EPA/600/R-10/136
10/34/WQPC-SWP
September 2010
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
Epoxytec, Inc.
Epoxytec CPP RC3
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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: Infrastructure Rehabilitation Technologies
APPLICATION: Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
TECHNOLOGY NAME: Epoxytec CPP RC3
TEST LOCATION: University of Houston, CIGMAT
COMPANY: Epoxytec International Inc.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 3656 PHONE: 877-GO-EPOXY
(463-7699)
West Park, FL 33083 FAX: (954) 961-2395
WEB SITE: http://www.epoxytec.com
EMAIL: ETV@epoxytec.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 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 EPA, operates the Water Quality Protection Center
(WQPC), one of six centers under the ETV Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the
performance of the Epoxytec CPP concrete polymer paste for wastewater infrastructure
protection and rehabilitation. The Epoxytec coating was tested at the University of Houston's
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT).
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the Epoxytec CPP RC3 coating material (CPP) was provided by
the vendor and does not represent verified information.
-------
CPP is a two-component moisture sensitive, adhesive, chemical resistant, 100% solid strength
epoxy paste that can be used as an adhesive, patching filler, or a protective high-build, stand-
alone protective liner. CPP is designed to bond to concrete, steel, stone, wood, brick, and many
other construction materials. The coating bonds vertically and overhead, and contains no
solvents. Typical cure time for the coating is 12 hours.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION - METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The objective of this testing was to evaluate CPP 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 CPP 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 CPP to
concrete and clay bricks.
Verification testing was conducted using relevant American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and CIGMAT methods (ASTM(1) G20-88; C321-94; D4541-85 and CIGMAT(2) CT-1;
CT-2; CT-3 respectively). 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. Epoxytec 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
CPP 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
3% HiSO£ Solution (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
Comments
Concrete-Diy 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.
in
-------
A specimen made only of CPP was submerged in water for 10 days, showing no weight change
over the period. Likewise, over an exposure time of 180 days, weight changes in specimens with
no holidays showed less than 0.25% gain in DI exposure and less than 0.45% in acid solution
exposure. Without holidays, coated concrete specimens showed, 0.45% weight gain, while dry-
coated clay bricks showed increases of 8-10% and wet-coated clay bricks showed 1.5-2.5%
gains. Changes in the appearance 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 CPP
coating and concrete/clay brick specimens over a period of six months. Eight sandwich (4 dry-
condition, 4 wet-condition) and 16 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. CPP 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 CPP.
(a) Test specimen configuration (b) Load frame test setup
Figure 1. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.
Dry-coated specimens were dried at room temperature conditions for at least seven days before
they were coated, while wet-coated specimens were immersed in water for at least seven days
before they were coated. Specimens were brush-cleaned before coating application. 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)
CIGMAT CT 2, a modification of ASTM D4541-85 was used for the testing. A 2-in. diameter
circle was cut into coated concrete 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.
IV
-------
Table 2. Failure Types in Sandwich and Pull-Off Tests
Failure Type Description Sandwich Test
Pull-Off Test
Type-1 Substrate Failure
Type-2 Coating Failure
Type-3 Bonding Failure
Type-4 Bonding and
Substrate Failure
Type-5 Bonding and Coating
Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
' i - [
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Concrete/Clay Brick
Coating
I I
' - '
Coating *\
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
Loading Direction
Metal Fixture
Coring Coating
Substrate
(a) Specimen preparation (b) Load frame arrangement
Figure 2. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement.
-------
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 30, 60 and 180 days after application of the CPP. Results of the bonding tests are
included in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests (12 Specimens for Each Condition)
Substrate - Failure Type 2 - Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
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
12345
3
8
2
8
2
6
1
4
8
2
2
2
Range
218-
153-
164-
92-
231-
190-
267-
184-
280
235
235
236
364
284
318
342
Average
255
190
204
142
286
251
295
282
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 Epoxytec, Inc. CPP Epoxy Coating for use in wastewater collection
systems was evaluated for chemical resistance and the bond strength of the coating with both wet
and dry substrate materials, made of concrete and clay brick. The type of bonding test, whether
sandwich test or pull-off test, impact the mode of failure and bonding strength for both substrate
materials. The testing indicated:
General Observations
Samples of coating material showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a 10-day
period.
None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with and 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 coated concrete or clay brick
specimens at the holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
Two-thirds of all bonding tests (32 of 48) resulted in substrate (Type-1) and
bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
One-third of all bonding tests (16 of 48) resulted in bonding (Type-3) or bonding/coating
(Type-5) failures.
Concrete Brick Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.30% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
Weight gain was <0.45% for wet or dry specimens with holidays for both water and acid
exposures; no significant change with holiday size.
Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (11 of 12) concrete substrate (Type-1) failures,
with one being a bonding and substrate (Type-4) failure.
vi
-------
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated specimens was 212 psi, ranging from 153 to
280 psi.
Wet-coated concrete failures were bonding and bonding/coating failures; eight of the 12
failures were bonding (Type-3) failures, with the remainder being bonding and coating
(Type-5) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for wet-coated specimens was 163 psi, ranging from 92 to
236 psi.
Clay Brick Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.45% for any of the coated clay brick specimens without holidays.
