ORNL-TM-2412 Part V

ORNL-TM-2412 Part V

Contract No. W-7405-eng-26

REACTOR DIVISION

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OF REACTOR CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEMS - PART V. PROTECTIVE COATINGS TESTS

J. C. Griess T. H. Row C. D. Watson G. A. West

L E G A L N O T I C E

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com-pleteness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

OCTOBER \970

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee

operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

for the U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

FOREWORD The Spray and Absorption Technology Program is coordinated by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for

the United States Atomic Energy Commission. The program involves research on all aspects of containment spray systems proposed for use as an engineered safety feature in pressurized water reactor containment buildings and investigations of certain aspects of the pool-pressure-suppression containment concept as applied to boiling water reactors. A document (ORNL-4360, Spray and Pool Absorption Technology Program) has recently been issued.

This document reports tests conducted to evaluate present-day protective coatings that could be applied to surfaces within a reactor containment building. The effect of temperature and spray solutions were considered in these tests. While other tests are needed to qualify a coating for use in a containment structure, these tests do indicate that present technology in the coatings industry can more than adequately produce a coating that will be useful in this application.

This is the fifth report in a series designed to present program information pertinent to actual plant design considerations. Additional reports in this series include:

T. H. Row, L. F. Parsly, H. E. Zittel, Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems -Parti, USAEC ReportORNL-TM-2412, April 1969.

C. Stuart Patterson and William T. Humphries, Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems - Part II. Removal of Iodine and Methyl Iodide from Air by Liquid Solutions, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-2412, Part II, August 1969. J. C. Griess and A. L. Bacarella, Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems - Part III. The Corrosion of Materials in Spray Solutions, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-2412, Part III, December 1969.

L. F. Parsly, Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems - Part IV. Calculation of Iodine-Water Partition Coefficients, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-2412, Part IV, January 1970.

Thomas H. Row Technical Coordinator Spray and Absorption Technology Program

i i i

CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Abstract 1

Introduction 1

Standard for Protective Coatings 2

Recirculating Loop Tests 2

Test Description 3

Protective Coating Specimens 3

Test Results 3

Tests at Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor 4

Test Description 4

Protective Coating Specimens 4

Test Results 5

Summary and Conclusions 5

Acknowledgment 6

v

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OF REACTOR CONTAINMENT SPRAY SYSTEMS - PART V. PROTECTIVE COATINGS TESTS

J. C. Griess1 C.D.Watson3

T. H. Row2 G. A. West3

ABSTRACT The research carried out in the Spray and Absorption Technology Program at ORNL has been extended to

include the evaluation of protective coatings to be used in reactor containment structures. These coatings will be subjected to the high temperature and radiation conditions possible in such containment structures following a design basis accident. Because of this possibility it is necessary to assure that the coatings are not removed in large quantities that might inhibit or negate proper operation of emergency cooling equipment.

Thirty-five different protective coatings were tested in a recirculating loop facility at ORNL, while 106 different coatings were placed in the Carolinas-Virginia Test Reactor containment building (Parr, South Carolina) and subjected to four steam system blowdown tests.

In the loop tests the coatings were examined for resistance to two proposed containment spray system solutions, 0.15 m NaOH + 0.28 m Na2S 2 0 3 , at several temperatures. The blowdown tests at CVTR also included some spraying with process water for pressure reduction.

INTRODUCTION The interior surfaces of reactor containment buildings and equipment are normally protected by

coatings (e.g., paint, which is normally sprayed on the surfaces). These coatings serve in the dual capacity of improving the aesthetic quality of the structure and of protecting the surfaces from corrosion. It is also necessary for the coatings to exhibit certain adheience characteristics under the severe environmental conditions that may exist in the building in the event of a design basis accident (DBA). The coatings cannot present a hazard to the necessary shutdown cooling equipment that must operate properly in the time period following an accident. Such a hazard would result from delamination of coatings in quantities sufficient to cause pump fouling, pipe or nozzle plugging, or fuel element coolant passage blockage.

In a pressurized water reactor (PWR) design basis accident, in which the primary system ruptures, the containment building will be subjected to a lligh-temperature (~290°F) steam-air environment and radiation. At this time, the interior of the structure is sprayed with either borated water or borated water containing other chemical additives for the purpose of sequestering fission products — iodine in particular.

In contrast, boiling water reactors (BWR) use a pressure suppression type of containment with the blowdown being directed through a pressure suppression pool. Coatings in this type of system would also be subjected to elevated temperatures and radiation.

Both PWR's and BWR's employ core spray systems as engineered safety features to provide core cooling in the event that a primary system rupture renders the normal cooling system inoperable. The core spray systems use water from the containment building sumps (PWR) or suppression pool (BWR) for a supply following the initial introduction of stored refueling water.

1 Reactor Chemistry Division. 2

Reactor Division. Chemical Technology Division.

1

2

The tests reported in this document were designed to subject the coatings to various combinations of steam, elevated temperatures, and spray solutions. No radiation exposure of the coatings was made.

The coatings were exposed in a recirculating loop facility at the ORNL Y-12 area which was used in the Spray and Absorption Technology Program4 to study the corrosive effects of spray solutions on typical materials of construction found in containment buildings.5 Coating samples were also placed in the Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR) containment building during ihe In-Plant Testing Project recently conducted by Phillips Petroleum Company.6

STANDARD FOR PROTECTIVE COATINGS Review of the use of a reactor containment spray system led to the question of whether the protective

coatings (paints) used in the structure would withstand chemicals, temperature, and radiation conditions anticipated during an accident sequence. Consequently, a series of tests was planned and executed to provide the information needed to evaluate the use of coatings as well as to provide a basis for drafting a standard to be used in future applications.

Thi. standard, entitled American National Standard, Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities, is currently in the process of final review for approval by the American National Standards Committee N101. The standard will be conjunctive with American National St&ndard, Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry, ANSI N5.9-1967. The subcommittee assembled to draft the standard represented a cross section of the industry: 3 groups involved in AEC-sponsored research, 11 coating manufacturers, 5 architectural engineering firms, 2 utilities, 3 nuclear system manufacturers, and a steel fabricator. It is felt that the standard will present a useful and practical guide for the selection and testing of coatings.

Four basic tests were outlined for use in coating evaluation:

1. fire evaluation tests,

2. thermal conductivity determination,

3. procedure? for testing coatings at simulated DBA conditions,

4. repairability and maintenance tests.

