Presented to: Prepared by:

Transcription

1 KTA-Tator, Inc. Results of Physical Testing Final Report KTA Project No R3 Presented to: Messer s Mark and Jeff Buratto Lifelast, Inc NE 144 th Street, Suite 125 Vancouver, WA mburatto@lifelast.com, jburatto@lifelast.com Prepared by: KTA-TATOR, INC. 115 Technology Drive Pittsburgh, PA phone fax cstewart@kta.com Chrissy M. Stewart Chemist June 22, 2011 CMS/CLO:kdw JN Final Report-R3 ( Lifelast Final Report R3.doc)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 SAMPLES... 1 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION... 2 Water Absorption...2 Water Vapor Permeability...3 Cathodic Disbondment...3 Adhesion to Steel (Dry)...4 Adhesion to Steel (Wet)...5 Impact Resistance...7 Abrasion Resistance...8 Tensile Strength...9 Flexibility...9 Appendices A1...Photographic Appendix A2...Water Absorption Data A3...Wet Cup Permeability Form R3 A revision was issued at the client s request to replace the original results for cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to steel and wet adhesion to steel with the retest values obtained in July NOTICE: This report represents the opinion of KTA-TATOR, INC. This report is issued in conformance with generally acceptable industry practices. While customary precautions were taken to insure that the information gathered and presented is accurate, complete and technically correct, it is based on the information, data, time, materials, and/or samples afforded. This report should not be reproduced except in full. i

3 INTRODUCTION In accordance with KTA-Tator, Inc. (KTA) Proposal No. PN and subsequent signed Authorization to Proceed dated January 12, 2010, KTA has performed various physical tests on the coating membrane Durashield 210 provided by Lifelast, Inc. The results of the testing are contained in this report. SAMPLES The samples listed in Table 1, Samples were received from Lifelast, Inc. on January 11, It should be noted that at no time did KTA personnel witness the preparation of the samples. Sample ID Free Film Sample Samples 1FL, 2FL, 3FL Samples 1WAD through 6WAD Samples 1AD, 2AD, 3AD Samples 1CD, 2CD, 3CD Samples 1IR through 7IR Samples 1T, 2T, 3T Samples 1S, 2S Table 1 Samples Sample Description Four (4) free film sheets measuring 12 x 12. Designated for water absorption, permeance and tensile strength. Three (3) steel panels measuring 16 x 1 ½ coated on one side. Designated for flexibility. Six (6) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on both sides. Designated for wet adhesion to steel. Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. Designated for dry adhesion to steel. Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. Designated for cathodic disbondment. Seven (7) steel pipe sections measuring 16 long with a 2 diameter, coated on the outside. Designated for impact resistance. Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side with a ¼ diameter hole through the middle. Designated for Taber abrasion. Two (2) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. For use as spare panels. The samples listed in Table 2, Samples were received from Lifelast, Inc. on July 23, It should be noted that at no time did KTA personnel witness the preparation of the samples. Table 2 Results of Dry Adhesion Testing 14 mm Dollies Sample ID Description Label KTA-1 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 1-DA KTA-2 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 2-DA KTA-3 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 6-DA KTA-4 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 15-CD KTA-5 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 16-CD KTA-6 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 18CD KTA-7 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-8 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA Lifelast, Inc. 1 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

