Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75

Quality criteria of powder coated HDG steel in corrosive environment

Marit Bjordal ∗ , Sten B. Axelsen 1 , Ole Ø. Knudsen
SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Received 12 October 2005; accepted 1 February 2006

Abstract
The performance of powder coatings on hot-dip galvanized steel has been studied by testing in 5 years field exposure in marine and industrial
atmospheres, as well as in accelerated tests. The aim was to assess the quality of such coating systems in corrosive environments and to establish
criteria for how to obtain good quality. The test data demonstrates that polyester powder coatings are a good alternative to wet paint as top coat
on hot-dip galvanized steel. The phosphate layer is identified as the most crucial step to ensure high quality. Recommendations for how to obtain
good quality are provided.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Powder coatings; Galvanized steel; Polyester; Phosphate; Quality

1. Introduction
Hot-dip galvanizing (HDG) is a traditional method for pro-
tecting outdoor steel against corrosion. In many cases it is desir-
able to add color to the HDG object by applying an organic
coating on top of the zinc layer. The main purpose is usually to
improve the visual appearance of the object, but valuable side
effects from applying the organic coating and thus obtain a so-
called duplex system are prolonged corrosion protection [1] and
reduced spreading of zinc corrosion products to the surround-
ings.
Powder coating is an interesting alternative to wet paint as
the top layer. Powder coatings are solvent free and are applied
by electrostatic spray in closed compartments, ensuring good
working conditions during application. Excess powder can be
recycled, improving the process economy. Duplex coatings of
hot-dip galvanized steel and powder coatings are being used
today, but there is a lack of documentation on the performance
in corrosive environments.
This work is part of a research project initiated in 1997 to pro-
vide such documentation. In a previous paper [2] results from
accelerated exposure tests, mechanical tests and short term field
exposure tests were presented and discussed. This paper reports
∗ Corresponding author at: Laerdal Medical, P.O. Box 377, N-4002 Stavanger,
Norway.
E-mail address: marit.bjordal@laerdal.no (M. Bjordal).
1 Present address: Statoil, P.O. Box 158, Forus, N-4065 Stavanger, Norway.
the results from 5 years field exposure and discusses which fac-
tors influence the quality of powder coated HDG steel.
2. Experimental
2.1. Coating systems
The coating systems, listed in Table 1, comprise:
• A “standard” system of hot-rolled low-Si steel with nomi-
nal 90 ␮m zinc, zinc-phosphate conversion layer and 75 ␮m
polyester (TGIC-cured) powder coating prepared by five dif-
ferent workshops (A1, B4, C8, D15 and E18).
• Panels of different steel type, and one set with higher zinc
layer thickness.
• Variations in powder coating thickness or type of binder.
• Some systems with thick powder coatings applied directly
onto steel substrate (E20 and E21).
Three solvent borne coating systems were included in the test
for reference:
• System F22 with zinc epoxy primer and no galvanizing resem-
bles systems used offshore, only with thinner zinc epoxy.
• System F23 is an alkyd paint system on HDG steel. This paint
system has a very good track record on thermal sprayed zinc
(TSZ) on Norwegian bridges in coastal environment [3].

0300-9440/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2006.02.006
 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75 69

Table 1
Coating systems

Systema Steel substrateb Zinc layer Pre-treatment before coating Coating Measured thicknessc
(␮m)
Zinc Organic
coatingd

