THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
wEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PROGRAM
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
Infrastructure Rehabilitation Technologies
Coatings for Wastewater Collection Systems
Standard Epoxy Coating 4553™ (SEC 4553)
University of Houston, CIGMAT
Standard Cement Materials, Inc.
5710 West 34th Street, Suite A
Houston, TX 77092
http://www.standardcement.com
mariotamez(fl)standardcement.com
PHONE: (713) 680-0482
FAX: (713) 680-1017
EPA created the ETV program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The program's goal is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective
technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology
performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are
responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results
are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates the
Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the Standard Epoxy Coating 4553™ (SEC
4553), an epoxy coating system marketed by Standard Cement Materials, Inc. The SEC 4553 coating was tested
at the University of Houston's Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT).
10/36/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
September 2010
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the Standard Cement Materials coating material (SEC 4553) was provided by the
vendor and does not represent verified information.
Use the Standard Epoxy Coating 4553™, a 100% solids, solvent-less two-component epoxy coating system with
increased bond strength and broad range chemical resistance to protect concrete, steel, masonry and fiberglass
structures, and to repair chemical damaged concrete in moist and damp environments.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION - METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The objective of this testing was to evaluate SEC 4553 used in wastewater systems to control the deterioration
of concrete and clay infrastructure materials. Specific testing objectives were to (1) evaluate the acid resistance
of SEC 4553 coated concrete specimens and clay bricks, both with and without holidays (small holes
intentionally drilled through the coating and into the specimens; and, (2) determine the bonding strength of SEC
4553 to concrete and clay bricks.
Verification testing was conducted using relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)(1) and
CIGMAT(2) standards, as described below. Product characterization tests were conducted on the coating
material and the uncoated concrete and clay specimens to assure uniformity prior to their use in the acid
resistance and bonding strength tests. Standard Cement Materials' 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
SEC 4553 coated concrete cylinders and clay bricks were tested with and without holidays 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 was 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 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) 3Q 18Q 3Q 18Q
Concrete - Dry N
Concrete - Wet N
Clay Brick -Dry N
Clay Brick - Wet N
N = No blister or crack;
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(n)
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
N(2)
N(2) N(2)
N(2) N(2)
N (2) N (2)
N(2) N(2)
1% HiSCX. Solution (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
N(2) N(2) N(4) N(4)
N(2) N(2) N(4) N(4)
N(2) N(2) N(4) N(4)
N(2) N(2) N(4) N(4)
Comments
Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
= Number of specimens.
10/36/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-ii
September 2010
-------
A specimen, made only of SEC 4553 and submerged in water for 10 days, showed no weight change over the
period. Likewise, over an exposure time of 180 days, weight changes in coated specimens with no holidays
showed less than 1% gain in DI and acid exposures. With holidays, coated concrete specimens showed < 0.75%
weight change, while coated clay brick specimens showed 2.5-4.3% gains. Changes in the diameters/dimensions
of the specimens at the holiday levels were negligible after 180 days of exposure.
(b) Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method)
Tests were performed to determine the bonding strength between the SEC 4553 coating and concrete/clay brick
specimens over a period of six months. Twelve sandwich (6 dry-condition, 6 wet-condition) and twenty pull-off
(10 dry-condition, 10 wet-condition) tests were performed on both coated concrete samples and coated clay
bricks.
Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT 3)
CIGMAT CT 3, a modification of ASTM C321-94, was used for the testing. SEC 4553 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 SEC 4553.
(a) Test specimen configuration (b) Load frame test setup
Figure 1. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.
Dry-coated specimens were dried at room conditions for at least seven days before they were coated, while wet-
coated specimens were immersed in water for at least seven days before the specimens were coated. Bonded
specimens were cured under water up to the point of testing. The type of failure was also characterized during
the load testing, as described in Table 2.
