gone on all panels. Panels costed with 0.003 in. (0.03 mm) of zinc showed deep corrosion pits on 20% of the surface. Panels with heavier zine coatings showed corrosion pits on 5% of their suefaces. All the panels sealed With chlorinated rubber showed heavy whitexust and red-rust stains on the remaining portion of their surfaces. MARINE ATMOSPHERE Kure Beach, North Carolina 80 ft Lot— ‘Severe Marine Environment At this site the specimens faced the surf in a southeasterly direction at an average distance of 80 ft (24 m) from the normal mean-tide level, ex- posing them to the Atlantic Ocean's spray, salt air and the weather. Aluinum-Sprayed Panels (Figs. 70, 76). All un- sealed sprayed panels had a dul,” gray-brown, blotchy appearance, with evidence ‘of aluminum blistering in thicknesses greater than 0.003 in. (0.08 mm). Unsealed 0.006 in, (0.15 mm) thiek panels had approximately 6-20 blisters per sq. in, less than ¥% in. 2 mm) diameter. Unsealed ‘aluminum ppanels 0.009 in. (0.23 mm) thik had over 20 blis- ters per sa. in, up to %4 in. @.2 mm) diameter Blisters did not appear to be as prevalent on the sroundward surfaces. ‘One coat of aluminum vinyl sealer on 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) of aluminum appeared slightly duller Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 Results / U1 than two coats. Aluminum vinyl-sealed panels were in excellent condition, as shown in Fig. 7b. There was evidence of a few blisters in coatings thicker than 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) sealed with one and two coats of aluminum vinyl, The groundward side of these panels had a slightly blotchy appearance but no evidence of any blisters, ‘No differences in general appearance or tendency fof the sprayed coating to blister as a function of surface preparation method could be observed. Zine Sprayed Panels (Figs. 7c, 7¢). Unsealed zine coatings of 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) exhibited heavy rusting of the base metal, as shown in Fig. 7d. ‘Aluminum vinyl sealer had completely deterio- rated on the 0.003 in. (0,08 mm) zinc, with rusting of the base at the edges encroaching on the faces. Both skyward and groundward surfaces were cov- cred with white rust. Unsealed 0.006 in. (0.15 mm) inc exhibited rusting of the base metal at the edges; the flat surfaces were covered with small nodes of heavy white rust. Zine coatings sealed with chlorinated rubber were similar in appearance to unsealed zine. Unsealed coatings of zinc 0.009 in, (0.23 mm) thick or greater were covered with small nodes of white rust with no evidence of the base metal rusting. The aluminum vinyl sealer was gone from the «skyward surface of most of the panels to which it was applied. Heavy white rust was evident. The groundward surfaces had very little evidence of aluminum vinyl sealer remaining. The fact that the aluminum vinyl sealer had deteriorated completely on the zine pancls in this severe marine atmosphere appears to justify the decision not to use the vinyl-sealer on the sea water test panels. Early laboratory tests with vinyl-scaled, zine-coated panels exposed in the sea waters off Long Island, N.Y., indicated failure of the vinyl as a sealer for zine. "This may be a function of the chloride ion because vinyl-sealed zine has performed very well in the industrial atmospheres where lower chloride concentrations were present. No difference in the condition of panels as a func tion of surface preparation method was apparent, Kure Beach, North Carolina 800 ft Lot— Mild Marine Atmosphere Aluminun-Sproyed Panels (Bigs. 8a, 8b). As shown in Figs. 81 and 8b, all panels were in excel- lent condition at this site. Unsealed aluminum panels 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thick were light gray in color on the skyward surface with a slightly