Weight gain of 8-10% for dry-coated specimens with holidays for both water and acid
exposures; 1.5-2.5% weight gain for wet-coated specimens with holidays for both water and
acid exposures; no significant change for holiday size.
Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly (10 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1) failures,
with two being a bonding and coating (Type-5) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry coated specimens was 262 psi, ranging from 190 to
309 psi.
Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (eight of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1)
failures, with two others being bonding and substrate (Type-4) and the remaining two being
bonding and coating (Type-5) failures.
Average tensile bonding strength with wet-coated specimens was 286 psi, ranging from 184
to 342 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 October 28, 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.
vn
-------
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 Epoxytec International Epoxytec CPP Coating for
Wastewater 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)
Vlll
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Verification of Coatings for Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Collection Systems
Epoxytec, 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
IX
-------
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 4
TABLES 5
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 8
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities 8
1.2.1 Verification Organization (NSF) 8
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 9
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMATLaboratories at UH) 10
1.2.4 Vendor (Epoxytec Inc.) 10
1.2.5 Technology Panel 11
1.3 Background and Technical Approach 11
1.4 Objectives 11
1.5 Test Facility 12
SECTION! COATING DESCRIPTION 13
SECTION 3 METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES 14
3.1 Preparation of Test Specimens 14
3.1.1 Preparation of the Concrete Specimens 14
3.1.2 Preparation of Clay Brick Specimens 14
3.1.3 Coating Specimens 15
3.2 Evaluation of Specimens 15
3.3 Coating Application 16
3.4 Evaluation of Coated Specimens 16
3.4.1 Holiday Test (CIGMAT CT-1) 16
3.4.2 Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method) 17
3.4.2.1 Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT-3) 18
3.4.2.2 Pull-Off Method (CIGMAT CT-2) 18
3.5 Testing Events 20
SECTION 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21
4.1 Test Results 21
4.1.1 Coating Specimens 21
4.1.2 Coated Materials 22
4.1.2.1 Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance 22
4.1.2.2 Bonding Strength 24
4.2 Summary of Observations 29
SECTION 5 QA/QC RESULTS AND SUMMARY 31
5.1 Specimen Preparation 31
5.1.1 Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity 31
5.1.1.1 Concrete 31
5.1.1.2 Clay Brick 32
-------
5.1.2 Water Absorption 32
5.1.2.1 Concrete 32
5.1.2.2 Clay Bricks 32
5.1.3 Compressive andFlexural Strength 33
5.1.3.1 Concrete 33
5.1.3.2 Clay Brick 33
5.2 Quality Control Indicators 33
5.2.1 Representativeness 33
5.2.2 Completeness 33
5.2.2.1 Specimen Preparation 33
5.2.2.2 Coating Testing 34
5.2.3 Precision 35
5.3 Audit Reports 36
SECTION 6 REFERENCES 37
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 Epoxytec CPP 13
Figure 3-1. Test configuration for the holiday test 17
Figure 3-2. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test 18
Figure 3-3. Pull-off test method load frame arrangement 19
Figure 4-1. Concreter cylinder holiday specimen exposed to 1% H2SO4 solution 22
Figure 4-2. Clay brick holiday specimen exposed to 1%H2SO4 solution 22
Figure 4-3. Concrete bonding strength - pull-off test 26
Figure 4-4. Clay brick bonding strength - pull-off test 26
Figure 4-5. Concrete bonding strength - sandwich test 27
Figure 4-6. Clay brick bonding strength - sandwich test 27
Figure 4-7. Type-3 (a) and Type-1 (b) failure during CIGMAT CT-2 test with (a) wet and (b)
dry concrete, respectively 28
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 29
Figure 4-9. Bonding failure (Type-1 failure) during CIGMAT CT-3 test - (a) dry-coated clay
brick and (b) wet-coated clay brick 29
-------
TABLES
Table Page
Table 3-1. Mix Proportions for Concrete Specimens 14
Table 3-2. Test Names / Methods 15
Table 3-3. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test 15
Table 3-4. Ratings for Chemical Resistance Test Observations 17
Table 3-5. Failure Types in Pull-Off and Sandwich Tests 19
Table 3-6. Test Frequency 20
Table 4-1. Properties of Coating Samples (Epoxytec CPP) 21
Table 4-2. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations for Epoxytec, Inc. CPP 23
Table 4-3. Average Specimen Weight Gain (%) After 180 Day s of Immersion 24
Table 4-4. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests 25
Table 5-1. Typical Properties for Concrete and Clay Brick Specimens 31
Table 5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test 34
Table 5-3. Total Number of Tests for Each Substrate Material 35
Table 5-4. Standard Deviation for 21-Day Pull-Off Test 35
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASTM
CIGMAT
DI
EPA
ETV
ft/sec
ft2
holiday
hr
in.
kg
L
Ibs
NRMRL
m3
mL
mm
MPa
NSF
lb/ft3
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)
A gap or void in the coating
Hour(s)
Inch(es)
Kilogram(s)
Liter
Pounds
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cubic meters
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
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EPA and NSF International acknowledge those persons who participated in the completion of
the testing and preparation, review and approval of this Verification Report. Without their hard
work and dedication to the project, this document would not have been approved through the
process that has been set forth for this ETV project.
