Durability + Design
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Visit the TPC Store
Search the site

 

D+D News

Main News Page


Best Practices:
When the Substrate Rejects the Coating

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

More items for Coatings Technology

Comment | More

Editor's Note: This article was written by PQA Inspector Dave Lick and is reprinted with permission from the MPI (Master Painters Institute) newsletter. MPI content describes best practices for commercial, institutional, and light industrial painting.

A tidy few years ago, the inspector found himself on a project that should have been a breeze: a new arts center with four levels of poured-in-place concrete ceilings.

The concrete surfaces were in virtually ideal condition: The concrete contractor had done an excellent job leveling and roughening the walls, with no sacking or poor-quality patching work to be seen.

This was a LEED job, so the spec called for a water-based primer with a strong track record approved under MPI #3 Primer, Alkali Resistant, Water Based.

Commercial Building
Photos: MPI

Fly ash makes concrete more dense and offers environmental benefits, but the substrate may have an oily residue that compromises adhesion of water-based primers. What's your solution?

The project's schedule required the painters to start by priming only a small 50-foot section before coating the remaining ceiling surfaces. That was serendipitous, because the next day, the inspector found that the primer had zero adhesion to the surface. It readily came off with very fine dust stuck to the back of the delaminated film.

Relieved at finding the problem before the whole job was primed, the inspector decided that the coating had been applied over a "dirty" surface and that the dusty contaminants had interfered with adhesion. He showed the dusty film sample to the painting contractor and told him a cleaner surface would be required.

The contractor was dubious (“we broomed the hell out of it!”) but proceeded to meticulously broom and clean the area again with wet rags. Since this was an interior surface, power washing was not an option. The primer was applied again … and again, showed the same result: zero adhesion.

The inspector then asked for three new test patches, stood by to oversee the contractor’s surface prep work, and applied three other products approved under MPI #3, including a clear product he knew to have exceedingly high penetration characteristics.

No luck: three complete failures and an inability to penetrate the pervasive fine dust.

Test patches

Three test patches with the water-based primer all failed.

The inspector now grew suspicious and asked the GC, “Is there something different about this concrete?”

The answer: Yes, it’s fly ash concrete.

What’s Fly Ash Concrete?

Concrete is typically composed of gravel, sand, water, and Portland cement.

Worldwide, the manufacture of Portland cement has a relatively large carbon footprint. As of 2005, it accounted for the greenhouse-gas equivalent of 330 million cars driving 12,500 miles per year, according to Build it Green.

Fly ash, a by-product of coal-fired electric generating plants that might otherwise end up in a landfill, can be substituted for more than 25 percent of the Portland cement portion of the mix.

Two types of fly ash are available: Class C, which is typically light or tan colored and is produced from burning lignite or sub-bituminous coal; and Class F, which is dark gray and is produced from burning anthracite or bituminous coal.

Advantages and Challenges

Fly ash consists mostly of silica, alumina and iron; its tiny, sphere-shaped particles fill small voids and produce a denser concrete. So using fly ash concrete offers the benefit of a stronger, more durable product while reducing the environmental impact of concrete manufacturing and providing a beneficial re-use for fly ash. Using fly ash concrete can help a project achieve LEED credits for recycled content.

The paint inspector, however, has a different perspective. Because coal and oil are essentially the same product—they’re just different ages—he suspects that the fly ash might impart oily characteristics to the concrete.

And this we know to be true: A surface with an oily residue will always present a challenge to water-based coatings.

Try a Solvent-Based Primer

The GC on the project had experience with fly ash concrete and suggested that the contractor try a solvent-based primer.

Solvent-Based Primer Adhesion

The contractor saw virtually perfect adhesion over the fly ash concrete when he used solvent-based bonding primer. The primer suggestion came from the GC.

So a product approved under MPI #69 Primer, Bonding, Solvent Based was applied to a test patch—and this time, the inspector picked an "unclean" area that had not undergone the meticulous broom-and-wipe preparation used for the waterbased primed surfaces.

Lo and behold, 100 percent penetration of the concrete surface, and the adhesion was perfect. The inspector couldn’t pry it off with a knife.

It may be noted that MPI #69 is not defined as an alkali-resistant product, and its recommended applications are not specifically concrete but, rather, “problematic surfaces." However, the concrete walls in the Arts Center were months old by the time painting began, so alkali burn was not likely to be a problem. In addition, the product chosen by the inspector was recommended for use on cementitious surfaces.

Changing the primer to a solvent-based product would eliminate the architect’s opportunity to get a LEED paint point on the project, but the architect nevertheless agreed. The priming was done over the weekend, so that use of the solvent-based product wouldn’t interfere with other trades working on the building, and the walls were finished with the specified standard latex finish coat.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Fast-forward to just a few months ago. Now, the inspector was working on a new maximum-security prison with 30-foot-tall tilt-up concrete walls.

Once again, the concrete was in ideal condition: power ground and roughened, then power washed, no sacking or patches, slightly rough and clean.

Concrete preparation

Concrete preparation on this wall is ideal. Note the dark gray surface areas that may indicate Class F fly ash concrete, made from anthracite or bituminous coal..

As part of his regimen, the inspector looked for shiny spots on the surface that might indicate bond-breaker compounds that can interfere with coating adhesion. Instead, he saw telltale dark-gray cloudy patches in the concrete—not just on the surface, but deep into the slab as far as he could scratch.