A1 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 70 ± 5 75 ± 17

A2 Cold-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 50 ± 3 77 ± 22
A3 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Sweep blasted (Al-oxide) 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 70 ± 5 68 ± 15
B4 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 95 ± 12 59 ± 16
B5 Hot-rolled high-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 92 ± 3 57 ± 13
B6 Hot-rolled high-Si steel 180 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 145 ± 10 55 ± 11
B7 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/primid 95 ± 4 86 ± 17
C8 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 115 ± 9 100 ± 14
C9 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 150 ␮m polyester/TGIC 114 ± 9 144 ± 18
C10 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/primid 115 ± 11 103 ± 37
C11 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 150 ␮m polyester/primid 117 ± 10 131 ± 15
C12 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m epoxy 117 ± 12 88 ± 15
C13 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m primer + 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 114 ± 8 172 ± 19
D15 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 63 ± 6 95 ± 13
D16 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m epoxy 65 ± 8 87 ± 14
D17 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 ZnMn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/primid 65 ± 6 115 ± 12
E18 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 68 ± 5 85 ± 9
E19 Hot-rolled high-Si steel 90 Zn-phosphate 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC 80 ± 14 73 ± 9
E20 Hot-rolled low-Si steel Blast cleaned + Zn phosphated 300 ␮m epoxy 325 ± 37
E21 Hot-rolled low-Si steel Blast cleaned + Zn phosphated 225 mm epoxy + 75 ␮m polyester/primid 396 ± 37
F22 Hot-rolled low-Si steel Blast cleaned Sa 2 1/2 (Al-oxide) Wet coat: 25 ␮m zinc epoxy 301 ± 19
primer + 200 ␮m mod. epoxy + 75 ␮m
acrylic top coat
F23 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Washed 10% NaOH, rinsed Wet coat: wash primer + 4 × 40 ␮m alkyd 95 ± 4 203 ± 10
F24 Hot-rolled low-Si steel 90 Sweep blasted (Al-oxide) Wet coat: 100 ␮m epoxy + 75 ␮m acrylic 97 ± 4 214 ± 22
top coat
a First letter indicate workshop applying the duplex coating.
b Low-Si steel: <0.04% Si, high-Si steel: 0.12% Si.
c Average of eight measurements on 60 panels, total of 480 measurements.
d Difference between measured total thickness and measured zinc layer thickness.

• System F24 include a wet coat epoxy that was recommended standard process lines. The wet coats were applied in a labora-
by the paint manufacturer for use on HDG steel. tory.

The coatings were applied on steel panels of dimension 2.2. Tests

150 mm × 100 mm × 3 mm. All steel panels and the powders
were provided from the same batches. The powder coating sys- The tests performed are described in Tables 2 and 3. The pan-
tems are intended to reflect industrial practice and quality, and els in the cyclic tests and the field tests had horizontal artificial
were therefore prepared by the participating companies in their scribes of width 2 mm and length 60 mm down to steel. After

Table 2
Description of tests
Test Description Duration

NORSOK cyclic test [5]a 72 h salt spray (subst. seawater) + 16 h drying in 4200 h = 175 days
air at room temperature + 80 h UV
ASTM D5894-96 cyclic test [6] 1 week (2 h salt spray/2 h drying 35 ◦ C) 4000 h ≈ 167 days
electrolyte: 0.05% sodium chloride + 0.35%
ammonium sulphate; 1 week (4 h UV 60 ◦ C + 4 h
condensation 50 ◦ C)
ISO 2812 [7] Submerged in distilled water at 40 ± 1 ◦ C 1 year
Field exposure at Tananger, NILU’s test site, marine atmosphere 5 years (July 1998–June 2003)
south-west coast of Norway
Field exposure at Borregaard, NILU’s test site, industrial atmosphere 5 years (July 1998–June 2003)
Sarpsborg in eastern Norway
a The cyclic test specified in NORSOK M-501 is now replaced with the test described in ISO 20340. The test used here had an acceptance criterion of average

scribe creep <2.5 mm.

