Quality Control Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Thomas Industrial Coatings

A look at surface preparation solutions for removing existing coatings

Removing an existing coating often plays an important step in surface preparation. Perhaps this is part of a regularly scheduled maintenance plan and the coating has simply outlived its intended service life. It could also be because the coating has failed and the damage must be repaired and the asset recoated with a different product. Or maybe an existing coating is an eyesore, and the owner wants it removed to beautify the asset.

Whatever the reason, owners and facility managers at this stage are likely to enter into research mode for the best surface preparation solutions for removing an existing layer of paint. It’s then that they find out there are a number of different methods for removing a coating. Of the surface prep solutions available, chemical stripping is probably the most often used, but which one will be right for your project depends on the substrate, the coating being removed, and the surface preparation standard you’re hoping to achieve.

Water

Water cleaning occurs at low-pressure levels and is an acceptable method for removing visible dirt and other surface contaminants. In order to remove a properly bonded coating, higher PSIs are needed to make water a viable medium for removing an unwanted coating.

Pressures above 30, 000 PSI are usually necessary for coating removal. High-pressure water jetting is often a great option for stripping away old paint or finishes. It is less expensive than blasting with abrasives under some circumstances and requires fewer containment measures. It is also less likely to disturb sensitive environments, making it ideal for the marine coatings industry.

Because pressures must be high in order for water jetting to be effective, it is not the right method for every substrate. For anything less than strong, stable concrete, other methods should be explored.

Abrasives

Whereas water jetting removes contaminants from the surface of an asset, abrasives actually erode the surface for the purpose of removing the coating. Because older abrasive materials caused too much damage to masonry surfaces, these materials were seen as practical only for metal substrates.

Advances in micro abrasives now limit the amount of damage to the substrate, making abrasives a viable, effective method for removing coatings even on less resilient substrates. If micro abrasives are used, it is important to verify through tests that they are up to the task of removing the coating.

Chemical stripping

Chemical stripping agents neither “wash” off a coating, nor do they erode the substrate. Instead, chemicals react with the coating and dissolve it from the surface. This is often the most successful method for removing a coating when adhesion is tight.

Some chemical stripping agents are specifically formulated to remove certain coatings, so it’s important to make sure the chemical and the coating are compatible for removal. This method also calls for much greater knowledge of the product and the practice when compared to other methods. Any operation stripping with chemicals should have staff on hand that understands the safety and environmental concerns surrounding their use. Safety data sheets for chemical stripping agents should always be on-hand and understood.

Talk to a painter

This was a brief rundown of a few methods for coatings removal. Which one, if any, is right for your project will depend on the makeup of the substrate, the type and bond strength of the coating being removed, and what surface preparation standard is required by the project specifications.

It is especially important when working with chemicals that they are being used safely and by professionals. It’s crucial to first determine if any heavy metals are present in the coating being removed. Protecting workers from lead paint exposure is a necessity, and older materials may require the use of containment equipment, respirators and close monitoring.

Just because we specialize in applying industrial coatings doesn’t mean we don’t know a thing or two about taking them off. If you have a project that may require coatings removal, and would like to discuss our surface preparation solutions, get in touch with us.

The benefits of plural component coatings

Plural component coatings are rapidly gaining popularity in the industrial coatings industry. These systems are becoming widely recognized for their ability to provide superior substrate protection for bridges, pipes, marine vessels, as tank coatings and linings, and more. Plural component coatings deliver numerous benefits beyond the faithful protection of an asset. While they’re not right for every project, these coatings systems are capable of providing serious value in certain situations.

What are they?

As their name suggests, plural component coatings are made up of separate elements that aren’t mixed until moments before they’re applied. Parts A and B of the coating system are heated separately to reduce their viscosity. Once the desired temperature and viscosity are reached, the components are sent toward a spray gun in the desired proportion, known as the flow rate. Only immediately before reaching the gun, moments before being sprayed, are the components mixed together. Because the components dry so quickly once mixed, applicators have only seconds to get the system from the mixing block onto the substrate.

Service life

Customers are becoming increasingly savvy about ways to save money on their coatings system. More and more they are realizing that spending more on a product up front can actually cut costs by extending service life. This approach can save money normally spent on maintenance costs and extend the length of time needed between recoats. Due to advances in coatings technology, systems that used to last an average of 5 to 10 years are regularly serving between 15 and 20 years. Plural component coatings are a great example of an advancement in coatings technology leading to an extended service life. As always, proper attention needs to be paid to surface preparation and other aspects of the job, but properties like higher film build tend to lead to longer lifespans for these plural component coatings.

Environmental compliance

To comply with tightening environmental regulations, owners and applicators are on a constant search for ways to curb emissions. Because the high solids coatings that make up plural component systems contain relatively few solvents- and none in the case of 100% solids- few if any volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are released into the atmosphere. Plural component coatings are an environmentally friendly option for reducing the emission of VOCs and HAPs. They make it easier to comply with regulations and reduce solvent waste.

