The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-10-20 PACKET 04.C.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 10/20/10 IJ7a7_\7��7�'� e ►A _ j4L Jennifer Levitt STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the painting of the Innsdale Tank. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Council authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the painting of the Innsdale Tank. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: Jennifer Levitt October 13, 2010. ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ❑ OTHER: SEH Innsdale Tank Evaluation Report ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f f f QZ1 &WO City " Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: /APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER &Z acw>- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PAINTING OF THE INNSDALE TANK WHEREAS, on August 11, 2010 the City Council reviewed the painting of the Innsdale Tank in the initial 2011 CIP; and WHEREAS, the painting of the Innsdale Tank meets the criteria established in said public improvement policy; and WHEREAS, the requested authorization to prepare plans and specifications for the painting of the Innsdale Tank. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that it is hereby ordered that the plans and specifications for the painting of the Innsdale Tank be prepared. Passed this 20th day of October, 2010. Attest: Myron Bailey, Mayor Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk From: Jennifer M. Levitt, P.E., City Engineer Date: October 13, 2010 Re: Innsdale Tank Painting — Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Background /Discussion The City has been routinely painting water towers within the community on a 15 year basis. The next tank that is scheduled to be painted is the Innsdale Tank. The tank was inspected this summer to review the condition of the tank. The report is attached for review. The recommendation is to paint the interior and exterior of the tank, along with making other structural repairs for compliance with OSHA and for enhanced security of the tank. The engineer's preliminary estimate for this work is $555,300, this compares with the CIP value of $550,000 for 2011. The anticipated schedule is to prepare plans and specifications with the anticipation of an early spring bid and construction in the summer of 2011. Recommendation It is recommended to authorize the preparation of the plans and specifications for the painting of the Innsdale Tank. • •,• want I, l Innsdale Tank Cottage Grove, Minnesota SEH No. COTTG 111686 September 22, 2010 9 Multidisciplined. Single Source. Trusted Solutions. General Information Project: Innsdale Tank Evaluation ProjectNo. 111686 COTTG Contact: Harry Taylor Address: 8635 West Point Douglas Road (651.458.2853) Evaluation Date: May 4, 2010 NACE Inspectors: Bryon Jensen, Andy Roman Site Address: 8492 South 81st Street Description' North: Open field South: Residential across from street East: City property (another water storage facility) West: Residential across from street Security: Chain -link fence Obstructions: None �e Overflow Discharge Orientation: Connected in valve vault to second facility Direction of Site Drainage: North/northeast Tank Information Manufacturer: Minneapolis Tank Year Built: 1962 Contract No NA Capacity (Gallons) Drawings Available Construction Tye Construction Style Overall Height (feet) Diameter (feet) 1 MG Yes ® No ❑ Welded Steel Stan d i e Approx. 74ft. 50ft. Coating Information Interio Wet Interi Dry Exterior Date Last Painted 1993 NA 1993 Painting Contractor NA Total or Partial Total NA Total Surface Preparation SP -10 NA SP -6 Coating System (2) Epoxy NA (3) Epoxy/Urethane Coating Manufacturer Tnemec NA Tnemec September 22, 2010 RE: City of Cottage Grove Innsdale Tank Evaluation SEH No. COTTG 111686 Mr. Harry Taylor Public Works Superintendent City of Cottage Grove 8635 West Point Douglas Road Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Harry: We are submitting five (5) copies of the Water Tower Evaluation that Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH conducted on the City of Cottage Grove's I Million Gallon hmsdale Standpipe. The tank still appears to be in good condition structurally; however, a number of surface repairs due to finish defects and structural modifications are warranted. With respect to the tank interior some minor to moderate coating failures were observed, isolated to the roof area. At this time moderate coating failures in the form of rusting and abrasions were observed on the tanks exterior surface. Based on our evaluation, and the desire to keep both interior and exterior reconditioning on a similar timetable, SEH recommends complete interior and exterior reconditioning of this facility. Scheduling of this work should be considered within the next 12 months to prevent deterioration to any exposed steel substrate. Structural modifications/ repairs and coating failures have been further identified within this report. Modifications to this facility were initially identified in our 2008 report. The estimated cost for this project is $555,300. A cost breakdown is included in this report, along with a recommended timetable. We would be happy to present this report to the City of Cottage Grove and discuss our findings at your convenience. Finally, at the City's request, SEH will prepare a complete set of contract documents to solicit bids for the repair work specific to the work recommended at this time. SEH can also provide inspection services with our in -house staff of trained NACE Inspectors. Sincerely, e Daniel 7. Zienty Associate Senior Project Desi Leader NACE Inspector #3186 Chad E. Setterhohn, PE Associate I Client Service Manager Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 13535 Vadnals Center Drive I Saint Paul MN 55110 -5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I w .sehinc.com 1 651.490.2000 1 600.325.2055 1 651.490.2150 fax Table of Contents Title Page Table of Contents Page 1 .0 Remaining Tank Life ................................................................. ..............................2 2 .0 Recommendations .................................................................... ..............................2 2.1 Interior Structural ............................................................... ............................... 2 2.2 Interior Dry Structural ........................................................ ............................... 3 2.3 Exterior Structural .............................................................. ............................... 3 2.4 Telecommunication ........................................................... ............................... 3 2.5 Cathodic Protection ........................................................... ............................... 3 2.6 Interior Coating ................................................................... ..............................4 2.7 Interior Dry Coating ........................................................... ............................... 4 2.8 Exterior Coating ................................................................. ............................... 4 3 .0 Engineers Estimate ................................................................... ..............................5 4 .0 Summary ................................................................................... ..............................6 4.1 Standard of Care. .................................... ........................................................ 6 4.2 Structural Evaluation ......................................................... ............................... 6 4.2.1 Structural Evaluation ............................................... ..............................6 4.2.2 Coating Evaluation .................................................. ..............................6 List of Appendices Appendix A Tank Evaluation Procedures Appendix B ASTM Standards Appendix C Photo CD SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page i Innsdale Water Tower Prepared for the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota 1.0 Remaining Tank Life Information from our field evaluation process indicates that the City of Cottage Grove should consider reconditioning of this facility. Based on the degree of failures observed, and the age of both the interior and exterior coating systems, work should be scheduled for sometime within the next 12 months. Upon completion of the recommended modifications, repairs, and coating application (based on complete reconditioning), this tank should continue to provide service to the City of Cottage Grove for the next 15 to 20+ years. The normal expectancy of an elevated tower exceeds 60+ years when a prescribed periodic maintenance plan is followed. Periodic maintenance following guidelines as prescribed by AW WA in Manual M42 is recommended. 2.0 Recommendations Based on the information obtained during our Field Evaluation Process we recommend the following: 2.1 Interior Structural 1. Seal the following with elastomeric caulk to inhibit the occurrence of rust bleed: - Gaps in the lapped plates including the dollar to roof plate, and roof to roof radial/torus plates (seams above the normal waterline) - Roof openings and other roof penetrations - At the intermittently welded roof stiffener angles, compression ring, outer compression rail to within 1 ft. of the normal waterline 2. Remove by air are gouging, cutting torch or grinding all surface imperfections including erection scab marks and weld spatter 3. Install mixing valves to inhibit the formation of ice. 4. Install a 24" diameter by 18" deep sump to facilitate tank draining and cleaning. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 2 2.2 Interior Dry Structural 1. Valve Pit Modifications: - Re- insulate existing copper piping - Replace the existing valve vault hatch with a new stainless steel hatch - Replace the existing conduit and service panel in the valve vault. Replace panel with stainless steel. Wire in heater and lighting. - Relocate the electrical to the tank, currently overhead from an existing power pole (to be removed), and relocate the service meter. Coordinate relocation of service underground to the valve vault. The existing telephone line should also be relocated underground. 2.3 Exterior Structural 1. Replace the existing obstruction/aviation light and associated conduit, replacement with a LED light. In conjunction with new conduit, install contacts (alarm system) to the access hatch within the confines of the handrail. 2. Install a rigid notched or trolley type carrier system for easier access and fall- protection. 3. Remove the existing center- screened roof vent modifying the spool flange and replace it with a new aluminum AW WA frost -free design. 4. Remove the existing handrail system and replace it with a new system, with toe - plate, that encompasses the roof vent and bowl access manway; this should be considered if the City is entertaining applications from telecommunications providers. Additionally, a new handrail system, as proposed, would provide enhanced safety with respect to access during any maintenance operations. 5. A platform should be incorporated (at the roof) that transitions from the shell access ladder to the proposed new handrail system to provide for easier /safer access. 6. Remove the existing access ladder from the shell and replace it with one that is compliant with current OSHA 29 CFR Part 1910 requirements. In addition, a ladder gate (climb prevention shield), with alann or padlock should be incorporated. 7. Provide new locks for all roof hatches 2.4 Telecommunication ■ Not Applicable 2.5 Cathodic Protection The tank is equipped with a submersible cathodic protection (CP) system. At this time the system appears to be functioning properly. Inspection of the system periodically by an experienced service company is recommended. Coordination by the City should be made for the temporary removal of the system prior to recommended interior work. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 3 2.6 Interior Coating As stated earlier, the interior coating system is generally in fair condition with minor to moderate repairs needed at the painter's rail, compression ring, and roof structural. However, as previously stated due to the observed coating failures as documented in the Coating Summary, age of the coating system (approximately 17 years), and other deficiencies related to weld, a total reconditioning is recornmended. This work would include wet riser surfaces, and piping within the valve vault. All surfaces should be abrasive blasted to a Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) SP -10 "Near White" standard of cleanliness. Surface discontinuities such as erection marks, weld spatter, and sharp fins should be removed by grinding, and re- blasted to achieve a uniform surface profile consistent with the coating manufacturer's product recommendation. This would also include all applicable structural repairs and modifications. Following surface preparation, all surfaces should receive a two to three -coat application (depending on product manufacturer) of an epoxy - polyamide coating system compliant with current AW WA D 102 guidelines and certified in accordance with ANSUNSF standard 61. 2.7 Interior Dry Coating This is in reference to the condition of the valve vault. Its current condition is considered fair to poor. Therefore, SEH recommends complete reconditioning of the piping and valves in this area. hiterior dry surfaces should be prepared to an SSPC SP -6 "Commercial Blast" level of cleanliness. Similar to the interior immersion area, following surface preparation, all surfaces should receive a two to three -coat application (depending on product manufacturer) of an epoxy - polyamide coating system. 2.8 Exterior Coating The exterior coating system is moderately chalked. This is quite common based on the age of the present system. However, the surface is also experiencing a significant amount of rusting especially on the east half of the tank. Adhesion as stated in the Field Inspection Report appeared as only fair to good. Based on this assessment SEH recommends complete reconditioning of the tanks exterior surfaces. Complete removal and replacement with a new epoxy /polyurethane coating system offers a long -tern solution to the existing system. All surfaces should be prepared to an SSPC SP -6 or equal "Commercial Blast" level of cleanliness. This should be followed by two -coats of a polyamide epoxy and a finish coat of an acrylic - polyurethane. As dirt and mildew accumulation appear to be an inherent problem, the City may wish to consider use of a mildew resistant urethane system application. To avoid fugitive dust emissions and/or paint drift, a full- containment structure will need to be constructed. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 4 3.0 The above project costs are based on current pricing derived from consultation with area contractors, suppliers, and manufacturers as applicable to the scope of work. SEH suggests that the project be bid several months prior to the anticipated start date attract competitive bids. We estimate this project to be completed in 8 week. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 5 Engineers Estimate SEH also recommends inspection during critical operations on the project to ensure proper surface preparation and coating system application, along with any other work noted herein. 4.0 Summary 4.1 Standard of Care The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report were developed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. 4.2 Structural Evaluation 4.2.1 Structural Evaluation Structural commentary under this section refers to the general condition of the foundation, and plate sections of the tank. Based on our visual examination of the tank structure and foundation, it appears that the facility is in good condition at this time. However, modifications are necessary to bring it into compliance with current standards with respect to both ventilation and personal access. Since recommendations for painting are maintenance related, SEA recommends specific modifications are delayed until complete reconditioning is warranted. In addition, repairs within the tank interior are suggested before any recoating in order to enhance its long -term serviceability. Specific references to items requiring maintenance repair, replacement, or installations to provide code compliance are included in the Recommendation section of this report under Interior or Exterior Structural. Our inspection of the tanks foundation revealed no significant cracking or spalling. The grout between the base plates and foundation was also found to be in fair condition. The surrounding area is sloped away from the tank providing good drainage. The interior of the tank is in good condition. Few deficiencies were identified with regard to weld finish. 4.2.2 Coating Evaluation hiterior and exterior paint chip samples were not extracted during our evaluation. Coating systems provided by the paint manufacturer, Tnemec, at the time of this tank's last painting, were neither lead nor chromium based. The exterior system will not require any provisions that include the abatement of lead or chromium, or the disposal of hazardous waste materials; however, containment would be necessary to prevent the emission of fugitive dust during operations that include the future removal of the exterior coating system. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 6 Innsdale Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None /NA Rusting ------------------------------ Overall Condition: Good ------------------------------ Blistering None None None ------------------- _________________ _ Cracking ---------------- - -- -------- ------------ ------- ----------------- ---- ----- -- -- --------------- ------ Peeling ------- -------- ----- ------- -------- - - -- -- ------------- --- ---------•----- -- -- Pitting ------------------- — — --------- --------- --------®------ --- Chalking ------- -- -- -------- --------- • --------- Delamination ----------- -------- --------------- - --- -------------------- Comments: Rusting observed between the gap of the support angles and the roof & the compression ring. Location: Interior i-- u Area: Roof Radial Adhesion: None Taken Overall Condition: Good Minimum Maximum Average Dry Film Thickness: Blistering None None None Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Sli ht None/NA Rusting Blistering ----------------------------------------- ------------------- _________________ _ Cracking ------------------- -- --- --------- - - - --- ------------------ ---------®----- --- Peeling ------------- - - - - -- --- ----------- --- -- ---------- ------ -- ---------®----- -- Pitting — — ---- -- ----- --- 0 ---------- Chalkin -------------------- --------- -- --------- Delamination ----------- -------- --------------- - --- -------------------- Comments: I Rusting along roof support angle and roof plate. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 7 Innsdale Location: Interior Advanced '"- Slight None/NA Area: Shell Adhesion: None taken Overall Condition: Dry Film Thickness: Good Min um Maxi am None None None Blistering - -- --- ------ -- Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Sli lit None/NA Rusting Blisterin Cracking Peeling - ----- -------- --- --- ----- --------- - - - - -- ------ --------- - - - -- ---- ---------- - - - - -- --- ----------- - - - - -- ----------- --- ------ ------------------------------------------ -------------- - - -- -- --------- ------------------ ❑ -------- -- --------- ---- --- --- - -- ❑ ------------------- ❑ -------------------- ❑ ❑ ❑ -------------------- ❑ Pitting Chalking Delamination Comments: Rusting observed between the gap of the support angles, and the fastening points at the com ression ring. Location: Interior Area: Upper Shell Plate Adhesion: None Taken Overall Condition: Good Dry Film Thickness: Minimum Maximum Average None None None Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None/NA Rustin ---- ---------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Blistering - -- --- ------ -- ❑ ------------------- CrackingEl - - - - -- -------------- - - - --- ---------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------- ------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ❑ PeelingEl Pitting Chalking ----- ---------- --- ---------- ------ ❑ -------------------- Delamination -------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- - -- -- El Comments: Spot rusting at weld seams. Abrasions observed from ice...no apparent coating damage. Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 8 ACCESSORIES Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 9 Agency Compliant Comment ® Yes Depth Removed: Sediment ❑ No Distributed evenly ❑ Yes P' inch ® No ❑ Yes Sump Pit ® No Agency Condition Comment Compliant Silt Stop ® Yes ® Yes Good Recirculation line: El Yes ® No ❑ No ❑ No Cathodic Protection Type Comments ® Yes Submersible Four (4) sealed roof covers (pre- existing) ❑ No Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 9 Condition Severe Innsdale Location: Exterior None/NA Rusting Area: Shell --------------------- Adhesion: 4A Blistering Overall Condition: Dry Film Thickness: y Good Minimum 7.0 Maximum Avera e 1 16.0 1 111 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Sli ht None/NA Rusting ------------ -- - - - - -- ---- ------ -------- -- --------------------- ID --------- --------------- ----- Blistering 6.0 15.9 9.7 ----- -- ----- ------- ---------- ---- -- ---- ------ -------- - - - -- • Cracking -- --------- -- -- -------------- • --- ---------- -------------------- Peelin --- ---- ----- -- ------ -------------- - - -- Pittin — ------- -- - - - -- --- ---- - -- --- ------------- ---- - - - - -- Chalking -- -- -------------- -- - -- ----------- - - - --- Delamination Comments: Spot cracks (west), rusting coming through (most pronounced east side) Comments- Sot to coat delamination lower shell sections, abrasions (rust), dirt/mildew (sweatin Location: Exterior Advanced Moderate Area: Shell Adhesion: 3A Overall Condition: Fair Dry Film Thickness: Minimum Maximum Average Blistering 6.0 15.9 9.7 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None/NA Rusting — ------------------------------ ------- - ---------- --------- --------------- ------ Blistering -------------- - - - - -- ----- -- ----- ------- ---------- ---- -- ---- ------ -------- - - - -- --------------------- Crackin -------- -- -------------- ---- ------------------ -- --- -- ------ ---- - - - - -- Peelin - --- -------------- -- ---------- Pitting — ------- -- - - - -- Chalking Delamination Comments: Spot cracks (west), rusting coming through (most pronounced east side) Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 10 Innsdale Location: Exterior i r Moderate Area: Roof Rustin Adhesion: 2A Overall Condition: Fair -------------------- DC Film Thickness: 3 ' Minimum Max9mam Average 7.0 1 20.9 Crackin Condition Severe Advanced Moderate Slight None/NA Rustin 2A ------ -------- - - - - -- ------ °----- --- ----- ----- ----------- -- -------------------- ------------ --- - - - -- - -------- ---- -- -- -------------------- Blisterin --- ------- ---------- ----- -------- - - - --- - ------------ ------------------ -- ----------------------------- 1 20.9 Crackin --- --- -------- ------ --- --- ------ - ---- -------------------- --------- -- --------------------- Peeling -- ------- ---------------- - -- ------------ - - -- -- -------- ------------------------------ ------- - -- - - - - -- --- ---- Pitting ----------- --------- -------------- - - - - -- --------- ----------- ------ ------- ------- ----------------- Chalkin -------------------- -------------- -- - - -- ------------------ Comments: I Dirt and bird droppiu is, spot rustin Location: Area: Exterior Roof Advanced 7 1 1 , slight None/NA Adhesion: 2A ------ -------- - - - - -- ------ °----- --- ----- ----- ----------- -- -------------------- -------- --------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ - --------- ---- - ---- --- Overall Condition: Fair Dry Film Thickness: Minimum Maximum Average 7.0 1 20.9 1 14.7 Condition Severe Advanced Moderate slight None/NA Rusting --------------------------------------------------- ---- -------- -------- ---- --------- ------ -------- -------- - - -- ------ -------- - - - - -- ------ °----- --- ----- ----- ----------- -- -------------------- -------- --------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ - --------- ---- - ---- --- --- - - - -- -------------- -- - ------ ------------ -- -- -- ------------------ --------------- ---- --------------- --- -------------------- Blisterin Cracking Peeling Pitting Challan g Delamination Comments. Spot rusting around the dollar plate /vent, handrail. Modify handrail for telecom Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 11 Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 12 Level Condition Agency Comments Compliant Yes Ladders Shell Good ® dist. > 12 in. Shell Good ®❑ No one CageeT Climb Shell El Yes Need to install Device ® No Handrail. Roof Good Z Nees Angle 2 x 2 x 1 /4 8ft. Dia. Level Condition Type Size Agency Comments Confined - Compliant ❑ Yes Exterior signage Space Entry ® No needed ® Yes Manways Roof Good Hinged 3 -24" ❑ No ® Yes Manways Shell Good Hinged 2- 24" ❑ No Tapered to 16 ", Yes Vent Roof Fair Screened replace with Alum. 24" E] on frost free Level Number Comments Lights Roof 1 Dual obstruction Size Insul. Condition Agency Comments Com liant Fill Pipe ❑ Yes ® Yes 2 -10 Z No Good ❑ No �4 Size Type Condition Agency Comments Compliant Overflow/ ® Yes No air -break ❑ S lash- ad 12" NA Poor ❑ No Termination <12" ❑ Condition Comments Foundation/ Good Settlement ❑ Cracks ❑ Spalling ❑ Footings Grout: None Anchor NA Bolts Valve Pit Good SCADA ❑ Altitude Valve ❑ Heated Controls ❑ Sway Rods Struts Level Comments Paint None taken based on age of last application Sam le Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota Page 12 Appendix A Tank Evaluation Procedures Evaluation Procedures Tank Evaluation Methods The exterior of the tank was evaluated in confonnance with the following: ■ The guidelines set forth in AWWA D101, "Inspecting Steel Tank Standpipes, and Elevated. Tanks for Water Storage," and Manual M42. The condition of ladders, bolted connections, and other appurtenances not specifically mentioned in the summary sections, or Coating Summary Report, should be assumed satisfactory. ■ Inspection of interior and exterior coated surfaces was limited to areas accessible without special rigging. The surface of the interior coating system was examined by insertion of a disinfected inflatable raft. No structural analysis was conducted to determine if the tank's design complies with current standards of AWWA D100, "Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage." ■ As part of the evaluation, conditions that appeared unsafe or not in conformance with current OSHA regulations were recorded and are contained in this report. Coating Serviceability The estimated remaining service life of the coating systems is evaluated through the use of these instruments: dry film thickness gage, cross -cut guide kit, putty knife, and 30X microscope. Interior and exterior coatings, where accessible, were evaluated in accordance with Society for Protective Coatings SSPC PA -2 "Measurement of Dry Film Thickness with Magnetic Gages ", using a Type 2 field probe and magnetic flux gage. In addition, a Tooke gage was utilized to identify the number of coating applications and estimated thickness of each coat. Since steel plates and structural members appeared visually to be in good condition, an ultrasonic thickness gage was not used during our evaluation. The use of inspection instruments was combined with a thorough visual examination of accessible exterior areas for holidays (voids), runs, sags, surface contaminants, overspray, dry spray, delamnnation, steel condition under the coating system, and any other questionable deficiencies as objectively compared to ASTM and industry standards. Coating Assessment Criteria The overall condition of each area of the tank has been assessed within the following categories: severe, advanced moderate, slight and none to determine the necessity for maintenance, if any. These categories have been devised by SEH to assist in quantifying the degree of failure observed, and are based on applicable ASTM standards. See Appendix B. These standards include, but are not limited to: ■ ASTM D 3359 Test Method for Measuring Adhesion by Tape ■ ASTM D 610 Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting ■ ASTM D 714 Test Method for Evaluating the Degree of Blistering of Paints Standard ASTM Severe (Very poor) Advanced (Poor) Moderate Fair Slight (Good) None (Excellent) Adhesion D 3359 0 1 2 3 to 4 5 Rusting D 610 4 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10 Blistering D 714 Dense Medium Dense Medium Few Pitting G46 5 4 3 1 to 2 Tank Evaluation Report COTTG 111686 Cottage Grove, Minnesota A -1 UUMEUM ASTM Standards Designation: D 610 — 01 �1Lf rxrexxarrox t Steel Structures Painting Council SSPC -VIS -2 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces' This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 610; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last mapproval. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reappmval. Tbis standard has been approved far use by agencies of the Department of Defense. 1. Scope* 1.1 This test method covers the evaluation of the degree of rusting on painted steel surfaces. The visual examples which depict the percentage of rusting given in the written specifica- tions form part of the standard. In the event of a dispute, the written definition prevails. These visual examples were devel- oped in cooperation with SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings to further standardization of methods. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTMAdjunct /SSPC: The Society for Protective Coat- ings SSPC -VIS 2 /ASTM D 610 Standard Method of Evaluating Degrees of Rusting on Painted Steel Surfaces 3. Significance and Use 3.1 The amount of rusting beneath or through a paint film is a significant factor in determining whether a coating system should be repaired or replaced. This test method provides a standardized means for quantifying the amount and distribution of visible surface rust. 3.2 The degree of rusting is evaluated using a zero to ten scale based on the percentage of visible surface rust. ' This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D01 on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D01.46 on Industrial Protective Coatings. This test method has beenjointly approved by ASTM and SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings. Current edition approved May 10, 2001. Published July 2001. Originally published as D 610 — 41. Last previous edition D 610 — 95. 2 Colored visual examples are available at a nominal cost from ASTM Head- quarters (request Adjunct ADJD0610a), SSPC Publication No. 00 -08 from SSPC The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th Street, Sixth Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, www.sspaorte 3.3 The distribution of the rust is classified as spot rust, general rust, pinpoint rust or hybrid lust. 4. Interferences 4.1 The visual examples that are part of this test method and the associated rust -grade scale cover only rusting evidenced by visible surface rust. 4.2 The use of the visual examples requires the following cautions: 4.2.1 Some finishes are stained by rust. This staining must not be confused with the actual rusting involved. 4.2.2 Accumulated dirt or other material may make accurate determination of the degree of rusting difficult. 4.2.3 Certain types of deposited dirt that contain iron or iron compounds may cause surface discoloration that should not be mistaken for corrosion. 4.2.4 Failure may vary over a given area. Discretion must therefore be used when selecting a single rust grade or rust distribution that is to be representative of a large area or structure, or in subdividing a structure for evaluation. 4.2.5 The color of the finish coating should be taken into account in evaluating surfaces as failures will be more apparent on a finish that shows color contrast with rust, such as used in these reference standards, than on a similar color, such as an iron oxide finish. 5. Procedure 5.1 Select an area to be evaluated. 5.2 Determine the type of rust distribution using definitions in Table 1 and visual examples in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3. 5.3 Estimate percentage of surface area rusted using the visual examples in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 or SSPC -VIS 2, or both, by electronic scanning techniques or other method agreed upon by contracting parties. NOTE 1 —The numerical vast grade scale is an exponential function of the area of rust. The rust grade versus area of rust is a straight line plot on semilogarithmic coordinate from cost grade 10 to rust grade 4. The slope of the curve was changed at 10 % of the area rusted to 100 % rusted to permit inclusion of complete rusting on the 0 to 10 rust scale. 'A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard. Copyright ©ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PC Box C100, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. Rust Distribution Types: S: Spot Rusting -Spot rusting occurs when the bulk of the rusting is concentrated in a few localized areas of the painted surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -S thru 1 -S (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). G: General Rusting - General rusting occurs when various size rust spots are randomly distributed across the surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -G thru 1 -G. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). P: Pinpoint Rusting- Pinpoint rusting occurs when the rust is distributed across the surface as very small individual specks of rust. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -P through 1 -P. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). H: Hybrid Rusting -An actual rusting surface may be a hybrid of the types of rust distribution depicted in the visual examples. In this case, report the total percent of rust to classify the surface. 9 -H through 1 -H. 5.4 Use percentage of surface area rusted to identify rust grade (see Table 1). Assign rust rating using rust grade of 0 -10 followed by the type of rust distribution identified by S for spot, G for general, P for pinpoint or H for Hybrid. 5.5 The visual examples are not required for use of the rust -grade scale since the scale is based upon the percent of the area rusted and any method of assessing area rust may be used to determine the rust grade. 6.3 Report rust distribution using S for Spot, G for General, P for Pinpoint and H for Hybrid. 7. Precision and Bias 7.1 No precision or bias statement can be made for this test method. 8. Keywords 6. Report 6.1 Identify sample or area evaluated. 6.2 Report rust grade using rating of 0 -10. 8.1 corrosion; rusting c D 610 - 01 TABLE 1 Sc ale and Description of Rust Ratings Visual Examples Rust Grade Percent of Surface Rusted Spot( General (G) Pinpoint (P) 10 Less than or equal to 0.01 percent None 9 Greater than 0.01 percent and up to 0.03 percent 9-S 9 -G 9 -P 8 Greater than 0.03 percent and up to 0.1 percent 8-S 8 -G 8 -P 7 Greater than 0.1 percent and up to 0.3 percent 7 -S 7 -G 7 -P 6 Greater than 0.3 percent and up to 1.0 percent 6 -S 6 -G 6 -P 5 Greater than 1.0 percent and up to 3.0 percent 5 -S 5 -G 5 -P 4 Greater than 3.0 percent and up to 10.0 percent 4 -S 4-G 4 -P 3 Greater than 10.0 percent and up to 16.0 percent 3 -S 3 -G 3 -P 2 Greater than 16.0 percent and up to 33.0 percent 2 -S 2 -G 2 -P 1 Greater than 33.0 percent and up to 50.0 percent 1 -S 1 -G 1 -P 0 Greater than 50 percent None Rust Distribution Types: S: Spot Rusting -Spot rusting occurs when the bulk of the rusting is concentrated in a few localized areas of the painted surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -S thru 1 -S (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). G: General Rusting - General rusting occurs when various size rust spots are randomly distributed across the surface. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -G thru 1 -G. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). P: Pinpoint Rusting- Pinpoint rusting occurs when the rust is distributed across the surface as very small individual specks of rust. The visual examples depicting this type of rusting are labeled 9 -P through 1 -P. (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3). H: Hybrid Rusting -An actual rusting surface may be a hybrid of the types of rust distribution depicted in the visual examples. In this case, report the total percent of rust to classify the surface. 9 -H through 1 -H. 5.4 Use percentage of surface area rusted to identify rust grade (see Table 1). Assign rust rating using rust grade of 0 -10 followed by the type of rust distribution identified by S for spot, G for general, P for pinpoint or H for Hybrid. 5.5 The visual examples are not required for use of the rust -grade scale since the scale is based upon the percent of the area rusted and any method of assessing area rust may be used to determine the rust grade. 6.3 Report rust distribution using S for Spot, G for General, P for Pinpoint and H for Hybrid. 7. Precision and Bias 7.1 No precision or bias statement can be made for this test method. 8. Keywords 6. Report 6.1 Identify sample or area evaluated. 6.2 Report rust grade using rating of 0 -10. 8.1 corrosion; rusting a c N_ w m V N O ca o a c m a w a N_ w T ry RM G) 0 0 a c N (U N • • a c w m v = a 0 w 0 a c ¢ 1 D610 -01 a c N_ w m O O 0 a c m a C a N_ m S7 0 a c N N a e a c v m O 0 a c N a FIG. 1 Examples of Area Percentagi a c N w m I F O 0 0 a c m ¢ P a w 0 0 o a N m 2 a c N_ w ¢ m IF v 0 0 w 0 a c a y 0 O M c N 4 Z C) M m Z M M D r M c Z C) 13 Z E O z M c Z O 3 a c N_ fU a m 0 o a c m a a N_ N L� A N U 0 a a c a a a A 0 0 a m a a c N_ {7 w a w o a c m a 11 { • s � r a N a W 0 a a a c N_ N a 0 a c m a a � d. J 4 r . 