70 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75

Table 3
Corrosivity of field tests
Corrosivity class [8–10]

1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Marine atmosphere C3 medium C3 medium C4 high C4 high C3 medium

Industrial atmosphere C4 high C4 high C3 medium C4 high C3 medium

exposure the panels were evaluated with respect to scribe creep.
Loose polymer coating due to underfilm corrosion was removed
and the maximum and average scribe creep was measured as
shown in Fig. 1.
Maximum scribe creep:
dmax − d0
amax =
2 increased thickness on edges, as opposed to wet coatings.
Average scribe creep:
1
5
dt − d 0
ā = 5 t=1
2 metallic zinc remained fully or partially in the bottom of the
The coatings were also evaluated according to ISO 4628 [4]
for chalking, rusting, flaking and blistering.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison of coating systems
Fig. 2 compares scribe creep on some of the best powder
coated HDG panels (B4 and B7), one epoxy system on HDG
(D16) and the reference wet coats on HDG (F23 and F24).
Results from four different tests are shown; the two field tests
and the two accelerated cyclic tests. The polyester powder coat-
ings on HDG perform just as good as, or even a little better than
the wet coats on galvanized steel in our tests.
If we look at the field tests only, the alkyd wet coat system
(F23) is least degraded. In marine environment the scribe creep
is only 0.9 mm after 5 years. However, the best powder polyester
coatings perform almost as good as the alkyd system, and similar
to the epoxy wet coat system (F22). They all have less than 2 mm
average scribe creep after 5 years field exposure. The powder
epoxy system (D16) had only slightly more scribe creep than
the polyester coatings in the field exposure, but performed rather
poorly in the accelerated tests.
Fig. 2 also shows two systems without HDG; a thick epoxy
powder coat with a top coat (E21) and a wet coat system with zinc
epoxy primer (F22). These systems performed surprisingly well
in industrial atmosphere, and are comparable to the HDG sys-
tems. In marine environment and the NORSOK test the results
were poorer. They had more disbonding than the HDG-systems,
and some rust was seen on the edges. The edges had not been
rounded before application of the coating, which may explain
the edge rusting, even if powder coatings are supposed to give
We made 2 mm wide scribes in our panels. Most of the scribes
were filled with zinc corrosion products. These are quite protec-
tive. On a few panels the zinc was not properly cut through and
scribe. The adhesion loss spreading from the scribe on these
panels did not differ significantly from the panels where steel
was exposed in the scribes. This demonstrates the self-repair
effect of HDG functions for 2 mm defects on duplex coatings.
Most focus is put on scribe creep as this was the main degra-
dation type observed in the cyclic tests and the field tests. But
as expected, the epoxy systems chalked to grade 3 or 4 in the
field tests. The thin epoxies (C12 and D16) experienced severe
reduction in adhesion on several panels in the cyclic tests. On
system E21 the top coat delaminated and partly flaked because
the first layer was let to cure too much before application of the
top coat. Table 4 shows that some systems developed blisters in
the submersion test. Blisters around the hole in the panels are
probably due to insufficient cleaning and drying of this detail
during the process.
Hence, positive results were registered for many of the sys-
tems tested. For systems A1, A2, B4–B7 and D15, the only
effect from the exposures were rather small scribe creep. In other