The results presented in this report involve tests in the third category, simulated DBA (design basis accident) conditions. The types of failure considered were flaking, delamination and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking as defined either by American Society for Testing and Materials Standard or by the draft standard.

RECIRCULATING LOOP TESTS The Spray and Absorption Technology Program has included research into the corrosion of

construction materials by typical spray solutions.4 '5 Coupons of representative material were exposed in a loop designed to operate at pressures up to 150 psig. The loop was equipped with an internal spray nozzle to allow for coupon exposure in a sprayed volume as well as submerged in the solution. The testing of

4 T. H. ROW, Spray and Pool Absorption Technology Program, USAEC Report ORNL-4360 (April 1965). 5 J. C. Griess and A. L. Bacarella, Design Considerations of Reactor Containment Spray Systems - Part III. The

Corrosion of Materials in Spray Solutions, USAEC Report ORNL-2412, Part III. 6 J. A. Norberg, Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR) In-Plant Testing Project, USAEC Report IDO-17258H (April

1969).

3

protective coating samples was done in this same loop under the same stringent accident environment conditions.

Test Description

The test facility consisted of a stainless steel loop with a canned rotor pump to recirculate solution through a spray nozzle into a spray chamber. The spray chamber was a 52-in. length of 8-in.-ID stainless steel pipe which contained a removable rack with Teflon-insulated hooks for suspending the test specimens. In the tests described in this report, the spray chamber was operated half full of solution so that half of the specimens were exposed to the spray and half were totally submerged. All parts of the system in contact with solution weie type 304 stainless steel, and adequate heaters and coolers were provided to maintain any desired temperature. The temperature was controlled from a thermocouple immediately ahead of the spray nozzle, but the temperature throughout the system was constant within 2 to 3°C.

Two separate test campaigns using two different solutions were conducted. One solution contained 0.15 m NaOH and 0.28 m H 3B0 3 (3000 ppm boron), and the second contained the same reagents plus 0.064 m Na2S203 (1% by weight). In both cases, the pH was 9.3 ±0.1. With each solution, two specimens of each coating were exposed in the spray and two were totally submerged in the solution. The system was heated to 300°F, which required an initial heatup time of about i hr, and then the temperature was reduced according to the following schedule: 300°F for 5 min, 285°F for 1 hr 45 min, 225°F for 22 hr 15 min. After this time, the system was cooled and opened, and one of each type of specimen was removed from the spray region and one from the solution; then the test was continued for 336 hr at 150°F. After this exposure all specimens were examined and compared with the unexposed control specimen.

Protective Coating Specimens

Thirty-six different protective coatings were supplied on steel coupons by eleven different man-ufacturers, and thirty-five of these were subjected to test. In nearly all cases, nine flat specimens each 1 in. by 2 in. with a V4-in. hole at one end were received and eight of these were tested, with the ninth specimen serving as a control. Two manufacturers supplied larger test panels, and these were cut with a water-cooled abrasion cutoff wheel to approximately the same size so that they would fit conveniently on the test rack. During cutting, the entire coat peeled from one panel, and this coating was not tested. All specimens except the controls were scribed with an X to bare metal before testing, and an identification mark was stenciled on one flat surface of most specimens.

Table 1 lists the samples tested and the supplier. The figure numbers in the third column refer to subsequent photographs that show the appearance of the specimens after the test. In some cases information about the thickness and types of coatings was furnished, but in others essentially no information about the type of coating was provided.

Test Results

The general criteria for evaluation of the specimens after exposure in the test loop were tho^e set out in the standard, described in the section Standard for Protective Coatings. The types of failure considered were flaking, delamination and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking.

Some general observations were:

1. Identical specimens in the two different solutions looked the same after comparable exposure times.

4

2. The damage suffered by the coatings was the same in the spray and when totally submerged in the solution.

3. Specimens removed after the first day generally looked the same as duplicate specimens exposed for the entire period, indicating that most of the damage probably occurred at the higher temperatures. ,

Figures 1-32 are photographs of the specimens. The "results" apply equally to specimens exposed in both solutions for 1 day to 14 days.

TESTS AT CAROLINAS-VIRGINIA TUBE REACTOR

The Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR) is a pressurized D 2 0 moderator and coolant reactor operated at Parr, South Carolina, by the Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates (C VNPA). The facility has been decommissioned, and a program was established by Phillips Petroleum Company and CVNPA to provide information on containment system behavior.6 The program included containment leakage rate systems evaluation, dynamic structural vibration testing, and containment response to simulated design basis accident conditions. The containment response tests were those in which protective coating specimens were exposed.

Test Description

The CVTR containment building, a steel-lined reinforced concrete structure, was designed for accident conditions of 21 psig, 215°F, and 100% humidity. The facility is located adjacent to an older coal-fired generation station. The accident simulations were made possible by coupling the CVTR containment to the coal-fired system through appropriate valving and injecting steam into the CVTR to a preselected pressure. The steam was injected through a diffuser pipe located above the main operating floor. Four blowdowns were performed in 1969:

1. steam injection to 7.5 psig with natural pressure decay,

2. steam injection to 17.6-17.8 psig with natural pressure decay,

3. steam injection to 17.6-17.8 psig with containment spray system (295 gpm) actuation 30 sec after pressure peak,

4. steam injection to 17.6-17.8 psig with containment spray system (500 gpm) actuation 30 sec after pressure peak.

The temperature and pressure in the area of the specimens during each blowdown are shown in Figs. 33—36. The temperature was monitored by a thermocouple within V2 in. of the specimen support strips.

Protective Coating Specimens

Protective coatings applied separately to large (~6 X 6 in.) concrete and steel panels from coating firms were received at ORNL in November 1968 and transported to the CVTR for installation at the start of the blowdown series. While on the CVTR site the shipping crates were stored in a heated storage building from mid-November to mid-Mar. A complete listing of the samples by identification number and firm designation is given in Table 2. The coupons were mounted on 1-in. aluminum strips long enough to accommodate eight 6 X 6 in. samples. The location of the 23 strips used was selected at random. These strips were attached to a mounting bracket on the steel liner of the containment building approximately 6 ft above the main

5

operating floor.7 This placed the samples in the largest unobstructed free gas volume in the CVTR containment, that above the operating floor. All of the areas below this floor have compartments and equipment that would affect free movement of gases during the blowdown. Samples were exposed for all four tests except where noted.