Turnaround

Faster cure times mean your asset is back in service quickly. As an added benefit of rapid drying time, plural component systems greatly reduce the turnaround time that accompanies your painting project. If downtime equates to lost revenue for your asset, this may be another way of investing in a product up front that can lead to project savings in the long run. After application, these high solids coatings can be walked on in a matter of hours. Storage tanks no longer take days before they can be put back into service.

Safety

As applicators ourselves, the added safety benefits plural component coatings offer our crews is a huge draw. Since high solids emit little to no solvents during the application process, the risk of buildup of explosive VOCs is reduced or eliminated. When working in confined spaces like those in storage tanks, this removes one of the most significant dangers to crews.

Let’s talk

Plural component coatings may or may not be the best option for your project. Whether or not they are will depend on a number of circumstances. It’s best to discuss your project with a qualified coatings professional before you decide. And while you’re considering an industrial painter, check out our buyer’s guide through the link below for all the factors to consider before making a hire.

Keys to quality: Coating specification and inspection

Lately, we’ve been looking at factors of safety and quality and examining how the two are often closely related. Inaccurate assessments of an existing structure and inconsistent quality control are two more factors that have a bearing on quality. Differing opinions, either on the job that’s to be performed or the quality of the work that’s been done, can affect the overall outcome of the project. As in the past, we’ll see that these two issues also have an effect on safety.

Initial Assessment

A good initial assessment of a structure’s coatings is crucial for directing the next steps of the project. This process should answer questions concerning the current state of the system, and address other factors such as containment, safety and environmental considerations. When these issues are inadequately or improperly considered, the length, quality and integrity of the job are likely to be affected. Not to mention the safety of those performing it.

The project specifications that follow from the initial assessment should account for staging, containment, surface preparation, application, cleanup and quality control documentation. Inaccurate initial assessments can lead to unforeseen variables in the scope of work. Reducing the unknowns going into the project will increase the chances of finishing on time and on budget. It will also help to ensure that the quality of the project is up to the owner’s expectations and that the safety of those performing the job is considered.

Inconsistent Inspection

Specifications that follow from accurate initial assessments aren’t enough if inspectors don’t ensure they’re followed. Once again, irregularities in the inspection process will have an effect on the job’s outcome.

It’s up to the inspector to ensure that the work is being done in accordance with the project’s specifications and that the work activities are documented. Differences in opinion have the potential to arise between inspector and applicator in regards to whether specifications are being met. It is essential that those involved in resolving these differences are qualified to do so. Inspectors are directed to contact contractor supervisors if they feel that applicators are not living up to the standards laid out in the project’s specifications.

Applicators also must take care to focus on performing their work to comply with specifications, not simply to satisfy the inspector. Objective documentation tools are making progress in removing subjective aspects of the inspection process. Transcription errors and miscopied readings from electronic gauges are increasingly being eliminated by these digital tools, leading to a more objective inspection process.

With accurate initial assessments and consistent, objective inspection, coatings projects have a higher likelihood of adhering to project specifications. This in turn leads to a high quality project that’s completed by the deadline, with no surprises.

The hidden cost of a low bid

Examining safety and quality

The benefits of performing work safely are obvious. No one needs to explain why returning home free from sickness and injury at the end of each workday is better than the alternative. Less often discussed is the impact the safety of workers can have on the quality of the job being performed.

Contractors cutting corners to offer rock-bottom bids may not realize or care that worker safety is directly related to the quality of work performed. In fact, safety and quality are intricately connected. Skimping on the equipment, technologies and best practices that keep workers safe will almost undoubtedly be reflected in the finished product.

The illusion of savings

Imagine a scenario. You’re a facility manager in charge of contracting out the painting portion of a massive job your company is in the middle of. You come across a bid that’s 25 percent lower than the original estimate of the job’s cost. Without investigating further, you award the contract.

It turns out the industrial painting contractor you’ve hired is used to working on private sector buildings and yours is a large infrastructure project involving a significant need for fall protection. This is causing unexpected delays. Additionally, the contractor is filing change order after change order, and the project’s costs continue to rise.

Lost-time accidents, injuries to a firm’s reputation from missed deadlines, potential lawsuits from unscrupulous contractors are all hidden dangers when bidding on price alone. The costs associated with a cheap, inexperienced painter can add up quickly, far outstripping the original savings of the contract.

Looking beyond the low bid

Fortunately, there are some surefire ways, beyond simple intuition, to determine whether a contractor or subcontractor’s bid is too good to be true. We’ve written before on the importance of asking the right questions concerning an industrial painter’s safety program before making a hire. Checking up on numbers like experience modifier and incident rates will give an owner an idea of how well a safety program performs. Looking at the amount of certifications a contractor has accrued will also give one an idea of how focused they are on improvement.