Fig. 2. Comparison of powder coatings on HDG (4, 7 and 16) with wet coats on
HDG (23 and 24) and a common NORSOK-type wet coat on steel (22). A thick
powder coating on steel is also shown (21). PE, polyester; EP, epoxy; HDG,
Fig. 1. Determination of maximum and average scribe creep. hot-dip galvanized steel. All panels were hot-rolled low-Si steel.
 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75
Table 4
Results from ISO 2812 submersion test
Result System
No blistering A1, A2, A3 (pinholes), D15, D16, F24
Blisters near hole for hanging B4, B5, B6, B7, E18
specimens on process rack
Blisters in areas C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, E19
Blisters all across panel surface D17, E20 (one of three panels), E21,
F22, F23
words, powder coated hot-dip galvanized steel can be a durable
coating in corrosive environment.
3.2. Steel substrate and zinc layer
It is well known among those who perform powder coating
of HDG steel that the steel type will influence on the galva-
nized layer and the “coatability” of the HDG surface. Steel with
total content of silicon and phosphorous lower than 0.04% (low-
Si steel) will obtain a zinc layer that is bright and metallic [11].
Steel with contents higher than 0.12% (high-Si steel) will obtain
a galvanized layer that is duller in appearance. In between these
limits, in the so-called Sandelin range, the HDG layer will be
thick and porous, and it will be very difficult to apply a high
quality powder coating on top. Pinholes will develop in large
numbers when powder coating HDG steel in the Sandelin range.
Performers of powder coating prefer to use low-Si steel if pos-
sible, as this is considered to give least problems with pinholes.
Fig. 3 compares systems with different steel substrates. The
systems on hot-rolled steel (A1) gave less disbonding than the
systems with cold-rolled steel (A2) in three of four tests, but the
differences were small compared to the standard deviation.
The panels from workshop B showed that duplex systems on
low-Si steel performed better than the similar system on high-Si
steel. The panels from workshop E showed the opposite, that
the duplex system on high-Si steel was a little better, but the dif-
ference was smaller. These results indicate that it may be easier
Fig. 3. Scribe creep on panels with HDG, phosphate and coated with 75 ␮m
polyester/TGIC powder coating, on different steel substrates. Since there are
significant differences between the processes and results for panels from dif-
ferent companies, comparison should be made only between panels from same
company.
71
Table 5
Scribe creep on duplex systems with different zinc layer thickness
System Steel type Scribe creep (mm)
Marine Industrial
atmosphere atmosphere
B5 92 ␮m Zn on high-Si steel 2.8 ± 0.6 1.8 ± 0.5
B6 145 ␮m Zn on high-Si steel 2.0 ± 0.5 1.3 ± 0.2
to achieve good duplex systems on low-Si steel, but the effect
from Si-content in the steel on degradation of duplex systems
is small compared to influence from other parameters such as
pre-treatment.
For HDG structures the life time of the corrosion protection
is proportional to the zinc layer thickness. For duplex systems,
where the visual appearance normally is important, the relevant
parameter is the time it takes until the top coat is degraded to
such a degree that maintenance is required. At this time, the zinc
layer still protects the underlying steel from corrosion. To study
the effect of zinc thickness on the duplex system, one of the
workshops prepared panels with extra thick zinc layer (system
B6). As seen in Table 5, the scribe creep is less with the thickest
zinc layer in both field tests. The thicker zinc layers have rougher
surfaces, which may explain the lower scribe creep.
3.3. Pre-treatment before powder coating
Each workshop participating in the project prepared the sam-
ples in their own production lines. Even though the workshops
in principle apply the same type of coatings, their production
lines differ in many ways: design, line speed, chemicals supplier,
equipment, etc. Two of the shops in our project used zinc-
phosphate conversion layer, while the other three used ZnMn-
phosphate. Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the “standard systems”
Fig. 4. Scribe creep (average of five readings on four or five panels). All systems
with 90 ␮m HDG on hot-rolled low-Si steel and 75 ␮m polyester TGIC powder
coating. All systems have phosphate as pre-treatment, except A3, which was
only sweep blasted before powder coating.
72 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75
delivered from the different workshops. The specification of this
system was 90 ␮m Zn, phosphating and 75 ␮m polyester/TGIC.
Measured thicknesses are given in Table 1. There are marked dif-
ferences in quality between the presumably identical systems,
and the obvious question is what causes the differences. It is seen
that there is no direct relation between type of phosphating and
the degree of scribe creep. The two systems with largest disbond-
ing, D15 and E18, contain ZnMn-phosphate and Zn-phosphate,
respectively. Similarly, the systems with least disbonding also
include both types of phosphate. However, systems C8–C12,