Test Results

The specimens exposed in the CVTR tests were also evaluated on the basis of the Standard (see section Standard for Protective Coatings) failure criteria of flaking, delamination and/or peeling, blistering, and chalking.

The specimens were examined on April 28 after the second test (April 25) by Messrs. T. H. Row, ORNL, and W. L. Albrecht, TVA. Observed defects were recorded for the coded specimens, and these are listed in Table 2 by firm name and specimen identification number. Mr. J. A. Norberg of Phillips Petroleum Company examined the specimens after each test and indicated that the major defects appeared after the second test where the vessel reached 17.7 psig.

The specimens were returned to ORNL following the last test, and final observations were made at that time. The coatings were exhibited at a meeting of participating firms held at ORNL in June 3969= Photographs were taken of each group of test specimens with the unexposed control; these are presented in Figs. 37—64. Results of the tests are indicated in Table 2. (It should be noted that defects circled in the photographs were incurred in shipping.)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A selection of protective coatings (paints) supplied by manufacturers servicing the nuclear and utility industries were subjected to tests simulating DBA exposure conditions in light-water reactor containment facilities. Two types of tests were conducted: (1) a recirculating loop test involving the exposure of small coated steel coupons suspended in a corrosive environment of chemical solutions at various temperatures and pressures and (2) a test conducted inside the Carolinas-Virginia Test Reactor (CVTA) containment facility, involving large coated steel and concrete panels exposed to steam at various temperatures and pressures and to a water spray (without chemicals). In general, the coating systems tested could be classified in the inorganic zinc, epoxy, modified phenolic, modified epoxy, vinyl, and polyurethane generic categories.

The majority of the coatings exposed to the recirculating loop test survived the test in an acceptable fashion. Blistering (probably the result of a temperature rather than chemical attack) was the chief mode of failure. Other failures resulted from cracking, delamination, and brittleness. Discoloration occurred in many cases, but this effect in itself was not considered deleterious unless accompanied by blistering or other similar loss of film properties. Undercutting of scribed specimens occurred in only a few specimens, indicating little or no attack by the heated recirculating chemical solutions.

The CVTR tests, involving only steam (at various pressures and temperatures) and water sprays, resulted in coating failure principally by blistering, but again a very high percentage of the coatings survived the tests. The steam pressures and temperatures attained in the CVTR tests were not as high as desired to

7 J. A. Norberg and G. E. Bingham, Simulated Design Basis Accident Tests of the Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor Containment - Preliminary Results, USAEC Report IN-1325 (October 1969).

6

simulate a calculated DBA for many of the PWR and BWR facilities, but the results are considered very worthy guideline information.

The tests also indicate that the criteria for failure as outlined in the proposed standard (see section Standard for Protective Coatings) can be used to successfully evaluate coatings.

The results reported are in agreement with tests performed by Newby at Idaho Nuclear8-10 in support of the LOFT project.

In general, the coating systems surviving both tests fall predominantly into the following categories:

1. inorganic zinc over inorganic zinc primer,

2. epoxy over inorganic primer,

3. epoxy over epoxy primer,

4. modified epoxies and modified phenolic systems,

5. vinyl systems.

The order of listing is not related to the order in which one system excels another except possibly the vinyls. The vinyls appear to survive only in a marginal fashion, in which retention of film integrity is the exception rather than the rule.

In conclusion, the evaluation of coatings in the two test systems used resulted in a large number of promising coating systems for possible use in light-water containment facilities. In the future, these candidate coating systems and others can be further evaluated, if desired, by simple autoclave tests11 and radiation damage tests12 and the combined results used as a basis for the selection of coatings for a given reactor facility.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to express our appreciation to A. L. Bacarella, of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who assisted in conducting the tests, to J. A. Norberg, of Idaho Nuclear Corporation, whose cooperation made possible the conducting of the CVTR tests, and to the participating coating industry firms, who contributed the representative spectrum of samples which made the tests meaningful.

aB. J. Newby, Applicability of Conventional Protective Coatings to Reactor Containment Buildings, USAEC Report IN-1169 (June 1968).

9B. J. Newby, Applicability of Chemically Removable Coatings to Reactor Containment Buildings, USAEC Report IN-1170 (August 1968).

10Development of Testing Procedures for Protective Coatings to Be Used in Nuclear Reactor Containment Structures, USAEC Report IN-1253 (February 1969).

1 'Proposed American National Standard, Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light-Water Reactor Containment Facilities (N 101.5), American National Standards Institute, Inc., November 1969.

1 2 American National Standard, Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry, ANSI N5.9-1967.

7

Table 1. Protective Coatings Tested in the ORNL Spray Loop

T h i c k n e s s Manufacturer Identification Figure No. (mils) Proprietary Designation

Amercoat Corp. 1 1

2 2

3 3 Carboline Co. 10073-A 4

10073-B 5

10073-C 6

Celanese Coatings EP 7 Co., Devoe Paint Division CZ 8

Con-Lux Paint 69-53 9 Products, Inc.

69-54 10

69-55b

69-56 11

Keeler and Long, 1 12 Inc.

2 12

3 12

4 12

Mobil Chemical 1 13 Co. 2 14

3 15 The Sherwin- 4 16

Williams Co.

2 17

1 18

3 19

SperexCorp. SP-13 20 SP-100 21

SP-300 22

The Valspar Corp. 1 23

2 24

2.5 1 coat D-6 5 1 coal No. 66 2 1 coat No. 71 primer 5 1 coat No. 66

10 2 coats No. 85 1.5 Carboweld 11 5 Phenoline 305 1.5 Carboweld 11 5 Phenoline 368 4 Carboline 655 5 Phenoline 368

a Chemfast E.P. primer Chemfast M.P. finish coat

a Chem-Zinc primer Chemfast M.P. white finish coat

15-20 1 coat Zinc Plate AE primer 2 coats Epolon AE Atomic white

15-20 1 coat Epolon AE Atomic white primer 2 coats Epolon AE Atomic white

15-20 1 coat Zinc Plate AE primer 3 coats Vinyloid AE 98 Atomic white

15 - 20 1 ccat Vinylgrip AE primer 3 coats Vinyloid AE 98 Atomic white

a 2 coats No. 7107 1 coat No. 7475

a 1 coat No. 6518 ! ••-at No. 7107, 1 coat No. 7475

a 1 ,.oat No. 7575 I f i No. 7475

a 2 coats No. 7107 1 coat No. 7500

a a a a a a

2 - 4 Zinc Clad 7 9 -12 Rexthane white enamel 2 - 4 Zinc Clad 7

12-14 Kem Cati-Coat Hi-Bild white enamel 1 - 2 Kem Cati-Coat primer

10-12 Kem Cati-Coat Hi-Bild white enamel 1 - 2 Kem Cati-Coat primer

10-12 Rexthane white enamel

a Silicone-acrylic blend, air dried a Silicone - baked at 120, 130, 480:,

an<i 600°F a Silicone - harder than SP-100, baked

at 120, 130,480, and 600°F

7.5-8.5 1 coat 722 EZR organic zinc-rich primer 3 coats Epi-Gard No. 60 gray 1 coat 722 EZR organic zinc-rich primer 2 coats Epi-Gard No. 100 gray

