Use code FLASH20 at checkout for 20% off all eBooks and eCourses
Mineral abrasives such as glass bead and aluminum oxide have been traditionally used in the surface finishing industry. The general perception is that they offer acceptable cleaning at a low operating cost. Often dismissed is the potential of metallic alternatives that though seemingly higher in initial procurement cost, offer several differentiating advantages in terms of recyclability, consistency of finish, repeatable results and ultimately resulting in overall, reduced operating costs.
Mineral abrasives such as glass bead and aluminum oxide have been traditionally used in the surface finishing industry. The general perception is that they offer acceptable cleaning at a low operating cost. Often dismissed is the potential of metallic alternatives that though seemingly higher in initial procurement cost, offer several differentiating advantages in terms of recyclability, consistency of finish, repeatable results and ultimately resulting in overall, reduced operating costs. This case study compares the use of stainless steel grit in a grit blast installation that in the past used aluminum oxide. Having achieved success at this installation in terms of lower operating costs and increasing productivity, the case study extends to characterize material behavior over multiple cycles in a lab environment, in terms of surface roughness and transmitted energy.
Details of a new protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of coatings to reduce corrosion of steel structures is presented in this paper. Basic concepts of accelerated testing specified in American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards and recent research investigations were used to develop a procedure that can provide conclusive results within 2400 hours of exposure as compared to more than 5000 hours in current practices.
We are unable to complete this action. Please try again at a later time.
If this error continues to occur, please contact AMPP Customer Support for assistance.
Use this error code for reference:
Please login to use Standards Credits*
* AMPP Members receive Standards Credits in order to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store
You are not a Member.
AMPP Members enjoy many benefits, including Standards Credits which can be used to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store.
You can visit the Membership Page to learn about the benefits of membership.
You have previously purchased this item.
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store profile to find this item.
You do not have sufficient Standards Credits to claim this item.
Click on 'ADD TO CART' to purchase this item.
Your Standards Credit(s)
1
Remaining Credits
0
Please review your transaction.
Click on 'REDEEM' to use your Standards Credits to claim this item.
You have successfully redeemed:
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store Profile to find and download this item.
The easiest way to compare abrasives is to look at the price per unit (i.e., price per ton or price per pound). If only it were that easy! Unfortunately comparing the price per unit assumes that all abrasives perform the same – and we all know that is not the case.
Currently, Ships’ Force (SF) conduct maintenance and repair painting during pier-side periods as well as while ships are underway. SF commonly use epoxy primers, such as MIL-DTL-24441, Type IV, for maintenance painting and in some cases, chloride contamination and surface profile is not adequately controlled. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) conducted a study to verify the efficacy of replacing the current epoxy primers commonly used by SF with more “user friendly” high-build, high-solid primers.