E18 and E19, all with Zn-phosphate, had undefined adhesion
fronts after exposure, i.e. the adhesion was reduced so much
during exposure that the powder coating was easily removed
with a scalpel far beyond the adhesion loss from scribe. This
implies a better quality of the ZnMn-phosphate over the Zn-
phosphate, but is not necessarily related to differences between
the types of phosphate. As shown below it is likely to represent
differences is process control between the coating companies.
The two systems with least disbonding, B4 and C8, have
the thinnest and thickest powder coatings, so coating thickness
is not a determining parameter. Even though the temperature
profiles during curing of the powder coatings are different for
the workshops, all systems had fully cured coatings. When it
comes to the thickness of the zinc layer, it is seen that systems
B4 and C8 have the thickest zinc layers of the five systems. This
is in accordance with what is found above, that the disbonding
is a little less for thicker zinc layers.
The most important factor affecting the disbonding is found
to be the phosphate layer. A selection of unexposed panels were
boiled in deionised water and inspected for blisters. After inspec-
tion the coatings were peeled off with a scalpel to reveal the
underlying phosphate layer for examination in electron micro-
scope. The findings are summarized in Table 6, and micrographs
of phosphate layers are shown in Fig. 5. None of the panels
developed blisters, i.e. there were no salt contamination of the
surfaces beneath the coatings.
The coatings on panels from workshop C could easily be fully
or partly removed. The panels from workshop C also developed
blisters in the immersion test, and systems C10 and C12 expe-
rienced adhesion loss in the exposure tests as well. It is seen
from the micrographs that the phosphate layers from workshop
Table 6
Results after boiling unexposed panels for 2 h in distilled water
System After boiling
A1 Small adhesion loss, hard to remove
B4 Good adhesion, impossible to remove
C8 Small adhesion loss, hard to remove
C9 Some adhesion loss, partly removed
C10 Very low adhesion, easy to remove
C11 Very low adhesion, easy to remove
C12 Very low adhesion, easy to remove
C13 Some adhesion loss, partly removed
E18 Some adhesion loss, partly removed
E19 Some adhesion loss, partly removed
Coating removed with scalpel. No panels developed blisters. Results from immersion test is added.
C were poor. The panels with severe adhesion loss had almost
no phosphate on the surface. The other panels had some areas
with good phosphate layers and others without. The bright areas
have a very thin layer of phosphate, but the platelet structure
is abundant. The scribe creep was rather low despite this, but
the quality is not satisfactory because of the poor adhesion. The
incomplete phosphate layers could be traced back to the lack of
control of the phosphating process step.
The coating of system B4 was impossible to remove after the
boiling test. Remaining coating was removed by dissolving in a
xylene based thinner, and the underlying surfaces were studied.
The system had a phosphate layer with fine structure covering
the entire surface. This gave excellent adhesion and low scribe
creep. System E18 had phosphate covering most of the surface,
but the structure was very coarse. This may have caused the
higher disbonding of this system, and the reduced adhesion after
the exposure tests.
We see a direct correlation between the coverage and struc-
ture of the phosphate layer and the quality of the duplex system.
The boiling test and examination of the phosphate layers in
microscope is well suited to reveal the weak phosphate layers
and could be used by the workshops for internal quality con-
trol on a regular basis. The quality of the phosphate layer can
be seen from the colour of the phosphated surface by the bare
eye of experienced personnel, but a simple optic microscope
with magnification ∼100× will give a better and more reliable
evaluation.
One system (A3) was prepared without phosphate layer. The
zinc was sweep blasted before coating instead. It is interesting to
note that except for the NORSOK test, where the coating failed
totally, the adhesion loss from scribe is not much higher than for
system A1, which is similar but with a phosphate layer instead of
sweep blasting, see Fig. 3. In the field tests it is about equal. That
means that adhesion between the powder coating and the sub-
strate, and penetration of water on the interface, is quite similar.
However, the system with sweep blasting had many pinholes and
blisters. Sweep blasting is hence not a good alternative to phos-
phating unless this problem is solved. A further investigation
might be interesting. A process step involving sweep blasting
would require extra care so that the <100 ␮m zinc layer is not
totally removed during this operation.
Performance in immersion test ISO 2812
Blistered in immersion test
Blistered in immersion test
Blistered in immersion test, adhesion loss
Blistered in immersion test
Blistered in immersion test
Blistered in immersion test
 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75 73

