SHIP PRODUCTION COMMITTEE January 1998 FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NSRP 0501 SURFACE PREPARATION AND COATINGS DESIGN/PRODUCTION INTEGRATION HUMAN RESOURCE INNOVATION MARINE INDUSTRY STANDARDS WELDING INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM Develop Visual Standards for Hydroblasting of Steel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY CARDEROCK DIVISION, NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER in cooperation with Peterson Builders, Inc. Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED JAN 1998 N/A - 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER The National Shipbuilding Research Program, Develop Visual Standards 5b. GRANT NUMBER for Hydroblasting of Steel 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230-Design Integration Tower REPORT NUMBER Bldg 192, Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE SAR 17 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 DISCLAIMER These reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither the United States, nor the United States Navy, nor any person acting on behalf of the United States Navy (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report/ manual, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (B) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of or for damages resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in the report. As used in the above, “Persons acting on behalf of the United States Navy” includes any employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor of the United States Navy to the extent that such employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor prepares, handles, or distributes, or provides access to any information pursuant to his employment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the United States Navy. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED. National Shipbuilding Research Project # 3-96-1 Develop Visual Standards for Hydroblasting of Steel Final Report December 28, 1997 Lydia M. Frenzel, Ph.D., 1700A RR 12, Ste. 308 San Marcos, TX 78666- 2502 Tel/Fax: 512-392-2210 NSRP # 3-96-1 Final Report PBI P.O. Number 13784 T a ble of Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................1 Phase 1 Task. 1 Standards Organization Participation..............................................1 Phase 2, Phase 3 Task 1 Review and Delivery........................................................2 Phase 1, Task 2 Technical Advisory Committee....................................................2 Phase 1, Task 3 Matrix Development...................................................................2 Phase 1, Task 4 Representative Steel Substrates.....................................................2 Phase 1, Task 5 Clean Panels and Photograph........................................................3 Site Selection.........................................................................................3 Cleaning Conditions................................................................................3 Preliminary Photographic Considerations....................................................3 Photographs...........................................................................................4 Photograph Review.................................................................................4 A ttachments: A . T a sk C h art B . L etters of agreement from SSPC C . L etter of agreement from NACE D . M atrix E . L ist of Initial, February, 1997, Photographs F . L ist of Final July, 1997, Photographs G . N ote Aside: Observations which confirm other papers, visual sets, field comments P rimary Objectiv e The primary objective is to produce a set of preliminary reference photographs which will meet the written requirements of the existing cleaning documents of the Steel Structures Painting Council and/or National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Inc. (SSPC/NACE). These reference photographs will be presented to an ad hoc committee for selection. As the consensus process for a final technical standard may take a long time, an agreement from a standards agency such as SSPC or NACE will be sought. Phase 1 Task 1. Standards Organization Participation. Letters from SSPC and NACE dated February, 1996, indicate that both organizations are willing to take the preliminary reference photographs which result from the NSRP project and place them into the consensus building process for final issuance as a “Visual Standard.” This was confirmed with a conversation with Dr. Simon Boocock on October 8, 1996. This was confirmed with correspondence from Dr. Boocock on October 11, 1996 (Attachment B,C ). Phase 2 and Phase 3 Task 1 & 2 Review of the Photographs Task 1. Delivery to Standards Agency: In June and July, 1997, each member of the Technical Advisory Committee reviewed and accepted the final photographs. The final oral report was presented at the July, 1997, meeting of the NSRP SP-3 in Portland, Maine. After the July, 1997, meeting of the NSRP SP-3 panel in Maine, Dr. Brenda Holmes, NAVSEA O3M, and Dr. Simon Boocock, SSPC, again reviewed the photos, which had been accepted by the TAC for NSRP #3- 96-1 Waterjet visual project. Dr. Holmes and Dr. Boocock approved of the photographs as fulfilling the objective. Subsequently, original slides sets from February, 