8

Table 1. (continued)

Manufacturer Identification Figure No. Thickness (mils) Proprietary Designation

Wisconsin 1 25 2 - 3 7155 NP Protective 2 - 3 7155 Coating Corp. 2 26 2 - 3 7155 NP

3 - 4 9009 3 27 5 - 6 7155 NP 4 28 2 - 3 1000

2 - 3 34 W.O. 7155 5 29 2 - 3 1000

3 - 4 34 W.O. 9009

Wyandotte Chemical SBX I 30 a a Corp., Subox Division SBX II 31 a a

SBX III 32 a a

"Information not supplied. ^Coating nut Icsted.

Table 2. Protective Coating Systems, Test Panel Identification Numbers, and Results Observed After the CVTR Tests

Manufacturer Identification Figure No. Thickness (mils) Proprietary Designation Results

A-l and A-1B 37 7 1 coat Dimetcote 5 on sandblasted steel No observable

7 % 1 coat Amercoat No. 66 damage

A-2 and A-2B 37 7 % 1 coat Dimetcote 6 on sandblasted steel No observable

6v2

1 coat Amercoat No. 66 damage A-3 and A-3B 37 6v2 1 coat Dimetcote 6 on sandblasted steel No observable

i\ 1 coat Amercoat No. 1741 damage

A few 4-in. blisters (failed

A-4 and A-4B 37 i\ 1 coat Dimetcote 6 on acid-pickled steel 1 coat Amercoat No. 66

damage A few 4-in. blisters (failed

sy2

to metal) A-5 and A-5B 38 sy2 1 coat Dimetcote steel primer 1 on acid-pickled steel

1 coat Dimetcote 6 1 coat Amercoat No. 66

No observable damage

A-6 and A-6B 38 3 1 coat Dimetcote 4 on sandblasted steel No observable damage

A-7 and A-7B 38 13 1 coat Dimetcote 4 on sandblasted steel 2 coats Amercoat No. 66


A-8 and A-8B 38 13 1 coat Dimetcote 6 on sandblasted steel No observable

5 V2

2 coats Amercoat No. 66 damage A-9 and A-9B 39 5 V2 1 coat Dimetcote steel primer No. 2 on sandblasted

steel 1 coat Amercoat No. 1741, gray


A-l 0 and A-10B 39 11 1 coat Amercoat No. 86 primer on sandblasted steel 1 coat Amercoat No. 87, gray


A-l 1 and A-l IB 39 15 3 coats Amercoat No. 66 No observable damage

13 and 14 40 Red primer - asbestos cloth Some loss of asbestos adhesion to metal surface

53 and 54 40 Red primer - white Large blister in topcoat: edges wrinkled

93 and 94 40 Red primer - s^migloss black Small blisters; edges wrinkled

133 and 134 40 Red primer — white Topcoat lost adhesion; primer blistered

173 and 174 40 Red primer - gloss black Topcoat lost adhesion; primer blistered

Amercoat Corp.

Battelle Memorial Institute

\ o

Manufacturer Identification Figure No.

213 and 214 40

253 and 254 40 293 and 294 40

333 and 334 40

371 and 372 40

Carboline Corp. Ph-1 and Ph-IB 41

Ph-2 and Ph-2B 41

Ph-3 and Ph-3B 41

Ph-4 and PK-4B 41

Celanese Coatings Co. CN-1 42

CN-2 " 42

CN-3 42

Chemline Industrial Coatings DPV-1 and DPV-1B 43 Division of Dixie Paint and Varnish Co., Inc.a

DPV-2 and DPV-2B 43

DPV-3 and DPV-3B 43

DPV-4 and DPV-4B 43


Thickness (mils) Proprietary Designation Results

6

5-6

6 - 8

6 - 8

6

6

6

Red primer - white

Red primer - flat black Red primer - white

Red primer - gloss black

Red primer - red

1 coat Carboweld 11 on sandblasted steel I coat Phenoiine 305 1 coat Carboweld 11 on sandblasted steel 1 coat Phenoline 368

2 coats Phenoline 305 on sandblasted steel

2 coats Phenoline 368 on sandblasted steel

1 coat Ci«w.nfast primer Cat. 42412 2 coats Chemfast M.P. white, Cat. 42501, Type 2

1 coat Chem-Zinc, Cat 14700 2 coats Chemfast M.P. white, Cat. 42501, Type 2

1 coat Chem-Zinc, Cat. 14700 I coat epoxy high build, OX-1082 1 coat Chemfast clear, FX-532

3 coats Chem Thane (100% cat. urethane)

3 coats No. TT-C-545C (epoxv polyester)

3 coats R-Mor-Lite (polyamide epoxy)

3 coats Q-Kote (phenolic)

Blistered and loss of adhesion

Complete failure Complete failure

of topcoat; primer blistered

Complete failure of topcoat; primer blistered

Very small surface wrinkles













Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc.

Kalman Floor Co., Inc.

Keeler and Long, Inc.