Fig. 5. Micrographs of phosphate layers.

3.4. Powder types and coating thickness
Traditionally, polyester powder coatings have been made
with TGIC (triglycidyl isocyanurate) as curing agent. TGIC
is now classified as toxic, and one tries to find good substi-
tutes. In our investigation we have compared polyester cured
with TGIC to polyester cured with primide. As seen from
Fig. 6 the disbonding from scribe is almost the same for both
polyester types. We may conclude that substituting TGIC with
primide as curing agent does not reduce the quality of duplex
systems.
As shown in Fig. 7 variations in powder coating thickness
does not have any significant influence on the disbonding. The
measured polyester thickness ranges from 100 to 170 ␮m, see
Table 1. No effect was seen from applying a polyester/epoxy
primer as first coat (C13).
Two systems with epoxy coatings were included, Fig. 7. For
the panels from workshop C, epoxy has larger disbonding than
74 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75
Fig. 6. Comparison of polyester powder coatings hardened with TGIC or prim-
ide on phosphated HDG. Systems B4 and B7 are from the same workshop,
similarly for C8 and C10, and D15 and D17.
the polyester coatings, while for workshop D they are quite sim-
ilar, except for the ASTM test. Epoxy is known to have better
adhesion to the substrate than polyester, but is degraded by UV.
Both epoxy systems, but particularly system 16, had a strong
reduction in adhesion after exposure in the NORSOK and ASTM
tests.
3.5. Powder coatings applied on steel
Some systems that were not duplex systems, but only powder
coatings applied directly onto a steel substrate were included in
the test. Epoxy coatings with a thickness of about 300 ␮m were
applied onto phosphated steel. Fig. 8 shows the results in com-
parison to a thin polyester coating system (E19) and the wet coat
system with zinc epoxy primer (F22). The thick epoxy without a
topcoat failed in marine environment. The use of a UV-resistant
top coat reduced the disbonding, but all three systems without
zinc layer (E20, E21 and F22) had rust breakthrough on edges
in marine atmosphere after more than 2 years of exposure. It
is noted that the results of system E21 is similar to that of the
wet coat reference system F22 in three of four tests, both with
a total coating thickness of 300 ␮m. Thick powder coatings on
Fig. 7. Comparison of powder coat thickness. Systems C8–C13 are made in the
same workshop, similarly for systems D15 and D16. Actual film thicknesses are
given in Table 1.
Fig. 8. Average adhesion loss for epoxy powder coatings and a wet coat system
applied directly on steel substrate. A system with polyester powder coating on
phosphated HDG steel is shown for comparison.
steel performed surprisingly well for 5 years in industrial atmo-
sphere, but powder coating is not suitable protection for steel in
marine atmosphere. A duplex system including galvanizing is
required for such applications.
3.6. Quality criteria
Our investigation showed that presumably equal systems per-
form quite differently when exposed in corrosive environment.
To obtain good quality of powder coating/ HDG steel duplex
systems the following should be noted:
1. The effect of Si + P content of the steel is relatively small, but
steel in the Sandelin range (0.04% < Si + P < 0.12%) should
be avoided. Steel with Si + P content below the Sandelin
range, and hot rolling instead of cold-rolling seems to give
slightly better results, but the effect is small.
2. The thickness of the zinc layer will affect the total lifetime
of the corrosion protection of the underlying steel substrate.
The more zinc available for protection the longer the steel is
protected. For the duplex system, the thicker zinc layer gave
slightly less disbonding, but the effect was small. On the other
hand, thicker zinc layers have poorer cohesion than thinner
layers [2]. The powder coat will give a longer life time of the
duplex system considerably if the adhesion is good compared
to a single zinc layer.
3. The pre-treatment before application of the powder coating
is found to be the most important process step to ensure
good quality. The Zn- (or ZnMn-) phosphate layer must cover