darkerAUS C2-u4 74 MM O78u2LS OO02250 Ome MILD MARINE ATMOSPHERE ‘Kure Beach, North Carolina 800 ft Lot eee anh eae Fig. 80—Flamesprayed alumiaum with and without sealers ater ear for 19 yar, 80 (4m) from the normal ft sqaneat ety’ Rowse Yann ngeenel sai ND agi adbs ds i Raa Fig. 86—Flamesprayed zine, with and wlikout sealer, after ‘exposure for 19 years, 800 (248 m) from the normal mean tide level Fig. 8c-—A closer view of some of the panels in Fig. 8a (above). The top vow, left three panels have 0.603 In. (0.08 tnum) aluminum vilthout a sale, The upper second row, left Three panele have 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) aluminum, a vesh Primer, and one. coat of aluminum vinyl. The third row {trom the top) left three panels have’ 0.003 tn. (0.08 mom) aluminum, a wash primer, and two coats of aluminum vinyl. nee Ee Bot le of so of the pa a 8 vey The op rv eft tne pale have 0.008 tn, {0.08 Sin) ic mth eter, The sper second vow, tf three Panels hare 0903" te (008 ran) tne, & wash primer od ‘ne coat of alin vinyl. The ottom row, Left tree ‘panel have 0006 (0.13 mn) me, thou seer Copy byt Satu O51EE TS AUS C2-44 24 mm 0784265 OOUZ2S) 2 mm INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE New York City Area Fig. 9e—Flame-sprayed aluminum with and without se fer exposure for 19 years, Fig, Sed closer view of some of the panels in Fle. 9a (above), The top row, Tet two panels have 0.03 Jn, (0.08 ‘num) aluminum, sith no sealer The top row, right three panels have 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) aluminum, wash printer, {and one coe of aluminum vin The center row, right three Panels have 0.006 tn, (0.15 mom) elumnur wlth no sealer opr by the American Wellg Soc Sat 05 144250 1997 Fig. 96—Plamesprayed zinc with and without sealers ater exporure for 19 years Fig. 94-4 closer vlew of some of the panels in Fig, 96 (above). The top row, left three pants show that the 0.003 in Zine ts gone and the secs rusting, The upper sscond row, left three panels sho thatthe 0.005 in. zine and ehlorinated ‘rubber seater are gone and the sel i rastng. The third row Grom the top), left three panels have 0.006 in cin, wach primer, and one coat of aluminum vityl.AUS C2.14 74 Mm 0784265 0002252 4 mm 14 / 19-Yean Conrosion Test Report gray stain and some light rust staining on the groundwatd surface, No rust staining was evident ‘on the heavier unsealed aluminum coatings. ‘All aluminum vinyl-sealed panels were in excsl- lent condition. Those with one cost of sealer had a dark motiled appearance over 95% of the skyward surface while those with two coats had the mottled appearance on only 20-25% of the area. The groundward surfaces retained their original ap- pearance. Zine-Sprayed Panels (Figs. 8e, 8d). The 0.003 in. (0:08 mma) thick unsealed zinc panels were dark blue with horizontal stripes of white rust that ap- peared to conform to the spray pattern (sec Figs fc and 8d), This condition was apparent on both surfaces, with the groundward surface having @ slightly darker blue color. ‘The one coat of aluminum vinyl sealer on the 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) thick zinc appeared mottled ‘on 10.20% of the skyward surface, with a few Pinpoint blisters of the aluminum vinyl. Ground- Ward surfaces were in very good condition except for the sealer on one panel that had deteriorated approximately $4. The chlorinated rubbersealer had long, since disintegrated leaving those pansls very similar to the unsealed panels, with slightly less evidence of the horizontal striping (see pancl types 3, 6,9, and 12in Table 8). Panels with coating thicknesses greater than 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) had ebsorbed the aluminum vinyl sealer to a greater degree than the 0.008 in. (0.08 mm) thick coatings. The groundward surfaces