EPA/600/R-10/135
10/35/WQPC-SWP
September 2010
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
Epoxy Mastic PLS-614
Prepared by
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology
University of Houston
For
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
&EPA
ET/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Joint Verification Statement
NSF International
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Technologies
Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
Protective Liner Systems Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (PLS-614)
University of Houston, CIGMAT
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
6691 Tribble Street PHONE: (770) 482-5201
Lithonia, GA 30058 FAX: (770) 484-1821
http://www.protectivelinersystems.com
Joseph@protectivelinersystems.com
EPA created the ETV program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The program's goal
is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more
cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed
data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and
use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups,
which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of
individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies
by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory
tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All
evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data
of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the
Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 epoxy mastic, marketed by Protective Liner Systems, Inc. The
PLS-614 coating was tested at the University of Houston's Center for Innovative Grouting Materials
and Technology (CIGMAT).
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the Protective Liner Systems coating material (PLS-614) was provided by
the vendor and does not represent verified information.
-------
Protective Liner Systems' PLS-614 is a 100% solids epoxy coating used for structural concrete
protection, rehabilitation and repair, and is designed to be applied by trowel or spray. The PLS-614
system is formulated to provide a monolithic structural coating or patch for rehabilitation of concrete
structures and protection against wear, corrosion, infiltration and exfiltration.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION - METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The objective of this testing was to evaluate PLS-614 used in wastewater collection systems to control
the deterioration of concrete and clay infrastructure materials. Specific testing objectives were (1) to
evaluate the acid resistance of PLS-614 coated concrete specimens and clay bricks, both with and
without holidays (small holes intentionally drilled through the coating and into the specimens to
evaluate chemical resistance), and (2) determine the bonding strength of PLS-614 to concrete and clay
bricks.
Verification testing was conducted using relevant American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)(1) and CIGMAT(2) standards, as described below. Product characterization tests were
conducted on the coating material and the uncoated concrete and clay specimens to assure uniformity
prior to their use in the acid resistance and bonding strength tests. Protective Liner Systems'
representatives were responsible for coating the concrete and clay specimens, under the guidance of
CIGMAT staff members. The coated specimens were evaluated over the course of six months.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
(a) Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance
PLS-614 coated concrete cylinders and clay bricks were tested with and without holidays (small holes
intentionally drilled through the coating) in deionized (DI) water and a 1% sulfuric acid solution
(pH=l). A total of 20 coated concrete specimens and 20 coated clay brick specimens were exposed.
Specimens were cured for two weeks prior to creation of 0.12 in. and 0.50 in. holidays. The 0.12 in.
holidays were exposed to both DI water and acid solution, while the 0.50 in. holidays were exposed
only to the acid solution. Observation of the specimens at 30 and 180 days was made for changes in
appearance such as blistering or cracks in the coating around the holiday or color changes in the
coating. Control tests were also performed using specimens with no holidays. A summary of the
chemical exposure observations is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations
Specimen DI Water (days)
Material Without With
(Coating Holidays Holidays
Condition) 30 180 30 180
1% HiSO£ Solution (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
Comments
Concrete-Dry N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Concrete-Wet N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick - Dry N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick-Wet N (2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
N = No blister or crack; (n) = Number of specimens.
A specimen made only of PLS-614 was submerged in water for 10 days, showing no weight change
over the period. Over an exposure time of 180 days, coated concrete specimens with no holidays
in
-------
showed less than 0.7% gain in DI water and acid exposures, as did clay brick specimens exposed to DI
water. Coated clay brick exposed to acid showed a 2-7% weight gain. With holidays, coated concrete
specimens showed up to 1.2% weight change, while coated clay brick specimens showed 5-7% gains.
Changes in the diameters/dimensions of the specimens at the holiday levels were negligible after 180
days of exposure.
(b) Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method)
Bonding strength tests were performed to determine the bonding strength between the PLS-614 coating
and concrete/clay brick specimens over a period of six months. Eight sandwich (4 dry-condition, 4
wet-condition) and sixteen pull-off (8 dry-condition, 8 wet-condition) tests were performed on both
coated concrete samples and coated clay bricks.
Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT3)
CIGMAT CT 3, a modification of ASTM C321-94, was used for the testing. PLS-614 was applied to
form a sandwich between a like pair of rectangular specimens (Figure 1 (a)), both concrete brick and
clay brick, and then tested for bonding strength and failure type following a curing period. The
bonding strength of the coating was determined using a load frame (Figure 1 (b)) to determine the
failure load and bonding strength (the failure load divided by the bonded area). The sandwich bonding
tests were completed at 30, 90 and 180 days after application of the PLS-614.
Loading
Direction
(a) Test specimen configuration (b) Load frame test setup
Figure 1. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.
Dry-coated specimens were dried at room conditions for at least seven days before they were coated,
while wet-coated specimens were immersed in water for at least seven days before the specimens were
coated. Bonded specimens were cured under water up to the point of testing. The type of failure was
also characterized during the load testing, as described in Table 2.
Putt-Off Method (CIGMAT CT 2)
Per CIGMAT CT 2, a 2-in. diameter circle was cut into coated concrete prisms and clay bricks to a
predetermined depth to isolate the coating, and a metal fixture was glued to the isolated coating section
using a rapid setting epoxy. Testing was completed on a load frame with the arrangements shown in
Figure 2, with observation of the type of failure, as indicated in Table 2. The specimens were prepared
in the same manner as for the sandwich test. The specimens were stored under water in plastic
containers and the coatings were cored 24 hrs prior to the testing. The bonding tests were completed at
21, 60 and 180 days after application of the PLS-614. Results of the bonding tests are included in
Table3.
IV
-------
Table 2. Failure Types in Sandwich and Pull-Off Tests
Failure Type Description
Sandwich Test
Pull-off Test
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
Substrate Failure Conce/clay Brick fi±e-H~j coating
Cr "S
>r
Coating Failure c.»,,ci,, B,,*
1 j_
X |
Bonding Failure co^oay Brick
1
V |
Bonding and Concrete«ayBnck
Substrate Failure |
X~ ^~
Coating 1 ^"""
Bonding and Coating conc^iayBnck
F ailure 1
^ r
Coating
1 L1^-1 |
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture it>; ^Coating
1 Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^ |~~1
fixture "''"I | ^Coating
' ^^^^^^^^^
^^ ^1
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal i^J~~|
fixture"** Coating
| W^^
' 1 ' I
| Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture"5* | Coating
i I'T^T^
* i L"' ^~* i
1 Concrete/Clay Brick
Loading Direction
Metal Fixture
lib
Coring Coating
Substrate
(a) Specimen preparation (b) Load frame arrangement
Figure 2. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement.
-------
Table 3. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests (12 Specimens for Each Condition)
Substrate -
Application
Condition
Concrete
Concrete -
Clay Brick
Clay Brick
-Dry
Wet
-Dry
-Wet
Test1
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Failure Type
1 2
4
1
3
5
4
3
4
3
- Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
345 Range
7
1
3
5
5
232
107
257
190
314
187
338
181
-293
-304
-321
-350
-350
-321
-384
-374
Average
269
205
287
234
335
253
366
264
'Sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-2/Modified ASTM D 4541-85) or Pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-3/ASTM C 321-94).
2See Table 2.
(c) Summary of Verification Results
The performance of the Protective Liner System, Inc. PLS-614 epoxy mastic for use in
wastewater collection systems was evaluated for chemical resistance and the bond of the coating
with both wet and dry substrate materials, made up of concrete and clay brick. The type of
bonding test, whether sandwich test or pull-off test, impacted the mode of failure and bonding
strength for both substrate materials. The testing indicated:
General Observations
Samples of the coating material alone showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a
10-day period.
None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with or without holidays, showed any
indication of blisters or cracking during the six-month holiday-chemical resistance tests.
There were no observed changes in the dimensions of the coated concrete or clay brick
specimens at the holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
All 48 of the bonding tests resulted in substrate and substrate/bonding failures, with 27
substrate failures (Type-1) and 21 bonding/substrate failures (Type-4).
Concrete Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.60% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
Weight gain was < 1.5% for any of the coated specimens with holidays for both water and
acid exposures.
Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (7 of 12) bonding and concrete substrate (Type -4)
failures, with the remainder being concrete substrate (Type-1) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated concrete specimens was 226 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 107 to 304 psi.
Wet-coated concrete failures were mostly (8 of 12) concrete substrate (Type-1) failures, with
the remainder being bonding and concrete substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for wet-coated concrete specimens was 252 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 190 to 350 psi.
-------
Clay Brick Substrate
Without holidays, weight gain was < 0.45% for water exposed coated clay brick specimens;
weight gain for acid exposed coated clay brick specimens was about 2-7%.
With holidays, weight gains were > 5% for water exposed specimens and generally > 6% for
acid exposed specimens; the holiday size did not make a significant difference in weight
gain.
Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type -1) failures,
with the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated clay brick specimens was 280 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 187 to 350 psi.
Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1)
failures, with the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength with-wet coated clay brick was 286 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 181 to 384 psi.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF completed a technical systems audit prior to the start of testing to ensure that CIGMAT was
equipped to comply with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10%
of the test data to ensure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing.
Original signed by Original signed by
Sally Gutierrez October 6, 2010 Robert Ferguson November 2, 2010
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Systems
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria
and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the
performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is
solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of
corporate names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Referenced Documents:
1) Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated Products and Applied
Coatings, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
2) CIGMAT Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Coating Materials, available from the University of
Houston, Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, Houston, TX.
