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

-------