Celebrate World Corrosion Awareness Day with 20% off eCourses and eBooks with code WCAD2024 at checkout!
Modern design, manufacturing and field-testing specifications include surface profile and adhesion testing on the assumption that they are linked to long term corrosion prevention. There are a number of careful studies, dating back decades, that find no link between measurements of adhesion and (undercutting) corrosion performance, but other studies do, and the concept remains intuitively appealing and widely assumed.
Modern design, manufacturing and field-testing specifications include surface profile and adhesion testing on the assumption that they are linked to long term corrosion prevention. There are a number of careful studies, dating back decades, that find no link between measurements of adhesion and (undercutting) corrosion performance, but other studies do, and the concept remains intuitively appealing and widely assumed. Finding connections between adhesion, corrosion and surface profile requires a detailed understanding of fracture mechanics, surface energy, viscoelasticity and even nanoscience. Simple measures of surface roughness are not sufficient to correlate with the adhesive strength of coatings. In addition, common “pull-off” adhesion testing cannot characterize the forces between the coating and metal substrate that might prevent water etc. invading that interface. Modern science can dispel some contradictions but does not yet give unequivocal guidance on the choice of polymer coating for the best corrosion protection in practical situations.
To address questions and concerns in the protective and marine coatings market, new laboratory data has been generated regarding corrosion rates and mechanisms that will help eliminate some of the assumptions regarding the role of soluble salts. These assumptions include soluble salt types such as chloride, sulfate, and nitrate along with the resulting conjugate corrosion products.
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.
International standards, both ISO and ASTM, require that the attributes exhibited during an adhesion test are recorded as part of the results. What are these attributes, how should they be recorded and what value are they to the inspector and applicator in assessing the reason for failure? This paper looks at all these questions and asks should we be going further than we do in defining the mode of failure.
With more stringent silica regulations being enforced, wet abrasive blasting is becoming more prevalent in the industry. We investigated the viability of wet abrasive blasting as compared to the more commonly used dry abrasive blast. One added benefit of wet abrasive blasting is the removal of soluble salts in addition to providing the specified profile.