4 Sample ID Description Label KTA-9 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-10 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-11 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-12 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The laboratory investigation consisted of performing various physical tests on the coating membrane Durashield 210 in accordance with the specification received from Lifelast, Inc. The specification outlined testing parameters for the following tests: water absorption, permeance, cathodic disbondment (attached cell method), adhesion to steel (dry), wet adhesion to steel, impact resistance, abrasion resistance, tensile strength and flexibility. Retesting of cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to steel and wet adhesion to steel was performed in July The test descriptions and the results of the testing are provided below. Photographs of the test apparatus and final panel condition are included in this report (see Appendix 1). Water Absorption The water absorption of the Free Film Sample was measured according to ASTM D 570, Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics. Three (3) bars measuring 3 x 1 were cut from the free film and the thickness of each bar was measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. The samples were conditioned in an oven maintained at 50 F for twentyfour (24) hours. After conditioning, the samples were immediately weighed. The samples were then submerged in individual containers of deionized water maintained at laboratory conditions of 23.0 C ± 3 C. The samples were removed from the water following twenty-four (24) hours, one week and every two (2) weeks thereafter. The samples were wiped dry of any excess water, weighed and immediately replaced in the water. The percent increase in weight was determined using the following equation: Replicate Increase in weight (%) = (wet weight conditioned weight)/ conditioned weight*100 The percent increase in weight is reported in Table 3, Water Absorption Data. Avg. Thickness (mm) Table 3 Water Absorption Data Increase in Weight (%) 24 hours Increase in Weight (%) Week 1 Increase in Weight (%) Week 3 Increase in Weight (%) Week 5 Increase in Weight (%) Week 7 Increase in Weight (%) Week Lifelast, Inc. 2 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

5 Water Vapor Permeability Four (4) discs of the coating (one [1] designated as the control disc) were cut from the Free Film Sample and tested for water vapor permeability using the inverted water method (Method BW) of ASTM E 96, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials. The thickness of each disk was measured in five (5) spots using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. Each disc was sealed to a 4 diameter glass dish filled ¾ of the way with deionized water. The discs were sealed to the dishes using wax. The dishes were then weighed, inverted and placed into a temperature/humidity chamber maintained at approximately 23.0 C and 50% relative humidity for a period of seventeen (17) days. The dishes were weighed separately at various recorded intervals, and the results plotted on the graph, as well as thickness and area of the discs. The permeance in English (inch-pounds) units is reported in Table 4, Permeability Results. A table containing daily weights of the samples and other pertinent data is appended. Table 4 Permeability Results Replicate Avg. Coating Thickness Permeance (mils) (inch-pounds) Avg. Permeance (inch-pounds) Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic disbondment was tested in accordance with ASTM G 95, Standard Test Method for Cathodic Disbondment Test of Pipeline Coatings (Attached Cell Method) at ambient laboratory conditions (25 C). The panels were inspected for holidays using a high voltage holiday detector. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on each sample using a PosiTector 600-F3 non-destructive dry film thickness gage. A diameter holiday was drilled into the center of panels KTA-4, KTA-5 and KTA-6 (15-CD, 16-CD and 18CD, respectively). A 4 diameter plastic pipe section was adhered to each panel with silicone adhesive, and the cell was filled with approximately 1000 ml of an electrolyte solution consisting of 3% by mass sodium chloride and deionized water. A -3.0 V potential was impressed upon each of the samples for twenty-eight (28) days. The samples were removed and evaluated for disbondment after twenty-eight (28) days. Adhesion was assessed at the immersed holiday site and at one (1) non-immersed site by cutting 45 radial cuts in the shape of an X through the coating to the substrate at the sites and manually peeling back the coating with a utility knife blade to determine the extent of coating adhesion loss. The amount of coating disbondment was measured from the original holiday to the furthest point of exposed substrate. A holiday was also drilled in a non-immersed area of each panel and two (2) additional radial cuts were made at the sites. Coating adhesion was assessed in the same manner. Coating thickness measurements and disbondment data are provided in Table 5, Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing. A portion of the steel was stained around the holiday. Measurements of the stained area were obtained and reported in Table 6, Radial Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing. Lifelast, Inc. 3 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