Copies of the Test Plan for Verification of Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Coating for Waste-water
Collection Systems (March 2009), the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report Number
10/34/WQPC-SWP) are available from:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
vn
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Verification of Coatings for Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Collection Systems
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
Prepared by
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT)
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204
Prepared for
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
September 2010
Vlll
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through its Office of Research and
Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center, Source Water Protection area,
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this
verification effort. This document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and USEPA
and recommended for public release.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
NOTICE 1
FOREWORD 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
FIGURES 5
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 6
SECTION 1 7
INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 7
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities 7
1.2.1 Verification Organization (NSF) 7
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMAT Laboratories atUH) 8
1.2.4 Vendor (Protective Liner Systems, Inc.) 9
1.2.5 Technology Panel 9
1.3 Background and Technical Approach 10
1.4 Objectives 10
1.5 Test Facility 11
SECTION! 12
COATING DESCRIPTION 12
SECTIONS 13
METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES 13
3.1 Preparation of Test Specimens 13
3.1.1 Preparation of the Concrete Specimens 13
3.1.2 Preparation of Clay Brick Specimens 13
3.1.3 Coating Specimens 14
3.2 Evaluation of Specimens 14
3.3 Coating Application 15
3.4 Evaluation of Coated Specimens 15
3.4.1 Holiday Test (CIGMAT CT-1) 15
3.4.2 Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method) 17
3.4.2.1 Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT-3) 17
3.4.2.2 Pull-Off Method (CIGMAT CT-2) 17
3.5 Testing Events 19
SECTION 4 20
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20
4.1 Test Results 20
4.1.1 Coating Specimens 20
4.1.2 Coated Materials 20
4.1.2.1 Holiday Test- Chemical Resistance 21
4.1.2.2 Bonding Strength 23
4.2 Summary of Observations 28
SECTIONS 30
QA/QC RESULTS AND SUMMARY 30
5.1 Specimen Preparation 30
-------
5.1.1 Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity 30
5.1.1.1 Concrete 30
5.1.1.2 Clay Brick 31
5.1.2 Water Absorption 31
5.1.2.1 Concrete 31
5.1.2.2 Clay Bricks 31
5.1.3 Compressive andFlexural Strength 32
5.1.3.1 Concrete 32
5.1.3.2 Clay Brick 32
5.2 Quality Control Indicators 32
5.2.1 Representativeness 32
5.2.2 Completeness 32
5.2.2.1 Specimen Preparation 32
5.2.2.2 Coating Testing 33
5.2.3 Precision 34
5.3 Audit Reports 35
SECTION 6 36
REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX: A. Behavior of Concrete and Clay Brick A.I
APPENDIX: B. Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance B.I
APPENDIX: C. Bonding Test C.I
APPENDIX: D. Vendor Data Sheet D.I
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 2-1. Specimen of pure Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 12
Figure 3-1. Test configuration for the holiday test 16
Figure 3-2. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test 17
Figure 3-3. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement 18
Figure 4-1. Concrete cylinder holiday specimen exposed to 1% H2SO4 solution 21
Figure 4-2. Clay brick holiday specimen exposed to 1%H2SO4 solution 21
Figure 4-3. Concrete bonding strength-pull-off test 25
Figure 4-4. Clay brick bonding strength - pull-off test 25
Figure 4-5. Concrete bonding strength - sandwich test 26
Figure 4-6. Clay brick bonding strength- sandwich test 26
Figure 4-7. Type-3 and Type-1 failure during CIGMAT CT-2 test with (a) wet and (b) dry
concrete, respectively 27
Figure 4-8. Type-1 (a) and Type-5 (b) failures during CIGMAT CT-3 test - (a) dry-coated
concrete and (b) wet-coated concrete 27
Figure 4-9. Bonding failure (Type-1 failure) during CIGMAT CT-3 test - (a) dry-coated clay
brick and (b) wet-coated clay brick 28
TABLES
Table Page
Table 3-1. Mix Proportions for Concrete Specimens 13
Table 3-2. Test Names / Methods 14
Table 3-3. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test 14
Table 3-4. Ratings for Chemical Resistance Test Observations 16
Table 3-5. Failure Types in Pull-Off and Sandwich Tests 18
Table 3-6. Test Frequency 19
Table 4-1. Properties of Coating Samples (Protective Liner Systems PLS-614) 20
Table 4-2. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations (Protective Liner Systems PLS-614)
22
Table 4-3. Average Specimen Weight Gain (%) After 180 Days of Immersion 23
Table 4-4. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests 24
Table 5-1. Typical Properties for Concrete and Clay Brick Specimens 30
Table 5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test 33
Table 5-3. Total Number of Tests for Each Substrate Material 34
Table 5-4. Standard Deviation for 30-Day Pull-Off Test 34
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASTM
CIGMAT
DI
EPA
ETV
ft/sec or fps
ft2
gal
holiday
hr
in.
kg
L
Ibs
NRMRL
m3
mg/L
mL
mm
MPa
NSF
pcf
psi
QA
QC
Room conditions
TO
VO
VTP
WQPC
American Society for Testing and Materials
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, University of
Houston
Celsius degrees
Fahrenheit degrees
Deionized (water)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Feet per second
Square foot (feet)
Gallons
A gap or void in the coating
Hour(s)
Inch(es)
Kilogram(s)
Liter
Pounds
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cubic meters
Milligram(s) per liter
Milliliter(s)
Millimeter(s)
MegaPascal(s)
NSF International
Pounds per cubic foot
Pounds per square inch
Quality assurance
Quality control
23°C ±2°C and relative humidity of 50% ±5%
Testing Organization
Verification Organization (NSF)
Verification Test Plan
Water Quality Protection Center
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. EPA created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate
the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance
verification and dissemination of information. The ETV Program's goal is to further
environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of innovative,
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing
high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations (TOs);
stakeholders groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and
regulators; and the full participation of individual technology developers. The program
evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are
responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate),
collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known
and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
In cooperation with EPA, NSF operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six
centers under ETV. The WQPC developed verification testing protocols and generic test plans
that serve as templates for conducting verification tests for various technologies. Verification of
the Protective Liner Systems, Inc. Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 was completed following the Generic
Test Plan for Verification of Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems, 2008. The Generic
Plan was used to develop a product-specific test plan for the PLS-614 coating.
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of Protective Liner Systems coating was a cooperative effort between the
following participants:
NSF
US EPA
University of Houston - CIGMAT
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
1.2.1 Verification Organization (NSF)
Coordinate with CIGMAT, the TO, and the vendor to prepare and approve a product-specific
test plan using this generic test plan as a template and meeting all testing requirements
included herein;
-------
Coordinate with the ETV Coatings Technical Panel, as needed, to review the product-
specific test plan prior to the initiation of verification testing;
Coordinate with the EPA WQPC Project Officer to approve the product-specific verification
test plan (VTP) prior to the initiation of verification testing;
Review the quality systems of the testing organization and subsequently, qualify the TO;
Oversee the coatings evaluations and associated laboratory testing;
Review data generated during verification testing;
Oversee the development of a verification report and verification statement;
Print and distribute the verification report and verification statement; and
Provide quality assurance oversight at all stages of the verification process.
Primary contact: Mr. Thomas Stevens
NSF International
789 North Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-769-5347
Email: stevenst@nsf.org
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
This verification report has been developed with financial and quality assurance assistance from
the ETV Program, which is overseen by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The ETV Program's Quality Assurance Manager and the WQPC Project Officer provided
administrative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC
activities. The primary responsibilities of EPA personnel were to:
Review and approve VTPs, including the quality assurance project plans (QAPPs);
Sign the VTP signoff sheet;
Review and approve the verification report and verification statement; and
Post the verification report and verification statement on the EPA ETV website.
Primary contact: Mr. Ray Frederick
Project Officer, Water Quality Protection Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRMRL
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837
Phone: 732-321-6627
Email: frederick.ray@epamail.epa.gov
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMAT Laboratories at UH)
The TO for this verification was CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston. The
primary responsibilities of the TO were:
Coordinate with the VO and vendor relative to preparing and finalizing the product-specific
VTP;
-------
Sign the VTP signoff sheet;
Conduct the technology verification in accordance with the VTP, with oversight by the VO;
Analyze all samples collected during the technology verification process, in accordance with
the procedures outlined in the VTP and referenced SOPs;
Coordinate with and report to the VO during the technology verification process;
Provide analytical results of the technology verification to the VO; and
If necessary, document changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notify the VO of any
and all such changes before changes are executed.
CIGMAT supports faculty, research fellows, research assistants and technicians. The CIGMAT
personnel worked in groups to complete the tests described in this report. All personnel report to
the Group Leader and the CIGMAT Director. The CIGMAT Director is responsible for
appointing Group Leaders, who, with his approval, are responsible for drawing up the schedule
for testing. Additionally, a Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer, who is independent of the testing
program, was responsible for internal audits.
Primary contact: Dr. C. Vipulanandan
University of Houston, CIGMAT
4800 Calhoun
Houston, Texas 77004
Phone: 713-743-4278
Email: cvipulanandan@uh.edu
1.2.4 Vendor (Protective Liner Systems, Inc.)
Complete a product data sheet prior to testing (refer to Appendix D);
Provide the TO with coating samples for verification (this includes applying the coating
materials to test specimens at the CIGMAT facilities);
Sign the VTP signoff sheet;
Provide start-up services and technical support as required during the period prior to the
evaluation;
Provide technical assistance to the TO during verification testing period as requested; and
Provide funding for verification testing.
Primary contact: Mr. Joseph Trevino
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
6691 Tribble Street
Lithonia, Georgia 30058
Phone: 770-482-5201
Email: www.protectivelinersystems.com
1.2.5 Technology Panel
A technology panel was formed to assist with the review of the generic coatings test plan. Input
from the panel ensured that data generated during verification testing were relevant and that the
method of evaluating different technologies was fair and consistent. The product-specific VTP
-------
was reviewed by representatives of the technology panel and approved by the WQPC Program
Manager, the WQPC Project Officer, and the vendor.
1.3 Background and Technical Approach
University of Houston (UH)/CIGMAT researchers have been investigating the performance of
various coatings for use in the City of Houston's wastewater facilities. Performance of each
coating has been studied with wet (representing rehabilitation of existing wastewater collection
systems) and dry (representing new construction) concrete and clay bricks. The studies have
focused on:
Applicability and performance of the coating under hydrostatic pressure (with an evaluation
period between six to nine months);
Chemical exposure with and without holidays (a gap or void in the coating) in the coating
(initial evaluation period of six months); and
Bonding strength (initial evaluation period of twelve months).
Chemical tests and bonding tests on over twenty coating materials are being continued at UH.
The long-term data collected on each coating will help engineers and owners to better understand
the durability of coated materials in wastewater environments. The overall objective of this
testing program is to systematically evaluate coating materials used in wastewater systems to
control the deterioration of cementitious materials.
Testing used relevant ASTM and CIGMAT standards. Specimens made from the coating
material, in addition to uncoated concrete and clay specimens, first undergo characterization
testing to determine their suitability for use during acid resistance and bonding strength tests.