In our next few posts, we’ll continue to examine the ways in which safety is linked to quality. We’ll consider the effectiveness (and costs) of different strategies of minimizing risks, how limited access to areas on the job-site can compromise worker safety and the thoroughness of the work, as well as other factors such as equipment selection, inaccurate initial assessments, and more. Stay tuned.

Ultra high-pressure water jetting applications and benefits

Ultra high-pressure water jetting, or UHP water jetting, is simply the practice of using highly pressurized water to remove a coating or contaminant from a substrate. Sometimes this is achieved by blasting glass, grit or another abrasive material at high pressures onto a surface. But for a few reasons, in some circumstances, there’s no smarter choice than pure water and high pressure.

A versatile option

Ultra high-pressure water jetting (defined by the SSPC as pressures exceeding 25,000 psi) can be used to remove rust, resins, chemical residues, paints and epoxies, all without the disposal measures necessitated by blasting with chemicals, solvents and abrasives. This makes the practice an attractive option in many of the industries in which we at Thomas Industrial Coatings work.

Often, ultra high-pressure water jetting is less expensive than alternative methods. This is because the costs associated with recollecting large amounts of abrasive material can become quite high. Because fewer potentially harmful materials are involved in the process, there are fewer issues pertaining to containment and fewer relevant industry regulations.

The benefits of UHP

Environmental friendliness is one of the main attractions of removing coatings via the practice of ultra high-pressure water jetting. Especially in potentially sensitive settings, UHP water jetting reduces the possibility of introducing waste elements into the environment. The use of abrasives can produce a good deal of waste from the blast media, paint debris and rust products, but these byproducts are reduced with UHP. This makes the practice especially attractive for work in the marine industry.

Lead remediation jobs are also prime opportunities for the use of UHP water jetting. Harmful dust is eliminated and, since lead chips don’t mix well with water, the remnant can easily be filtered out before the water is sent for treatment.

Also, when blasting around sensitive machinery involving many moving parts, grit from abrasive blasting has the potential to affect the performance of that machinery. Pure water blasted at high-pressure is a sensible alternative in these situations as well.

Talk to the professionals

Despite its many benefits, Ultra high-pressure water jetting isn’t perfect for every job, and blasting with abrasives is sometimes required. To find out which option best suits your needs, talk to an experienced contractor. There are many out there, so before you choose, download our Buyer’s Guide below to discover some things you should keep in mind before deciding who to trust with your next project.

The real cost of corrosion

A common misconception we encounter in the coatings industry is people thinking that we’re in the business of applying a fresh coat of paint on things just to make them a little easier on the eyes. Don’t get us wrong, that is certainly a part of what we’re trying to do. It was a big part of the job coating the new I-64 in St. Louis. The aesthetics of the coatings we apply can go a long way toward building community pride, like the Air Force logos we applied to two water towers on Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.

But broader concerns drive what we do here at Thomas Industrial Coatings. Some of those concerns surfaced in the President’s State of the Union address last month. Because we spend so much of our time getting up close and personal with the nation’s infrastructure, it is a problem we in the coatings industry know all too well.

More than one coat deep

As the New York Times recently reported, fully 70,000 bridges qualify as “structurally deficient” across the country. The website for the American Society of Civil Engineer’s 2013 Report Card for American Infrastructure boldly displays the nation’s infrastructure grade on the home page. It’s a D+, and it puts the estimated investment needed by 2020 at $3.6 trillion. The NACE Institute estimates that “unmitigated corrosion costs the U.S. economy over $500 billion each year, or roughly 3.1 percent of our GDP.”

While seldom in the headlines, corrosion and its effect on the country’s infrastructure is clearly a significant, and a significantly expensive, problem in the United States. It becomes even more significant when one considers how closely it’s tied to the overall state of the economy. Commerce can’t occur if the nation’s bridges sit in shambles and its ports are crumbling into the sea.

The jobs created by ambitious projects such as the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) and the Surface Transportation Reauthorization can’t be outsourced, like so many in manufacturing have been. This fact was the justification behind the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided a portion of the funds that put our crews on the Eads Bridge in St. Louis. Corrosion is a major problem, but in solving it we can create jobs for Americans, the thinking goes.

The good news is that under the care of qualified professionals, corrosion can be addressed with hugely successful results. Let’s be clear, 70,000 bridges across the country do not need to be replaced. Here at Thomas, we’ve prepped, abated, coated and fireproofed quite a few bridges that were getting up there in years. The services we perform on bridges like the Huey P. Long and Eads bridges will ensure that they continue to serve the public for years to come.

We’re obviously pretty passionate about this topic here at Thomas Industrial Coatings. If Don Thomas wasn’t, he probably wouldn’t have founded this company more than 20 years ago. But the passion runs deeper than a top-coat of paint. We care about coatings because we know that deep down they reflect the health of the country’s infrastructure, and by extension, its economy. That’s why we take real pride in every project we execute. That’s the real reason behind Thomas Pride.