6 Panel ID Table 5 Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing Average Thickness (mils) Average Radial Disbondment Reference (mm) Average Radial Disbondment Test Area (mm) KTA KTA-5* KTA * Panel No. KTA-5 exhibited poor adhesion as evidenced by the disbondment displayed by the reference holiday. The disbonding would have continued to complete failure if assessment was continued. Table 6* Radial Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing Panel ID Average Radial Staining (mm) KTA KTA KTA * Table provided per client request. The radial staining is not typically reported when disbondment data is obtainable. Adhesion to Steel (Dry) Tensile adhesion (pull-off strength) was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4541, Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers, Annex A5, Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type V. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The testing surfaces of panels KTA-1 through KTA-3 (1-DA, 2-DA and 6-DA, respectively) were wiped clean and abraded gently using fine sandpaper. The coating was scored to the metal and pull stubs with an abraded test surface of 14 mm diameter were attached to the coating. A two-component epoxy adhesive (Araldite 2011) was used, which was allowed to cure for twenty-four (24) hours at ambient laboratory conditions. The pull stubs were then detached using a DeFelsko PosiTest Automatic Adhesion Tester. The force (in psi) required to remove each pull stub was recorded along with the location of break and approximate percentage of each. The location of break is defined as adhesive (a split between layers), cohesive (within a layer) or glue failure (coating strength exceeds glue strength). Results exhibiting 50% or greater glue failure were not reported in accordance with the method. The average pull-off strength of Durashield 210 is 3460 psi (average of five [5] reported trials). The results of the testing can be found in Table 7, Results of Dry Tensile Adhesion Testing. Sample ID KTA-1 (1-DA) Avg. Thickness (mils) 29.0 Table 7 Results of Dry Adhesion Testing 14 mm Dollies Pull Stub Pull-Off Strength (psi) Location of Break A % adhesive to substrate B % adhesive to substrate; 30% glue failure C % adhesive to substrate Avg. Pull- Off Strength (psi) Overall Average Lifelast, Inc. 4 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

7 Avg. Pull Pull-Off Avg. Pull- Sample Overall Thickness Stub Strength Location of Break Off Strength ID Average (mils) (psi) (psi) D % adhesive to substrate KTA E % glue failure 3246* (2-DA) 95% adhesive to substrate; F % glue failure 3460 G % glue failure KTA-3 15% adhesive to substrate; 30.4 H * (6-DA) 85% glue failure I % glue failure * Averages were calculated per client request including all trials, even those that exhibited 50% or more glue failure. Adhesion to Steel (Wet) Wet adhesion to steel was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 870, Testing Water Resistance of Coatings Using Water Immersion in congruence with ASTM D 4541, Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers, Annex A5, Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type V. Panels KTA-7 through KTA-12 (13-WA, 14-WA, 17-WA, 19-WA, 22-WA and 23-WA, respectively) were immersed up to ¾ length of the panel in water maintained at 38 o C ± 2 o C. Panels KTA-7, KTA-8 and KTA-9 were removed on Friday, September 3, 2010, for a total of thirty (30) days immersion and panels KTA-10, KTA-11 and KTA-12 were removed on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, for a total of sixty (60) day immersion. Upon removal from the water, the panels were scored to the metal, a 20 mm diameter pull stub attached, and removed twenty-four (24) hours later. Three (3) pull-stubs were attached above the immersion line and three (3) were attached below the immersion line. The data obtained can be found in Tables 8, 9 and 10, below. Panel ID KTA-7 (13-WA) 30 Days KTA-8 (14-WA) 30 Days Pull Stub ID Table 8 Results of Wet Tensile Adhesion Testing Exposure Area Location of Break Burst Pressure (psi) A Dry 85% adhesive to substrate; 15% glue 2291 B Dry 5% adhesive to substrate; 95% glue 1673 C Dry 90% adhesive to substrate; 10% glue 1176 D Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 561 E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1143 F Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 773 G Dry 10% cohesive in white; 90% glue 2459 H Dry 20% cohesive in white; 80% glue 3000 I Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 298 J Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1039 K Wet 5% cohesive in white; 95% glue 1548 L Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 684 Average Burst Pressure (psi) 1734* 825.7* ** 861.5* Lifelast, Inc. 5 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