The coating manufacturer then coats the concrete and clay specimens, under the guidance of
CIGMAT staff members. The coated specimens are then evaluated over the course of six
months.
1.4 Objectives
The objective of this ETV study was to evaluate the Protective Liner Systems International Inc.
Protective Liner Systems Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (PLS-614) (dry and wet) for use in sewer
rehabilitation projects. Specific objectives are to:
Evaluate the acid resistance of the coated concrete and clay bricks with and without holidays;
and
Determine the bonding strength of the coating materials to concrete and clay bricks over a
period of time.
A coating-specific VTP was prepared for the Protective Liner Systems coating material. The
VTP included specific testing procedures and a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) describing
the quality systems to be used during the evaluation.
10
-------
1.5 Test Facility
The testing was performed in the CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston, Houston,
Texas. The CIGMAT Laboratories and affiliated facilities are equipped with devices that can
perform all of the coatings tests. Molds are available to prepare the specimens for testing, and
all acid resistance and bonding strength test procedures are documented in standard operating
procedures.
11
-------
SECTION 2
COATING DESCRIPTION
The coating material evaluated in this verification was the Protective Liner Systems International
Inc. Protective Liner Systems Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (PLS-614). The Vendor Data Sheet
characterizing the coating material is included in Appendix D. The coating is described on the
Protective Liner Systems International Inc. web site (http://www.protectivelinersystems.com ) as
a concrete polymer paste used for structural concrete protection, rehabilitation and repair.
Protective Liner Systems' PLS-614 is a 100% solid epoxy, designed to be applied by trowel.
The PLS-614 system is formulated to provide a coating, or patch for rehabilitation of concrete
and protection against corrosion.
The application instructions for the PLS-614 were:
Apply a maximum of 100 to 150 mils of the coating to protect concrete and clay
bricks. No primer is used. The curing time for the coating is 6 hours. The
coating is applied using a trowel.
The key to successful coating is preparation of the surface to be coated. Per Protector Liner
System's web site, preparation for application of their coating requires:
Use high-pressure water washing to prepare the surface.
The coating is gray in color, as shown in Figure 2-1 for a pure coating sample. Photos of the
applied coating at the time of bonding tests are provided in Section 4.
Figure 2-1. Specimen of pure Protective Liner Systems PLS-614.
12
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES
The Verification Test Plan (VTP) includes a detailed description of the testing completed for the
Protective Liner Systems PLS-614. The testing involved characterization of the coating
material, as well as holiday tests and bonding strength tests on the coated/lined specimens. The
following is a summary of the methods and test procedures used in this verification.
3.1 Preparation of Test Specimens
Testing was completed using both concrete and clay brick specimens prepared in the CIGMAT
Laboratory by CIGMAT personnel prior to application of the coating. Concrete specimens were
created by CIGMAT staff, while standard sewer clay bricks were obtained from a local brick
supplier and the specimens prepared to the proper specifications by CIGMAT staff.
3.1.1 Preparation of the Concrete Specimens
Cylindrical and prism specimens were used during testing. Mix proportions for the concrete are
summarized in Table 3-1. The cylindrical specimens were cast in 3-in. (diameter) x 6-in. (length)
plastic molds, while wooden molds were used to cast the approximately 2.25-in. x 3.75-in. x 8-
in. prism specimens.
Table 3-1. Mix Proportions for Concrete Specimens
Materials Amount Specification
Cement 6 bags ASTM C150 Type 1 (purchased in 94 Ib bags)
Sand 1400 -1500 Ibs ASTM C33
Coarse Aggregate 1600-1700 Ibs ASTMC33
(ranging in size from No. 4 to 1.5 in. sieve)
Water 3 20 - 3 3 0 Ib s Tap water
Proper proportions of cement, sand, coarse aggregate and water were mixed in a concrete mixer
until uniform in appearance, and the molds were filled with the mixture and mechanically
vibrated to the appropriate consistency. The specimens were cured for at least 28 days at room
conditions (23°C ± 2°C and relative humidity of 50% ± 5%).
3.1.2 Preparation of Clay Brick Specimens
Standard sewer clay bricks used for the chemical exposure testing (holiday test) were cut
approximately in half using a diamond-tipped saw blade at the CIGMAT Laboratory, resulting in
approximately 1.5-in. x 3.75-in. x 6-in. prism specimens. The prepared specimens were stored
at room conditions until use. Bonding tests were completed using whole clay bricks.
13
-------
3.1.3 Coating Specimens
Specimens made of the Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 only were also prepared in 1.5-in.
(diameter) x 3-in. (length) plastic molds. As indicated in Section 3.2, these specimens were
analyzed and are reported to provide basic data that will be available to verify that the coating
used in any future application is the same as applied for this verification testing.
3.2 Evaluation of Specimens
The concrete cylinders and prisms, clay brick prisms, and raw coating material cylinders were
evaluated to determine their properties under the described test conditions. The specimens were
characterized using the tests shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Test Names / Methods
Test Name Test Method
Pulse Velocity ASTM C 597
Holiday Test (Chemical Resistance) ASTM G20 / CIGMAT CT-1-99
Bonding Strength ASTM C 32II CIGMAT CT-3 (Sandwich Method)
ASTM D 4541/CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-Off Strength)
The pulse velocity and unit weight of all the specimens were determined for quality control
purposes. Additional specimens were used to determine the compressive (3 specimens) and
flexural strength (3 specimens) of concrete and flexural strength of clay bricks (3 specimens)
(Table 3-3). Note that the strength tests were done for completeness and not for quality control.
Table 3-3. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test
Material
Coating
Concrete Cylinders
Concrete Prisms
Clay Prisms
Unit
weight
6
20
36
56
Number of Specimens Used in Test
Pulse Water 3
, ., i , ..2 Flexure
velocity absorption
6
20
36
56
6
10
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
O
3
Compression 3
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
1 Unit weight measurement taken on specimens prior to this test.
2 Specimens used after the Pulse Velocity test.
3 Flexure and compression tests are performed for informational purposes only.
14
-------
3.3 Coating Application
The concrete and clay specimens were coated by a representative of Protective Liner Systems
Inc. in the CIGMAT Laboratory at the University of Houston, in the presence of CIGMAT staff.
Wet specimens were immersed in water for at least seven days before coating the specimens. All
test specimens for the laboratory tests were prepared at the University of Houston Test Site.
Prior to applying the coating, the surfaces of the specimens were sand blasted. The coating was
applied directly to the specimen surfaces by trowel, with no primer prior to application.
Protective Liner recommends, in actual use, an application of 125 mil thickness. Per Protective
Liner Systems, the finished coating thickness was approximately 100 to 150 mils thick. This
thickness was not verified by the TO, as the thickness of the applied coating does not impact the
testing. The application temperature was 72° F and humidity was typical of room conditions.
Protective Liner indicates a cure time of approximately four hours (at 70° F).
3.4 Evaluation of Coated Specimens
3.4.1 Holiday Test (CIGMAT CT-1)
The holiday test (CIGMAT CT-1, a modification of ASTM G20-88 used with concrete and clay
brick materials) is a relatively rapid test to evaluate the acid resistance of coated concrete and
clay brick specimens under anticipated service conditions. The test provides information about
changes occurring to the specimens under two reagent conditions: (1) deionized (DI) water (pH
= 5 to 6) and (2) 1% sulfuric acid solution (a pH of 1), which represents a long-term, worst-case
condition in a wastewater collection system, arising from formation of hydrogen sulfide.
Changes in the specimens were monitored at regular intervals, including (1) diameter/dimension
at the holiday level, (2) weight of the specimen, and (3) physical appearance of specimen.
Control tests were also performed using specimens with no holidays.
Both wet and dry specimens were coated on all sides. As shown in Figure 3-1, two radial
holidays of different diameters were drilled along the same axis into each specimen to a depth of
approximately 1/2 in. The holiday diameters used during this test were 1/8 in. and 1/2 in.
Specimens were cured for approximately 15 days prior to drilling the holes. This provided time
to be sure the coating had sufficiently cured prior to the creation of the holidays so the physical
action of the drill bits would not impact the integrity of the bond between the coating and the
substrate at the location of the holiday. Half the specimen was submerged in the test liquid and
half remained in the vapor space above the liquid. The specimens were stored at room
temperature (72°F). The typical cure time for the coating is six hours.
15
-------
Plastic Lid (Air Tight)
1
Vapor Space
Liquid Level
---.
Coated Concrete
or Clav Brick
ft
<
fc.
- .
C (or Dj
^1
1
,
l^(~^, '
L
B
r
k
B
|
J
1
1
A
r
-^ »-
ui
A 152 mm (6.0 in.) height concrete specimen or clay brick
B 38 JTiin (1.5 m.) holiday location
C 76 "UTI (3 ill.) diameter concrete cylinder
D 152 x 64 x 45 mm cross ^ectioii of clav buck
Figure 3-1. Test configuration for the holiday test.
The specimens were inspected after one and six months to determine if there were blisters,
cracking of the coating, and/or erosion of the coating arising from the exposure. At the time of
the inspections, the coated specimens were given ratings shown in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Ratings for Chemical Resistance Test Observations
Rating
No significant change
Blister
Cracking
Rating
Notation
N
B
C
Observation
No visible blister; no cracking.
Visible blister up to one inch in diameter; no cracking.
Blister with diameter greater than one
cracking of coating at the holiday.
inch and/or
Further information regarding the chemical resistance testing, including a description of the
coating failure mechanisms may be found at the following web site:
http://cigmat.cive.uh.edu/content/conf exhib/99 poster/2.htm
16
-------
3.4.2 Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method)
These tests are performed to determine the bonding strength between concrete/clay brick
specimens and the coating material over a period of six months. Eight sandwich and twelve pull-
off tests, for both dry and wet conditions, were performed on both coated concrete samples and
coated clay bricks.
3.4.2.1 Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT-3)
For this test (CIGMAT CT-3, a modification of ASTM C321-94), the coating was applied to
form a sandwich between a like pair of rectangular specimens (Figure 3-2 (a)), both concrete
prisms and clay brick, and then tested for bonding strength and failure type following a curing
period. The bonding strength of the coating was determined using a load frame (Figure 3-3 (b))
to determine the axial failure load, which is divided by the bonded area to determine the bonding
strength.
