Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comparison of The Corrosion Behaviour
A Comparison of The Corrosion Behaviour
SUMMARY: The condition of the coatings on a number of steel bridges in the region around
Melbourne was investigated. The condition of the coatings showed that single-coat inorganic zinc
gave significantly better performance than conventional multi-coat inhibitive systems, up to three
times the life or more. Maintenance of the inorganic zinc coatings was also far easier. This work
also showed a major weakness of the ASTM D610 method of assessing coating condition.
Keywords: Bridge coatings, inorganic zinc silicate, ASTM D610 coating assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
The condition of the coatings of a number of steel bridges in the Melbourne metropolitan and surrounding areas was
investigated. The original investigation was commissioned by BHP Integrated Steel Marketing Group to generate information
for a bridge coating guide, produced by one of the authors (1). This paper looks at the results of this survey with a view to try
to quantify differences between protection given by coating systems used, and to assess the applicability of the usual method
used of measuring degree of coating breakdown, especially as it applies to inorganic zinc silicate coatings.
Most information on coating lives is obtained from exposing test panels to either laboratory accelerated testing, or atmospheric
exposure at specific sites. Such tests can give valuable results, but there will always be doubt about applicability to real
structures in a variety of environments. The survey on which this paper is based, using actual structures in a range of real
environments, should be able to give a more realistic guide to coating performance. In practice however, there are many
problems associated with analysing actual structures, as compared to test panels. Some of the problems include:
• Records are rarely available of original system, maintenance, inspection results, etc. Maintenance painting is the major
problem, as a number of these bridges have clearly been spot painted, or given a complete coat to parts of the structure at
some stage since construction.
• Actual structures are subjected to a range of micro-environmental and design features which means the coating is not
uniformly subjected to its environment. For example, horizontal surfaces will be wet for a longer period of time than
vertical surfaces and subjected to higher corrosivity. Sheltered items are not subjected to the corrosive action of rain, but
deposited salts and dirt will not be washed off, and corrosivity may be increased.
• The coatings will be applied at a much greater variation in thickness than would occur on test panels and there is greater
likelihood that surface preparation and coating application may not have been as good as for test panels.
• Coatings used may change formulations over the period of time investigated and coatings used in the past may no longer be
used. Many new coatings have been introduced over the 50 or so years covered by this survey. In fact, many of the coating
systems used in this survey were based on red lead primer, which has now been phased out. However, it is worth noting
that modern developments in coatings have concentrated on producing coatings that are safer to apply, and have less
environmental impact, than earlier formulations. Newer developed coating will not necessarily have better corrosion
resistance.
Despite these difficulties, the results are worth investigating and should provide useful information as to coating performance.
Figure 1: Bridge at Keilor, showing girder construction, coated with water-borne inorganic zinc
Chalking, discolouration, dirt accumulation, rust staining and other deterioration modes have not been considered. It is
considered that this is valid as these modes are far less serious than coating breakdown.
The coated surfaces of the steel bridges were investigated. A thorough visual examination was made, looking at surfaces that
were likely to break down: the horizontal flange surfaces (top and underside), edges and webs. The outer beams were recorded
separately from inner beams. Bracing was also investigated where present. A comprehensive coating thickness survey was also
carried out using an electronic dry film thickness gauge. Readings were taken on inner beams and on outer beams. Minimum,
maximum and average thicknesses and number of readings taken were recorded. A summary of some of the results is given in
Appendix 1. The table shows only minimum dry film thickness reading, as this is known to be the parameter commonly
associated with coating breakdown. Between about 20 and 100 readings were taken in each region.
Figure 3: Condition of inorganic zinc coated bridges as a function of minimum measured DFT
!: water-borne, ": solvent-borne).
(!
Figure 4: Condition of Red lead/MIO or red lead/Al coated bridges as a function of age
Figure 5: Condition of red lead/MIO or red lead/Al bridges as a function of minimum measured DFT.
One bridge was protected with a zinc phosphate/ chlorinated rubber system. It was only one year old, and applied quite thickly
so not surprisingly was in excellent condition. One bridge had a solvent-borne inorganic zinc primer with 2 coats of epoxy
MIO. Isolated rusting was observed on the underside flanges and edges, mainly as a result of poor application techniques.
Where properly applied, the system was performing well. With such coatings being carried out relatively recently, such
performance is not surprising and no real conclusions can be drawn from these two examples.
5 DISCUSSION
The survey clearly shows the superiority of the inorganic zinc systems. The multi-coat system showed a far greater degree of
coating breakdown and rust-through than the inorganic zinc system. Breakdown of the inorganic zinc is generally apparent
only in those areas where thickness is insufficient. Figure 3 shows that if dry film thickness had been kept above about 75
microns, conditions would have been even better. Indeed, only one sample with a minimum greater than 75 microns showed
any breakdown, and it was still ASTM D-610 Rating 9 with over 20 years exposure.
Table 2: Some properties of inorganic zinc and multi-coat inhibitive coating systems
6 CONCLUSIONS
• Within the studied environment, a single coat inorganic zinc silicate coating provides far superior protection to a
conventional coating system of a red lead primer with an aluminium or MIO top coat. A life of at least twenty years,
possibly forty, before first major maintenance is easily achievable with inorganic zinc in this environment. Compared to a
conventional system, the inorganic zinc could provide three times or more life before maintenance. If the minimum dry
film thickness was kept above 75 microns, it would appear that durability of the inorganic zinc could be even better. Also,
the inorganic zinc coating broke down in localised regions with defined boundaries, so would be much easier to maintain
than the multi-coat system.
• The well-known ASTM D-610 system for rust grading is adequate for assessing breakdown of coatings which degrade
uniformly across the surface, such as the conventional multi-coat system. It is less applicable for the single-coat inorganic
zinc system which breaks down in a more localised manner. It indicates that significantly larger areas require maintenance
7 REFERENCES
1. A Szokolik and F Rapattoni, “Coatings Guide for New Steel Bridges”, BHP Integrated Steel, Wollongong, NSW,
(November 1998)
2. G A King, K G Martin and J F Moresby, “A Detailed Corrosivity Survey of Melbourne”, CSIRO Division of Building
Research Report, Melbourne, Vic, (1982)
3. A Szokolik, “Maintaining Protective Coatings on Offshore Platforms”, Jnl. of Protective Coatings and Linings, 5(5), pp
32-40, (May 1988)
4. B R Appelman, “Maintenance Repainting of Structural Steel: Chemistry and Criteria”, Jnl. of Protective Coatings and
Linings, 1(3), pp 20-29, (August 1984)
8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Frank Rapattoni and BHP Steel for commissioning the survey described in
this paper.