8 Pull Burst Average Panel Exposure Stub Location of Break Pressure Burst ID Area ID (psi) Pressure (psi) KTA-9 (17-WA) 30 Days KTA-10 (19-WA) 60 Days KTA-11 (22-WA) 60 Days KTA-12 (23-WA) 60 Days M Dry N/A did not pull > 3000 N Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 2190 O Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 205 P Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1605 Q Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 537 R Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1202 A Dry 100% glue 2605 B Dry 5% cohesive; 95% glue 1162 C Dry 100% glue 1672 D Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1028 E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1987 F Wet 100% glue 880 G Dry 80% adhesive to substrate; 20% glue 2329 H Dry 100% glue 1776 I Dry 100% glue 1933 J Wet 100% glue 1406 K Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 434 L Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 590 M Dry N/A did not pull > 3000 N Dry 100% glue 1595 O Dry 100% glue 2903 P Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1612 Q Wet 100% glue 1698 R Wet 100% glue * 1115* ** 1508* * Averages were calculated excluding trials that exhibited 50% or more glue failure. These averages were calculated in accordance with ASTM D 4541, Section 8.5. ** No average value could be obtained because trials had > 50% glue failure. ** 512* ** ** Panel ID KTA-7 (13-WA) KTA-8 (14-WA) KTA-9 (17-WA) Table 9 Thickness Measurements of 30-Day Exposure Panels Pre Exposure Thickness (mils) Average Thickness (mils) Post Exposure Thickness (mils) Average Thickness (mils) 34.5, 41.7, 39.1, 35.0, , 44.0, 42.3, 45.5, , 44.3, 39.3, 40.6, , 42.0, 41.2, 48.3, , 44.3, 43.3, 41.4, , 43.2, 43.1, 44.6, Lifelast, Inc. 6 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

9 Panel ID KTA-10 (19-WA) KTA-11 (22-WA) KTA-12 (23-WA) Table 10 Thickness Measurements of 60-Day Exposure Panels Pre Exposure Thickness (mils) Average Thickness (mils) Post Exposure Thickness (mils) Average Thickness (mils) 38.3, 40.6, 41.2, 39.0, , 42.8, 42.9, 44.4, , 40.2, 38.2, 41.4, , 42.2, 41.4, 41.3, , 44.1, 42.0, 41.8, , 39.6, 41.4, 45.5, Impact Resistance The impact resistance of the coating material was determined in accordance with ASTM G 14, Test Method for Impact Resistance of Pipeline Coatings (Falling Weight Test). Four (4) 16 long pipe sections labeled, Samples 1IR through 4IR were used for this testing. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The pipe was secured in the apparatus outlined in the method. The 3.2 pound weight was dropped from various heights and the locations and the impacted areas inspected for crack or holidays in the coating film using a low voltage wet sponge holiday detector. Sample 1IR was used to determine an appropriate range of impact height. Twenty (20) impact locations were observed on the samples and the impact strength calculated by employing height, weight, and frequency of coating failure data. The results of the testing can be found in Table 11, Results of Impact Resistance Testing. The impact strength was determined to be 140 inch-pounds. The calculation employed to determine the impact strength is outlined below. m = [h o + d( A / N ± ½)] x W Where: m = impact strength (inch-pounds) h o = minimum height at which the less frequent event occurs (inches) d = increment in height of drop (inches) A = sum of the frequency of occurrence at each height increment times the number of increments above the h o value for each observation in the N total N = total number of the less frequent event (coating failures or non-failures) W = tup weight (pounds) Note: The (-) sign is used when the mean is based on coating failures; the (+) sign is used when it is based on non-failures Lifelast, Inc. 7 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

10 Sample Avg. Thickness (mils) 2IR IR IR 40.5 Abrasion Resistance Table 11 Results of Impact Resistance Testing Replicate No. Height of Drop (inches) Observations Non-failure Non-failure Failure Failure Non-failure Failure Failure 8 45 Non-failure 9 45 Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure Non-failure Failure Non-failure Failure Non-failure Taber abrasion resistance was determined in accordance with ASTM D 4060, Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. Triplicate 4 x 4 panels were weighed then subjected to 1000 cycles using a 1000g load and CS-17 abrasion wheels. Post weights were acquired for the samples, and the weight loss (in mg) reported. The results of the testing are contained in Table 12, Taber Abrasion Resistance Results. Table 12 Taber Abrasion Resistance Results Sample Avg. Thickness Avg. Thickness Weight Loss Initial (mils) Final (mils) (mg) 1T T T Avg. Weight Loss (mg) 17.5 Lifelast, Inc. 8 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