were in very good condition. There was no evidence of base metal rusting on any of the panels in the 800 fe Q44m) tot. Brazos River, Texas Aluminum-Sprayed Panels. This test site is similar to the Kure Beach 800 ft (244 m) lot. All panels were in very good condition with no evidence of ‘base metal corrosion. All panels had a light tan discoloration which was the color of the dust in the area, The groundward surfaces of unsealed alumi- ‘num-sprayed panels in the 0,006 in. to 0.015 in. (0.15 mm to 0.38 mm) thickness range show some evidence of blisters which were not apparent on the skyward surfaces. The 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) unsealed ‘aluminum panels had no evidence of blistering on clther side The aluminum-viny! sealer had developed a blotchy appearance on most of the panels. Vinyl sealed 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thick aluminum panels, were in excellent condition with the groundward surface having a like-new appearance. Panels in the 0.009 in. to 0.012 in. (0.23 mm to 0.30 mm) thick Comite etic eligi ‘Sat dul 05 14:42:50 1997 " group with one coat of aluminum vinyl had de- veloped a blotchy appearance on the groundward surface. Those with two coats of vinyl sealer were in excellent condition. Zinc-Sprayed Panels. Zine-sprayed panels at this site were in good condition. A tan discoloration on all panels was particularly evident at the edges. There was no evidence of base metal rusting. Un- sealed zine-sprayed panels developed a light blue color. The aluminum-vinyl sealer showed some deterio- ration, as much as 25% of the skyward surface on some of the panels with zine corrosion products evident. The groundward side of the panels sealed with aluminum vinyl were in good condition Panels sealed with chlorinated rubber were similar fn appearance to the unsealed panels except that a horizontal striping effect was more evident. There was no evidence that any chlorinated rubber remained. Point Reyes, California Aluminum-Sprayed Panels. Unsealed aluminum- sprayed panels 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thick had de- yeloped a black discoloration over 25-75% of the skyward surfaces, with no evidence of nodes. or blisters. The groundward surfaces displayed a slight rst stain. Heavier coatings of unsealed aluminum ‘were lighter and did not have as much discoloration, All panels sealed with one coat of aluminum vinyl hhad a mottled appearance, while those sealed with two coats were in excellent condition, There was no evidence of base motal rusting on any of the panels. Zinc-Sprayed Panels. Unsealed zine-sprayed pi ‘ls had a blue color on the skyward surfaces, with the familiar horizontal stripes more evident on the 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thick coatings than on heavier ‘coatings. The groundward surfaces on all unsealed panels were dark blue. ‘The 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) thick zine-sprayed pan els, sealed with one coat of aluminum vinyl, showed biistering on 5-10% of the skyward surfaces, The remaining area was bright and in excellent condi- tion. It was apparent that the aluminum vinyl sealer hhad deteriorated to a greater extent on the heavier ‘coatings of zine than on thinner coatings. This de- terioration was accompanied by zine corrosion. Be- cause heavier coatings are more absorbent, two ‘coats of vinyl sealer would be in order. Panels soaled with chlorinated rubber had a tan discoloration, a combination of zine corrosion prod- uct, and disintegrated sealer. This was true of both surfaces.AUS C204 74 mm O7642L5 OOU22S3 & ml INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE New York City Area Aluininu-Sprayed Panels (Figs, 9, 95). Unsealed 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) “thick sluminum coatings showed, on the