Thanks goes to Dr. C. Vipulanandan, Director of CIGMAT - Center for Innovative Grouting
Materials and Technology, University of Houston for completion of the testing and preparation
of the draft report. Thanks, too, to Mr. Dan Murray and Dr. John Schenk for technical review of
the report, and to Mr. John Olszewski EPA QA Reviewer and Mr. Joe Terrell NSF QA
Reviewer.
Special thanks to the Technical Panel Reviewers of the generic Coatings Test Plan, against
which this testing was completed, including: Mr. Stephen A. Gilbreath, P.E. (Lockwood,
Andrews & Newman, Inc.), Mr. Robert Lamb, P.E. (City of Austin, Texas) and Mr.
Raghavender Nednur, P.E. (City of Houston, Texas).
-------
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 has developed verification testing protocols and generic test
plans that serve as templates for conducting verification tests for various technologies.
Verification of the Epoxytec, Inc. Epoxy Coating CPP 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 CPP coating.
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of Epoxytec coating was a cooperative effort between the following
participants:
NSF International
US EPA
University of Houston - CIGMAT
Epoxytec Inc.
1.2.1 Verification Organization (NSF)
The ETV Program's WQPC is administered through a cooperative agreement between EPA and
NSF. NSF is the verification partner organization for the WQPC and the SWP area within the
center. NSF administers the Center and contracts with the Testing Organization (TO) to develop
and implement the VTP, conduct the verification test, and prepare the verification report.
-------
NSF's responsibilities as the VO included:
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 (CIGMATLaboratories at VH)
The TO for this verification was CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston. 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.
The primary responsibilities of the TO were:
Coordinate with the VO and vendor to prepare and finalize 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.
Primary contact: Dr. C. Vipulanandan (CIGMAT Director)
University of Houston, CIGMAT
4800 Calhoun
Houston, Texas 77004
Phone: 713-743-4278
Email: cvipulanandan@uh.edu
1.2.4 Vendor (Epoxytec Inc.)
The coating material being evaluated is marketed by Epoxytec Inc. The vendor was responsible
for supplying the coating material and working with the TO in applying the coating to test
specimens. Specific responsibilities of the vendor were:
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.
10
-------
Primary contact: Mr. Demetri Rapanos
Epoxytec International Inc.
P.O Box 3656
West Park, FL 33083
Phone: 877-GO-EPOXY (463-7699)
Email: ETV@epoxytec.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 ensures that data generated during verification testing were relevant and that the
method of evaluating different technologies is fair and consistent. The product-specific VTP
was subjected to review by representatives of the technology panel and were 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 can further 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 using 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. Concrete and clay coated
specimens are then evaluated over the course of six months.
1.4 Objectives
The objective of this study was to evaluate the Epoxytec International Inc. Epoxytec CPP
(CPP) (dry and wet) for use in sewer rehabilitation projects. Specific objectives included:
11
-------
Evaluation of the acid resistance of the coated concrete and clay bricks with and without
holidays; and
Determination of 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 Epoxytec coating material evaluated under this
verification by the ETV Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC). The VTP included specific
testing procedures and a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) describing the quality systems to
be used during the evaluation
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.
12
-------
SECTION 2
COATING DESCRIPTION
The coating material evaluated in this verification was the Epoxytec International Inc. Epoxytec
CPP RC3 (CPP). The Vendor Data Sheet characterizing the coating material is included in
Appendix D. The coating is described on the Epoxytec International Inc. web site
(http://www.epoxytec.com/products/) as a concrete polymer paste used for structural concrete
protection, rehabilitation and repair. Epoxytec's CPP is a 100% solid epoxy, designed to be
applied by trowel. The CPP system is formulated to provide a structural liner, coating, or patch
for rehabilitation of concrete and protection against corrosion.
The application instructions for the CPP were:
Apply a maximum of 65 mils of the coating to protect concrete and clay bricks. No primer
is used. The curing time for the coating is 12 hours. The coating is applied using a trowel.
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 Epoxytec CPP.
13
-------
SECTION 3
METHODS AND TEST PROCEDURES
The Verification Test Plan (VTP) includes a detailed description of the testing completed for the
Epoxytec CPP. 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. Specimens were prepared to the proper specifications by CIGMAT staff.
3.1.1 Preparation of the Concrete Specimens
Cylindrical and prism concrete 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
Cement
Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Water
Amount
6 bags
1400 -1500 Ibs
1600 -1700 Ibs
320 -330 Ibs
ASTMC150
(ranging in
Specification
Type 1 (purchased in 94
ASTM C33
ASTM C33
size from No. 4 to 1.5 in.
Tap water
Ib bags)
sieve)
Proper proportions of cement, sand, coarse aggregate and water were mixed in a concrete mixer
until uniform in appearance. 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 at the CIGMAT laboratory, resulting in specimens that are approximately
1-in. x 3.75-in. x 6-in. prism specimens using a diamond-tipped saw blade. The prepared
specimens were stored at room conditions until use. Bonding tests were completed using whole
clay bricks.
14
-------
3.1.3 Coating Specimens
Specimens made of the Epoxytec CPP 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 are done for completeness and not for quality control.
Table 3-3. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test
Number of Specimens Used in Test
Material Unit Pulse Water __ (3) _ . (3)
. , , , ., a) , ,. a) Flexure ^; Compression *;
weight velocity v' absorption v' _
Coating
Concrete Cylinders
Concrete Prisms
Clay Prisms
6
20
36
56
6
20
36
56
6
10
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
2
2
N/A
2
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.
