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:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
University of Houston, CIGMAT
Epoxytec International Inc.
P.O. Box 3656
West Park, FL 33083
http://www.epoxytec.com
ETV@epoxytec.com
PHONE: 877-GO-EPOXY (463-7699)
FAX: (954) 961-2395
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 waste water infrastructure protection and rehabilitation. The Epoxytec coating was
tested at the University of Houston's Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT).
10/34/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
September 2010
-------
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
Material
(Coating
Condition)
DI Water (days)
Without With
Holidays Holidays
30 180 30 180
3% H,SCh 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.
10/34/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-ii
September 2010
-------
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 CT 3)
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.
Lradiag
Direction
(a) Test specimen configuration (b) Load frame test setup
Figure 1. Bonding test arrangement for sandwich test.
Dry-coated specimens were dried at room 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.
Pull-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. 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.
10/34/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.
10/34/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
Failure Type - Number of Failures Failure Strength (psi)
Test1
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
Sandwich
Pull-off
12345 Range
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
Average
255
190
204
142
286
251
295
282
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 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.
• 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.
10/34/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-v
September 2010
-------
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.
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)
10/34/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-vi
------- |