skyward surface, many black nodes of corrosion duo to retained contamination. ‘The groundward surface was gray to black in color with ome indication of nodular corrosion, No rusting of the base metal was evident, Unsealed 0.006 in. (0.13 mm), 0.009 in. (0.23 mm), and 0.012 in. (0.30 mm)’thick aluminum coatings showed heavy blistering of aluminum on the skyward surface. The groundward surfaces ex- hibited nodular type corrosion. Aluminum vinylsealed coatings showed a fow scattered nodes of corrosion product on the skyward surface of the 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) panels. Heavier coatings had a few scattered blisters. Groundward surfaces were all excellent. All coating thicknesses sealed with two coats of aluminum vinyl were in excellent condition on both surfaces, ZincSprayed Panels (Figs. 9c, 94). Unsealed 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thick zinc coatings fated com- pletely on the skyward surface and on approximately 75% of the groundward surface, The 0.003 in, (0.08 ‘min) zine coatings sealed with chlorinated rubber also failed completely on the skyward surface and about 10% on the groundward surface. Zine coat- {ngs 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) thik sealed with aluminum vinyl were in excollent condition and were brighter and cleaner than aluminum with an equivalent amount of sealer. It is interesting to note that the vinyl sealer was in better condition on the 0.003 in, (G.08 mm) thick coatings than on the heavier zine coatings where, in some cases, it had deteriorated 10-30%, ‘This is probable because 0.003 in. (0.03 1mm) thick coatings are smoother and do not absorb as much sealer as the heavier coatings. ‘Unsealed 0.006 in. (0.15 mm) thick coatings ex- hibited some rusting on the skyward surface, but Jess on the groundward surface. Unsealed 0.009 in, (023 mm) and 0.012 in, (0:30 mmm) thick coatings were blue with some deposit staining. No base metal rusting was evident, Columbus, Ohio Aluminum-Sprayed Panels (Figs. 10a, 106). AMl unsealed sprayed aluminum panels had a black, Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 Results / 15 nodular type of corrosion product, the size of the nodule increasing with the thickness of the coating. ‘There was no evidence of base metal corrosion. Panels sealed with one coat of aluminum vinyl were ‘beginning to show some indications of black node formation. Panels with two coats of aluminum vinyl sealer were in excellent condition. ZincSprayed Panels (Figs. 10e, 10d). Unsealed 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) thick zinc-coated panels lost approximately 90% of the zine on the skyward sur- faces with rusting at the base metal. Edges al showed rusting. The groundward side of the panels were covered with white rust that appeared stained with red rust. All zine-sprayed, coated panels sealed ‘with aluminum vinyl were in good condition. One Panel in each of the 0.006 in. (0.15 mm) and 0.009 in, (0.23 mm) thick group, sealed with aluminum Vinyl, exhibited a 5-10% sealer deterioration, with some of the white rust evident. Unsealed 0.006 in. (0.15 mm) thick panels showed some red rust atthe cedges of the identifying notches. Some black nodes of white rust with deposit stain were evident, East Chicago, Indiana Aluminum-Sprayed Ponels (Figs. Hla, 11b). This was a heavy industrial environment with all panels showing a dark brown discoloration, All unsealed ‘aluminum panels of 0,006 in, (0.15 mm) or more hhad evidence of aluminum blistering on the skyward surfaces. Unsealed aluminum 0,003 in, (0.08 mm) thick had a more nodular type of corrosion on the groundward surface. Aluminum-vinyl sealed pancls hhad a very heavy deposit stain on both surfaces, Two coats of aluminum vinyl appeared slightly better than one coat. No corrosion of the sprayed