15
-------
3.3 Coating Application
The concrete and clay specimens were coated by a representative of Epoxytec 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 over a
period of three days. Prior to applying the coating, the surfaces of the concrete specimens were
cleaned with a non-wire brush to remove laitance. The coating was applied directly to the
specimen surfaces by trowel, with no primer prior to application as indicated by Epoxytec. The
manufacturer recommends, in actual use, a single coat application up to 0.75 in. thickness. Per
Epoxytec, the finished coating thickness was approximately 0.069 in. 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 (22° C) and humidity was typical of room conditions.
Epoxytec indicates the minimum cure time before immersion into service is three hours at 77° F
(25° C).
3.4 Evaluation of Coated Specimens
3.4.1 Holiday Test (CIGMA T CT-1)
The holiday test (CIGMAT CT-1, a modification of ASTM G20-88(2002)1 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 0.125 in. The holiday diameters used during this test were 3 mm (0.125 in.) and
13 mm (0.50 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 74° F (23° C ± 2° C).
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), "Standard Test Method for Chemical Resistance of Pipeline
Coatings." ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959
USA
16
-------
Plastic Lid (Air Tight)
1
Vapor Space
Liquid Level
^^^>^^
Coated Concrete
or C'lav Brick
ft
^
^
C (or D)
-&t
>
s~\ '
v. ^
L
B
f
L
B
1
i
i
i
A
r
i
A 152 mm (6.0 in.) height concrete specimen or clay brick
B 3S mm (1.5 in.) holiday location
C 76 min (3 in.) diameter concrete cylinder
D 152 x 64 x 45 mincre« iecticii of clay brick
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
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-
17
-------
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 C321-942), 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.
Loading
Direction
(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 modification of ASTM D45413), 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
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), "Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Chemical-Resistant
Mortars." ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA
3 American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM), "Standard Test for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable
Adhesion Testers." ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-
2959 USA
18
-------
for the sandwich test. The specimens were stored under water in plastic containers and the
coatings were cored 24 hrs prior to the test.
Loading Direction
Metal Fixture
Corin§ Coating
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 CIGMAT CT 2 Test CIGMAT CT 3
Type Description (Modified ASTM D4541) (ASTM C321)
Type-1
Type-2
Type-3
Type-4
Type-5
Substrate Failure
Coating Failure
Bonding Failure
Bonding and
Substrate Failure
Bonding and
Coating Failure
metal ^|~~|
fixture ~ ** Coating
Vj^^
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture"' Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture *"1 |^^-Coatmg
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^J~~|
fixture"- j | ^____Coatmg
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture"' 1 | ^^, Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
Concrete/Clay Brick
x
1 \\ 1
' 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 ~
' \ f
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
' \ \
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
Coating 1 ^^ ^1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
* \ ^1
Coating
19
-------
A Type-1 failure is a 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 a bonding failure where failure occurred
between the coating and substrate. Type-4 and Type-5 are combined failures. Type-4 failure is a
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 a 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 180 days.
20
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The testing was designed to evaluate the ability of the Epoxytec CPP 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 specimens made only 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, showing no weight gain over the time frame. The unit weight varied from 62
Ib/ft3 (993 kg/m3) to 68 Ib/ft3 (1089 kg/m3) with an average of 65 Ib/ft3 (1041 kg/m3) and a
coefficient of variation of 1.9%. The pulse velocity varied from about 8660 ft/sec to about 8900
ft/sec, averaging about 8791 ft/sec with a standard deviation of 119 and a coefficient of variation
of 1.3%. All data is provided in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Properties of Coating Samples (Epoxytec CPP)
Specimen
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (COV)
Unit Weight
(Ib/ft3)
67.5
65.1
65.4
64.4
63.7
65.5
65.3
1.28
1.9%
Pulse Velocity
(ft/sec)
8775
8674
8821
8985
8834
8661
8791
119.4
1.3%
21
-------
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.
4. 1 .2. 1 Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance
In order to evaluate the performance of CPP, 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 CPP was evaluated over a period of six months, from March 2009 to
September 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.
22
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations for Epoxytec, Inc. CPP
Specimen Material
(Coating Condition)
PI Water
1% H2SO4 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.
23
-------
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 4-3.
Table 4-3. Average Specimen Weight Gain (%) After 180 Days of Immersion
Specimen
Type
Concrete
Clay Brick
Holiday
None
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
None
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
Dry-coated
DI Water
0.12
0.24
-
0.12
8.3
-
( % weight gain)
H2SO4
0.11
0.35
0.44
0.20
8.8
9.6
Wet-coated
DI Water
0.25
0.30
-
0.20
2.3
-
( % weight gain)
H2SO4
0.18
0.27
0.34
0.44
2.4
1.6
4.1.2.2 Bonding Strength
Bonding strengths of the Epoxytec CPP 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 CPP Coating 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 (three month samples) and September 28, 2009 (six 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) involved substrate failure, whether entirely or in
association with a bonding failure, while the other three failure modes were associated with
either bonding or coating failures, whether singly or in combination. The actual coating bonding
strength for failures involving substrate was 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 involved substrate failure, were 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
Figures 4-3 and 4-4, respectively. Bonding strength detail 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.