CL-1 and CL-1B 44

CL-2 and CL-2B 44

CL-3 and CL-3B 44

CL-4 and CL-4B 45

CL-5 and CL-5B 45

CL-6 and CL-6B 45

K-l and K-1B 46

K-2 and K-2B 46

K-3 and K-3B 46

K-4 and K-4B 47

K-5 and K-5B 47

K-6 and K-6B 47

KL-1 48



7

6

19

17

18

18

9 - 1 6

1 coat Epolon AE Atomic primer on steel 2 coats Epolon AE-5 Atomic gray 1 coat Metal-Bond AE Atomic primer on steel 1 coat Vinylgrip AE-94 Atomic primer 1 coat Vinylcid AE-92 Multi-Mil white 1 coat Vinyloid AE-95 Atomic gray 1 coat Metal-Bond AE Atomic primer 3 coats Vmyloid AE-95 Atomic gray 1 coat Block-Plex 386-8 Fusion white 2 coats Epolon AE-5 Atomic gray 1 coat Block-Plex 3S6-8 Fusion white 1 coat Vinyloid AE-92 Multi-mil white 1 coat Vinyloid AE-95 Atomic gray

1 coat Block-Plex 386-8 Fusion white 3 coats Vinyloid AE-95 Atomic gray

1 coat zinc-rich epoxy primer 2 coats epoxy, polyamide solvent coating 3 coats epoxy, Polamide solvent coating

1 coat zinc-rich epoxy primer 1 coat epoxy (HB), mod. aromatic amine 2 coats epoxy, polyamide solvent coating 1 coat zinc-rich epoxy primer 1 coat epoxy, polyamide high solids 1 coat epoxy, polyamide solvent coatings 1 coat epoxy, mod. aromatic amine (HB) 1 coat epoxy, polyamide solvent coating 1 coat epoxy, polyamide high solids 1 coat epoxy, polyamide solvent coating

1 coat No. 6548 epoxy block filler 1 coat No. 75 00 epoxy stainless steel primer 1 coat 7230 ext. sub-marine primer


No observable damase



in. blisters on CL-5; a large blister and several % to V2 in. diam on CL-5B (failures extend to concrete surface)

V to V^-in. blisters on CL-6B









Koppers Co.

NAPKO Corp.

Mobil Chemical Co.

KL-2 48

KL-3 48

KL4 49

KL-5 49

KL-6 49

KO-1 50

KO-2 50

KO-3 50

N-l and N-1B 51

N-2 and N-2B 51

N-3 and N-3B 51

N-4 and N-4B 52

N-5 and N-5B 52

N-6 and N-6B 52

M-l and M-1B 53


Thickness (mils)

Proprietary Designation Results

9-16

4 - 6

5 - 7

4 - 6

4 - 6

3

10

13

3*4

10

16

1 coat No. 6548 epoxy block filler 1 coat No. 7107 epoxy-acite whiie primer 1 coat No. 7475 epoxy white enamel I coat No. 7107 epoxy white primer y2-l-C No. 7500 epoxy stainless steel enamel l/2-l-C No. 6682 Kolarane clear enamel 1 coat No. 7575 epoxy zinc-rich primer V2-l-C No. 7475 epoxy white enamel Vj-l-C No. 7230 ext. sub-marine primer 1 coat No. 6040 Tri-polar white primer 1 coat No. 6002 Tii-polar white enamel 1 coat No. 7555 ext. sub-marine S.S. primer 1 coat No. 7230 ext. sub-marine white enamel

2 coats No. 300 M

1 coat No. 200 1 coat No. 200HB 1 coat No. 200 2 coats No. 210 Glamor G1

1 coat No. 1353 2Z

1 coat No. 1355 2Z 1 coat No. 5673 Thixopoxy Al. Cr. 1 coat No. 1355 2Z 1 coat No. 5673 Thixopoxy 1 coat No. 5621 Epoxy Cote F 2 coats No. 1375 5Z

1 coat No. 5673 Thixopoxy 1 coat No. 5621 Epoxy Cote F 1 coat No. 5673 Thixopoxy 1 coat No. 5673 Thixopoxy

Mobilzinc 7, inorganic zinc No. 89-F-34 Hi-build epoxy No. 84-F-15 epoxy enamel











Blistered, V8-to 1-in. diameter






M-5 and M-5B 53

M-7 and M-7B 53

M-19 and M-19B 54

M-25 and M-25B 54

M-26 and M-26B 54

MZ7 89-W-9 55

LM-76 89-W-9 55

M-2 55

Pennsbury Coatings Corp. PCC1 56

PCC2 56

PCC3 56

PCC4 56

PCC5 56



(1) 10-12 (2) 12-30 (1)2 (2) 5 - 8

(1) 8 - 1 2 (2) 12-15

(1) 7 - 1 0 (2) 8 - 1 2

(1) 12-15 ( 2 ) 6 - 1 2

Mobilzinc 7, inorganic zinc No. 83-F-34, Hi-build vinyl No. 80-F-15, vinyl enamel No. 89-F-34, Hi-build epoxy No. 84-F-15, epoxy enamel No. 89-F-34, Hi-build epoxy No. 84-F-15, epoxy enamel Mobilzinc 7, inorganic zinc No. LM-73, inorganic white topcoat Mobilzinc 7, inorganic zinc No. 89-F-34, Hi-build epoxy Mobil Chcmical polyurethane Pickled steel Mobilzinc 7, inorganic zinc 89 series topcoat 1 mil zinc coat (shopcoat primer)

89 series

Sandblasted; 2 coats Pennsbury 31-B-20, Pennoxy II Sandblasted; both sides, 1 coat Pennsbury

91-G-l, 2 mils, organic zinc-rich; dull side, 1 coat Penn-Chem 53 series Hi-build epoxy, 1 coat Penn-Chem Ponamid enamel 51-G-I01

Sandblasted; 1 coat Pennsbury 91-G-l organic zinc-rich, 3 mils thick; 2 coats Pennsbury 31-B-20, Pennoxy II

Sandblasted; 1 coat Pennsbury 91-G-2 single package epoxy zinc-rich, 1V2 mils; 2 coats Pennsbury 31-B-20, Pennoxy II

Sandblasted; both sides, 1 coat Pennsbury 9 l-G-2 single package epoxy zinc-rich, 1 \ mils; dull side, 2 coats Penn-Chem 53-G-101 Ponamid Hi-build epoxy;glossy side; 1 coat Penn-Chem 53-G-101 Ponamid Hi-build epoxy, 1 coat Penn-Chem 51-G-101 Ponamid enamel





Mo observable damage





Blisters, V($ to V2 in. diam (failed to metal)

Blisters, '4 to 2 in. diam (failed to metal)

