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
Protective Liner Systems Epoxy Mastic PLS-614 (PLS-614)
University of Houston, CIGMAT
Protective Liner Systems, Inc.
6691 Tribble Street
Lithonia, GA 30058
PHONE: (770) 482-5201
FAX: (770) 484-1821
http://www.protectivelinersystems.com
Joseph@protectivelinersystems.com
EPA created the ETV program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The program's goal is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective
technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology
performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are
responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results
are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates the
Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the Protective Liner Systems PLS-614
epoxy mastic, marketed by Protective Liner Systems, Inc. The PLS-614 coating was tested at the University of
Houston's Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT).
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
September 2010
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the Protective Liner Systems coating material (PLS-614) was provided by the
vendor and does not represent verified information.
Protective Liner Systems' PLS-614 is a 100% solids epoxy coating used for structural concrete protection,
rehabilitation and repair, and is designed to be applied by trowel or spray. The PLS-614 system is formulated to
provide a monolithic structural coating or patch for rehabilitation of concrete structures and protection against
wear, corrosion, infiltration and exfiltration.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION - METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The objective of this testing was to evaluate PLS-614 used in wastewater collection systems to control the
deterioration of concrete and clay infrastructure materials. Specific testing objectives were (1) to evaluate the
acid resistance of PLS-614 coated concrete specimens and clay bricks, both with and without holidays (small
holes intentionally drilled through the coating and into the specimens to evaluate chemical resistance), and (2)
determine the bonding strength of PLS-614 to concrete and clay bricks.
Verification testing was conducted using relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)(1) and
CIGMAT(2) standards, as described below. Product characterization tests were conducted on the coating
material and the uncoated concrete and clay specimens to assure uniformity prior to their use in the acid
resistance and bonding strength tests. Protective Liner Systems' representatives were responsible for coating the
concrete and clay specimens, under the guidance of CIGMAT staff members. The coated specimens were
evaluated over the course of six months.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
(a) Holiday Test - Chemical Resistance
PLS-614 coated concrete cylinders and clay bricks were tested with and without holidays (small holes
intentionally drilled through the coating) in deionized (DI) water and a 1% sulfuric acid solution (pH=l). A
total of 20 coated concrete specimens and 20 coated clay brick specimens were exposed. Specimens were cured
for two weeks prior to creation of 0.12 in. and 0.50 in. holidays. The 0.12 in. holidays were exposed to both DI
water and acid solution, while the 0.50 in. holidays were exposed only to the acid solution. Observation of the
specimens at 30 and 180 days was made for changes in appearance such as blistering or cracks in the coating
around the holiday or color changes in the coating. Control tests were also performed using specimens with no
holidays. A summary of the chemical exposure observations is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Chemical Exposure Observations
Specimen
Material
(Coating
Condition)
DI Water (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
1% HiSCX. Solution (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
Comments
Concrete-Dry N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N(4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Concrete-Wet N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N(4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick - Dry N(2) N (2) N (2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N (4) N (4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
Clay Brick - Wet N (2) N(2) N (2) N(2) N (2) N(2) N (4) N(4) Color change in coating
submerged in acid solution.
N = No blister or crack; (n) = Number of specimens.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-ii
September 2010
-------
A specimen made only of PLS-614 was submerged in water for 10 days, showing no weight change over the
period. Over an exposure time of 180 days, coated concrete specimens with no holidays showed less than 0.7%
gain in DI water and acid exposures, as did clay brick specimens exposed to DI water. Coated clay brick
exposed to acid showed a 2-7% weight gain. With holidays, coated concrete specimens showed up to 1.2%
weight change, while coated clay brick specimens showed 5-7% gains. Changes in the diameters/dimensions of
the specimens at the holiday levels were negligible after 180 days of exposure.
(b) Bonding Strength Tests (Sandwich Method and Pull-Off Method)
Bonding strength tests were performed to determine the bonding strength between the PLS-614 coating and
concrete/clay brick specimens over a period of six months. Eight sandwich (4 dry-condition, 4 wet-condition)
and sixteen pull-off (8 dry-condition, 8 wet-condition) tests were performed on both coated concrete samples
and coated clay bricks.