24
-------
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
T. ., rr 2 TVT , f r ., Failure Strength
Failure Type - Number of Failures / -\
(psi)
12345 Range Average
3
8
2
8
2
6
1 218
153
4 164
8 92
2 231
190
2 267
2 184
-280
-235
-235
-236
-364
-284
-318
-342
255
190
204
142
286
251
295
282
Sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) or Pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2).
See Table 3-5.
25
-------
250
Cv 200
1
|D 150
fi
:/j
g 100
a
ta 50
7
t i-i
D Dry Concrete
Wet Concrete
Sample Number
1 Sample numbers 1 through 4 are 21-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
D Dry Clay Brick
Wet Clay Bnck
3 4
Sample Number
5 6
1,2
1 Sample numbers 1 through 4 are 21-day breaks
Sample numbers 5 and 6 are 90-day breaks
Sample numbers 7 and 8 are 180-day breaks
2 Bold number above each column indicates Failure Type
Figure 4-4. Clay brick bonding strength - pull-off test.
26
-------
300
250
200
150
J3 100
I
50
IH Dry Concrete
Wet Concrete
Sample Number
1,2
1 Sample numbers 1 and 2 are 21-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.
400
^ 25°
£ 200
t/3
S 150
100
50
0
^
1 5
D Dry Clay Brick
Wet Clay Brick
Sample Number
1 Sample numbers 1 and 2 are 21-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.
27
-------
(a) Wet Concrete
(b) Dry Concrete
Figure 4-7. Type-3 (a) and Type-1 (b) failure during CIGMAT CT-2 test with (a) wet and
(b) dry concrete, respectively.
28
-------
(a) Dry CPP coated concrete
(b) Wet CPP 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.
(a) Dry CPP coated clay brick
(b) Wet CPP 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 Epoxytec, Inc. Epoxy Coating CPP (dry and wet) for coating concrete and clay bricks.
The following observations are based on the testing results:
General Observations
Specimens made only of the coating showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a
10-day period.
29
-------
None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with and 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 coated concrete or clay brick
specimens at the holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
Two-thirds of all bonding tests (32 of 48) resulted in Type-1 substrate (29) and Type-4
bonding/substrate (three) failures.
One-third of all bonding tests (16 of 48) resulted in Type-3 bonding (eight) or
bonding/coating (eight) failures.
Concrete Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.30% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
Weight gain was <0.45% for wet or dry specimens with holidays for both water and acid
exposures; no significant change with holiday size.
Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (11 of 12) Type-1 substrate failures, with one being
a Type-4 bonding/substrate failure.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated concrete specimens was 212 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 153 to 280 psi.
Wet-coated concrete failures were bonding and bonding/coating failures; eight of the 12
failures were Type-3 bonding failures, with the remainder being Type-5 bonding/coating
failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for wet-coated concrete specimens was 163 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 92 to 236 psi.
Clay Brick Substrate
Weight gain was < 0.45% for any of the coated clay brick specimens without holidays.
Weight gain of 8-10% for dry-coated clay brick specimens with holidays for both water and
acid exposures; 1.5-2.5% weight gain for wet-coated specimens with holiday for both water
and acid exposures; no significant change for holiday size.
Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly (10 of 12) Type-1 substrate failures, with two
being Type-5 bonding/coating failures.
Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated clay brick specimens was 262 psi, with
individual specimens ranging from 190 to 364 psi.
Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (eight of 12) Type-1 substrate failures,
with two being Type-4 bonding/substrate failures and the remaining two being Type-5
bonding/coating failures.
Average tensile bonding strength with wet-coated clay brick was 286 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 184 to 342 psi.
30
-------
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 ^* Compressiv
(ib/fr
(ft/sec)
Water
Flexural 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 Ib/ft3 (2034
kg/m3) and 150 Ib/ft3 (2403 kg/m3), with a mean value of 144 Ib/ft (2307 kg/m3). The specimens
all fell within the allowable +20% of the mean value of the batch. Pulse velocities ranged from
12,700 ft/sec to 15,800 ft/sec, with a mean of 13,600 ft/sec, within the allowable range of 20% of
the mean value of the batch.
31
-------
For the concrete block specimens, the unit weight varied between 117 Ib/ft3 (1874 kg/m3) and
172 Ib/ft3 (2755 kg/m3), with a mean value of 141 Ib/ft3 (2259 kg/m3). The specimens all fell
within the allowable +20% of the mean value of the batch. Pulse velocities ranged from 13,100
ft/sec to 15,200 ft/sec, with a mean of 13,700 ft/sec, 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) in Appendix A). The variation of pulse velocity was normally distributed (Figure Al(b) in
Appendix A).
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 Ib/ft3 (2114 kg/m3) and 153 Ib/ft3 (2451
kg/m3), with a mean value of 138 Ib/ft3 (2211 kg/m3) . The specimens all fell within the
allowable +20% of the mean value of the batch.
The pulse velocity varied from 8,500 ft/sec to 10,250 ft/sec. There was no direct correlation
between the pulse velocity and unit weight of clay bricks (Figure A2(a) in Appendix A). The
variation of pulse velocity was normally distributed (Figure A2(b) in Appendix A).
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, within
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 gains 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.
32
-------
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 strengths were 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 1100 psi (7.6 MPa) and was about 1200 psi (8.3 MPa)
for the dry concrete. Compressive and flexural strength 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
and dry 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.