alu- minum was evident. Zine-Sprayed Panels (Figs. He, Ud), The uae sealed zine coatings of 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) thicl ness had completely disappeared from the skyward surface leaving the base metal exposed and rusted. ‘Tho groundward surface was about 90% exposed and rusted. This was also true of the 0.003 in, (0.08 mm) thicksprayed zinc sealed with chlorinated rubber except that approximately 20% of the ‘groundward side was exposed and rusted. Unsealed coatings of zinc, 0.006 in. (0.15 mm) thick or more, were in good condition with no evidence of base metal rusting. Sprayed zine sealed with aluminum vinyl was in very good condition with some deposit stains on the vinyl sealer,AWS C2-34 24 Mm 078425 DOD225" 8 INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE Columbus, Ohio Fig, 100—Flame-sprayed aluminum with and without sealers Ailer exposure fr 18 years Fig. 10b—Flame-sprayed_ tine with and without sealers iter exporare for 13 years Fig, 100A closer view of some of the panets In Fig. 100 (above). The three dark panets inthe third column from the fe are 008 (0.08 ri lun witout «Sealer. The second panel from ithe let inthe top row te 0.003 In (0.08 ‘mm aluminum with a wask primer and two coats of alumi. ‘uum vinyl. The panel directly below tha in the second row the seme except that lt has only one coat of aluminum vinyl. Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 Fig. 104A closer view of some of the panels in Fig. 106 above). The upper wo panels nthe Third column from the {eft show the eondlton of 0.003 in. (0.08 mm) zine Without sealer. The vo panels below them ine wih ehlornated rubber sealer. (Of three panels Ts 0003 in (0.08 mm) nc, wash primer, fand one coat of aluminum sityh.AUS C244 74 MM O764265 DOOz2SS T mw INDUSTRIAL ATMOSPHERE Kast Chicago, Indiana Fly, No—Flamesprayed aluminum with and without sealers Fig. I1b—Flame-sprayed zine with and without sealers after exponre for 19 year ster exposure for 19 year, Fig. He—A closer vlew of some of the panels in Fi, Ha Fig. 11d—A closer view of the panels in Fie. 1b (above). (above), The dark panels are unsealed flamesprayed alwal- The upper thee panel in the first column show that the ruin, of various thickneses,dlucolored by pollutans tn the 003 in. (0.08 mm) zinc is gone and the sce using. The ‘atmosphere. The lighter panels are famexprayed aluminum tree center panel inthe second cotirn were 0003 In (0.08 (f various thickneses With awash primer and one ot mm) tine sealed wlth ehforinated rubber. ‘The lower two ‘ho coats of clams vinyl. Danes tn the fst column have 0.003 In. (0.08 ram) of tin, ‘wash prime, and one coat of alumi vin. Copy byt Satu O51AUS C214 74 Mm 0784265 O0025b 1 mm PART I TABULATED INSPECTION DATA ‘The following tables give a detailed account of the 19-year inspection results of all the test panels at cach site. It should be kept in mind that there were three panels of each type at each test site for each exposure period, Accordingly, the inspection results for a certain type of test panel listed in Tables 7 through 11 apply to the general condition of all the panels of that type. Exception to this general condi- tion was made, however, where there was a large variation in the condi panels of the same type. In describing the general condition of the test panels at cach test site, the following items. were taken into account: (1) Corrosion of base metal 2) Corrosion of flame-sprayed costing. (3) Dissipation of seal coat. (4) Staining of the panel surface. ‘The inspection terminology used to describe the condition of the test panels is given in Table 6. Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 19 Any other condition existing on the panels was recorded in detail by the inspectors. The termin- ology used by the inspectors for describing the panel condition concurred with that given in Table 6; however, for the reader's beneflt, the terminology ‘used here iS more self- descriptive, ‘As stated in the introduction to Part T of this report, one of the objectives of this program was to determine the effect of base metal preparation on the cortosion protective properties of the thermal sprayed coating. Test panels for this part of the program were located at only two test sites: Kure Beach, North Carolina (80 ft [24 m] tot) for atmospheric exposure; Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (mean tide) for sea-water exposure. ‘The test panels used for determining the effect of base metal preparation are discussed under their respective {est sites. The inspection results for this phase of the program are listed in Tables Ila and T1b for tho atmospheric and sea-water test sites respectivelyAWS C2-24 74 mm O7S42k5 DODe2S7 3 mm 20 / 19-Yean Connosion Test Rerort TABLE 7 — 19-YEAR INSPECTION RESULTS OF ATMOSPHERIC EXPOSURE TESTS| AERRUNUR, GORENG ° “oon omy om 006 cs) “TPH OF BHAL COAT + xem WEAVE WRiAv? = weyavt nagog ven, sata LL Eames ee Soe me = tears Raeriar eseses" ae Some § genes ae sata orale sopesgicy., sainan aa Choe, SE Bee eee Ear Zoe = wet . eta, Eat esr eee Sak 25, Se ae rae SEE Rear, Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997“AWS C2.24 74 mm O7@W2b5 OOU2258 5 mm Atmospheric Bxposure—Aluminum-Coated Panels | 21 ON FLAME-SPRAYED ALUMINUM-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS @ 7 7 > 7° # = @ 106 5) 9 28) a9 (028) 009 025) oni @9) con om tor a0) 0015 038) WeAv2 Nese wepAv—t Weeavea None WPHAVS__WEFAV? Nowe sme sme wat set Be ier weet ieee See wet beet ee ha Nha Me i Boedt Dot Beek Tee Tete Ties, Feed. Soe Bee Bost Bee Ba, Nea See Bee int ‘tet ee tee iit nee Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AuS C2.44 74 mm O7BN2LS 0002259 7 mm 22 / 19-Ynar Corrosion Tast Revorr TABLE 8 — 19-YEAR INSPECTION RESULTS OF ATMOSPHERIC EXPOSURE TESTS THICKNESS, tn, (com) hone ond ame a Gone Tits OFS con Te wri a = wa Fase are aNvRONNN se ick whe = root 3090 on back, Fa Pi Se, Te Seve ba i ‘xpoved ann BARE CHICAGO, INDUSTRIAL Visit case APGRE Spey Sito ad a fare gs TRSIREA' EB Saae ESAS" Elemipar ia ple onee sium AGRE SESE ome iog Bc Very SOME eae Rill aig ioeonfow er te'waieaer™ = ne war ra, Bic rhowel 3 ery Tae Aaa ERO Heempaye Ee — Bee at wart Eaten Chai EES GAA, Sua ERROR an Bit Brees, pee ie aus ae mie a Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AUS C2.14 74 MM 0784265 0002260 3 mm Atmospheric Bxposure—Zine-Coated Panels | 23 ‘ON FLAME-SPRAYED ZINC-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS = 7 7 7 a © @ e ‘Bie OH) Out aH ane GE) aoe ||| wa aN GUA @aD) ono) aE HD cea Row wryav ae Noe Ween ory None ie Toe Bee tee Set ee wee eee Bre eee a He Me wee ser he We Me Eisele: Scsed pj feciant betas Scar Bee a Seek, Zee = Ele a a ane eeamey i fee soe Eee, Gea 3 Se eee : " = Pe ere Fae = bet Fee His Has eae Baer see eee tae feet eae sae Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AUS C2.14 74 MM O7@42bS OUDZ26) 5 mm 24 / 19-Yean Connosion Test Ruvorr TABLE 9 — 19-YEAR INSPECTION RESULTS OF SEAWATER EXPOSURE TESTS PRRPARATION® 2 2 2 i ie HREM GeMEENS or oa ean aa on) cme wi) Cae a) TYPE OF SEAL coat wow wey now wea Win wagursynis aie i ote ace wi edt noah einen dion Ee Sew: metvenscse cane Gans” Rash Eo wigs GERAD Meee eae Eee norritktiuinn atwcdeens Yin Gi Se, ame fee gens Se See Gaemateer RT ist ee ele ter aT ta an TUS ae a ‘TABLE 10 — 19-YEAR INSPECTION RESULTS OF SEAWATER EXPOSURE TESTS TaN SQNENG., in oom aon coo) eee) om) SORBRRIAN, odiitton Simmer Eres Oise Shans Rats Era hah Ear ee, Se Ss ee ee ee. Bee === Gann Seer Taso ca ORS ea ie el ad et ss Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997‘ON FLAME-SPRAYED