Concrete Brick
Loading Direction
Loading
Direction
Brick
Loading
Diiecto
(a) Test specimen configuration
(b) Load frame test setup
Figure 3-2. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.
Both dry and wet specimens were used to represent extreme coating conditions. Dry specimens
were dried at room conditions for at least seven days before they were coated, while wet
specimens were immersed in water for at least seven days before the specimens were coated.
Bonded specimens were cured under water up to the point of testing. At the same time as the
load testing, the type of failure was also characterized, as described in Table 3-5.
3.4.2.2 Pull-Off Method (CIGMAT CT-2)
For this test (CIGMAT CT-2), a 2-in. diameter circle was cut into coated concrete prisms and
clay bricks to a predetermined depth to isolate the coating, and a metal fixture was glued to the
isolated coating section using a rapid setting epoxy. Testing was completed on a load frame with
the arrangements shown in Figure 3-3, with observation of the type of failure, as indicated in
Table 3-5. The specimens were prepared in the same manner as for the sandwich test. The
17
-------
specimens were stored under water in plastic containers and the coatings were cored 24 hrs prior
to the test.
Loading Direction
Metal Fixture
c ting
*
Substrate
(a) Specimen preparation (b) Load frame arrangement
Figure 3-3. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement.
Table 3-5. Failure Types in Pull-Off and Sandwich Tests
Failure n CIGMAT CT 2 Test CIGMAT CT 3
Type Description (Modified ASTM D4541) (ASTM C321 Test)
Tvpe-1
Tvne-2
Tvpe-3
Tvoe-4
A j V^1 ^
Type-5
Substrate
Failure
Cofltinp Ffliliirp
Bonding Failure
Rnndinp and
Substrate
Bonding and
Coating Failure
metal ^J~~|
fixture"** Coating
^r^
\ LJ^J i
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^J""!
fixture~n Coating
L^*-"^
1 LJ LJ |
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal __fcl~~|
fixture"*" Coating
J^J^t
| |
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^ |~~j
fixture H Coating
14^^
1 ^ I
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^J~~|
fixture n Coating
LJ-*^
1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 \\ 1
^ 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
i ~
' \ \
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
' 1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
1 ^ ^
Coating 1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
* . -=»-,
Coating 1 1
18
-------
Type-1 failure is substrate failure. This is the most desirable result if the bonding strength is
quite high (in the range 8% to 12% of the concrete substrate compressive strength). In Type-2
failure, the coating has failed. Type-3 failure is bonding failure where failure occurred between
the coating and substrate. Type-4 and Type-5 are combined failures. Type-4 failure is the
bonding and substrate failure where the failure occurs in the substrate and on the interface of the
coating and the substrate. This indicates that the adhesive strength is comparable with the tensile
strength of substrate. Type-5 failure is coating and bonding failure where the failure occurs due
to low cohesive and adhesive strength of the coating.
3.5 Testing Events
The frequency of testing events is summarized in Table 3-6. The timing of the coated sample
testing was spaced so data would be obtained during an initial period (within the first 30 days),
an intermediate period (three months) and long period (six months). It is not critical that the
testing be completed at exactly 30 days, 90 days or 180 days, as the measurements provide an
indication of any change in coating bonding over the six month period.
Table 3-6. Test Frequency
Approximate Holiday Test* Bonding Strength Test
Exposure Times DI Water 1% H2SO4 Sandwich Pull-Off
30 days
90 days
180 days
20
20
20
20
8
4
4
16
8
8
* The same specimens are monitored for 6 months.
19
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The testing was designed to evaluate the ability of the Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 coating
(coating) to adhere to a substrate under varying conditions. Dry coating condition simulates a
new concrete surface while wet condition simulates a rehabilitation condition. Adhesion was
evaluated by three methods - introducing holidays in coated specimens to determine if exposure
of the substrate to corrosive conditions impacts the bond of the coating to the substrate,
determining the bond strength of the coating between two substrates and determining the bond
strength of the coating to a single substrate.
4.1 Test Results
4.1.1 Coating Specimens
Six pure specimens of the coating were evaluated for unit weight, pulse velocity and water
absorption to provide basic data that will be available to verify that the coating used in any future
application is the same as applied for this verification testing. The specimens were immersed in
water for 10 days and showed no weight gain over the time frame. The unit weight varied from
87 pcf to 91 pcf, with an average of 89 pcf and a coefficient of variation of 1.8%. The pulse
velocity varied from about 8020 fps to about 8230 fps, averaging about 8130 fps with a standard
deviation of 72 and a coefficient of variation of 0.9%. All data is provided in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Properties of Coating Samples (Protective Liner Systems PLS-614)
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (COV)
Unit Weight
(pcf)
90.2
86.8
90.9
87.5
88.7
88.3
88.7
1.57
1.8%
Pulse Velocity
(fps)
8104
8229
8171
8149
8016
8131
8134
71.3
0.9%
4.1.2 Coated Materials
As stated in previous sections, the evaluation of the coating was accomplished in two phases
chemical resistance and bonding strength.
20
-------
4.1.2.1 Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance
In order to evaluate the performance of PLS-614, coated concrete cylinders and clay bricks were
tested with and without holidays in DI water and a 1% sulfuric acid solution (pH=l).
Performance of PLS-614 was evaluated over a period of six months, from February 2009 to
August 2009, with monthly observations and measurements. A total of 20 coated concrete
specimens and 20 coated clay brick specimens were exposed.
Specimen observations were made for physical changes in the coating and at the holidays, as
well as specimen weight changes. The results of the physical observations are summarized in
Table 4-2, with photographs of typical specimens shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Detailed
observations for all of the specimens are included in Appendix B.
Figure 4-1. Concrete cylinder holiday specimen exposed to 1%
solution.
Figure 4-2. Clay brick holiday specimen exposed to 1%
solution.
21
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations (Protective Liner Systems PLS-614)
Specimen Material
(Coating Condition)
PI Water 1% HiSOj Solution
Without Holidays With Holidays Without Holidays With Holidays
30 days 180 days 30 days 180 days 30 days 180 days 30 days 180 days
Comments
Concrete (Dry)
Concrete (Wet)
Clay Brick (Dry)
Clay Brick (Wet)
N(2) N(2) N(2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4)
N(2) N(2) N(2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4)
N(2) N(2) N(2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4)
N(2) N(2) N(2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (4) N (4)
Coating color change
noted in portion
submerged in acid
solution.
Coating color change
noted in portion
submerged in acid
solution.
Coating color change
noted in portion
submerged in acid
solution.
Coating color change
noted in portion
submerged in acid
solution.
N = No blister or crack.
(n) = Number of observed specimens.
22
-------
As noted in the observations in Appendix B, there was discoloration of the coating noted in the
portion of the specimens submerged in the acid solution, with less discoloration in the portion of
the specimens exposed to acid vapor. There was no discoloration noted for the water exposed
specimens. Likewise, there were no observed changes in the dimensions of any of the specimens
at the holiday level. Weight changes were also monitored for the specimens, as summarized in
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3. Average Specimen Weight Gain (%) After 180 Days of Immersion
Specimen
Type
Concrete
Clay Brick
Holiday
None
Vs in.
l/2 in.
None
Ys in.
Vi in.
Dry Coated
DI Water
0.19
0.36
-
0.58
6.6
-
( % weight gain)
H2SO4
0.52
0.95
1.2
6.6
6.7
6.6
Wet Coated
DI Water
0.11
0.46
-
0.66
5.0
-
(% weight gain)
H2SO4
0.40
0.65
0.48
2.2
6.4
5.1
4.1.2.2 Bonding Strength
Bonding strengths of the Protective Liner Systems CCP coating (dry and wet) with wet concrete
and clay brick were determined according to CIGMAT CT-2 and CIGMAT CT-3 testing
methods. All the coated specimens were cured under water. Both dry and wet concrete and clay
brick specimens were coated to simulate the various field conditions. Performance of Coating
PLS-614 was evaluated starting with application of the coating on March 9, 2009. The first
bonding tests were completed approximately three weeks after application, around March 28,
2009. The other tests completed around June 28, 2009 (3 month samples) and September 28,
2009 (6 month samples). A total of 24 bonding tests with concrete specimens and 24 with clay
brick specimens were completed.
Two of the failure modes (Type-1 and Type-4) involve substrate failure, whether entirely or in
association with a bonding failure, while the other three failure modes are associated with either
bonding or coating failures, whether singly or in combination. The actual coating bonding
strength for failures involving substrate would be greater than indicated by the bonding strengths
reported for Type-1 failures, as the bond of the coating exceeded the strength of the substrate
(concrete or clay brick). Type-4 failures, which also involve substrate failure, are not as easily
defined, as failure of the substrate could cause the coating to lose bond, or the loss of coating
bond could result in a substrate failure.
The results for all bonding strength tests, both concrete and clay brick, are summarized in Table
4-4. Further detail of bonding strengths for concrete specimens, wet and dry, are presented in
23
-------
Figures 4-3 and 4-4, respectively. Bonding strength details for dry and wet clay bricks are
presented in Figures 4-5 and 4-6, respectively. Photographs of typical failures are shown in
Figures 4-7 through 4-9. Detailed descriptions of the results are summarized in Appendix C.
Table 4-4. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests
Substrate -
Application
Condition
Concrete - Dry
Concrete - Wet
Clay Brick - Dry
Clay Brick -
Wet
Test1
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Failure Type 2
1 2
4
1
3
5
4
3
4
3
,T , er ., Failure Strength
-Number of Failures , .,
(psi)
345 Range Average
7
1
3
5
5
232-
107-
257-
190-
314-
187-
338-
181-
293
304
321
350
350
321
384
374
269
205
287
234
335
253
366
264
Sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) or Pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2).
See Table 3-5.
24
-------
1234
5678
D Dry Concrete
Wet Concrete
1 Sample numbers 1 through 4 are 30-day breaks
Sample numbers 5 and 6 are 90-day breaks
Samples 7 and 8 are 180-day breaks
2 Bold number above each column indicates Failure Type
Figure 4-3. Concrete bonding strength - pull-off test.