6 T O C Z D m z m 77 D r C z I y O i a w w o a y 0 FIG. 2 Examples of Area Percentages a N o. m S7i a a w 0 a o. m 0 a m 0 v `z T O 70 C Z 17 4 a c M `w a m N N O 0 77 C N a c a w G) N O 0 9 m a c N_ m a V 0 0 c N N a D610 -01 G) w a m N W 0 C a P� c v m rp rp W W 0 m a c N_ w a N W w 0 S7 c a FIG. 3 Examples of Area Percentages w a m w (n m 3J C a a a � a c a m O 0 c N a c N_ d a w _0 m 0 c N a U) a O C C 4 z 0 O m z m D r C Z O v z 0 O z ."I C C 1 z 0 5 A D610 -01 SUMMARY OF CHANGES Committee DOl has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last date of issue that may impact the use of this standard. (1) This test method revised in 2001 to include the rust distribution information. (2) The visual examples were changed from nine pictorial representation to twenty -seven rust grade and rust distribution visual examples. (3) Previously numerical rust grade rating of 0 -10 were used. Now rust grade of 0 -10 are followed by rust distribution of S, G,P or H ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted byASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610 - 832 -9585 (phone), 610 -832 -9555 (fax), or service @astm.org (e- mail); or through the ASTM website (wwwastm.org). Designation: D 714 — 02 U1_ _ fNTENNAT/ONAL Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints' This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 714; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (E) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. This standard has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense. 1. Scope 1.1 This test method employs photographic reference stan- dards to evaluate the degree of blistering that may develop when paint systems are subjected to conditions which will cause blistering. While primarily intended for use on metal and other nonporous surfaces, this test method may be used to evaluate blisters on porous surfaces, such as wood, if the size of blisters falls within the scope of these reference standards. When the reference standards are used as a specification of performance, the permissible degree of blistering of the paint system shall be agreed upon by the purchaser and the seller. 1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safely concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro- priate safety and health practices and determine the applica- bility of regulatory limitations prior to use. 2. Significance and Use 2.1 A phenomenon peculiar to painted surfaces is the formation of blisters relative to some system weakness. This test method provides a standard procedure of describing the size and density of the blisters so that comparisons of severity can be made. 3. Reference Standards 3.1 The photographic reference standards are glossy prints' ' Figs. 1-4 are reproductions of these standards and are included to illustrate two characteristics of blistering: size and fre- quency. 3.2 Size— Reference standards have been selected for four steps as to size on a numerical scale from 10 to 0, in which No. 10 represents no blistering. Blistering standard No. 8 represents the smallest size blister easily seen by the unaided eye. Blistering standards Nos. 6, 4, and 2 represent progressively larger sizes. r This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee DOI on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee DO1.25 on Evaluation of Weathering Effects. Current edition approved Dec. 10, 2002. Published February 2003. Originally approved in 1943. Last previous edition approved in 2000 as D 714 — 87 (2000). 2 Glossy prints of the photographic reference standards showing types of blistering are available at a nominal charge from ASTM International. Order Adjunct ADJD0714. 3.3 Frequency — Reference standards have been selected for four steps in frequency at each step in size, designated as follows: Dense, D, Medium dense, MD, Medium, M, and Few, F. Noce 1 —A quantitative physical description of blistering would in- clude the following characteristics determined by actual count: Size distribution in terms of mensuration units, Frequency of occurrence per unit area, Pattern of distribution over the surface, and Shape of blister For the usual tests, an actual count is more elaborate than is necessary. 4. Procedure 4.1 Subject the paint film to the test conditions agreed upon by the purchaser and the seller. Then evaluate the paint film for the degree of blistering by comparison with the photographic reference standards in Figs. 1 -4. 5. Report 5.1 Report blistering as a number (Note 2) designating the size of the blisters and a qualitative term or symbol indicating the frequency. 5.2 Intermediate steps in size or frequency of blisters may be judged by interpolation. 5.3 When the distribution of blisters over the area has a nonuniform pattern, use an additional phrase to describe the distribution, such as "small clusters," or "large patches." Nore 2 —The number refers to the largest size blister that is numerous enough to be representative of the specimen. For example, photographic standard No. 4, "Dense," has blisters ranging in size from about No. 7 to No. 4, inclusive. 5.4 The pictorial representations in this standard which are published in the Book of Standards are sufficient in order to conduct the evaluation. It is preferable however, to use the original photographs or drawings when available. 6. Keywords 6.1 blistering; corrosion; evaluations; reference standards Copyright C ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. FIG. 1 (continued) Dense 2 Medium Dense D714 -02 Few FIG. 2 Blister Size No. 4 Medium Dense Dense FIG. 2 (continued) r Few FIG. 2 Blister Size No. 4 Medium Dense Dense FIG. 2 (continued) Few FIG. 3 Blister Size No. 6 FIG. 3 (continued) Medium Dense 4 Medium Dense o O R' ,... Few FIG. 4 (continued) FIG. 4 Blister size No. 8 Dense Medium Medium Dense D714 -02 ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not re vised, either reappro ved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for re vision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM international, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610- 832 -9585 (phone), 610- 832 -9555 (fax), or sewica@astm.org (e- mail); or through the ASTM website (wwwastm.org). Designation: D 3359 — 02 — y-1-! INTERNATIONAL. Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test' This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 3359; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproved. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. This standard has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense. 1. Scope 1.1 These test methods cover procedures for assessing the adhesion of coating films to metallic substrates by applying and removing pressure- sensitive tape over cuts made in the film. 1.2 Test Method A is primarily intended for use at job sites while Test Method B is more suitable for use in the laboratory. Also, Test Method B is not considered suitable for films thicker than 5 mils (125µm). Noce 1— Subject to agreement between the purchaser and the seller, Test Method B can be used for thicker films if wider spaced cuts are employed. 1.3 These test methods are used to establish whether the adhesion of a coating to a substrate is at a generally adequate level. They do not distinguish between higher levels of adhesion for which more sophisticated methods of measure- ment are required. Nora 2 —It should be recognized that differences in adherability of the coating surface can affect the results obtained with coatings having the same inherent adhesion. 1.4 In multicoat systems adhesion failure may occur be- tween coats so that the adhesion of the coating system to the substrate is not determined. 1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only. 1.6 This standard does not purport to address the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Related Coating Products D 823 Practices for Producing Films of Uniform Thickness of Paint, Varnish, and Related Products on Test Panels D 1000 Test Method For Pressure - Sensitive Adhesive - Coated Tapes Used for Electrical and Electronic Applica- tions' D 1730 Practices for Preparation of Aluminum and Aluminum -Alloy Surfaces for Painting D 2092 Guide for Preparation of Zinc - Coated (Galvanized) Steel Surfaces for Painting D 2370 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Organic Coatings D 3330 Test Method for Peel Adhesion of Pressure - Sensitive Tape 6 D 3924 Specification for Standard Environment for Condi- tioning and Testing Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Materials' D 4060 Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser 3. Summary of Test Methods 3.1 Test Method A —An X -cut is made through the film to the substrate, pressure - sensitive tape is applied over the cut and then removed, and adhesion is assessed qualitatively on the 0 to 5 scale. 3.2 Test Method B—A lattice pattern with either six or eleven cuts in each direction is made in the film to the substrate, pressure- sensitive tape is applied over the lattice and then removed, and adhesion is evaluated by comparison with descriptions and illustrations. 4. Significance and Use 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards: D 609 Practice for Preparation of Cold- Rolled Steel Panels for Testing Paint, Varnish, Conversion Coatings, and ' These test methods me under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee DOI on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and are the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D01.23 on Physical Properties of Applied Paint Films. Current edition approved Aug. 10, 2002. Published October 2002. Originally published as D 3359 – 74. Last previous edition D 3359 -97. 4.1 If a coating is to fulfill its function of protecting or decorating a substrate, it must adhere to it for the expected service life. Because the substrate and its surface preparation (or lack of it) have a drastic effect on the adhesion of coatings, a method to evaluate adhesion of a coating to different substrates or surface treatments, or of different coatings to the 'Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 06.01. 'Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 10.01. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 02.05. 5 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 06.02. 6 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 15.09. Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Pe Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. D 3359 - 02 same substrate and treatment, is of considerable usefulness in the industry. 4.2 The limitations of all adhesion methods and the specific limitation of this test method to lower levels of adhesion (see 1.3) should be recognized before using it. The intra- and inter - laboratory precision of this test method is similar to other widely - accepted tests for coated substrates (for example, Test Method D 2370 and Test Method D 4060), but this is partly the result of it being insensitive to all but large differences in adhesion. The limited scale of 0 to 5 was selected deliberately to avoid a false impression of being sensitive. TEST METHOD A -X -CUT TAPE TEST 5. Apparatus and Materials 5.1 Cutting Tool -Sharp razor blade, scalpel, knife or other cutting devices. It is of particular importance that the cutting edges be in good condition. 5.2 Cutting Guide - -Steel or other hard metal straightedge to ensure straight cuts. 5.3 Tape -25 -mm (1.0 -in.) wide semitransparent pressure - sensitive tape' with an adhesion strength agreed upon by the supplier and the user is needed. Because of the variability in adhesion strength from batch -to -batch and with time, it is essential that tape from the same batch be used when tests are to be run in different laboratories. If this is not possible the test method should be used only for ranking a series of test coatings. 5.4 Rubber Eraser, on the end of a pencil. 5.5 Illumination -A light source is helpful in determining whether the cuts have been made through the film to the substrate. 6. Test Specimens 6.1 When this test method is used in the field, the specimen is the coated structure or article on which the adhesion is to be evaluated. 6.2 For laboratory use apply the materials to be tested to panels of the composition and surface conditions on which it is desired to determine the adhesion. NOTE 3- Applicable test panel description and surface preparation methods are given in Practice D 609 and Practices D 1730 and D 2091 Nave 4-- Coatings should be applied in accordance with Practice D 823, or as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. NOTE 5-If desired or specified, the coated test panels maybe subjected to a preliminary exposure such as water immersion, salt spray, or high humidity before conducting the tape test. The conditions and time of exposure will be governed by ultimate coating use or shall be agreed upon . between the purchaser and seller. 7. Procedure 7.1 Select an area free of blemishes and minor surface imperfections. For tests in the field, ensure that the surface is Permaeel 99, manufactured by Pennaeel, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, and available from various Permacel tape distributors, is reported to be suitable for this purpose. The manufacturer of this tape and the manufacturer of the tape used in the intedaboratory study (see RR: D01- 1008), have advised this subcommittee that the properties of these tapes were changed. Users of it should, therefore, check whether current material gives comparable results to previous supplied material. clean and dry. Extremes in temperature or relative humidity may affect the adhesion of the tape or the coating. 7.1.1 For specimens which have been immersed: After immersion, clean and wipe the surface with an appropriate solvent which will not harm the integrity of the coating. Then dry or prepare the surface, or both, as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. 7.2 Make two cuts in the film each about 40 mm (1.5 in.) long that intersect near their middle with a smaller angle of between 30 and 45'. When making the incisions, use the straightedge and cut through the coating to the substrate in one steady motion. 7.3 Inspect the incisions for reflection of light from the metal substrate to establish that the coating film has been penetrated. If the substrate has not been reached make another X in a different location. Do not attempt to deepen a previous cut as this may affect adhesion along the incision. 7.4 Remove two complete laps of the pressure - sensitive tape from the roll and discard. Remove an additional length at a steady (that is, not jerked) rate and cut a piece about 75 mm (3 in.) long. 7.5 Place the center of the tape at the intersection of the cuts with the tape running in the same direction as the smaller angles. Smooth the tape into place by finger in the area of the incisions and then rub firmly with the eraser on the end of a pencil. The color under the transparent tape is a useful indication of when good contact has been made. 7.6 Within 90 ± 30 s of application, remove the tape by seizing the free end and pulling it off rapidly (not jerked) back upon itself at as close to an angle of 180' as possible. 7.7 Inspect the X -cut area for removal of coating from the substrate or previous coating and rate the adhesion in accor- dance with the following scale: 5A No peeling or removal, 4A Trace peeling or removal along incisions or at their intersection, 3A Jagged removal along incisions up to 1.6 mm (Y+e in.) on either side, 2A Jagged removal along most of incisions up to 3.2 mm ( +/e in.) on either side, to Removal from most of the area of the X under the tape, and 0A Removal beyond the area of the X. 7.8 Repeat the test in two other locations on each test panel. For large structures make sufficient tests to ensure that the adhesion evaluation is representative of the whole surface. 7.9 After making several cuts examine the cutting edge and, if necessary, remove any flat spots or wire -edge by abrading lightly on a fine oil stone before using again. Discard cutting tools that develop nicks or other defects that tear the film. 8. Report 8.1 Report the number of tests, their mean and range, and for coating systems, where the failure occurred that is, between first coat and substrate, between first and second coat, etc. 8.2 For field tests report the structure or article tested, the location and the environmental conditions at the time of testing. 8.3 For test panels report the substrate employed, the type of coating, the method of cure, and the environmental conditions at the time of testing. 8.4 If the adhesion strength of the tape has been determined in accordance with Test Methods D 1000 or D 3330, report the D 3359 - 02 results with the adhesion rating(s). If the adhesion strength of the tape has not been determined, report the specific tape used and its manufacturer. 8.5 If the test is performed after immersion, report immer- sion conditions and method of sample preparation. 9. Precision and Bias s 9.1 In an interlaboratory study of this test method in which operators in six laboratories made one adhesion measurement on three panels each of three coatings covering a wide range of adhesion, the within - laboratories standard deviation was found to be 0.33 and the between - laboratories 0.44. Based on these standard deviations, the following criteria should be used for judging the acceptability of results at the 95 % confidence level: 9.1.1 Repeatability - Provided adhesion is uniform over a large surface, results obtained by the same operator should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 1 rating unit for two measurements. 9.1.2 Reproducibility -Two results, each the mean of trip- licates, obtained by different operators should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 1.5 rating units. 9.2 Bias cannot be established for these test methods. TEST METHOD B- CROSS -CUT TAPE TEST 10. Apparatus and Materials 10.1 Cutting Tool -Sharp razor blade, scalpel, knife or other cutting device having a cutting edge angle between 15 and 30° that will make either a single cut or several cuts at once. It is of particular importance that the cutting edge or edges be in good condition. 10.2 Cutting Guide -If cuts are made manually (as opposed to a mechanical apparatus) a steel or other hard metal straight- edge or template to ensure straight cuts. 10.3 Rule -- Tempered steel rule graduated in 0.5 mm for measuring individual cuts. 10.4 Tape, as described in 5.3. 10.5 Rubber Eraser, on the end of a pencil. 10.6 Illumination, as described in 5.5. 10.7 Magnifying Glass -An illuminated magnifier to be used while making individual cuts and examining the test area. 11. Test Specimens 11.1 Test specimens shall be as described in Section 6. It should be noted, however, that multitip cutters provide good results only on test areas sufficiently plane that all cutting edges contact the substrate to the same degree. Check for flatness with a straight edge such as that of the tempered steel rule (10.3). 6 Supporting data are available from ASTM International Headquarters. Request RR: DO] -1008. s Multiblade cutters are available from a few sources that specialize in testing equipment for the paint industry. One supplier that has assisted in the refinement of these methods is given in footnote 10. 10 The sole source of supply of the multitip cutter for coated pipe surfaces known to the committee at this time is Paul N. Gardner Co., 316 NE First St, Pompano Beach, FL 33060. If you are aware of alternative suppliers, please provide this information to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee,' which you may attend. 12. Procedure 12.1 Where required or when agreed upon, subject the specimens to a preliminary test before conducting the tape test (see Note 3). After drying or testing the coating, conduct the tape test at room temperature as defined in Specification D 3924, unless D 3924 standard temperature is required or agreed. 12.1.1 For specimens which have been immersed: After immersion, clean and wipe the surface with an appropriate solvent which will not harm the integrity of the coating. Then dry or prepare the surface, or both, as agreed upon between the purchaser and the seller. 