1997, and the July, 1997, reference photographs were delivered to SSPC on August 8, 1997 for a total of 96 slides. Around the first of September, 1997, Dr. NSRP # 3-96-1 1 Final Report PBI P.O. Number 13784 Frenzel spoke to Russell Davison, SSPC staff member who is responsible for their production of photographs and visual standards, about whether SSPC wanted an electronic format. Russell said that SSPC preferred to use the slides and make their own electronic files. The NSRP draft photos have been presented to the standards committees at NACE at Fall Committee Week in Chicago and to the SSPC at their November meeting in San Diego. The consensus process for a visual photograph set is now in progress as a joint NACE/SSPC task with Dr. Lydia Frenzel, chairman. Phase 1 Task 2. Technical Advisory Committee As of October 16, 1996, The NSRP SP-3 Advisory Committee members are: Ben Fultz- Bechtel Steve Cogswell- Atlantic Marine Richard Dupuy- UHP Projects John Kelly- International Coatings Dr. Simon K. Boocock- SSPC. John Meacham- Peterson Builders, Project Manager It is anticipated that the Water Jet Visual Joint Task Group of SSPC/NACE will continue their work when it is time to build a consensus “Visual Standard.” This group currently includes the following people who already participate in NSRP SP-3 meetings on a regular basis: Ben Fultz- Bechtel John Kelly- International (Courtaulds) Coatings Max Winkeler- Sigma Coatings John Tanner- Ameron (Devoe) Coatings Lydia Frenzel- Chair These individuals, or representative of their companies were involved in the preview discussion and the final revised photographs. Phase 1 Task 3. Matrix Development: The Matrix was discussed at the NSRP- SP 3 meeting in October, 1996 with revision at the November, 1996, SSPC meeting . At the SSPC meeting, the revision group included: John Meacham PBI, Ben Fultz- Chair of the SP-3 TAC, Dr. Simon Boocock- SSPC Director of Research, and Dr. Lydia Frenzel. Each TAC member was contacted subsequently for input. The matrix is attachment D. Conditions C and D are “new construction” surface conditions for rust grade C and D. Conditions E, F, and G are maintenance surface conditions. Conditions E, F, and G represent surfaces having aged coating originally applied over blast-cleaned steel. Condition E is a previously painted steel surface, paint mostly intact, some primer may show. Condition F is a previously painted steel surface, paint applied over blast cleaned steel, paint is mostly intact, but more deteriorated than E. Condition G is paint thoroughly weathered, blistered or stained; the paint may have been applied over marginally prepared steel, or the steel may have deteriorated where the paint is not present. It is recognized that some of the painted steel surfaces may have not been previously blasted. The coating systems will be selected to represent a typical primer, zinc-rich paint, and a multiple coat paint system. Phase 1 Task 4. Representative steel substrates: Plates from SSPC arrived on December 24th, 1996, and were screened for inclusion. Todd Pacific Shipyard sent panels for Rust Grade D, damaged primer (Paint Grade F), and severely damaged multi-coat system (Paint Grade G) directly to Flow International. NSRP # 3-96-1 2 Final Report PBI P.O. Number 13784 Phase 1 Task 5. Clean panels and photograph Site Selection: Flow International Corporation, 13500 64th Ave South, Kent , WA 98032 offered their laboratory and equipment for the cleaning and photography site. Contact Person: Rick Schmid-Marketing; Tom Cross- Vice-President, Ron Tarrant- Chairman. Appreciation and Recognition are extended to: Sean Vaughan- Demonstration Lab Manager Chris Downing- Demonstration Travis Gohl- Demonstration Rick Schmid- Water Jetting Manager. This project received strong support from the Waterjetting Community. Other companies which offered sites or cleaning were: Aqua-Dyne Inc., George Rankin, President, Houston, TX Butterworth Jetting Systems, Mike Ginn, President, Houston, TX NLB Corporation, Forrest Shook, President, Wixom, MI WOMA Corporation, Frank Scharwat, Seattle, WA Cavi-Tech Inc, Roland Lever, President, Kennasaw, GA UHP Projects, Richard Dupuy, President, Norfolk, VA Cleaning and photography took place at Flow International during January and April, 1997. The use of the equipment and facilities is a major donation in kind which was fundamental in the completion of the project. Most project demonstrations last a few hours. Flow released their equipment for five days for this project. Lee Boutelle, Government Sales Manager, Cortec Inc. donated Vapor Phase Corrosion Inhibitors to protect the steel panels after blasting during the shipping period and while the final photographs were being taken. Cleaning Conditions: The photographs were produced to be equipment independent. They represent the final performance criteria of a process and are not tied to a specific methodology with respect to pressure or volume. The Hornet five-orifice nozzle had openings of 0.009 inch and was rotated at 1800 rpm . The pressure was 40,000 psi at a rate of 2 gallons per minute. No inhibitors were used. The City of Kent has two water sources with conductance at 73 and 128 micro Siemans on the days of cleaning. The general water supply to Flow is a blend of these sources which vary from 73 to a high of 200 micro Siemans. It is filtered before