Use code FLASH20 at checkout for 20% off all eBooks and eCourses
Fabricators and Construction Firms rely on sub-tier vendors to supply a vast array of components and equipment for integration into the products they are supplying their clients. This may include valves, engines, motors, power supplies, tanks, tubs, vessels and other numerous items. The items and components provided by sub-tier vendors are normally prepared and coated prior to being delivered with what are typically referred to as original equipment manufacturer (OEM) coating systems.
Fabricators and Construction Firms rely on sub-tier vendors to supply a vast array of components and equipment for integration into the products they are supplying their clients. This may include valves, engines, motors, power supplies, tanks, tubs, vessels and other numerous items. The items and components provided by sub-tier vendors are normally prepared and coated prior to being delivered with what are typically referred to as original equipment manufacturer (OEM) coating systems. The OEM coatings may be provided per specifications by the buyer or may be standard coating systems used by the vendor. What are some of the pitfalls that exist? What successes have been achieved? This paper will discuss project experiences, comments from buyers and sellers and any war stories that may be unearthed.
Current and future coating restrictions that reduce atmospheric emissions as well as the potential for the leaching of chemicals into drinking water systems are pushing tank owners and/or specifiers towards the use of 100% Solids by Volume (SBV) coatings. A majority of these high solids coatings whether epoxy, polyurethane, or polyurea, can or should be and in some instances must be, applied using Plural Component (PC) spray equipment.
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.
An NSRP-sponsored project investigating the cost of coatings QA suggested that current QA/QC processes have a high tendency to lead to conflict. Survey data collected during the project indicates that one in 20 inspection checkpoints is likely to result in a dispute. Some of these disputes may simply arise from the expected variability in standard coating QA test methods. Data regarding the reproducibility of coating QA measurements is generally not well understood and, in some cases non-existent. The paper will discuss the reproducibility of various measurements used in the industrial protective coatings industry.
Many coating product data sheets call for surface profiles of 3-4 mils. Others call for 1.5-2 miles surface profile for a very similar coating type – why should this be? To start to understand this we need to first of all look at why we measure the surface profile on steel surfaces. It pretty much comes down to two main things.