400
350
a 300
50
4
1
4
D Dry Clay Brick
Wet Clay Brick
345
Sample Number
6
1,2
Sample numbers 1 through 4 are 30-day breaks
Sample numbers 5 and 6 are 90-day breaks
Sample numbers 7 and 8 are 180-day breaks
Bold number above each column indicates Failure Type
Figure 4-4. Clay brick bonding strength - pull-off test.
25
-------
JJ\J
inn
'1
J3 "
B> inn
a 200
^J 150
S 100
fa
50
~
i
1
1
1 1
4
1
1234
Sample Number *'2
D Dry Concrete
Wet Concrete
1 Sample numbers 1 and 2 are 30-day breaks
Sample number 3 is the 90-day break
Sample number 4 is the 180-day break
2 Bold number above each column indicates Failure Type
Figure 4-5. Concrete bonding strength - sandwich test.
D Dry Clay Brick
Wet Clay Brick
Sample Number
3
1,2
Sample numbers 1 and 2 are 30-day breaks
Sample number 3 is the 90-day break
Sample number 4 is the 180-day break
2 Bold number above each column indicates Failure Type
Figure 4-6. Clay brick bonding strength - sandwich test.
26
-------
(a) Wet concrete
(b) Dry concrete
Figure 4-7. Type-3 and Type-1 failure during CIGMAT CT-2 test with (a) wet and (b) dry
concrete, respectively.
(a) Dry PLS-614 coated concrete
(b) Wet PLS-614 coated concrete
Figure 4-8. Type-1 (a) and Type-5 (b) failures during CIGMAT CT-3 test - (a) dry-coated
concrete and (b) wet-coated concrete.
27
-------
(a) Dry PLS-614 coated clay brick (b) Wet PLS-614 coated clay brick
Figure 4-9. Bonding failure (Type-1 failure) during CIGMAT CT-3 test - (a) dry-coated
clay brick and (b) wet-coated clay brick.
4.2 Summary of Observations
A combination of laboratory tests was used to evaluate the performance, over a six-month
period, of Protective Liner Systems, Inc. Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (dry and wet) for coating
concrete and clay bricks. The following observations are based on the testing results:
General Observations
Samples of the coating product showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a 10-day
period.
None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with or without holidays, showed any
indication of blisters or cracking during the six-month holiday-chemical resistance tests.
There were no observed changes in the dimensions of the coated concrete or clay brick
specimens at the holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
All 48 of the bonding tests resulted in substrate and substrate/bonding failures, with 27
substrate failures (Type-1) and 21 bonding/substrate failures (Type-4).
Concrete Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.60% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
Weight gain was <1.0% for any of the coated specimens with holidays for both water and
acid exposures.
Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (7 of 12) bonding and concrete substrate (Type -4)
failures, with the remainder being concrete substrate (Type-1) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated concrete specimens was 226 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 107 to 304 psi.
28
-------
Wet-coated concrete failures were mostly (8 of 12) concrete substrate (Type-1) failures, with
the remainder being bonding and concrete substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for wet-coated concrete specimens was 252 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 190 to 350 psi.
Clay Brick Substrate
Without holidays, weight gain was < 0.45% for water exposed coated clay brick specimens;
weight gain for acid exposed coated clay brick specimens was about 2.2-6.6%.
With holidays, weight gains were > 5% for water exposed specimens and generally > 6% for
acid exposed specimens; the holiday size did not make a significant difference in weight
gain.
Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type -1) failures,
with the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated clay brick specimens was 280 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 187 to 350 psi.
Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1)
failures, with the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength with wet-coated clay brick was 286 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 181 to 384 psi.
29
-------
SECTION 5
QA/QC RESULTS AND SUMMARY
The VTP included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that identified critical
measurements for this verification. The verification test procedures and data collection followed
the QAPP to ensure quality and integrity. The Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and
Technology (CIGMAT) was primarily responsible for implementing the requirements of the
QAPP during testing, with oversight from NSF.
The QAPP identified requirements for preparation of the concrete and clay brick specimens that
would be coated and used during the verification, along with requirements for quality control
indicators (representativeness, completeness and precision) and auditing.
5.1 Specimen Preparation
For each batch of concrete made at CIGMAT and clay bricks purchased to perform the
laboratory tests, specimens were tested to be sure their properties were within allowable ranges.
The tests included unit weight, pulse velocity and water absorption of the specimens. Flexural
and compressive strengths were also measured, where appropriate, to characterize the specimens.
The target values for the specimens were maximum or minimum value of the batch within +20%
of the mean value of the batch. The property ranges for the different materials are summarized
in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Typical Properties for Concrete and Clay Brick Specimens
TT .,__. . . , _ . _7 . ., Strength (psi)
,, , . . Unit Weight Pulse Velocity ^ . VF '
Material ,npft (fn^ Compressiv
(pcf)
(fps)
Water
Absorption (%)
Concrete
Clay Brick
117-172
132-153
12,700-15,800
8,500-10,250
4000-5000
NA
900-1300
700-1200
0.5-2
18-30
5.1.1 Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity
5.1.1.1 Concrete
The pulse velocity and unit weight were determined for 20 concrete cylinders and 36 concrete
prisms. The unit weight of the concrete cylinder specimens varied between 127 pcf (2034
kg/m3) and 150 pcf (2403 kg/m3), with a mean value of 144 pcf (2307 kg/m3). The allowable
range (+20% of the mean value of the batch) is 102 pcf to 180 pcf. The concrete cylinder
specimens fell within this range. Pulse velocities ranged from 12,700 fps to 15,800 fps, with a
mean of 13,600 fps, within the allowable range of 20% of the mean value of the batch.
30
-------
For the concrete block specimens, the unit weight varied between 117 pcf (1874 kg/m3) and 172
pcf (2755 kg/m3), with a mean value of 141 pcf (2259 kg/m3). The allowable range (+20% of
the mean value of the batch) is 94 pcf to 206 pcf. The concrete block specimens fell within this
range. Pulse velocities ranged from 13,100 fps to 15,200 fps, with a mean of 13,700 fps, within
the allowable range of 20% of the mean value of the batch.
There was no direct correlation between the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete (Figure
Al(a)). The variation of pulse velocity was normally distributed (Figure Al(b)).
5.1.1.2 Clay Brick
The unit weight and pulse velocity were determined on 56 clay brick specimens. The unit
weight of clay brick specimens varied between 132 pcf (2114 kg/m3) and 153 pcf (2451 kg/m3),
with a mean value of 138 pcf (2211 kg/m3) . The specimens all fell within the +20% of the mean
value of the batch.
The pulse velocity varied from 8,500 fps to 10,250 fps. There was no direct correlation between
the pulse velocity and unit weight of clay bricks (Figure A2(a). The variation of pulse velocity
was normally distributed (Figure A2(b)).
5.1.2 Water Absorption
5.1.2.1 Concrete
The chemical resistance (DI water and an H2SO4 solution) of the concrete specimens was
determined using one dry and one wet cylinder. The cylinders were partially submerged (50%)
in the liquid solutions and each was weighed after 10, 30 and 60 days. The dry concrete cylinder
partially submerged (50%) in water showed continuous increase in weight up to 0.4% in 60 days,
while the wet concrete in water showed a 0.1% increase in weight in 60 days. Initially (30 days),
the specimens showed a slight weight gain in the H^SC^ solution, but over 60 days a weight loss,
with visible corrosion, was observed in both the dry and wet concrete specimens. The overall
weight loss was about 0.5%. Results are summarized in Appendix A, Tables Al and A2 for
concrete cylinders dry and wet, respectively.
5.1.2.2 Clay Bricks
Dry bricks in both water and acid solutions showed similar weight gain of 13% and 15%,
respectively, over the 60 days of exposure. Wet bricks showed much smaller weight gain
compared with the dry bricks, with 0.4% and 0.5% gains for the water and acid exposures,
respectively. Weight increase was not observed with further soaking. Results are summarized in
Appendix A, Tables A3 and A4 for dry and wet clay brick, respectively.
31
-------
5.1.3 Compressive and Flexural Strength
While not required by the VTP, compressive and flexural strengths were determined for the
concrete and clay brick specimens, as appropriate. This information provides further assurance
that the specimens are acceptable for this verification.
5.1.3.1 Concrete
Two specimens each of dry and wet concrete cylinders were tested for compressive strength, and
two wet and two dry concrete block specimens were tested for flexural strength. All specimens
were cured for 28 days. The average compressive strength was about 5900 psi (41 MPa) for the
wet concrete and about 4100 psi (28 MPa) for the dry cured concrete. The average flexural
strength for the wet concrete was about 1200 psi (8.3 MPa) and about 1100 psi (7.6 MPa) for the
dry concrete. Compressive and flexural strengths of dry and wet concrete are summarized in
Table A5 in Appendix A.
5.1.3.2 Clay Brick
The average flexural strength was about 1100 psi (7.6 MPa) and about 930 psi (6.4 MPa) for wet
dry and wet clay bricks, respectively. The flexural strength is important for bonding test
CIGMAT CT-3 (Modified ASTM C321-94). The flexural strengths of the dry and wet clay
bricks are summarized in Appendix A, Table A5.
5.2 Quality Control Indicators
5.2.1 Representativeness
Representativeness of the samples during this evaluation was addressed by CIGMAT personnel
following consistent procedures in preparing specimens, having the vendor apply coatings to the
specimens, and following CIGMAT SOPs in curing and testing of the coated specimens.
5.2.2 Completeness
The numbers of substrate and coating specimens to be evaluated during preparation of the test
specimens, as well as the number of coated specimens to be tested during the verification, were
described in the VTP. The numbers that were completed during the verification testing are
described in this section.
5.2.2.1 Specimen Preparation
The number (per the VTP) of each specimen to be used for characterization of the substrates is
listed in Table 5-2. As there were multiple coatings being evaluated at the same time, CIGMAT
prepared a batch of specimens to be coated in the tests. The number of specimens characterized
during preparation of the batch of specimens is indicated in parentheses for each material and
test listed in Table 5-2.
32
-------
Table 5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test
Number of Specimens
Material
Coating
Concrete Cylinders
Concrete Prisms
Clay Prisms (Brick)
Unit
weight
6(6)
20 (102)
36(189)
56(159)
Pulse
velocity
6(6)
20(18)
36 (37)
56(18)
Water
absorption
6(6)
10(10)
None
10(10)
Used in Test
Flexure*
None
None
3
3
Compression
*
None
3
None
None
* Flexure and compression tests were performed for informational purposes only.