Sandwich Test Method (CIGMAT CT 3)
CIGMAT CT 3, a modification of ASTM C321-94, was used for the testing. PLS-614 was applied to form a
sandwich between a like pair of rectangular specimens (Figure 1 (a)), both concrete brick and clay brick, and
then tested for bonding strength and failure type following a curing period. The bonding strength of the coating
was determined using a load frame (Figure 1 (b)) to determine the failure load and bonding strength (the failure
load divided by the bonded area). The sandwich bonding tests were completed at 30, 90 and 180 days after
application of the PLS-614.
(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 21, 60 and 180 days after application of the
PLS-614. Results of the bonding tests are included in Table 3.
10/35/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
Type-4
Type-5
Substrate Failure
Coating Failure
Bonding Failure
Bonding and Substrate
Failure
Bonding and Coating
Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
„,
v I
Coating ' - '
Concrete/Clay Brick
X _
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
I I
' - '
Coating I 'I
Concrete/Clay Brick
Coating
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
metal
fixture
Coating
Concrete/Clay Brick
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.
10/35/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
4
1
3
5
4
3
4
3
- Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
345 Range
7
1
3
5
5
232
107
257
190
314
187
338
181
-293
-304
-321
-350
-350
-321
-384
-374
Average
269
205
287
234
335
253
366
264
1 Sandwich test (CIGMAT CT-2/Modified ASTM D 4541-85) or Pull-off test (CIGMAT CT-3/ASTM C 321-94).
2 See Table 2.
(c) Summary of Verification Results
The performance of the Protective Liner System, Inc. PLS-614 epoxy mastic for use in wastewater collection
systems was evaluated for chemical resistance and the bond of the coating with both wet and dry substrate
materials, made up of concrete and clay brick. The type of bonding test, whether sandwich test or pull-off
test, impacted the mode of failure and bonding strength for both substrate materials. The testing indicated:
General Observations
• Samples of the coating material alone showed no weight gain when exposed to water over a 10-day
period.
• None of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens, with or without holidays, showed any indication of
blisters or cracking during the six-month holiday-chemical resistance tests.
• There were no observed changes in the dimensions of the coated concrete or clay brick specimens at the
holiday levels for either DI or acid exposures.
• All 48 of the bonding tests resulted in substrate and substrate/bonding failures, with 27 substrate failures
(Type-1) and 21 bonding/substrate failures (Type-4).
Concrete Substrate
• Weight gain was < 0.60% for any of the coated concrete specimens without holidays.
• Weight gain was < 1.5% for any of the coated specimens with holidays for both water and acid
exposures.
• Dry-coated concrete failures were mostly (7 of 12) bonding and concrete substrate (Type -4) failures,
with the remainder being concrete substrate (Type-1) failures.
• Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated concrete specimens was 226 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 107 to 304 psi.
• Wet-coated concrete failures were mostly (8 of 12) concrete substrate (Type-1) failures, with the
remainder being bonding and concrete substrate (Type-4) failures.
• Average tensile bonding strength for wet-coated concrete specimens was 252 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 190 to 350 psi.
10/35/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-v
September 2010
-------
Clay Brick Substrate
• Without holidays, weight gain was < 0.45% for water exposed coated clay brick specimens; weight gain
for acid exposed coated clay brick specimens was about 2-7%.
• With holidays, weight gains were > 5% for water exposed specimens and generally > 6% for acid
exposed specimens; the holiday size did not make a significant difference in weight gain.
• Dry-coated clay brick failures were mostly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type -1) failures, with the
remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
• Average tensile bonding strength for dry-coated clay brick specimens was 280 psi, with individual
specimens ranging from 187 to 350 psi.
• Wet-coated clay brick failures were predominantly (7 of 12) clay brick substrate (Type-1) failures, with
the remaining five being bonding and clay brick substrate (Type-4) failures.
• Average tensile bonding strength with-wet coated clay brick was 286 psi, with individual specimens
ranging from 181 to 384 psi.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF completed a technical systems audit prior to the start of testing to ensure that CIGMAT was equipped to
comply with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10% of the test data to ensure
that the reported data represented the data generated during testing.
Original signed by Original signed by
Sally Gutierrez October 6, 2010 Robert Ferguson November 2, 2010
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Systems
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and
the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance
of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for
complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an
NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Referenced Documents:
1) Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1995), Vol. 06.01, Paints-Tests for Formulated Products and Applied
Coatings, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
2) CIGMAT Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Coating Materials, available from the University of Houston,
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, Houston, TX.
Copies of the Test Plan for Verification of Protective Liner Systems PLS-614 Coating for 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/erv (electronic copy)
EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
10/35/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-vi
------- |