ALUMINUM-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS AuS_C2.14 74 Mm O7842LS5 0002242 7 mm Seawater Exposure—Aluminum—and Zinc-Coated Panels | 25 to 02) ema ~—Cea GR ~CR GH ~C«~C OR ~C a MD Nae weirs wre nom wie whyavea tom New Beit See eee Set Beet GeSrer A gaec" Sheet Bee: ey Eee SEE tee ’ ee fon. | fee EL... See ee beet Sener bt. a ‘Bhusa oc s ar ier on ee gory TEERISE® geo oe sone, ere — eee see Bute Bre Se f irre uae (ON FLAME-SPRAYED ZINC-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS ‘0.009 (0.28), ‘0.009 (0:23) ‘0.009 (0.23) “0012 (0.30) ‘9012 (0.30) oon (a2) 018 (038) ‘018 (0.46) Seog Oot gases est eae Beehee BT See Type! Beeves ine ‘Sond an Type 8 tes Toes BEER es eee pygreeineypmionin mint ein Tomatoes Semone s pe & 1865: 1365: ° hee ie Bagram tom io Teg panes teste Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AUS C2.14 74 MH O784265 0002263 9 mm 26 / 19-YeAx Connosion Test Rrort TABLE TIA — EFFECTS OF VARIOUS BASE METAL PREPARATION METHODS AND BLASTING ABRASIVES TERI CAS vere sara aT Ta OT ono OH aT Eo Tr WHR WT Tor WERT WREAVR NORE ARE. Se ieticyrn ts ‘sete at Sek SR oH 2 a) 4 : E TRG QAING_ Sow OI vio) GEN ao aan ae aaa aw DT saiERE. Tow Wa oa Tom Wrrai ta : aaa eae ae NCEA SEER rat etigae” BOSS of pat ef, tek Buea Sha saith SER Se « sou damaned. TABLE 118 — EFFECTS OF VARIOUS BASE METAL PREPARATION METHODS AND BLASTING ABRASIVES TALUMINUN-COATED PANELS THEN CANS oer om _com@=) sms aoa OR) now wa) om a) aaah Tow We Ta Tow WH Were Yer wugyes Bee ee cae, SEES. 5 Fee SR Eee soe arma Shaker THERGSQATING | _ OOH OR) co O28) (0.09 (0:23) 0008 (023) 0009 (023) (0.009 (23) 0.008 (0.28) eggs 2 SSS Nontil GSHbLINA. eta Be Seed A ng ‘Seen Pes = Shanbger yu ter” ae * Preethe a coma prererton 4: i stent ol tet Aas pea tence ‘oR—Chioreates t $ Fiore Xo rR ag wat ct 2 SHES ESB ce te no Ea SSRs SS Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 19974 mm o7a426s oooees oO. FGfects of Preparation Methods and Abrasives | 27 JON FLAME-SPRAYED ALUMINUM- AND ZINC-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS TCE) OCR a EIN Taw ao Oem ea aaa WRAIST——WEERISE eee WWE eee Peta kek gear RRR aaa Beg. Sea ee Tae Gea) Oa ED) ow OH) __ om GT) awa) aa |D) vw wave Now WEAVE ea Now WRASSE or pee See foment Sel Sane 92 Some gt fore eee Brie sek Sie mat See Pre IN FLAME-SPRAYED ALUMINUM- AND ZINC-COATED CARBON STEEL PANELS ‘om (ams) woop Coas) wun caas) ——omeazs) wm (Oa) «em (aRS) aw (aS) ‘0099 (023) WERT WRENN WW Neeser ae Spe Boe Bee ie pe Boe. "0,009 (0.23) 0.008 (0.23) 0.008 (023) (0.008 (033) 0009 (023) 0.009 (0.23) 9.008 (0.23) ‘0m (023) Sea See Bea Spann" ESS. Get seer oneal Seow nite Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997AUS C2-24 74 MM O784265 OOU22E5 2 mm ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The AWS Committee on Thermal Spraying extends its thanks to the following individuals who served on the committee at various times since the inception of this test program. (The companies listed below represent the aflliations of these individuals at the time of their membership on the committee.) D.C. Bolte ‘Metco, Tne. R.E. Booth General Electric Co. CL Breitenstein Metal-Cladding, Ine EL. Cakilt New York Naval Shipyard W. P. Campbell Bureau of Mines, Dominion of Canada R.S.Capp US, Coast Guard M.W. Caskey US. Coast Guard V. A. Cook Metallizing Company of America A. Blsentohr Arde-Portland Co. ° EB. Gaines Gulf Engineering Co. H.C. Gifford USS. Coast Guard S.A. Greenberg American Welding Society AM. Griffin U.S, Coast Guard HS. Hammond ‘Metalweld, Ine. N.P. Harvey Arthur Tickle Engineering Works 1.W. Heck ‘Ameriean Bureau of Shipping G: Heitman ‘Aerojet-General Corp, G-Fensen ‘Ayco Industrial Products Div. TF. Kearns Department of the Navy F. Keller Aluminum Company of Ameri HY. Kojola ‘Union Carbide Corp., Linde Di CLP. Larrabee United States