The number of specimens tested meet, or exceed the VTP requirement except for the pulse
velocity for concrete cylinders and clay bricks. The unit weight of concrete is the most
important parameter to determine the quality of the concrete, so every sample was tested for unit
weight. The pulse velocity test, a special test not available for routine testing in test laboratories,
was used at CIGMAT to randomly check the quality of the concrete. The pulse velocity test
results on randomly selected concrete samples showed that there was nothing unusual about the
concrete samples that were tested. As summarized in Appendix A, there was no direct
correlation between the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete, and the variation of pulse
velocity was normally distributed.
The clay bricks obtained for testing were from the same batch. Quality control for the clay
bricks involved both unit weight measurements and pulse velocity testing. The unit weight of
each brick was determined, while the pulse velocity testing was completed on a random selection
of bricks from the entire batch. The unit weights showed that there was nothing unusual (voids)
in the specimens. The pulse velocity test was completed on 18 bricks (not the 56 indicated in the
VTP). CIGMAT, based on their experience in testing with clay bricks, determined that the
results of the 18 tests, combined with the unit weight data, were adequate to characterize the
quality of the bricks. As summarized in Appendix A, there was no direct correlation between the
pulse velocity and unit weight of clay bricks, and the variation of pulse velocity was normally
distributed.
5.2.2.2 Coating Testing
The number (per the VTP) of coated specimens evaluated for each substrate during the testing is
indicated in Table 5-3. The number of coated specimens was the same for each material
(concrete or clay brick) and is indicated in parentheses in Table 5-3. The bonding tests were
completed over a period of six months to determine if there were changes in bonding strength
with time. Normally, the 3- and 6-month bonding test results do not differ much in failure type
or bonding strength from the first tests (completed in the first 30 days), so additional specimens
were evaluated at the initial test and fewer at later test times. The total number of specimens for
the entire test was the same as indicated in the VTP.
33
-------
Table 5-3. Total Number of Tests for Each Substrate Material
Exposure
Time
2 Weeks (3)
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
Holiday Test (1)
DI Water 1% H2SO4
8(10) 12(10)
8(10) 12(10)
Bonding Strength Test (2)
Sandwich Pull-Off
4 (4) 4 (8)
4 (2) 4 (4)
4 (2) 4 (4)
(1) The same specimens are monitored for 6 months.
(2) The number of dry-or wet-coated specimens is the same, and equal to half of the number indicated.
(3) The bonding tests were completed at 30 days during testing.
(n) = Number of specimens observed or tested.
5.2.3 Precision
As specified in Standard Methods (Method 1030 C), precision is specified by the standard
deviation of the results of replicate analyses. The overall precision of a study includes the
random errors involved in sampling as well as the errors in sample preparation and analysis. The
VTP did not establish objectives for this measure.
In this evaluation, analysis is made using two different substrate materials (concrete and clay
brick), each under two different conditions (dry-coated and wet-coated). Comparison of the
results for multiple specimens prepared under similar conditions provides some indication of the
variability of the bonding tests. For most of the bonding tests, there were only one or two
specimens prepared and cured in the same manner and duration. The results for the 30-day pull-
off tests, where there were four samples analyzed for each substrate and condition, are compared.
The results are shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Standard Deviation for 30-Day Pull-Off Test
c< u ± ± r^ j-i- Number of Average Failure Standard Deviation
Substrate - Condition , , ",, , ., , .,
Samples Strength (psi) (psi)
Concrete-Dry 4 148 46.5
Concrete-Wet 4 196 5.7
Clay brick - Dry 4 236 38.6
Clay brick - Wet 4 291 64.1
34
-------
5.3 Audit Reports
NSF conducted an audit of the CIGMAT Laboratory prior to the verification test. The laboratory
audit found that CIGMAT had the necessary equipment, procedures, and facilities to perform the
coatings verification test described in the VTP. Systems were in place to record laboratory data
and supporting quality assurance data obtained during the tests. Specialized log sheets were
prepared for each of the procedures and these data sheets were stored with the study Director,
Dr. Vipulanandan. This is important as some of these tests were performed over several months
with extended periods between testing. The primary weakness identified in the CIGMAT
systems was in documentation of the calibration and maintenance of the basic equipment. It was
quite clear that calibration of the balances, pH meters, pulse velocity meter, etc. was indeed
performed. All of the needed calibration reference standards and standard material s were
available near each piece of equipment. However, the frequency of calibration and the actual
calibration could not be verified as in most cases the information was not being recorded either
on the bench sheet or in an equipment calibration notebook. A corrective action
recommendation was made by NSF following the audit. A second site visit for a data review
meeting after the testing was completed indicated that CIGMAT instituted a system for
recording calibrations during the testing period.
35
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
[1] Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated
Products and Applied Coatings, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
[2] Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 04.05, Chemical Resistant Materials;
Vitrified Clay, Concrete, Fiber-Cement Products; Mortar; Masonry, ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA.
[3] EPA (1974), "Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage System", EPA 625/1-74-005,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
[4] EPA (1985), "Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewerage System and Treatment
Plants", EPA 625/1-85/018, Cincinnati, Ohio.
[5] Kienow, K. and Cecil Allen, H. (1993). "Concrete Pipe for Sanitary Sewers Corrosion
Protection Update," Proceedings, Pipeline Infrastructure II, ASCE, pp. 229-250.
[6] Liu, J., and Vipulanandan, C. (2005) "Tensile Bonding Strength of Epoxy Coatings to
Concrete Substrate," Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 35, pp. 1412-1419, 2005.
[7] Liu, J., and Vipulanandan, C. (2004) "Long-term Performance of Epoxy Coated Clay
Bricks in Sulfuric Acid," Journal of Materials in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 4,
pp.349-355, 2004.
[8] Mebarkia, S., and Vipulanandan, C. (1999) "Mechanical properties and water diffusion in
polyester polymer concrete", Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121 (12) (1999) 1359-
1365.
[9] Redner, J.A., Randolph, P. Hsi, and Edward Esfandi (1992), "Evaluation of Protective
Coatings for Concrete" County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, Whittier, CA.
[10] Redner, J.A., Randolph, P. Hsi, and Edward Esfandi (1994), "Evaluating Coatings for
Concrete in Wastewater facilities: Update," Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings,
December 1994, pp. 50-61.
[11] Soebbing, J. B., Skabo, Michel, H. E., Guthikonda, G. and Sharaf, A.H. (1996),
"Rehabilitating Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants," Journal of Protective Coatings
and Linings, May 1996, pp. 54-64.
[12] Vipulanandan, C., Ponnekanti, H., Umrigar, D. N., and Kidder, A. D. (1996), "Evaluating
Coatings for Concrete Wastewater Facilities," Proceedings, Fourth Materials Congress,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington D.C., November 1996, pp. 851-862.
[13] Vipulanandan, C. and Liu, J. (2005) "Performance of Polyurethane-Coated Concrete in
Sewer Environment," Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, pp. 1754-1763, 2005.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
Data from Evaluation of Pre-Coated
Test Specimens
37
-------
Behavior of Concrete, Clay Brick and Coating
Summary
In order to ensure the quality, the concrete (cylinders and blocks) and clay bricks used in
this study were tested; the results are summarized in this section. Also, samples of the coating
product itself were analyzed to characterize the coatings.
A. 1. Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity
To ensure the quality of the concrete and clay brick specimens used in this coating study
the unit weight and pulse velocity of the specimens were measured. Six specimens of the
coating were evaluated for unit weight, pulse velocity and water absorption to provide basic data
to verify that the coating used in any future application is the same as applied for this verification
testing.
Concrete: The variation of pulse velocity with unit weight is shown in Figure Al. The unit
weight of concrete specimens varied between 117 pcf (1874 kg/m3) and 172 pcf (2756 kg/m3).
The pulse velocity varied from 12,700 fps to 15,800 fps. There was no direct correlation between
the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete (Figure Al(a)). The variation of pulse velocity was
normally distributed (Figure Al(b)).
Clay Brick: The variation of pulse velocity with unit weight is shown in Figure A2. The unit
weight of clay brick specimens varied between 132 pcf (2115 kg/m3) and 153 pcf (2451 kg/m3).
The pulse velocity varied from 8500 fps to 10,250 fps. There was no direct correlation between
the pulse velocity and unit weight of clay bricks (Figure A2(a). The variation of pulse velocity
was normally distributed (Figure A2(b)).
Coating: The unit weight of coating varied from 63 pcf to 68 pcf with an average of 65 pcf with
a coefficient of variation of 1.9%. The pulse velocity varied from 8660 fps to 8990 fps with an
average of 8791 fps with a coefficient of variation of 1.3% (Table A6).
A. 2. Chemical Resistance
Concrete: Chemical resistant results are summarized in Tables Al and A2 for concrete cylinders
dry and wet respectively. Dry concrete cylinders partially submerged (50%) in water showed
continuous increase in weight up to 0.4% in sixty days. The wet concrete in water showed a
0.1% increase in weight in 60 days. Weight loss and visible corrosion were observed in the dry
and wet concrete specimens in the sulfuric acid solution (pH = 1).
Clay Bricks: Results are summarized in Tables A3 and A4 for dry and wet clay brick,
respectively. Dry bricks in water and acid showed similar gains in weight of over 10%. No
visible damage to the bricks was observed. Wet bricks showed much smaller weight gain as
compared to the dry bricks. Weight increase was not observed with further soaking.
Coating: Specimens immersed in water for 10 days showed no gain in weight.
A. 3. Strength
38
-------
Concrete: Results for the compressive and flexural strength of dry and wet concrete are
summarized in Table A5 in Appendix A. The minimum compressive strength of 28 days water-
cured concrete was 4100 psi (28 MPa) and the flexural strength was 1065 psi (7.6 MPa).
Clay Brick: Flexural strength of dry and wet clay bricks are summarized in Table A5 in
Appendix A. The average flexural strength was 1136 psi and 932 psi for wet dry and wet clay
bricks. The flexural strength is important for bonding test CIGMAT CT-3 (Modified ASTM
C321-94).
