WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2013
Editor's Note: This article was written by PQA Inspector Dave Lick and is reprinted with permission from the MPI (Master Painters Institute) newsletter. MPI content describes best practices for commercial, institutional, and light industrial painting.
A tidy few years ago, the inspector found himself on a project that should have been a breeze: a new arts center with four levels of poured-in-place concrete ceilings.
The concrete surfaces were in virtually ideal condition: The concrete contractor had done an excellent job leveling and roughening the walls, with no sacking or poor-quality patching work to be seen.
This was a LEED job, so the spec called for a water-based primer with a strong track record approved under MPI #3 Primer, Alkali Resistant, Water Based.
|
|
| Photos: MPI |
|
Fly ash makes concrete more dense and offers environmental benefits, but the substrate may have an oily residue that compromises adhesion of water-based primers. What's your solution? |
The project's schedule required the painters to start by priming only a small 50-foot section before coating the remaining ceiling surfaces. That was serendipitous, because the next day, the inspector found that the primer had zero adhesion to the surface. It readily came off with very fine dust stuck to the back of the delaminated film.
Relieved at finding the problem before the whole job was primed, the inspector decided that the coating had been applied over a "dirty" surface and that the dusty contaminants had interfered with adhesion. He showed the dusty film sample to the painting contractor and told him a cleaner surface would be required.
The contractor was dubious (“we broomed the hell out of it!”) but proceeded to meticulously broom and clean the area again with wet rags. Since this was an interior surface, power washing was not an option. The primer was applied again … and again, showed the same result: zero adhesion.
The inspector then asked for three new test patches, stood by to oversee the contractor’s surface prep work, and applied three other products approved under MPI #3, including a clear product he knew to have exceedingly high penetration characteristics.
No luck: three complete failures and an inability to penetrate the pervasive fine dust.
 |
|
Three test patches with the water-based primer all failed. |
The inspector now grew suspicious and asked the GC, “Is there something different about this concrete?”
The answer: Yes, it’s fly ash concrete.
What’s Fly Ash Concrete?
Concrete is typically composed of gravel, sand, water, and Portland cement.
Worldwide, the manufacture of Portland cement has a relatively large carbon footprint. As of 2005, it accounted for the greenhouse-gas equivalent of 330 million cars driving 12,500 miles per year, according to Build it Green.
Fly ash, a by-product of coal-fired electric generating plants that might otherwise end up in a landfill, can be substituted for more than 25 percent of the Portland cement portion of the mix.
Two types of fly ash are available: Class C, which is typically light or tan colored and is produced from burning lignite or sub-bituminous coal; and Class F, which is dark gray and is produced from burning anthracite or bituminous coal.
Advantages and Challenges
Fly ash consists mostly of silica, alumina and iron; its tiny, sphere-shaped particles fill small voids and produce a denser concrete. So using fly ash concrete offers the benefit of a stronger, more durable product while reducing the environmental impact of concrete manufacturing and providing a beneficial re-use for fly ash. Using fly ash concrete can help a project achieve LEED credits for recycled content.
The paint inspector, however, has a different perspective. Because coal and oil are essentially the same product—they’re just different ages—he suspects that the fly ash might impart oily characteristics to the concrete.
And this we know to be true: A surface with an oily residue will always present a challenge to water-based coatings.
Try a Solvent-Based Primer
The GC on the project had experience with fly ash concrete and suggested that the contractor try a solvent-based primer.
|
|
|
The contractor saw virtually perfect adhesion over the fly ash concrete when he used solvent-based bonding primer. The primer suggestion came from the GC. |
So a product approved under MPI #69 Primer, Bonding, Solvent Based was applied to a test patch—and this time, the inspector picked an "unclean" area that had not undergone the meticulous broom-and-wipe preparation used for the waterbased primed surfaces.
Lo and behold, 100 percent penetration of the concrete surface, and the adhesion was perfect. The inspector couldn’t pry it off with a knife.
It may be noted that MPI #69 is not defined as an alkali-resistant product, and its recommended applications are not specifically concrete but, rather, “problematic surfaces." However, the concrete walls in the Arts Center were months old by the time painting began, so alkali burn was not likely to be a problem. In addition, the product chosen by the inspector was recommended for use on cementitious surfaces.
Changing the primer to a solvent-based product would eliminate the architect’s opportunity to get a LEED paint point on the project, but the architect nevertheless agreed. The priming was done over the weekend, so that use of the solvent-based product wouldn’t interfere with other trades working on the building, and the walls were finished with the specified standard latex finish coat.
Déjà Vu All Over Again
Fast-forward to just a few months ago. Now, the inspector was working on a new maximum-security prison with 30-foot-tall tilt-up concrete walls.
Once again, the concrete was in ideal condition: power ground and roughened, then power washed, no sacking or patches, slightly rough and clean.
 |
|
Concrete preparation on this wall is ideal. Note the dark gray surface areas that may indicate Class F fly ash concrete, made from anthracite or bituminous coal.. |
As part of his regimen, the inspector looked for shiny spots on the surface that might indicate bond-breaker compounds that can interfere with coating adhesion. Instead, he saw telltale dark-gray cloudy patches in the concrete—not just on the surface, but deep into the slab as far as he could scratch.
This was a LEED project, so the older-and-wiser inspector now knew to ask the GC: “Is this fly ash concrete?”
And yes, indeedy, it was.
Spec Suspicions
Just as with the fateful arts center years before, a waterbased primer approved under MPI #3 had been specified. So the wary inspector requested that a test patch be prepared first. Sure enough, complete failure with zero adhesion ensued. He tried a test patch with another MPI #3 product that had never failed him before; once again, zero adhesion.
The architect and GC were on site to view this fiasco, so the inspector asked for two more test patches: one, with the surface thoroughly cleaned of dust and residue; the second, "as is." Both areas were then primed with a solvent-based primer approved under MPI #69—and both performed perfectly.
The architect initially balked at changing the spec to the solvent-based primer, since this would eliminate his ability to get the LEED paint point.
But, as the inspector pointed out, what was the alternative? In theory, abrasive blasting could create a profile with sufficient tooth for the waterbased primer to adhere, but the suspected oily residue could still be present. Besides, abrasive blasting would have been prohibited on this project.
Seeking Options
The architect relented, and the solvent-based primer was applied. Since this was an interior space, the GC supplied substantial ventilation to assure a safe working environment. Once again, the work was done on weekends to avoid disturbing other trades on the project.
While both projects were ultimately resolved successfully from a coating performance perspective, the inspector wonders if there is a better solution out there—especially one that might enable the use of waterbased primers.
So we ask our readers: Do any of you have experience coating fly ash concrete (keeping in mind that abrasive blasting is rarely acceptable on many commercial and institutional projects)?
If so, what’s your solution?
Tagged categories: Adhesion; Coal ash; Coatings Technology; Concrete coatings and treatments; Delamination; Master Painters Institute (MPI); Primers; Solventborne coatings; Surface preparation; Water-borne