the entire surface and have a fine platelet structure. This is
obtained by good process control and by ensuring that the
surface is not contaminated in the process. Good rinsing and
drying between the process stages is vital.
4. Substitution of TGIC polyester powder curing agent with
primide does not affect the quality of the duplex system. No
effect of powder coating thickness was seen in the range
100–150 ␮m.
5. Irregularities in the zinc surface, such as scratches, ashes or
hard zinc particles should be avoided. These will be visi-
 M. Bjordal et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 56 (2006) 68–75
ble through the powder coating and will degrade the pre-
treatment and the coating thickness.
An easy way to check the quality of the phosphate layer would
be to examine the phosphate in a microscope. The platelets
should be visible at 100 times magnification. In addition, one
may perform the boiling test (powder coated panels boiled in
2 h in distilled water) and check the adhesion afterwards. If it is
hard to remove the coating, the quality is good. This procedure is
suggested to perform on a regularly basis, in addition to ensure
that the application process is run according to specifications.
4. Conclusions
Five-year data from exposure in marine and industrial atmo-
spheres show that 75 ␮m polyester powder coating can work
very well as top coat in duplex systems on HDG steel in corro-
sive environments provided the quality is high. The data confirm
previous short term data.
A list of factors influencing the quality of the duplex coatings
has been established based on the results.
The phosphate layer is found to be the crucial step to obtain a
good duplex coating. It should have a fine platelet structure and
cover the surface entirely. This is achieved by controlling the
phosphating process step carefully according to specifications
and checking the final phosphate layers regularly.
The type of steel substrate selected for the duplex system is
not a very important factor for the quality of the final product, as
long as steel in the Sandelin range is avoided. However it seems
like hot-rolled steel with Si-content below 0.04% gives a little
better result than steel with Si-content higher than 0.12%.
From a performance perspective there seems to be no prob-
lem in replacing the toxic TGIC curing agent of polyester with
primide.
75
Powder coating without HDG as first layer performed sur-
prisingly well in 5 years exposure in industrial atmosphere, but
is not suitable for corrosion protection in marine atmosphere.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the participating companies Profil-
Lakkering, Ørsta Stål, Reime Prosess, Br. Berntsen, Galvano,
Sinterco, Br. Midthaug, Jotun Powder Coatings, DuPont Powder
Coatings, Vegdirektoratet. The project was financially supported
by the Research Council of Norway.
References
[1] J.F.H. van Eijnsbergen, Duplex Systems. Hot-Dip Galvanizing Plus
Painting, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1994.
[2] M. Bjordal, S.B. Axelsen, O.Ø. Knudsen, Powder Coated Hot-Dip Gal-
vanised Steel in Corrosive Environments, PCE, Genova, 2000.
[3] R. Klinge, Korrosionsschutz von norwegischen Stahlbrücken, Stahlbau
68 (5) (1999).
[4] ISO 4628, Paint and varnishes – evaluation of paint coatings – desig-
nation of intensity, quantity and size of common types of defect, The
International Organization for Standardization, 1982.
[5] NORSOK M-501, rev. 3, Surface preparation and protective coat-
ings, the competitive standing of the Norwegian offshore sector, 1997.
http://www.nts.no/norsok/.
[6] ASTM D5894, Cyclic salt fog/UV exposure of painted metal, American
Society for Testing of Materials, 1996.
[7] ISO 2812, Paint and varnishes—determination of resistance to liquids,
The International Organization for Standardization, 1993.
[8] ISO 12944-2, Classification of environments, The International Organi-
zation for Standardization, 2004.
[9] T. Ofstad, J.F. Henriksen, NILU report NILU OR 4/2003 868/03, Norsk
Institutt for luftforskning, 2003.
[10] T. Ofstad, J.F. Henriksen, NILU report NILU OR 80/2004 920/2004,
Norsk Institutt for luftforskning, 2004.
[11] R. Thomas, Varmförzinking, Nordisk Förzinkingsförening, Stockholm,
1992 (in Spanish).