11 Tensile Strength The tensile strength of the coating material was determined in accordance with ASTM D 412, Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Rubbers and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension, Method A. Eight (8) specimens were cut into a dumbbell shape from the free film using Die C. The specimens were pulled with a Tinius Olsen Universal Testing Machine at a rate of 0.2 inches per minute. The tensile strength was calculated using the force required to break the specimens along with the width and thickness of each. The dimensions of the sample were measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. The individual results of three (3) replicates are reported along with the average in Table 13, Results of Tensile Strength Testing. Table 13 Results of Tensile Strength Testing Replicate Cross-Sectional Force to Tensile Strength Area (in 2 ) Rupture (lbf) (psi) C F G Avg. Tensile Strength (psi) 3245 Flexibility Flexibility testing was performed on Samples 1FL, 2FL and 3FL in accordance with ASTM D 522, Mandrel Bend Test of Attached Organic Coatings, Method B. Each panel was bent 180 over a 3 mandrel then examined visually with a 5X illuminated lens for cracking along the axis of curvature. No cracking was observed on the samples. Lifelast, Inc. 9 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

12 APPENDIX 1

13 PHOTOGRAPHIC APPENDIX Water Absorption Apparatus Water Absorption Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 1 of 9 JN300027R3

14 Permeance Apparatus Permeance Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 2 of 9 JN300027R3

15 Cathodic Disbondment Apparatus Cathodic Disbondment Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 3 of 9 JN300027R3

16 Dry Adhesion Apparatus Dry Adhesion Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 4 of 9 JN300027R3

17 Wet Adhesion Apparatus Wet Adhesion Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 5 of 9 JN300027R3

18 Impact Apparatus Impact Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 6 of 9 JN300027R3

19 Taber Abrasion Apparatus Taber Abrasion Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 7 of 9 JN300027R3

20 Tensile Strength Apparatus Tensile Strength Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 8 of 9 JN300027R3

21 Flexibility Apparatus Flexibility Samples Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 9 of 9 JN300027R3

22 APPENDIX 2

23 Initial Weights: (Immersion Time) Increase in Weight 1 Increase in Weight 2 Increase in Weight Lifelast Water Absorption Square Root of Immersion Time Increase in Weight (g) Replicate 1 Replicate 2 Replicate 3 Lifelast, Inc. Water Absorption Data A2 1 of 1 June 22, 2011 JN300027R3

24 APPENDIX 3

25 Lifelast Inverted Wet Cup Date Hours Cup #1 (g) Cup #1(grain) Cup #2 (g) Cup #2(grain) Cup #3(g) Cup #3(grain) Cup #4(g) Cup #4(grain) 03/22/ /23/ /24/ /25/ /26/ /29/ /30/ /31/ /01/ /02/ /05/ /06/ /07/ Weight (grams) t (g y = -1E-05x Thickness(in) Radius (in) Radius (m) Time (hours) Area (sq.m) Slope (grams/hr) y = x Area (sq.ft.) WVT(grams/hr/sq.m) Permeance(WVP metric perms) Permeability (perm cm) Slope (grains/hr) WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft.) Permeance (WVP English) Permeability (perm in.) Temperature Vapor Pressure mm Hg in Hg Humidity change (as a decimal) (100% to 50%) WVT (grams/hr/sq.m) Permeance (metric perms) Permeability (perm cm) Time (hours) METRIC AVERAGES: ENGLISH AVERAGES: WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft) y = x Permeance (WVP - inch pounds) Permeability (perm in.) rams) h g ei W Weight(grams) Time (hours) 4 y = x Weight (grams) Time (hours) Lifelast, Inc. Wet Cup Permeability Form A3 1 of 1 June 22, 2011 JN300027R3