Blisters, to 1 \ in. diam

Blisters, 1 in. diam


PCC6 56

PCC7 56

PCC8 56

PCC9 56

The Sherwin-Williams Co. SW-landSW-lB 57

SW-2 and SW-2B 57

SW-3 and SW-3B 57

SW-4 and SW-4B 58

SW-5 and SW-5B 58

SW-6 and SW-6B 58

Sperex Corp. SP-1 59

SP-2 and SP-2B 59

SP-3 and SP-3B 59



(1) 8 - 1 2 (2) 4 .5 -6

(1) 8-12 (2) 7 - 1 0

( 1 ) 5 - 8 (2) 7-12

(1)8-12 ( 2 ) 5 - 8

7 - 1 1

8 - 1 5

10-12

4 - 8

Sandblasted; dull side, 2 coats Penn-Chem 53 series Ponamid Hi-build epoxy; glossy side, 1 coat Penn-Chem 53 series Ponamid Hi-build epoxy, 1 coat Penn-Chem 51 series Ponamid enamel

Sandblasted; dull side, 2 coats Pennsbury Penn-Chem 53-G-101 Ponamid Hi-build epoxy; glossy side, 1 coat Penn-Chem 53-G-101 Ponamid Hi-build epoxy, 1 coat Penn-Chem 51-G-101 Ponamid enamel

Sandblasted; 1 coat Pennsbury Penn-Chem 53-G-101 SIS Ponamid Hi-build stainless steel, finish coat Penn-Chem 51-G-101 S/S Ponamid enamel w/stainless steel

Sandblasted; 1 coat Penn-Chem Ponamid Hi-B epoxy 53 series both sides; 2 coats one side for 8 - 1 2 mils total; glossy side, 1 coat Penn-Chem Ponamid enamel 51 series, total 5 - 8 mils

1 coat No. B44 V A21 Rex thane concrete cond. 1 coat No. B69 W 56 Rexthane white enamel 1 coat No. B42 V 2 mixing latex liquid 1 coat No. B69 W 56 Rexthane white enamel 1 coat No. B69 G 31 Kem Cati-Coat primer 7 coats No. B69 W 56 Rexthane white enamel 1 coat No. B69 A 47 zinc clad 7 3 coats No. B69 W 36 Kem Cati-Coat white enamel 1 coat No. B69 A 47 zinc clad 7 7 coats No. B69 W 56 Rexthane white enamel 1 coat No. B69 G 31 Kem Cati-Coat primer 3 coats No. B69 W 36 Kem Cati-Coat white ename!

SP-13 aluminum, air dried

SP-100 A (white and red), baked

SP-300 A (purple and red), baked


Small bubbles (may have occur, ed during curing)




to 2-in.- diam blisters on SW-2B









Subox Division, Wyandotte Chemical Corp.

The Valspar Corp.

Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp.6

SP-4 and SP-4B 59

SP-5 and SP-5B 59

SB-land SB-IB 60

SB-2 and SB-2B 60

SB-3 and SB-3B 60

SB-4 and SB-4B 60

V-l and V-1B 61

V-2 and V-2B 61

V-3 and V-3B 61

V-4 and V-4B 62

V-5 and V-5B 62

V-6 and V-6B 62

W-l and W-1B 63

W-2 and W-2B 63

W-3 and W-3B 63



15-18

16-19

17-21

15-18

7 - 1 0

5.5-8

7 - 1 0

12-14

9 -12

7 - 1 0

5

7

5

SP-300 (yellow and red), baked

SP-100 (white and yellow), baked

Capox EP primer Capox EP intermediate Capox EP topcoat Capox A HB primer Capox A HB intermediate Capox A HB topcoat Capox EP primer Capox EP intermediate Capox EP topcoat urethane 340 C Capox B HB primer Capox B HB intermediate Capox B HB topcoat

1 coat Epi-Gard No. 100 gray 1 coat Epi-Gard No. 100 gray 1 coat No. 722 EZR 3 coats Epi-Gard 60 gray 1 coat No. 722 EZR 3 coats Perma thane

1 coat Epi-Gard 100 gray 1 coat Epi-Gard 100 gray 1 coat No. 804 undercoater 2 coats Tile Card No. 88 1 coat No. 804 undercoater 2 coats Permathane

1 coat No. 7155 NP

1 coat No. 7155 NP primer 1 coat No. 7155 NP light green 1 coat No. 7155 NP primer 1 coat No. 9009









Loss of adhesion at impact stencil mark








Manufacturer Identification Figure No. Thickness (mils)

Proprietary Designation Results

W-4 and W-4B

W-5C and W-5BC

W-6C and W-6BC

W-7C and W-7BC

W-8C and W-8BC

63

64

64

64

64

8 - 1 3

3.5

6

2.5-6

3 - 8

1 coat No. 9028 block sealer 1 coat No. 9009 2*4 mils No. 1000 inorganic zinc plus 1 mil No.

1010 inorganic white No. 1000 plus 1010 inorganic clear sealer topcoated with 3V2 mils 9009 high solids epoxy

l \ mils No. 1000 postcured, with \ of panel coated with 3 V2 mils each of Piasite 7155 and 9000

Concrete 9028 clear epoxy with sand, topcoated with No. 7155



Topcoat (no. 9009) blistered



aAll DPV steel panels were solvent cleaned and no primer. bXi\ plates were sandblasted. cCoatings were exposed to the last two CVTR spray tests only.

Fig. 1. Ameicoat Corp. Primer: 1 coat No. D6, 2% mils, on sandblasted steel. Topcoat: 1 coat No. 66, 5 mils. Results: some evidence of brittleness.

Fig. 2. Amercoat Corp. Primer: 1 coat No. 71, 2 mils, on sandblasted steel Topcoat: 1 coat No. 66, 5 mils. Results: coating appears brittle; otherwise, no apparent damage.

Fig. 3. Amercoat Corp. Primer: 1 coat No. 85, 5 mils, on sandblasted steel. Topcoat: 1 coat No. 85,5 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 4. Carboline Co. Primer: Carboweld 11, lV2 mils. Topcoat: Phenoline 305, 5 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 5. Carboline Co. Primer: Carboweld 11, \ \ mils. Topcoat: Phenoline 368, 5 mils. P.esults: no observable damage; surface was slightly browner in Na0H-H3B05 liian in the Na0H-H3B03-Na2S203 solution.

Fig. 6. Carboline Co. Primer: Carboline 655, 4 mils. Topcoat: Fhcrioline 368. 5 mils. Results: "crowfoot" cracking, with more cracking on sides without the score mark.