Ol
Ol
20
18
16
u
Si 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
120
Unit Weight (kN/m3)
21 22 23
(a)
130 140
Unit weight (Ib/ft3)
150
24
60
50
40 o
o
30 .«
_g
-------
21
Unit Weight kN/m3
21 22
128
133 138 143
Unit Weight Ib/ft3
148
22
u
"3
Q.
1ZU
100
80
60
40
20
n
O ft n
y&iQj F) ^
/-.\
(a)
30
25
20
15
10
5
n
I
o
o
i
4J
'u
_0
>
1
a.
110
o- 105
-2L
5 100
=r 95
01
01
90
85
80
(b)
20 40 60
% Probability
80
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
100
-2L
^
01
Ol
Figure A2. Quality control for clay brick specimens (a) pulse velocity versus unit weight
and (b) distribution of pulse velocity.
40
-------
Table Al. Results from Chemical Attack Test* on Dry Concrete (CIGMAT CT-1: No
Holiday)
Concrete
Dry
Remarks
Immersion
Time (days)
10
30
60
Tested up to
2 months
Weight Change (%)
DI Water
(pH=6)
0.14
0.27
0.38
Total weight
change is 0.38 %
H2SO4 Solution
(pH = l)
0.12
0.32
-0.48
Total weight
change is - 0.48%
Remarks
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Weight loss in acid solution
Weight loss in H2SO4 solution
in 60 days indicates the corrosivity
*50 % of specimen was submerged in liquid.
Table A2. Results from Chemical Attack Test* on Wet Concrete (CIGMAT CT-1: No
Holiday)
Concrete
Wet
Remarks
Immersion
Time (days)
10
30
60
Tested up to
2 months
Weight Change (%)
DI Water
(pH=6)
0.06
0.09
0.11
Total weight
change is 0.11 %
H2SO4 Solution
(pH = l)
0.11
0.31
-0.52
Total weight
change is -0.52 %
Remarks
Less weight gain in water
Less weight gain in water
Weight loss in acid solution
Weight loss in H2SO4 solution
in 60 days indicates the corrosivity
*50 % of specimen was submerged in liquid.
Table A3. Results from Chemical Attack Test* on Dry Clay (CIGMAT CT-1: No Holiday)
Clay Brick
Dry
Remarks
Immersion
Time (days)
10
30
60
Weight Change (%)
DI Water
(pH=6)
9.9
13.6
14.9
Total weight
change is 15 %
H2SO4 Solution
(pH = l)
9.0
15.6
17.6
Total weight
change is 18 %
Remarks
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Similar weight change in water
and acid solution
*50 % of specimen was submerged in liquid.
41
-------
Table A4. Results from Chemical Attack Test* on Wet Clay (CIGMAT CT-1: No
Holiday)
Clay Brick
Wet
Remarks
Immersion
Time (days)
10
30
60
Weight Change (%)
DI Water
(pH=6)
0.18
0.32
0.40
Total weight
change is 0.4 %
H2SO4 Solution
(pH = l)
0.25
0.43
0.52
Total weight
change is 0.52 %
Remarks
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Similar weight change in water
and acid solution
*50 % of specimen was submerged in liquid.
Table A5. Minimum and Maximum Strengths of Concrete Cylinders, Blocks and Clay
Bricks
Materials
Concrete
Cylinder (No.
Specimens)
Concrete Block
(No. Specimens)
Clay Brick
(No. Specimens)
Remarks
Curing
Time
(days)
28
28
N/A
Concrete
cured for 28
days
Compressive Strength (psi)
Wet
5893
(2)
N/A
N/A
Information
for quality
control
Dry
4099
(2)
N/A
N/A
Information
for quality
control
Flexural Strength (psi)
Wet
N/A
1065
(2)
1136
(2)
Related to
ASTMC321-94
bonding test
Dry
N/A
1167
(2)
932
(2)
Related to
ASTMC321-94
bonding test
42
-------
APPENDIX B
Test Results and Observations from
Chemical Exposure - Holiday Test
43
-------
Laboratory Test: Holiday Test
(CIGMAT CT-1 (Modified ASTM G 20-88))
Summary: Sulfuric Acid Resistance
In order to evaluate the performance of PLS-614, coated concrete cylinders and clay
bricks were tested with and without holidays in water and sulfuric acid solution (pH=l).
Performance of PLS-614 was evaluated over a period of six months from March 2009 to
September 2009 in this study. A total of 20 coated concrete specimens and 20 coated clay brick
specimens were tested. The results are summarized in Tables Bl through B6.
PLS-614 (Dry Coated)
(i) Concrete
One month (30 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Mild change in color
of the coating was observed in the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid solution
(Table B.I)
Six months (180 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Discoloration
(noteable change) was observed in the lower part of the specimens (liquid phase) and partially in
the upper part of the specimens (vapor phase), immersed in sulfuric acid solution (Table B.3).
(10 Clay Brick
One month (30 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Mild change in color
of the coating was observed in the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid solutions.
Six months (180 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Discoloration was
observed on the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid solutions.
PLS-614 (Wet Coated)
(i) Concrete
One month (30 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Minor change in
color of the coating was observed in the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid
(Table B.2)
Six months (180 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Discoloration (DC)
was observed in the lower part of the specimens (liquid phase) and partially in the upper part of
the specimens (vapor phase) immersed in sulfuric acid solution (Table B.4).
44
-------
(ii) Clay Brick
One month (30 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Minor change in
color of the coating was observed on the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid
solutions.
Six months (180 days): None of the specimens showed blisters or cracking. Discoloration was
observed on the portion of the specimens submerged in sulfuric acid solutions.
Rating Criteria for Holiday Test Results
No Blister or Cracking (N): No visible blister. No discoloration. No cracking.
Blister (B): Visible blister up to one inch in diameter. No discoloration. No cracking.
Cracks (C): Blister with diameter greater than one inch and/or cracking of coating at the
holiday.
Table B.I. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Dry-Coated
Concrete after 30 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 30
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%
N
1% H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%
N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4(100/0/0)
4(100/0/0)
2(100/0/0)
10
(100/0/0)
Remarks
Coating color changed
in the acid submerged
portion
Coating color changed
in the acid submerged
portion
Coating color changed
in the acid submerged
portion
Total of 10 specimens
tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating
color change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
45
-------
Table B2. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Wet-Coated
Concrete after 30 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 30
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1% H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10 (100/0/0)
Remarks
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged
portion
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged
portion
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged
portion
Total of 10 specimens
tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating
color change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
Table B.3. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Dry-Coated
Concrete after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1% H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/0)
Remarks
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in
the acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens
tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating
color change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
46
-------
Table B.4. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Wet-Coated
Concrete after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1% H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/00)
Remarks
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens
tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating color
change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C=Cracking
Table B5. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Dry-Coated Clay
Brick after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Dry
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1%H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/6)
Remarks
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating color
change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
47
-------
Table B6. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Wet-Coated Clay
Brick after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Wet
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1%H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/0)
Remarks
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens tested
No visible blisters or cracking;
only coating color change
noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
Table B7. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Dry-Coated Clay
Brick after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Dry
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1%H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/6)
Remarks
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens tested
No visible blisters or
cracking; only coating color
change noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
48
-------
Table B8. Holiday Test Results for Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Wet-Coated Clay
Brick after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Wet
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Medium and Rating
(No. of Specimens)
DI Water
N(2)
N(2)
4
(100/0/0)
100%N
1%H2SO4
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
6
(100/0/0)
100%N
Total No.
% (N/B/C)
4 (100/0/0)
4 (100/0/0)
2 (100/0/0)
10
(100/0/0)
Remarks
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Coating color changed in the
acid submerged portion
Total of 10 specimens tested
No visible blisters or cracking;
only coating color change
noted.
N = No blisters or crack
B = Blister
C = Cracking
Table B9. Holiday Test Results for PLS-614 Dry-Coated Concrete Brick - Weight Change
after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Average Weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.19
3.6
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
0.52
0.95
1.2
Specimens with
holidays showed no
great weight change
Remarks
Greater weight change in
acid
Higher weight change in
water
Higher weight change with
increased holiday size
Holidays increased the
weight change in water
exposed specimens; less so
in acid exposed specimens.
49
-------
Table BIO. Holiday Test Results for PLS-614 Wet-Coated Concrete Brick - Weight Change
after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Average Weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.11
0.46
~
Similar weight
change
H2SO4
0.40
0.65
0.48
Similar weight
change
Remarks
Similar weight change
Similar weight change
Similar weight change with
increased holiday size
Similar weight changes
Table Bll. Holiday Test Results for PLS-614 Dry-Coated Clay Brick - Weight Change
after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay Brick
Dry
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Average Weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.58
5.8
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
6.6
6.7
6.6
Specimens with
holidays showed
similar weight
change
Remarks
Higher weight change in
acid
Similar weight change
Similar weight change with
increased holiday size
Greater weight change with
holidays in water exposed
specimens; holidays did not
increase change in acid
exposed specimens.
50
-------
Table B12. Holiday Test Results for PLS-614 Wet-Coated Clay Brick - Weight Change
after 180 Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay Brick
Wet
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
1/8 in.
1/2 in.
After 180
days
immersion
Average Weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.66
5.0
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
2.2
6.4
5.1
Specimens with
holidays showed
greater weight
change
Remarks
Higher weight change in
acid
Higher weight change in
acid
Less weight change with
increased holiday size in
acid
Holidays increased the
weight change but the size
of holiday did not affect
weight change in acid
51
-------
APPENDIX C
Results and Observations from
Bonding Tests
52
-------
Laboratory Test: Bonding Test
(CIGMAT CT-2, Modified ASTM D4541-85 and
CIGMAT CT-3, Modified ASTM C321-94)
Summary: Tensile Bonding Strength
Total CIGMAT CT-2 Tests =24 Total CIGMAT CT-3 Tests = 16
Bonding strengths of coating PLS-614 (dry and wet) with concrete and clay brick were
determined according to CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D4541-85) and CIGMAT CT-3
(modified ASTM C321-94) testing methods. All the coated specimens were cured under water.
Both dry and wet specimens were coated to simulate the various field conditions. The
performance of Coating PLS-614 was evaluated starting in February 2009; results are included
in this report. A total of 24 bonding tests with concrete specimens and 24 with clay brick
specimens were performed.