entry into the UHP WJ pump, but otherwise is not treated. The panels were dried with compressed air and flash rusting did not occur. During the course of the project, we did prepare one panel where two areas were cleaned to show that the side area has started to form a light bronzing appearance. The light flash rust is apparent where there are two areas for side-by-side comparison. Preliminary Photographic Considerations: During December, 1996, the visual photographs of SSPC VIS-1, VIS-3, ISO, German, International Coatings, Cavi-Tech, and Hempels were critically examined to determine if the lighting should be from the side to enhance shadows, profiles, and protrusions or evenly distributed to enhance color differences. The angle of lighting plays a critical role in what the observer sees. After looking at results from side lighting, Dr. Frenzel decided that an even lighting sequence should be used as this emphasizes the coloration and cleanliness. Side lighting emphasizes the profile and protuberances on the panels. Lighting and film were matched so that the color is true. Color standards and a gray scale were placed on each roll of exposed film. NSRP # 3-96-1 3 Final Report PBI P.O. Number 13784 Photographs: Multiple panels were selected for each column on the matrix. Approximately 300 photos were taken in January, 1997. The set-up for the photos had been determined in December so that a color standards was placed on each roll. The master is a transparency. When the transparency is printed as a slide the final print is one: one scale with the original panel within 10%. The original area of the panel is 4 inches by six inches. The original is a 35-mm slide. When the slide is printed in a 4 x 6 format, the reproduction is a one to one correspondence. The standoff distance was initially set at 10 inches with a transverse rate of 80 feet per minute. The standoff and transverse rate was varied to obtain the defined surfaces. The definitions for waterjetting are performance definitions, not process standards. The panels supplied by SSPC were very educational. Exposed coatings, which seemed intact, frequently had heavy black rust under the paint. When the coating was removed, the pattern was not one of a uniform abrasive blasted surface, but rather a corrosion pattern with very dark steel. Type C rust grade, which SSPC had prepared to be uniform over the whole surface. Attachment G contains additional observations and comments. Photograph Review: February, 1997 Approximately 100 photographs were reviewed at the February, 1997, NSRP SP-3 meeting. List of Persons Present at NSRP SP-3 Selection Meeting in January, 1997. NSRP indicates the NSRP TAC for this project; TGI is the Task Group of SSPC and NACE who will develop the standard. Lydia Frenzel Advisory Council 209-267-0992 NSRP, TGI John Meacham Peterson Builders Inc. 414-743-5577 x 281 NSRP Simon K. Boocock SSPC Dir. Of Res. 412-281-2331 NSRP, SSPC John Kelly International Paints 713-684-1221 NSRP, TGI Ben Fultz Bechtel 713-235-3620 NSRP, TGI Steve Cogswell Atlantic Marine Inc. 904-251-1714 NSRP Richard Dupuy UHP Projects 757-928-1890 NSRP Gordon Kuljian Ocean City Research 610-344-7002 NSRP WJ project Mike Winter Sigma Coatings 504-347-4321 (representing Max Winkeler on TGI even though substitutes are not official) John Tanner Ameron 410-788-0431 TGI Final Review July, 1997 From April to June, 1997, we produced photographic prints of the supplemental photographs which were requested by the TAC in February. The final photographs were distributed for comments. Each of the series had been printed according to the standard four-color process. Photographs were then produced. The lists of delivered slides are attachment E and F. NSRP # 3-96-1 4 Final Report PBI P.O. Number 13784 Visual Standards NSRP # 3-96-1 Dr. Lydia Frenzel Item % of Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 3-90-1 Performance Period Performance Period Phase 1 Task 1 Enlist Cooperation of Standards Agency Deliverable 1- Selection of Standards Agency s Done, Oct, 1996 Task 2 Determine the make up of Ad Hoc Committee Deliverable 2- Report on Names of Committee s Done, Oct, 1996 Task 3- Develop Matrix Deliverable 3- Report on Matrix s Done, Oct, 1996 Deliverable 4- Progress report on 1,2,3 10% s Task 4 Obtain Representative Samples Deliverable 5- Obtain Plates and Panels s Done, Dec, 1996 Deliverable 6- Selection of sites s Done, Oct, 1996 Task 5 Clean Panels and Photograph Deliverable 7 Clean Panel, Initial Photographs preparation s Done, Jan, 1997 Deliverable 8- Completed agreement with Standards Agency s Done, Oct, 1996 Deliverable 9 Presentation of Milestone Report 53% s Done, Feb, 1997 PHASE 2 Submission of Photo and Selection Task 1 Present Photographs to Committee In Progress, April, 1997 Deliverable 10 Presentation of Photographs to Committee s Task 2- Supplement Photographs Deliverable 11- Development of Supplement Photographs s Done June 1997 Deliverable 12- Produce electronic format Deliverable 13- Presentation of Milestone Report s Done June 1997 PHASE 3 Submit Photographs to Standards Agency 27% s Task 1 Submit Photographs Deliverable 14- Presentation of Photographs to Standards Agency s Done 8/8/97 Deliverable 15- Final Report (Draft) s Done Dec 98 Deliverable 16- Submit final Report 10% s 100% NSRP # 3-96-1 Final Report PBI PO Number 13784 Attachment A