Fig. 7. Celanese Coatings Co., Devoe Paint Division. Primer: Chemfast E.P. Topcoat: Chemfast M.P. Results: slight surface blistering.

Fig. 8. Celanese Coatings Co., Devoe Paint Division. Primer: Chem-Zinc. Topcoat: Chemfast M.P. white. Results: some large, flat blisters on all surfaces.

Fig. 9. Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc. Primer: 1 coat Zinc Plate AE. Topcoat: 2 coats Epolon AE 7 Atomic white. Results: paint completely peeled.

Fig. 10. Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc. Primer: 1 coat Epolon AE Atomic. Topcoat: 2 coats Epolon AE 7 Atomic white. Results: large blisters; coating turned pink in Na0H-H3B03 solution; less discoloration in Na2S 20 3 solution.

Fig. 11. Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc. Primer: 1 coat Vinylgrip AE. Topcoat: 3 coats Vinyloid AE 98 Atomic white. Results: many small blisters.

Fig. 12. Keeler and Long, Inc. Results: no observable damage on either coating system.

Fig. 13. Mobil Chemical Co., No. 1. Results: some blistering on all surfaces with score marks (worse in solutions than in spray); no blisters on back side and no evidence of undercutting.

0 . 1 5 m Ba0 i f -0 .28 m H3BO3

P H O T O 95485

0 . 1 5 m Ha0H-0.28 m H 3 BO j -0 .064 B HasSjO-.,

1 d a y 300 t o 225°F

s o r c n o H

1 d a y 300 t o 2 2 5 ° ? 14 d a y s 150°F

to t o

SOLUTION

Fig. 14. Mobil Chemical Co., No. 2. Results: no observable damage.

/ i

Fig. IS. Mobil Chemical Co., No. 3. Results: coating appears brittle, since coating was cracked on side opposite stencil mark.

Fig. 16. The Sherwin-Williams Co. Primer: B69 A 47 Zinc Clad 7, 2 to 4 mils. Topcoat: B69 W 56, Rexthane white enamel, 9 to !2 mils. Results: some blistering.

Fig, 17. The Sherwin-Williams Co. Primer: B69 A 47, Zinc Clad 7, 2 to 4 mils. Topcoat: B69 W 36, Kem Cati-Coat Hi-Bild white enamel, 12 to 14 mils. Results: cracking along edges; some blistering.

Fig. 18. The Sherwin-Willians Co. Primer: B69 G 31, Kem Cati-Coat primer, 1 to 2 mils. Topcoat: B69 W 36, Kem Cati-Coat Hi-Bild white enamel, 10 to 12 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 19. The Sherwin-Williams Co. Primer: B69 G 31, Kem Cati-Coat primer, 1 to 2 mils. Topcoat: B69 W 56, Rexthane white enamel, 10 to 12 mils. Results: no observable damage.

0.15 A Ka08-0.26 a HJB03

PHOTO 95482

0.15 a Ha0H-0.28 a H3B03-0.CIS4 a & 2 S 2 0 ,

1 day 300 t o 225°F 1 dsy 300 t o 225°F

V < 5 N \ j

soianos

r * P H a>

sorcnoH

1 day 300 to 225°F 14 days 150°F

1 day 300 t o 225°F 14 days 150°F

9

<T>

SOLUTION I S H U t f l

O R I G I N A L

Fig. 20. Sperex Corp. SP-13, silicone acrylic blend, air dried. Results: aluminum color turned white; some very small "chipped-out" spots; rusty at edges and scribe marks on coupons in the Na2S203 solution.

Fig. 21. Sperex Corp. SP-100, silicone, baked. Results: slight rust spot on one specimen.

PHOTO 95499

0.15 m Ka0fr-0.28 m H3BO3 0.15 m KaOH-O.28 a H3B03-0.064 n Ua2S20j

1 day 300 to 225°F 1 dav 300 to 225 F

SP30D \

' 2 s • ^ P S O O '

SOLUTION SOLUTION

1 day 300 to 225CF 14 flays 150°F

1 day 300 t o 225°F 14 days 150°F

ft

2 t o

S0IOT30K SOLUTION

O R I G I H A L

Fig. 22. Sperex Corp. SP-300, silicone, baked. Results: no observable damage.

0 . 1 5 a R a O H - O . 2 3 a H a B 0 3

1 d a y 3 0 0 t o 2 2 5 ° F

S H I A Y S 0 I M T X 0 S

1 day 300 to 225°F U d a y s 1 5 0 ° P

SJSAY S O I M T I O N

• PHOTO 95507

0 . 1 5 B TFAOFT-0.28 M H 3 B 0 J - 0 . 0 6 4 A lto2S?03

1 d a y 3 0 0 t o 2 2 5 ° F

SHIAY S 0 I O T I 0 N

1 day 300 to 225°F 1 4 d a y s 1 5 0 " ?

SffiAY sournoi?

O H I G I H A I ,

Fig. 23. Valspar Industrial Division. Primer: No. 722 EZR organic zinc-rich. Topcoat: 3 coats Epi-Gard No. 60 medium gray, 7.5 to 8.5 mils. Results: some blistering.

s j O

0 . 1 5 n K a 0 H - 0 . 2 t ? m H 3 B 0 3

1 day 300 to 225 °F

SHIAY SOLUTIO:;

1 day 30C t o 225 F U d a y s 1 5 0 ° F

•PRAY SOLUTION

PHOTO 95506

0.15 m KaOS-O.SS m H3B03-0.06<i B -fe2s203

1 day 300 to 225°F

STRAY SOLCTIOK

1 day 300 t o 225°F 14 days 150°F

SPRAY SOLUTION

ORIGINAL

" O "

Fig. 24. Valspar Industrial Division. Primer: No. 722 EZR organic zinc-rich. Topcoat: 2 coats Epi-Gard No. 100 light gray, 8 to 8.5 mils. Results: coating cracked at edges; some blistering.

Fig. 25. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Primer: 7155 NP, 2 to 3 mils. Topcoat: 7155 NP, 2 to 3 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 26. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Primer 7155 NP, 2 to 3 mils. Topcoat: 9009, 3 to 4 mils. Results: no observable damage.