Pull-Off Method (CIGMAT CT 2)
Per CIGMAT CT 2, a 2-in. diameter circle was cut into coated concrete prisms and clay bricks to a
predetermined depth to isolate the coating, and a metal fixture was glued to the isolated coating section using a
rapid setting epoxy. Testing was completed on a load frame with the arrangements shown in Figure 2, with
observation of the type of failure, as indicated in Table 2. The specimens were prepared in the same manner as
for the sandwich test. The specimens were stored under water in plastic containers and the coatings were cored
24 hrs prior to the testing. The bonding tests were completed at 30, 60 and 180 days after application of the
SEC 4553. Results of the bonding tests are included in Table 3.
10/36/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iii
September 2010
-------
Table 2. Failure Types in Sandwich and Pull-Off Tests
Failure Type Description
Sandwich Test
Pull-off Test
Type-1
Type -2
Type-3
Substrate Failure
Coating Failure
Bonding Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
„,
v I
Coating ' - '
Concrete/Clay Brick
X _
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
I I
' - '
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
Type-4
Type-5
Bonding and Substrate
Failure
Bonding and Coating
Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating I 'I
Concrete/Clay Brick
Coating
metal
fixture
Coating
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.
10/36/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
September 2010
-------
Table 3. Summary of Test Results for Bonding Strength Tests (12 Specimens for Each Condition)
Substrate -
Application
Condition
Concrete - Dry
Concrete - Wet
Clay Brick - Dry
Clay Brick -Wet
Test1
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Failure Type
1 2
5
5
6
4
6
10
6
7
- Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
345 Range
1 185-
5 78-
204-
6 89-
172-
184-
271-
3 170-
260
266
279
256
279
310
345
287
Average
224
188
242
184
245
246
310
225
1 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 Standard Cement Materials, Inc. SEC 4553 Epoxy Coating for use in wastewater
collection systems was evaluated for chemical resistance and the bond of the coating with both wet and dry
substrate materials, made up of concrete and clay brick. The type of bonding test, whether sandwich test or
pull-off test, impact the mode of failure and bonding strength for both substrate materials. The testing
indicated:
General Observations
• Samples of the coating material alone showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a 10-day
period.
• None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with 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.
• All of the bonding tests (total of 64) resulted in either a substrate (Type-1) failure, (49 tests) or a
bonding/substrate (Type-4) failure (15 tests).
Concrete Substrate
• Weight gain was < 0.45% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
• Weight gain was <0.75% for wet or dry specimens with holidays for acid exposure; no significant
change with holiday size.
• Weight gain of about 3.0% for wet and dry specimens with holidays for water exposure.
• Average tensile bonding strength with dry-coated concrete was 202 psi, with individual specimens
ranging from 78 to 266 psi; 10 of the 16 failures were in the concrete substrate (Type-1) failures, with the
remaining six being a bonding/substrate (Type-4) failure.
• Average tensile bonding strength with wet-coated concrete was 206 psi, with individual specimens
ranging from 89 to 279 psi; 10 of the 16 failures were concrete substrate (Type-1) failures, with the
remaining six being bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
10/36/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-v
September 2010
-------
Clay Brick Substrate
• Weight gain was less than 1% for any of the coated clay brick specimens without holidays.
• Weight gain of about 2.5-4% for both dry-and wet-coated specimens with holidays for both water and
acid exposures; no significant change for holiday size.
• Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated clay brick was 247 psi, with individual specimens
ranging from 172 to 310 psi; all 16 of the failures were substrate (Type-1) failures.
• Average tensile bonding strength with wet-coated clay brick was 257 psi, with individual specimens
ranging from 170 to 345 psi; 13 of the 16 failures were substrate (Type-1) failures, with the remaining
three being bonding/substrate (Type-4) failures.
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 23, 2010
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Systems
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and
the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance
of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for
complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an
NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Referenced Documents:
1) Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated Products and Applied
Coatings, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
2) CIGMAT Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Coating Materials, available from the University of Houston,
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, Houston, TX.
Copies of the Test Plan for Verification of Standard Cement Materials Coatings for Wastewater
Collection Systems (August, 2008), the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report
Number 10/36 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)
10/36/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-vi
------- |