12.2 Select an area free of blemishes and minor surface imperfections, place on a firm base, and under the illuminated magnifier, make parallel cuts as follows: 12.2.1 For coatings having a dry film thickness up to and including 2.0 mils (50 Wn) space the cuts 1 min apart and make eleven cuts unless otherwise agreed upon. 12.2.2 For coatings having a dry film thickness between 2.0 mils (50 µm) and 5 mils (125 µm), space the cuts 2 mm apart and make six cuts. For films thicker than 5 mils use Test Method A. i i 12.2.3 Make all cuts about 20 mm ( in.) long. Cut through the film to the substrate in one steady motion using just sufficient pressure on the cutting tool to have the cutting edge reach the substrate. When making successive single cuts with the aid of a guide, place the guide on the uncut area. 12.3 After making the required cuts brush the film lightly with a soft brush or tissue to remove any detached flakes or ribbons of coatings. 12.4 Examine the cutting edge and, if necessary, remove any flat spots or wire -edge by abrading lightly on a fine oil stone. Make the additional number of cuts at 90 to and centered on the original cuts. 12.5 Brush the area as before and inspect the incisions for reflection of light from the substrate. If the metal has not been reached make another grid in a different location. 12.6 Remove two complete laps of tape and discard. Re- move an additional length at a steady (that is, not jerked) rate and cut a piece about 75 mm (3 in.) long. 12.7 Place the center of the tape over the grid and in the area of the grid smooth into place by a finger. To ensure good contact with the film rub the tape firmly with the eraser on the end of a pencil. The color under the tape is a useful indication of when good contact has been made. 12.8 Within 90 � 30 s of application, remove the tape by seizing the free end and rapidly (not jerked) back upon itself at as close to an angle of 180° as possible. 12.9 Inspect the grid area for removal of coating from the substrate or from a previous coating using the illuminated magnifier. Rate the adhesion in accordance with the following scale illustrated in Fig. 1: n Test Method B has been used successfully by some people on coatings greater than 5 mils (0.13 mm) by spacing the cuts 5 mm apart. However, the precision values given in 14.1 do not apply as they are based on coatings less than 5 mm (0.13 nun) in thickness. 0 D 3359 — 02 5B The edges of the cuts are completely smooth; none of the squares of the lattice is detached. 4B Small flakes of the mating are detached at intersections; less than 5 of the area is affected. 3B Small flakes of the coating are detached along edges and at intersec- tions of cuts. The area affected is 5 to 15 % of the lattice. 2B The mating has flaked along the edges and on parts of the squares. The area affected is 15 to 35 % of the lattice. 1 B The mating has flaked along the edges of cuts in large ribbons and whole squares have detached. The area affected is 35 to 65 % of the lattice. OB Flaking and detachment worse than Grade 1. 12.10 Repeat the test in two other locations on each test panel. 13. Report 13.1 Report the number of tests, their mean and range, and for coating systems, where the failure occurred, that is, between first coat and substrate, between first and second coat, etc. 13.2 Report the substrate employed, the type of coating and the method of cure. 13.3 If the adhesion strength has been determined in accor- dance with Test Methods D 1000 or D 3330, report the results with the adhesion rating(s). If the adhesion strength of the tape has not been determined, report the specific tape used and its manufacturer. 13.4 If the test is performed after immersion, report immer- sion conditions and method of sample preparation. 14. Precision and Bias 8 14.1 On the basis of two interlaboratory tests of this test method in one of which operators in six laboratories made one adhesion measurement on three panels each of three coatings covering a wide range of adhesion and in the other operators in six laboratories made three measurements on two panels each of four different coatings applied over two other coatings, the pooled standard deviations for within- and between - laboratories were found to be 0.37 and 0.7. Based on these standard deviations, the following criteria should be used for judging the acceptability of results at the 95 % confidence level: 14.1.1 Repeatability — Provided adhesion is uniform over a large surface, results obtained by the same operator should be considered suspect if they differ by more than one rating unit for two measurements. CLASSIFICATION OF ADHESION TE R ESULTS CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AAF,A REMOVED SURFACE OF CROSS-CUT AREA FROM WHILH FIAKING It" OCCURRED FOR 51%PARA1.6}L CUis AND ADHESION RANGE BY PERCENT SB ON None � as Les¢ tha, 5% 3B 5 - 15% - -- "— _ — 29 f 15 - 35 III 1H 35 - 65% -- — —_ OB Greater than 65% — — FIG. 1 Classification of Adhesion Test Results 14.1.2 Reproducibility —Two results, each the mean of du- plicates or triplicates, obtained by different operators should be considered suspect if they differ by more than two rating units. 14.2 Bias cannot be established for these test methods. 15. Keywords 15.1 adhesion; crosscut adhesion test method; tape; tape adhesion test method; X -cut adhesion test method D 3359 - 02 APPENDIX (Nonmandatory Information) X1. COMMENTARY X1.1 Introduction X1.1.1 Given the complexities of the adhesion process, can adhesion be measured? As Mittal (1) has pointed out, the answer is both yes and no. It is reasonable to state that at the present time no test exists that can precisely assess the actual physical strength of an adhesive bond. But it can also be said that it is possible to obtain an indication of relative adhesion performance. X1.1.2 Practical adhesion test methods are generally of two types: `implied" and "direct." "Implied" tests include inden- tation or scribe techniques, rub testing, and wear testing. Criticism of these tests arises when they are used to quantify the strength of adhesive bonding. But this, in fact, is not their purpose. An "implied" test should be used to assess coating performance under actual service conditions. "Direct" mea- surements, on the other hand, are intended expressly to measure adhesion. Meaningful tests of this type are highly sought after, primarily because the results are expressed by a single discrete quantity, the force required to rupture the coating /substrate bond under prescribed conditions. Direct tests include the Hesiometer and the Adherometer (2). Com- mon methods which approach the direct tests are peel, lap - shear, and tensile tests. X1.2 Test Methods X1.2.1 In practice, numerous types of tests have been used to attempt to evaluate adhesion by inducing bond rupture by different modes. Criteria deemed essential for a test to warrant large -scale acceptance are: use of a straightforward and unam- biguous procedure; relevance to its intended application; re- peatability and reproducibility; and quantifiability, including a meaningful raring scale for assessing performance. X1.2.2 Test methods used for coatings on metals are: peel adhesion or "tape testing;" Gardner impact flexibility testing; and adhesive joint testing including shear (lap joint) and direct tensile (butt joint) testing. These tests do not strictly meet all the criteria listed, but an appealing aspect of these tests is that in most cases the equipment/instrumentation is readily avail- able or can be obtained at reasonable cost. X1.23 A wide diversity of tests methods have been devel- oped over the years that measure aspects of adhesion (1 -5). There generally is difficulty, however, in relating these tests to basic adhesion phenomena. X1.3 The Tape Test X1.3.1 By far the most prevalent test for evaluating coating "adhesion" is the tape- and -peel test, which has been used since the 1930's. In its simplest version a piece of adhesive tape is pressed against the paint film and the resistance to and degree '2 The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this test method. of film removal observed when the tape is pulled off. Since an intact film with appreciable adhesion is frequently not removed at all, the severity of the test is usually enhanced by cutting into the film a figure X or a cross hatched pattern, before applying and removing the tape. Adhesion is then rated by comparing film removed against an established rating scale. If an intact film is peeled cleanly by the tape, or if it debonds just by cutting into it without applying tape, then the adhesion is rated simply as poor or very poor, a more precise evaluation of such films not being within the capability of this test. X1.3.2 The current widely -used version was first published in 1974; two test methods are covered in this standard. Both test methods are used to establish whether the adhesion of a coating to a substrate is at an adequate level; however they do not distinguish between higher levels of adhesion for which more sophisticated methods of measurement are required. Major limitations of the tape test are its low sensitivity, applicability only to coatings of relatively low bond strengths, and non - determination of adhesion to the substrate where failure occurs within a single coat, as when testing primers alone, or within or between coats in multicoat systems. For multicoat systems where adhesion failure may occur between or within coats, the adhesion of the coating system to the substrate is not determined. XI.3.3 Repeatability within one rating unit is generally observed for coatings on metals for both methods, with reproducibility of one to two units. The tape