33
-------
Table 5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test
Material
Coating
Concrete Cylinders
Concrete Prisms
Clay Prisms (Brick)
Unit
weight
6(6)
20 (102)
36(189)
56(159)
Number
Pulse
velocity
6(6)
20(18)
36 (37)
56(18)
of Specimens Used in Test (1)
Water
absorption
6(6)
10(10)
None
10(10)
Flexure (2)
None
None
3(2)
3(2)
Compression
(2)
None
3(2)
None
None
n = Number of specimens to be characterized per VTP; (n) = Number of specimens observed or tested.
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 numbers (per the VTP) of coated specimens to be evaluated for each substrate during the
testing are 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 are changes in bonding strength
with time. Normally, the 3- and 6-month bonding test results did 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.
34
-------
Table 5-3. Total Number of Tests for Each Substrate Material
Exposure
Time
2 Weeks (3)
30 Days
90 Days
180 Days
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 21 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 21-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 21-Day Pull-Off Test
c< u ± ± r^ j-i- Number of Average Failure Standard Deviation
Substrate - Condition & ,,
Samples Strength (psi) (psi)
Concrete-Dry 4 160 6.3
Concrete-Wet 4 95 3.0
Clay brick - Dry 4 236 29.9
Clay brick - Wet 4 251 60.8
35
-------
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 materials 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.
36
-------
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
[1] Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated
Products and Applied Coatings; ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA.
[2] Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 04.05, Chemical Resistant Materials;
Vitrified Clay, Concrete, Fiber-Cement Products; Mortar; Masonry; ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA.
[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.
37
-------
[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.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
Data from Evaluation of Pre-Coated
Test Specimens and Coating
39
-------
Behavior of Concrete Specimens, Clay Brick Specimens and Coating
Summary
In order to ensure the quality of the evaluation, the concrete (cylinders and blocks) and
clay bricks used in this study were tested and the results are summarized in this section. Also,
specimens made entirely of the coating were analyzed to characterize the coating material.
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 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.
Concrete: The variation of pulse velocity with unit weight is shown in Figure Al. The unit
weight of concrete specimens varied between 117 Ib/ft3 (1874 kg/m3) and 172 Ib/ft3 (2756
kg/m3). The pulse velocity varied from 12,700 ft/sec to 15,800 ft/sec. 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 Ib/ft3 (2115 kg/m3) and 153 Ib/ft3 (2451
kg/m3). The pulse velocity varied from 8500 ft/sec to 10,250 ft/sec. 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 Ib/ft3 to 68 Ib/ft3 with an average of 65 Ib/ft3
with a coefficient of variation of 1.9%. The pulse velocity varied from 8660 ft/sec to 8990 ft/sec
with an average of 8791 ft/sec with a coefficient of variation of 1.3% (Table A6).
A. 2. Chemical Resistance
Concrete: 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 was 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 acids showed similar gain in weight of over 10%. No
visible damage in 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.
40
-------
A. 3. Strength
Concrete: Compressive and flexural strength of dry and wet concrete are summarized in Table
A5. 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. 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).
20
120
Unit Weight (kN/m3)
21 22 23
130 140
Unit weight (Ib/ft3)
150
24
u
j£
i
T 1
.5-
tj
O
s
J2
Q.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
n
Q^H^
o Ife^r^^
(a)
50
40
30
20
10
n
o
OJ
>
J2
17
S 16
15
14
+j
'u
"53
01
-i 13
12
(b)
20
40 60
% Probability
80
100
in
51
49
47
o
tH
45 5
u
43 °.
41
-------
21
Unit Weight kN/m3
21 22
22
u
°
y&isrj \i ^
^^
(a)
3D
30
25
20
15
10
5
n
u
90
cu
_tn
5 85
80
(b)
20 40 60
% Probability
80
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
100
4-»
1
cu
cu
Figure A2. Quality control for clay brick specimens (a) pulse velocity versus unit weight
and (b) distribution of pulse velocity.
42
-------
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.
43
-------
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. Average 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
44
-------
APPENDIX B
Test Results and Observations from
Chemical Exposure - Holiday Test
45
-------
Laboratory Test: Holiday Test
(CIGMAT CT-1 (Modified ASTM G 20-88))
Summary: Sulfuric Acid Resistance
In order to evaluate the performance of CPP, coated concrete cylinders and clay bricks
were tested with and without holidays in water and sulfuric acid solution (pH=l). Performance
of CPP 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.
CPP (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
(notable 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.
CPP (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 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).
46
-------
(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 Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Concrete after 30 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 30
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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
47
-------
Table B.2. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Concrete after 30 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 30
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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 Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Concrete after 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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
48
-------
Table B.4. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Concrete after 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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 Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Clay Brick after 30 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Dry
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 30
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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
49
-------
Table B6. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Clay Brick after 30 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Wet
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 30
days of
immersion
Medium and Rating
(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 Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Clay Brick after 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Dry
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
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
50
-------
Table B8. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Clay Brick 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay
Wet
Total No.