0.15 s BaOH-0.28 m H3BO3

1 day 300 t o 225°F

CERA* SOLUTION

1 day 300 t o 225°F 14. days 150°F

SH> AY SOLUTION

PHOTO 95508

0.15 a Hs0H-0.28 m BjBOj-O.OU a !to2S203

1 day 300 t o 225°F

SffiAY SOLUTION

1 day 300 t o 225°F 14 days 150°F

r ;

SPRAY SOLUTION

ORIGINAL

Fig. 27. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Only coat: 7155 NP, 5 to 6 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 28. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Primer: 1000, 2 to 3 mils. Topcoat: 34 W.O. 7155, 2 to 3 mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 29. Wisconsin Protective Coating Coip. Primer: 1000, 2 to 3 mils. Topcoat: 34 W.O. 9009, 3 to 4 mils. Results: paint cracked at edges and some undercutting along score marks.

Fig. 30. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., Subox Division, SBX I. Galvanox type IV (inorganic zinc), 2 ;o 3 mils; Capox B Hi-build No. 9501, 5 mils. Results: blistering and delamination of topcoat around score marks and mounting holes.

Fig- 31. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., Subox Division, SBX II. Capox B Hi-build primer No. 9500, 5 mils; Capox B Hi-build No. 9S01, S mils. Results: no observable damage.

Fig. 32. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., Subox Division, SBX III. Capox EP primer No. 7500, 5 mils; Cnpox EP cream No. 7501, 2 to 3 mils. Results: no observable damage.

35

Fig. 37. Amercoat Corp. Test Panels.

PHOTO 95678

j OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY ! ' < (• f H •) m I I v ' •• l i . l i i i l i t i i i U I j J .


36

PHOTO 95701

P*" OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 M « 1 • ' ' • • i ' 1 I ' > ( I ' l ' ' ' ' " ' " '• ' t • I > i • 1 • I • I • I i l . i ' i J i I J


PHOTO 95704

INCHES OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 9 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 I I I l M I I I 1 I t I I 1 i I l I i I I I i I i i i I i 1 i I i I i I i I i I i I • I i l! I J

Fig. 40. Battelle Memorial Institute Test Panels.

37

' PHOTO 95<584

Fig. 41. Caiboline Corp. Test Panels.

PHOTO 95693

tif-3

C n - l co»nr«*v.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 • I • I • I • I . i 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 { I -I < 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m . t .

Fig. 42. Celanese Coatings Co. Test Panels.

38

PHOTO 95690

Fig. 43. Chemline Industrial Coatings Test Panels.

PHOTO 95687

I v " OAK RiOGE NAT IONAL L A B O R A T O R Y 0 ' 2 1 « b ? R £) <0 t t

V . . . 1 I l L- 1 1 1 J L . ' : : : ! . • I I • I : I I I • I I I i I J

Fig. 44. Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc., Test Panels.

39

PHOTO 95697

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY , 0 1 2 3 4 9 6 I ' ' ' " " 1 1 ' 1 " ' ' 1 M 111

L LABORATORY 7 B 9 » 11 t z

I H I ; 111 i . l 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 t J

Fig. 45. Con-Lux Paint Products, Inc., Test Panels.

PHOTO 95688

I M M O K rate m r n w i r t

y L y i i L i J i l L L L ? ( i . < j i . t i . t ' i • i « t 11 a I

Fig. 46. Kalman Floor Co., Inc., Tot Panels.

40

Fig. 47. Kalman Floor Co., Inc., Test Panels.

Fig. 48. Keeler and Long, Inc., Test Panels.

41

f

| .Ji

r v-

P H O T O 9 5 6 8 3

K t - S

w f S "

J W - *

O A K R I D G E N A T I O N A L L A B O R A T O R Y f t i . . 0 ' « 2 3 4 . 5 . • ft . ' ' - 7 • 8 . 9 . W t • I , < . I . I , I I .1 I I I I iT. I . I I I I'l l I .M l . 1.1.».1» 1

i!

Fig. 49. Keelei and Long, Inc., Test Panels.

K o - i

•V,l

v ^ f i i l

" ' * t I

xornr/is 6

K !

' U PHOTO 95685

^tStSl

- " i i " •••

EOAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 1 2 3 4 5 S 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 - 1 I i ! I I 1 I I I I 1 ' I . I i I i I • I . I • I • I • I i I i I i I i I i I i I i l i I J

Fig. 50. Koppeis Co. Test Panels.

42

} ' ' OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY l ' ' .1 1 5 6 7 S <3 <0 1< (;>

Fig. 51. NAPKO Corp. Test Panels.

PHOTO 95703

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY -* " S 6 7 B 9 10 M

; — — I — U ^ i L - L L L t i - L t I L U U i 1.1 i 1 u J

Fig. 52. NAPKO Corp. Test Panels.

43

Fig. 53. Mobil Chemical Co. Test Panels

Fig. 54. Mobil Chemical Co. Test Panels.

44

Fig. 55. Mobil Chemical Co. Test Panel*.

Fig. 56. Penrubujy Coalings Corp. Tort Panels.

45

Fig. S?. Tfcfr Sh«rwi».Witttamit Co. 7m Pane!*.

«

J ^ V ,

* \ X

fHOJO ftfSS

- w a r n ^ -

m ^ l i i

BK?

-n^mm

f fi <V

s

rSSm

Fig. 5t>. The ShcrsvinAVittiams Co. Test Panels.

46

P H O T O V 5 m

F i g . $ 9 , S p a r e s C o r p . T c s i P a n e l s .

o

« s e - i

* SB't8

• i a - 5 1

* se-afi

S 6 4 Cftttvfte*.

P H O T O 9 4 6 H »

" O

m-mf ft. 0 * x m o o t H M i f w J U . U M f U u t i t i V

- .i.'W.J,^ ^SjJjiXlAXi-lji.J t ' ' " I ) "

F i g , 6 0 . W y a n d o t t e C h c m i c a l C o r p . " t v < i t ' - . m e i s .

47

Fig. 61. The Valspar Corp. Test Panels.

PHOTO 95680

Fig. 62. The Valspar Corp. Tat Panels.

48

4- 1 »' t ' * I f e .V t «

C *>

y

PHOTO 95686

'Iff:

b i I •

5

W-3 c « M T ( ( e y

. W-3B

j • OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY J • ' h -l «s t> f 9 r» 11 « I ' . , . -U .SJJ . ; V U I u i . i i - i . u i IJJ_UUJLI.U

O

C o t f T f t o ' -

Fig. 63. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Test Panels.

Fig. 64. Wisconsin Protective Coating Corp. Test Panels.

Documents

ORNL-TM-2412 Part V