Steel Corp. K.G. LeFevre Metalweld, Ine. HH. Libby Libby Welding Co. W.E. McKenzie United States Naval Weapons Lab. RC Miller General Electric Co. T.W. Morean ‘Armeo Steal Corp. R. Nelson General Electric Co. H. J. Nichols Bureau of Mines, Dominion of Canada 1H. Nilt Metallizing Company of America P.C. Shepard American Welding Society IF. Broland General Electric Co, P.G. Dennison ‘Metal Spraying Corp. ET. Englehart Aluminum Company of America S.1.Grlsaffe National Aeronautics & Space Administration HP. Godard Aluminum Labs. Ltd. RI. MeWaters Metco, Ine. 2 Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 199730 / 19-Yuan Connostow Test Revorr May Pieht yer ‘M. Whelldon W. Oxley 1. Parkinson Pascala S, Pelton 1 L Berry A. Pigan Ronay B. Smith B.Smith S. Swan ” H. Turbyville Tour Unger Vanderpoot E. Vandersee BR. Watt L. Webster 1. L. Wilson Bre ARMRR = SEMEBSDRRARD RES B.T. Chiles S Dent GJ. Durmann ET. Englehart J.P. Fraser 4H. P. Godard K Howie RM. Kolb T.P. May FLL. McGeary GA, Nelson C1. O'Boyle R Piehl D.R. Power F. Schrieber AP. Shepard R.B.Taber V.G. Taylor Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 AUS C2644 74 MM O7B42b5 COOZZEL 4 mm International Nickel Co. Standard Oil of California Weldco, Inc. Norton Co. Standard Oil of New Jersey astern Metallizing Co. General Motors Corp. General Electric Co. USS. Coast Guard Westinghouse Blectric Corp. Consulting Engineer Dix Engineering Co. USS, Coast Guard ‘The H. 8, Swan Co. Graver Tank Manufacturing Co. ‘Sam Tour and Co, Plasmadyne Actojet-General Corp, Vandee Manufacturing Co. Aluminum Company of America USS. Coast Guard American Bureau of Shipping ‘The Committee slso wishes to thank the following individuals, upon whom fell the burden of the yearly inspection of the pancls at the various test sites: Shell Development Co. Meteo, Inc. Meteo, Inc. Aluminum Company of America Shell Development Co. ‘Aluminum Labs,, Lid Dow Chemical Co. American Oil Co. International Nickel Co, Aluminum Company of America ‘Shell Development Co. Meteo, Inc. Standard Oil of California ‘Dow Chemical Co, Dow Chemical Co. ‘Meteo, Inc. Shell Development Co, International Nickel Co,‘Akron Sand Blast Co. ‘Aluminum Company of America ‘Aluminum Labs., Ltd. ‘American Brass Co. ‘American Petroloum Institute ‘American Zine, Lead and Smelting Co. ‘4.0. Smith Corp. ‘Armco Steel Corp. ‘Atlantic Refining Co, ‘Battelle Memorial Institute Bates Expanded Steel Plant Ball Telephone Labs. Christiansen Corp. (Clark Metallizing Dow Chemicsl Co, Dowington Iron Works Fulton Foundry and Machine Works F. W. Gartner Co. General Flectrie Co. Hayden Wire Works, Inc. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, Copia by the Ameian Wellg Society Sat 05 144250 1997 AUS C2-14 74 M™_O7S4265 OOOZEL7 b' ml Acknowledgments / 31 ‘The AWS Committee on Thermal Spraying wishes to express its deep appre- ciation to the American Society for Testing and Materials. The cooperation of this Society, in arranging for the uss of portions of their own test sites and portions of private test sites for this corrosion test program, was invaluable. Last, but far from Teast, the Committee wishes to thank the following organi- zations for theit various contributions to this test program, Without their help, this project would never have becn possible Keystone Shipping Co. ‘Magnesium Company of America ‘Melallizing Company of America Metco, Inc. Metal-Cladding, Inc. Metalweld, Inc. ‘New England Hard Facing Co. New Jersey Zine Co. Pacific Telegraph and Tetephone Co. Philadelphia Electric Corp. Port of New York Authority Reynolds Metals Co. RP. C. Shipbuilders & Dry Dock Co. Ruomelin Manufacturing Co. St. Louis Metallizing Co. Union Electric Co, United Engineers and Constructors United States Stee! Corp. Warner Co, ‘Welding and Supplies Company, Ld. Westinghouse Electric Corp,