%(N/B/C)
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 30
days of
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 Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Concrete Brick 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Dry
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Average weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.12
0.24
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
0.11
0.35
0.44
Specimens with
holidays showed
greater weight
change
Remarks
Similar weight change
Higher weight change in
water
Higher weight change with
increased holiday size
Holidays increased the
weight change
51
-------
Table BIO. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Concrete Brick after 180
Days Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Concrete
Wet
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Average weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.25
0.30
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
0.18
0.27
0.34
Specimens with
holidays showed
greater weight
change
Remarks
Greater weight change in
water
Greater weight change in
water
Similar weight change with
increased holiday size
Holidays increased the
weight change
Table Bll. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Dry-Coated Clay Brick after 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay Brick
Dry
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Average weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.12
8.3
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
0.20
8.8
9.6
Specimens with
holidays showed
similar weight
change
Remarks
Greater weight change in
acid
Similar weight change
Greater weight change with
increased holiday size
Greater weight change with
larger holidays
Table B12. Holiday Test Results for Epoxytec CPP Wet-Coated Clay Brick after 180 Days
Immersion (CIGMAT CT-1)
Clay Brick
Wet
Remarks
Holiday
No Holiday
0.125 in.
0.50 in.
After 180
days of
immersion
Average weight Change (%)
DI Water
0.20
2.3
~
Specimens with
holiday showed
greater weight
change
H2SO4
0.44
2.4
1.6
Specimens with
holidays showed
greater weight
change
Remarks
Greater weight change in
acid
Similar weight change
Less weight change with
increased holiday size
Holidays increased the
weight change but the size
of holiday did not affect
52
-------
APPENDIX C
Results and Observations from
Bonding Tests
53
-------
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 CPP (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. Performance of Coating CPP
was evaluated starting March 2009 and the results are included in this report. A total of 24
bonding tests with concrete specimens and 24 with clay brick specimens was 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 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.
54
-------
Table Cl. Failure Types of Modified ASTM D 4541 Test and ASTM C 321 Test
Failure
Type
Tvpe-1
lype-z
iype j
lype-4
Tvnp-S
lypc J
Description
Substrate
Failure
Coating Failure
Bonding and
Substrate
Failure
Bonding and
Coating Failure
CIGMAT CT-2 Test
(Modified ASTM D 4541)
metal ^_ |~~1
fixture ~~*J | ^^ Coating
*3T
1 I
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~j
fivtnrp ^1 1 Coating
1 U^
1 UHLJ |
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^| 1
fixture ^1 Coating
L_U-^
i ii ii I
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ,^|~~|
fixture~n Coating
L4-*^
^ i.^^^^^
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal ^|~~|
fixture~n Coating
LJ-*^
1 "* I
Concrete/Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-3 Test
(Modified ASTM C 321)
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
^ '
y 1
.. \ \
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1
XI 1
1 f
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1
' 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
i v ^i
Coating 1
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
1 1
* 1 -^1
Coating 1 1
55
-------
CPP (Dry Coating)
(i) Concrete
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight laboratory tests were performed.
All failures were Type-1. The average bonding strength from all the tests performed was 190 psi
(1.3MPa)(TableC2).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed. Test results
are summarized in Table C6. Type-1 (75%) and Type-4 (25%) failures were observed. Average
bonding strength from all the laboratory tests was 255 psi (1.8 MPa) (Table C6).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Type-1
failures were observed during the pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test
(CIGMAT CT-3) produced Type-1 and Type-4 failures. The average bonding strength from
CIGMAT CT-2 tests was 190 psi (1.3 MPa) and from CIGMAT CT-3 tests was 255 psi (1.8
MPa). The average tensile bonding strength with dry concrete was 212 psi (1.5 MPa), ranging
from 153 to 280 psi, with 92% being substrate (Type-1) failures.
(ii) Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed. All were
Type-1 failures. The average bonding strength from all the tests was 251 psi (1.7 MPa) (Table
C5).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed. Type-1 (50%)
and Type-5 (50%) failures were observed in the test. Test results are summarized in Table C8.
The average bonding strength from all tests was 286 psi (2.0 MPa) (Table C8).
Summary: The type of test influenced the mode of failure and the bonding strength. Type-1
failure was observed during the pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2), while the sandwich test (CIGMAT
CT-3) produced Type-1 and Type-5 failures. The average bonding strength from CIGMAT CT-2
tests was 251 psi (1.7 MPa) and from CIGMAT CT-3 tests was 286 psi (2.0 MPa). The average
tensile bonding strength with dry clay brick was 262 psi (1.8 MPa), ranging from 190 to 309 psi,
with 83% Type-1 failures in the clay brick substrate.
CPP (Wet Coating)
(i) Concrete
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed. All were
Type-3 failures. The average bonding strength from all the tests was 142 psi (1.0 MPa) (Table
C3).
56
-------
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed. All were
Type-5 failures. Test results are summarized in Table C7. The average bonding strength from all
the laboratory tests was 204 psi (1.4 MPa) (Table C7).
Summary: The type of test influenced the bonding strength but not the failure type. The average
bonding strength from the pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2) was 142 psi (1.0 MPa), and from the
sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) was 204 psi (1.4 MPa). The average tensile bonding strength for
wet concrete was 163 psi (1.1 MPa), ranging from 92 to 236 psi, with 67% bonding (Type-3) and
33% bonding and coating (Type-5) failures.
(ii) Clay Brick
CIGMAT CT-2 (modified ASTM D 4541-85): A total of eight tests was performed. The
observed failures included six Type-1 (75%) and two Type-4 (25%) failures. The average
bonding strength from all the tests was 282 psi (1.9 MPa) (Table C5).