This was a LEED project, so the older-and-wiser inspector now knew to ask the GC: “Is this fly ash concrete?”

And yes, indeedy, it was.

Spec Suspicions

Just as with the fateful arts center years before, a waterbased primer approved under MPI #3 had been specified. So the wary inspector requested that a test patch be prepared first. Sure enough, complete failure with zero adhesion ensued. He tried a test patch with another MPI #3 product that had never failed him before; once again, zero adhesion.

The architect and GC were on site to view this fiasco, so the inspector asked for two more test patches: one, with the surface thoroughly cleaned of dust and residue; the second, "as is." Both areas were then primed with a solvent-based primer approved under MPI #69—and both performed perfectly.

The architect initially balked at changing the spec to the solvent-based primer, since this would eliminate his ability to get the LEED paint point.

But, as the inspector pointed out, what was the alternative? In theory, abrasive blasting could create a profile with sufficient tooth for the waterbased primer to adhere, but the suspected oily residue could still be present. Besides,  abrasive blasting would have been prohibited on this project.

Seeking Options

The architect relented, and the solvent-based primer was applied. Since this was an interior space, the GC supplied substantial ventilation to assure a safe working environment. Once again, the work was done on weekends to avoid disturbing other trades on the project.

While both projects were ultimately resolved successfully from a coating performance perspective, the inspector wonders if there is a better solution out there—especially one that might enable the use of waterbased primers.

So we ask our readers: Do any of you have experience coating fly ash concrete (keeping in mind that abrasive blasting is rarely acceptable on many commercial and institutional projects)?

If so, what’s your solution?

   

Tagged categories: Adhesion; Coal ash; Concrete coatings and treatments; Delamination; Master Painters Institute (MPI); Primers; Solventborne coatings; Surface preparation; Water-borne

Comment from Eric Franco, (10/2/2013, 10:44 AM)

As a coating inspector myself, I have run into similar issues. There is a coating called EonCoat, which I have used, previously made with fly ash and when subsequently coated, chemically bonded to itself. (Editor's Note: The writer is an employee of EonCoat.)


Comment from TC Loeser, (10/2/2013, 10:56 AM)

If penetrating, solvent based primer appears to be an answer, how will this play out in areas of the country that have highly restrictive VOC regs, like California? Would a reactive penetrant such as a lithium based products work?


Comment from Lewis Berry, (10/2/2013, 12:30 PM)

Use pozzolanic metakaolin which is hydrophilic, reactive and lighter color instead of the flyash. You should have no adhesion problems with coatings.


Comment from Vivian Volz, (10/2/2013, 1:23 PM)

It seems a shame to paint concrete in the first place. But if one must paint it, it sure is important to know about this issue. I agree with TC, it seems worth exploring a penetrating stain or graffiti-resistant coating instead, if the fly ash is already cast.


Comment from DALE GOSS, (10/29/2013, 5:34 PM)

I have spent my career with the Corps of Engineers,35yrs, and was not involved very much with coatings unless there were problems. Have had similar problems in IT buildings with dusting of floors and had to seal them to protect the equipment. However, in every case where fly ash was used the moist curing period was not adequate. It needs to be a minimum of 14 days if either class F or C is used and if the cement also contains GGBFS then the curing period needs to be extended to 21 days. If this is not do then dusting will occur. for vertical placed concrete the forms need to be broke loss as soon as the concrete will support itself and allow water to trickle over the surface to provide adequate curing.


Comment from Franklin Watt, (10/31/2013, 4:18 PM)

I am living in and tropical climate and I apply no paint to concrete unless it is cured for minimum 28 days


Comment from Franklin Watt, (10/31/2013, 5:07 PM)

I am living in a tropical climate and I do not apply any form paint to concrete unless it is cured a minimum of 28 days. to concrete that is not cured a minimum of 28 days unle


Comment from brent faid, (11/5/2013, 8:56 AM)

we do a lot of concrete coatings and have had great success with adding couplings to both water borne primers and solvent . we use a mix of ipa , isopropal alchol, and up tp 6 oz of couplings and apply it as a pre primer . I don't think ipa is a solvent on the "no list but not sure


Comment from John Fauth, (11/6/2013, 9:22 AM)

In my opinion, contractors who play the part of chemists and environmental compliance officers are accepting an enormous civil and criminal liability. Just sayin.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

Advertisements
 
Novatek Corporation
 
Novatek Portable Air Filtration Systems
 
Air Scrubbers/Negative Air machines for restoration, abatement, dust & odor control, hazardous contaminant removal from job sites to clean rooms and hospitals. Portable, affordable!
 

 
Shield Industries, Inc
 
FireGuard® E-84 Intumescent Coating - Shield Industries, Inc
 
Trust the certified protection of the industry’s most innovative intumescent coating FireGuard® E-84 to provide you with the 1 and 2 hour fire ratings you need.
 

 
Keim Mineral Coatings
 
Mineral Silicate Paints + Stains Fuse to Concrete
 
• Forms permanent chemical bonds
• Becomes part of the concrete
• Will never peel
• Looks completely natural
 

 
 
 

Technology Publishing Co., 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 2008, Pittsburgh, PA 15233

TEL 1-412-431-8300  • FAX  1-412-431-5428  •  EMAIL webmaster@durabilityanddesign.com


The Technology Publishing Network

Durability + Design PaintSquare the Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings Paint BidTracker

 

© Copyright 2012-2018, Technology Publishing Co., All rights reserved