Failure Types
All the failure types encountered in the bonding tests (modified ASTM D 4541 and
ASTM C 321) are listed in Table Cl. Type-1 failure is substrate failure (Table Cl). This is the
most desirable result if the bonding strength is quite high (in the range 8% to 12% of the
concrete substrate compressive strength). In Type-2 failure (Table Cl), the coating has failed.
Type-3 failure is bonding failure where failure occurred between the coating and substrate.
Type-4 and Type-5 are combined failures. Type-4 failure is the bonding and substrate failure
where the failure occurs in the substrate and on the interface of the coating and the substrate.
This indicates that the adhesive strength is comparable with the tensile strength of the substrate.
Type-5 failure (Table Cl) is coating and bonding failure where the failure occurs due to low
cohesive and adhesive strength of the coating.
53
-------
Table Cl. Failure Types of Modified ASTM D 4541 Test and ASTM C 321 Test
Failure
Type
Tvpe-1
lype-z
iype j
lype-^t
Tvnp-S
lypc J
Description
Substrate
Failure
Coating Failure
Bonding and
Failure
Bonding and
Coating Failure
CIGMAT CT-2 Test
(Modified ASTM D 4541)
metal ^ |~~|
fixture"^] | ^^Coating
**3T
1 I
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^ |~~|
fivtnrp ^1 1 Coating
U--^
1 UHLJ |
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^| 1
fixture ^1 Coating
^1^,
1 \
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ,^|~~|
fixture~^1 Coating
L4-*^
1 ' ri 1 f
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^ |~~|
fixture"*! Coating
LJ-*^
1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-3 Test
(Modified ASTM C 321)
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
^ '
y 1
.. \ \
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 ._ 1
1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1
' 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
^^ s\
Coating 1 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
* i -^i
Coating 1 1
54
-------
PLS-614 (Dry Coating)
(i) Concrete
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed, with all but
one of the failures being Type-4. The other was a Type-1 failure. The bonding strengths ranged
from 107 to 304 psi for both failure types. Type-4 failures ranged from 107 to 304 psi, while the
Type-1 failure was 191 psi. The average bonding strength from the pull-off tests was 205 psi (1.4
MPa) (Table C2).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed, with all
failures being Type-1. The bonding strengths ranged from 232 to 293 psi. The average bonding
strength from the sandwich tests was 269 psi (1.8 MPa) (Table C6).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Mostly
Type-4 failures (7 of 8, with the other being Type-1) were observed during the pull-off test
(CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) produced all Type-1 failures. The
average bonding strength from CIGMAT CT-2 tests was 205 psi (1.4 MPa) and from CIGMAT
CT-3 tests was 269 psi (1.8 MPa). Average tensile bonding strength with dry concrete was 226 psi
(1.6 MPa). ranging from 107 to 304 psi. with 58% (7 of 12) being bonding/substrate (Type-4)
failures and the rest being substrate (Type-1) failures.
(ii) Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed, with five
of the failures being Type-4 and the other three being Type-1 failures. The bonding strengths
ranged from 187 to 321 psi for both failure types. Type-4 failures ranged from 187 to 226 psi,
while the Type-1 failures ranged from 281 to 321 psi. The average bonding strength from the
pull-off tests was 253 psi (1.7 MPa) (Table C5).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed, with all
failures being Type-1. The bonding strengths ranged from 314 to 350 psi. The average bonding
strength from the sandwich tests was 335 psi (2.3 MPa) (Table C8).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Mostly
Type-4 failures (5 of 8), with the other three being Type-1, were observed during the pull-off test
(CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) produced all Type-1 failures. The
average bonding strength from CIGMAT CT-2 tests was 253 psi (1.7 MPa) and from CIGMAT
CT-3 tests was 335 psi (2.3 MPa). Average tensile bonding strength with dry clay brick was 280
psi (1.9 MPa). ranging from 187 to 350 psi. with 58% being substrate (Type-1) failures and the
rest being bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
55
-------
PLS-614 (Wet Coating)
(i) Concrete
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed, with five of
the 8 being Type-1 and the other three being Type-4 failures. The bonding strengths ranged from
190 to 350 psi for both failure types. Type-1 failures ranged from 193 to 350 psi, while the Type-
4 failures ranged from 109 to 200 psi. The average bonding strength from the pull-off tests was
234 psi (1.6 MPa) (Table C3).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed. Three of the
four were Type-1 failures, with the other being a Type-4 failure. The bonding strengths ranged
from 262 to 321 psi for the Typ3-l failures and 257 psi for the Type-4 failure. The average
bonding strength from the sandwich tests was 287 psi (2.0 MPa) (Table C7).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Mostly
Type-1 failures (5 of 8), the other three being Type-4, were observed during the pull-off test
(CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) produced three Type-1 and one
Type-4 failures. The average bonding strength from CIGMAT CT-2 tests was 234 psi (1.6 MPa)
and from CIGMAT CT-3 tests was 287 psi (2.0 MPa). Average tensile bonding strength with wet
concrete was 252 psi (1.9 MPa), ranging from 190 to 350 psi, with 67% being substrate (Type-1)
failures and the rest being bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
(ii) Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed, with five
of the failures being Type-4 and the other three being Type-1 failures. The bonding strengths
ranged from 181 to 374 psi for both failure types. Type-4 failures ranged from 181 to 292 psi,
while the Type-1 failures ranged from 281 to 374 psi. The average bonding strength from the
pull-off tests was 264 psi (1.8 MPa) (Table C5).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed, with all
failures being Type-1. The bonding strengths ranged from 338 to 384 psi. The average bonding
strength from the sandwich tests was 366 psi (2.5 MPa) (Table C9).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Mostly
Type-4 failures (5 of 8), with the other three being Type-1, were observed during the pull-off test
(CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) produced all Type-1 failures. The
average bonding strength from CIGMAT CT-2 tests was 264 psi (1.8 MPa) and from CIGMAT
CT-3 tests was 366 psi (2.5 MPa). Average tensile bonding strength with wet clay brick was 298
psi (2.0 MPa), ranging from 181 to 384 psi, with 58% being substrate (Type-1) failures and the
rest being bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
56
-------
Table C2. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Dry Concrete CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-Off)
Substrate
Dry Concrete
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XXX
3
(38%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
X
X X
X X
5
(62%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
148
248
274
Total of 8 tests
Types 1 and 4
failures; average
bonding strength for
all tests - 205 psi
(1.4MPa).
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C3. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Wet Concrete CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-off)
Substrate
Wet Concrete
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to six (6)
months
Failure Modes
Type-1
X X
X
XX
5
(62%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type- 3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
XX
X
3
(38%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
196
272
272
Total of 8 tests
Types 1 and 4
failures; average
bonding strength for
all tests - 142 psi
(1.0 MPa).
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type- 2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
57
-------
Table C4. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Dry Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-off)
Substrate
Dry Clay
Brick
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
X
X
X
3
(38%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type- 4
XXX
X
X
5
(62%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
236
265
274
Total of 8 tests
Types- 1 and-4
failures; average
bonding strength for
all tests -253 psi
(l.VMPa)
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C5. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Wet Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-off)
Substrate
Wet Clay
Brick
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XXX
X
X
5
(68%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
X
X
X
3
(38%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
291
231
243
Total of 8 tests.
Types- 1 and -4
failures; average
bonding strength for
all tests - 264 psi
(l.SMPa)
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
58
-------
Table C6. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Dry Concrete CIGMAT CT-3 (Sandwich)
Substrate
Dry Concrete
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
X X
X
X
4
(100%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
252
279
293
Total of 4 tests
Type-1 failures;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
269psi(1.8MPa).
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C7. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Wet Concrete CIGMAT CT-3 (Sandwich)
Substrate
Wet Concrete
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XX
X
3
(75%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type- 2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
X
1
(25%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
292
257
309
Total of 4 tests.
Type-1 and Type-4
failures; average
bonding strength for
all tests - 287 psi
(2.0 MPa).
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
59
-------
Table C8. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Dry Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-3 (Sandwich)
Substrate
Dry Clay
Brick
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XX
X
X
4
(100%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
329
331
350
Total of 4 tests
Type-1 failures;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
335 psi (2.3 MPa)
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C9. Bonding Strength of PLS-614 with Wet Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-3 (Sandwich)
Substrate
Wet Clay
Brick
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XX
X
X
4
(100%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
372
338
384
Total of 4 tests
Type-1 failures;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
366 psi (2.5 MPa)
Type-1 = Substrate failure
Type- 2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined substrate and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
60
-------
APPENDIX D
Manufacturer Data Sheet for
Epoxy Mastic PLS-614
61
-------
VENDOR DATA SHEET
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COATING
Coating Product Name: Epoxy Mastic PLS-614
Coating Product Vendor Name and Address: Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
6691 Tribble Street
Lithonia, Georgia 30058
Coating Type: Epoxy Mastic (PLS-614)
Testing Method
Tensile strength
(ASTMD-63860)
Chemical Resistance (ASTM D 543)
(3 % H2 SO4)
Water Vapor Transmission
(ASTMD 1653/E1907)
Flexural Strength
(ASTMD79058T)
Hardness- Shore D (ASTM D 2240)
Impact Resistance (NCS PS 55-75)
Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs
(ASTM D 2832)
Vendor Results
12,400 PSI
13,900 PSI
72
160 in./lbs
None
Worker Safety
Flammability Rating
Known Carcinogenic Content
Other hazards (corrosive)
Result/Requirement
Environmental
Characteristics
Heavy Metal Content (w/w)
Leaching of Cured Coating (TCLP)
Disposal of Cured Coating
Result/Requirement
62
-------
Application
Characteristics
Primer Requirement
Number of Coats and Thickness
Minimum Application Temperature
Minimum Cure Time Before Handling
Maximum Application Temperature
Minimum Cure Time before Immersion
into Service
Type of Surface Preparation Before
Coating
Result/Requirement
125 mils. An additional coat can be applied after 2
or 3 hours, but no later than 24 hours.
Approximately 4 hours at 70°F
Remove all oil, grease and foreign materials,
including residual laitance. Clean all metals,
either to a commercial abrasive blast finish, or by
a thorough hand tool cleaning. Galvanized steel
and aluminum may require etching. Remove all
deteriorated wood to a solid surface.
Vendor
Experience
Length of Time the Coating in Use
Applicator Training & Qualification
Program
QA/QC Program for Coating/Lining
Comments
63
------- |