CIGMAT CT-3 (modified ASTM C 321-94): A total of four tests was performed. Type-1 (50%)
and Type-5 (50%) failures were observed. Test results are summarized in Table C9. The average
bonding strength from all the tests was 295 psi (2.0 MPa) (Table C9).
Summary: The type of test influenced the bonding strength and not the dominant type of failure.
The average bonding strength from the pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-2) was 282 psi (1.9 MPa) and
from the sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-3) was 295 psi (2.0 MPa). The average tensile bonding
strength with wet clay brick was 286 psi (2.0 MPa), ranging from 184 to 342 psi, with three types
of failure modes - 67% substrate (Type-1), 16.6% bonding and substrate (Type-4) and (16.6%)
bonding and coating (Type-5) failures.
Table C2. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Dry Concrete CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-
Off)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XX X X
X X
XX
8
(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)
160
212
228
Total of 8 tests.
Types- 1 failure;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
190 psi (1.3 MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
57
-------
Table C3. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Wet Concrete CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-off)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
0
(0%)
None
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
xxxx
X X
X X
8
(100%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
95
157
223
Total of 8 tests.
Type-3 failure;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
142 psi (1.0 MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C4. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Dry Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-
off)
Clay
Dry
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
xxxx
XX
XX
8
(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)
236
256
276
Total of 8 tests.
Type-1 failure;
average bonding
strength for all tests -
251 psi (1.7 MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
58
-------
Table C5. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Wet Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-2 (Pull-
off)
Clay Brick
Wet
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
21
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
XX
XX
XX
6
(75%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
XX
2
(25%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
251
309
315
Total of 8 tests.
Type-1 and Type-4
failures; average
bonding strength -
282psi(1.9MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C6. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Dry Concrete CIGMAT CT-3
(Sandwich)
Concrete
Dry
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
X
X
X
3
(75%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
X
1
(25%)
None
Type-5
0
(0%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
260
218
280
Total of 4 tests.
Type-1 and Type-4
failures; average
bonding strength -
255psi(1.8MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
59
-------
Table C7. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Wet Concrete CIGMAT CT-3
(Sandwich)
Concrete
Wet
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
0
(0%)
None
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
XX
X
X
4
(100%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
196
192
235
Total of 4 tests.
Type-5 failures;
average bonding
strength - 204 psi
(1.4MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
Table C8. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Dry Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-3
(Sandwich)
Clay Brick
Dry
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
30
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
X
X
2
(50%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
X
X
2
(50%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
298
238
309
Total of 4 tests.
Type-1 and Type-5
failures; average
bonding strength -
286 psi (2.0 MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
60
-------
Table C9. Bonding Strength of Epoxytec CPP with Wet Clay Brick CIGMAT CT-3
(Sandwich)
Clay Brick
Wet
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Approximate
Curing Time
(days)
21
90
180
Up to 180
days
Failure Modes
Type-1
X
X
2
(50%)
Good
bonding
strength
Type-2
0
(0%)
None
Type-3
0
(0%)
None
Type-4
0
(0%)
None
Type-5
X
X
2
(50%)
None
Average Failure
Strength (psi)
276
308
318
Total of 4 tests.
Type-1 and Type-5
failures; average
bonding strength -
295 psi (2.0 MPa).
Type-1 = Concrete failure
Type-2 = Coating failure
Type-3 = Bonding failure
Type-4 = Combined concrete and bonding failure
Type-5 = Combined coating and bonding failure
61
-------
APPENDIX D
Manufacturer Data Sheet for
CPP RC3
62
-------
VENDOR DATA SHEET
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COATING
Coating Product Name: CPP RC3
Coating Product Vendor Name and Address: Epoxytec International Inc.
P.O. Box 3656
West Park, FL 33083
Coating Type: Epoxy (CPP-Concrete Polymer Paste)
Testing Method
Tensile Adhesion to Concrete
(ASTMD4541)
Chemical Resistance (ASTM D 543)
(3 % H2 SO4)
Water Vapor Transmission
(ASTMD 1653/E1907)
Bending Strength or Tensile Strength
(ASTM D 790)
Hardness- Shore D (ASTM D 2240)
Impact Resistance (ASTM G 14)
Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs
(ASTM D 2832)
Vendor Results
Substrate
Hydrogen
failure
sulfide, mild acids
0
8,900 psi
82
N.A.
None
Worker Safety
Flammability Rating
Known Carcinogenic Content
Other hazards (corrosive)
Result/Requirement
Unknown
None
Corrosive in uncured state (B component only)
Environmental
Characteristics
Heavy Metal Content (w/w)
Leaching of Cured Coating (TCLP)
Disposal of Cured Coating
Result/Requirement
None
None
Non-hazardous solid waste
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
None
One coat maximum 0.75 in.
40° F
2 hrs at 77° F (25° C)
115°F
3 hrs at 77° F (25° C)
Clean substrate, water pressure 3000 psi
63
-------
Vendor
Experience
Length of Time the Coating in Use
Applicator Training & Qualification
Program
QA/QC Program for Coating/Lining
Comments
20 years
Certified applicators
Certified applicators
N. A. - Not provided by vendor or not applicable.
64
------- |