test enjoys widespread popularity and is viewed as "simple" as well as low in cost. Applied to metals, it is economical to perform, lends itself to job site application, and most importantly, after decades of use, people feel comfortable with it. XI.3.4 When a flexible adhesive tape is applied to a coated rigid substrate surface and then removed, the removal process has been described in terms of the "peel phenomenon," as illustrated in Fig. XLL X13.5 Peeling begins at the "toothed" leading edge (at the right) and proceeds along the coating adhesive /interface or the coating/substrate interface, depending on the relative bond strengths. It is assumed that coating removal occurs when the tensile force generated along the latter interface, which is a function of the theological properties of the backing and adhesive layer materials, is greater than the bond strength at the coating - substrate interface (or cohesive strength of the coat- ing). In actuality, however, this force is distributed over a discrete distance (O -A) in Fig. X1.1, which relates directly to the properties described, not concentrated at a point (0) in Fig. X1.1 as in the theoretical case — though the tensile force is greatest at the origin for both. A significant compressive force arises from the response of the tape backing material to being stretched. Thus both tensile and compressive forces are in- volved in adhesion tape testing. X1.3.6 Close scrutiny of the tape test with respect to the c D 3359 — 02 IESIVE COATING SUBSrRAm AL nature of the tape employed and certain aspects of the procedure itself reveal several factors, each or any combination of which can dramatically affect the results of the test as discussed (6). X1.4 Peel Adhesion Testing on Plastic Substrates X1.4.1 Tape tests have been criticized when used for substrates other than metal, such as plastics. The central issues are that the test on plastics lacks reproducibility and does not relate to the intended application. Both concerns are well founded: poor precision is a direct result of several factors intrinsic to the materials employed and the procedure itself. More importantly, in this instance the test is being applied beyond its intended scope. These test methods were designed for relatively ductile coatings applied to metal substrates, not for coatings (often brittle) applied to plastic parts (7). The unique functional requirements of coatings on plastic sub- strates cause the usual tape tests to be unsatisfactory for measuring adhesion performance in practice. X1.5 The Tape Controversy X1.5.1 With the withdrawal from commerce of the tape specified originally, 3M No. 710, current test methods no longer identify a specific tape. Differences in tapes used can lead to different results as small changes in backing stiffness and adhesive rheology cause large changes in the tension area. Some commercial tapes are manufactured to meet minimum standards. A given lot may surpass these standards and thus be suitable for general market distribution; however, such a lot may be a source of serious and unexpected error in assessing adhesion. One commercially available tape test kit had in- cluded a tape with adhesion strength variations of up to 50 % claimed by the manufacturer. Also, because tapes change on storage, bond strengths of the tape may change over time (7, 8). X1.5.2 While there are tapes available that appear to deliver consistent performance, a given tape does not adhere equally well to all coatings. For example, when the peel removal force of the tape (from the coating) used earlier by Task Group D01.23.10 to establish precision of the method, by 3M No. 710 was examined with seven different electromagnetic interference /radio frequency interference (EMI/RFI) coatings, it was found that, while peel was indeed consistent for a given coating, the value varied by 25 % between the highest and lowest ratings among coatings. Several factors that contribute to these differences include coating composition and topology: as a result, no single tape is likely to be suitable for testing all coatings. Further, the tape test does not give an absolute value for the force required for bond rupture, but serves only as an indicator that some minimum value for bond strength was met or exceeded (7, 8). X1.6 Procedural Problems X1.6.1 The tape test is operator intensive. By design it was made as simple as possible to perform, and requires a mini- mum of specialized equipment and materials that must meet certain specifications. The accuracy and precision depend largely upon the skill of the operator and the operator's ability to perform the test in a consistent manner. Key steps that directly reflect the importance of operator skill include the angle and rate of tape removal and the visual assessment of the tested sample. It is not unexpected that different operators might obtain different results (7, 8). XI.6.2 Peed Angle and Rate: The standard requires that the free end of the tape be removed rapidly at as close to a 180 angle as possible. If the peel angle and rate vary, the force required to remove the tape can change dramatically. Nearly linear increases were observed in peel force approaching 100 I N as peel angle was changed from 135 to 180, and similar large differences can be expected in peel force as peel rate varies. These effects are related as they reflect certain theological properties of the backing and adhesive that are molecular in origin. variation in pull rate and peel angle can effect large differences in test values and must be minimized to assure reproducibility (9). X1.6.3 Visual Assessment: The final step in the test is visual assessment of the coating removed from the specimen, which is subjective in nature, so that the coatings can vary among individuals evaluating the same specimen (9). X1.6.3.1 Performance in the tape test is based on the amount of coating removed compared to a descriptive scale. The exposure of the substrate can be due to factors other than coating adhesion, including that arising from the requirement that the coating be cut (hence the synonym" cross -hatch adhesion test "). Justification for the cutting step is reasonable as cutting provides a free edge from which peeling can begin without having to overcome the cohesive strength of the coating layer. X1.6.3.2 Cutting might be suitable for coatings applied to metal substrates, but for coatings applied to plastics or wood, the process can lead to a misleading indication of poor adhesion due to the unique interfacial zone. For coatings on soft substrates, issues include how deep should this cut penetrate, and is it possible to cut only to the interface? X1.6.3.3 In general, if adhesion test panels are examined microscopically, it is often clearly evident that the coating removal results from substrate failure at or below the interface, and not from the adhesive failure between the coating and the substrate. Cohesive failure within the coating film is also FIG. X7.1 Peel Profile (6) ctLw; D 3359 — 02 frequently observed. However, with the tape test, failures within the substrate or coating layers are rare because the tape adhesive is not usually strong enough to exceed the cohesive strengths of normal substrates and organic coatings. Although some rather brittle coatings may exhibit cohesive failure, the tape test adhesion method does not make provision for giving failure locality (7, 8). X1.6.4 Use of the test method in the field can lead to variation in test results due to temperature and humidity changes and their effect upon tape, coating and substrate. X1.7 Conclusion X1.7.1 All the issues aside, if these test methods are used within the Scope Section and are performed carefully, some insight into the approximate, relative level of adhesion can be gained. (1) Mittal, K. L., "Adhesion Measurement: Recent Progress, Unsolved Problems, and Prospects ", "Adhesion Measurement of Thin Films, Thick Films, and Bulk Coatings," ASTM STP 640, ASTM, 1978, pp. 7 -8. (2) Corcoron, E. M., "Adhesion," Chapter 5.3, Paint Testing Manual, 13th ed., ASTM STP 500, ASTM, 1972, pp. 314 -332. (3) Gardner, H. A., and Sward, G. G., Paint Testing Manual, 12th ed., Chapter 7, Gardner Laboratory, Bethesda, MD, 1962, pp. 159 -170. (4) Mittel, K. L., Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, Vol 1, No. 3, 1987, pp. 247 -259. (5) Stoffer, J. O., and Gadodia, S. K., American Paint and Coatings Journal, Vol 70, Nos. 50 and 51, 1991, pp. 36-40 and 36 -51, respectively. (6) Souheng, Wu, Polymer Interface and Adhesion, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY, 1982, p. 531. (7) Nelson, G. L., Gray, K. N., and Buckley, S. E., Modern Paint and Coatings, Vol 75, No. 10, 1985, pp. 160 -172. (8) Nelson, G. L., and Gray, K. N., "Coating Adhesion to Plastics," Proceedings, Waterhorne and Higher Solids Coatings Symposium, Vol 13, New Orleans, LA, February 5 -7, 1986, pp. 114 -131. (9) K. L. Mittal, ad., "Symposium on Adhesion Aspects of Polymeric Coatings," Proceedings, The Electrochemical Society, 1981, pp. 569 -582. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Committee D01 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue (D 3359 - 97) that may impact the use of this standard. (1) Deleted reference to Test Method D 2197 in Referenced Documents section and editorially changed footnote 10 to avoid confusion with another adhesion test method. (2) Added 7.1.1, 8.5, 12.1.1, and 13.4 to clarify use when testing samples that have been immersed. ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such fights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 -2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610- 832 -9585 (phone), 610- 832 -9555 (fax), or service @astm.org (e- mail); or through the ASTM website (wwwastm.org).