1 / 48

Comparing Equality Through Performance Data - Hocus, Pocus or Just Misunderstood

Comparing Equality Through Performance Data - Hocus, Pocus or Just Misunderstood. Kevin Morris Market Director, Water and Wastewater. Overview. Provide insight into the function of ASTM tests for coatings Discuss the use of ASTM test results for comparing equality

ashton-villarreal
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Equality Through Performance Data - Hocus, Pocus or Just Misunderstood

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing Equality Through Performance Data - Hocus, Pocus or Just Misunderstood Kevin Morris Market Director, Water and Wastewater

  2. Overview • Provide insight into the function of ASTM tests for coatings • Discuss the use of ASTM test results for comparing equality • Discuss the role of marketing with regards to performance testing • Introduce options

  3. ASTM Tests • Not intended to provide numerical comparison • Provide reasonable, reproducible, determinations • Numerical comparison should only be made when testing identical systems, at the same time, in the same lab, by the same technician. • No Pass/Fail Criteria Provided

  4. Section Titles of Interest • Scope • Summary of Test Method / Practice • Significance and Use • Apparatus • Test Specimens • Conditioning • Procedure

  5. Section Titles of Interest • Calculation • Report • Precision and Bias

  6. Precision Terms • Calculated by the ASTM Interlaboratory Study Group (ILS) • Repeatability- maximum difference between measurements within lab • Reproducibility- maximum difference between measurements between labs • Repeatability or Reproducibility = 2.8 X standard deviation • Can be in raw units or raw units/average to provide a percentage • Percentage term referred to as variance • Calculations assumes a 95% confidence

  7. ASTM D 4060-10 • “Abrasion Resistance” • Section 14 – Precision and Bias • 1000 cycles • Within Laboratory – 26% Variance • Between Laboratories – 53% Variance • Dependent on Coating Type • 5 generic coating types listed

  8. ASTM D 4541 • “Adhesion” • Section 1.1 – Scope • “This test method maximizes tensile stress as compared to the shear stress applied by other methods, such as scratch or knife adhesion, and results may not be comparable.” • Section 4.2 – Significance and Use • “Variations in results obtained using different devices or different substrates with the same coating are possible.”

  9. ASTM D 4541 • “Adhesion” • Section 5 – Apparatus • General Knowledge of how the tester operates • Section 6.2 & 6.7 – Test Preparation • “Since rigidity of the substrate affects pull-off strength results…..” • “Scoring around the fixture violates the fundamental in-situ test criteria that an unaltered coating be tested.”

  10. ASTM D 4541 • “Adhesion” • Section 10 – Precision and Bias • General Knowledge • Table 6 – Precision and Bias • Maximum acceptable variance ranges from 18% - 76% depending on variables such as: • Type of tester • Intra-laboratory Vs. Inter-Laboratory

  11. ASTM B 117 • “Salt Fog” • Section 3 – Significance and Use • 3.2 “ Prediction of performance in natural environments has seldom been correlated with salt spray results when used as standalone data.” • Section 7.1.1 – Position of Specimens During Exposure • The test provides a range of angle to the vertical of 15 to 30 degree.

  12. ASTM B 117 • “Salt Fog” • Section X3.8 – Precision and Bias – Steel Panel Test • Data exists for bare steel panels only • Reference Article – “Don’t Pass the Salt” • Proves that as long as 16 years ago the industry was promoting the issues with salt fog testing for coating durability.

  13. ASTM D5894 • “Corrosion Weathering” • Section 3 – Summary of Practice • General knowledge of test • Section 4.1 – Significance and Use • “The outdoor corrosion of painted metals is influenced by many factors, including: corrosive atmospheres, rain, condensed dew, UV light, wet/dry cycling, and temperature cycling. These factors frequently have a synergistic effect on one another.”

  14. ASTM D5894 • “Corrosion Weathering” • Section 4.1 Con’t – Significance and Use • “This practice is intended to provide a more realistic simulation of the interaction of these factors than is found in traditional tests with continuous exposure to a static set of corrosive conditions.” • Section 4.2 – Significance and Use • “Results obtained from this practice can be used to compare the relative durability of materials….”

  15. ASTM D5894 • “Corrosion Weathering” • Section 4.3 – Significance and Use • “No single exposure test can be specified as a complete simulation of actual use conditions in outdoor environments.” • Section 4.5 – Significance and Use • “This practice is used to compare the relative performance of materials tested at the same time in the same exposure device.”

  16. ASTM D5894 • “Corrosion Weathering” • Section 4.6 – Significance and Use • “This practice has been found useful for air-dry industrial maintenance paints on steel but its applicability has not yet been assessed for galvanized substrates.” • Section 7.4 – Significance and Use • “Methods that may be useful for evaluating the corrosion of the specimen are Test Methods D 610, D 714, and D1654…..”

  17. ASTM D5894 • “Corrosion Weathering” • Section 10 – Precision and Bias • “A cooperative test program is underway ….”

  18. ASTM D2794 • “Impact Resistance” • Section 1.2 – Scope • “This test method should be restricted to testing in only one laboratory when numerical values are used because of poor reproducibility of the method.” • Section 5.1 – Significance • “….this test method for impact resistance has been found to be useful in predicting the performance of organic coatings for their ability to resist cracking caused by impacts.”

  19. ASTM D2794 • “Impact Resistance” • Section 12 – Precision and Bias • The acceptable variance of this test method ranges from 28% - 280% depending on the following: • Intrusion or Extrusion (Direction of impact) • Inter-laboratory or Intra-laboratory

  20. ASTM D522 • “Flexibility” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General information • Section 5.1.1 & 5.1.2– Test Specimen • These dictate the specimen type, thickness and size depending on the purpose for utilizing this test. • Percentage of elongation • Resistance to cracking

  21. ASTM D522 • “Flexibility” • Section 11 – Precision and Bias • Only for elongation • The acceptable variance for this test method is: • 6% elongation, Intra-Laboratory • 15% elongation, Inter-Laboratory

  22. ASTM D3363 • “Pencil Hardness” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General Information • Section 3.1 – Summary of Test Method • Two results can be obtained from this test method: • Pencil Hardness • Scratch Hardness

  23. ASTM D3363 • “Pencil Hardness” • Section 4 – Significance and Use • General Information • “It should be recognized that the results obtained may vary between laboratories when different pencils as well as panels are used.” • Section 5 – Apparatus • Scale of hardness • Softest = 6B • Hardest = 6H

  24. ASTM D3363 • “Pencil Hardness” • Section 7 – Procedure • General Information • Section 9 – Precision and Bias • The acceptable variance of this test method is: • Intra-Laboratory = 1 Hardness Unit • Inter-Laboratory = 1 Hardness Unit

  25. ASTM D870 • “Immersion” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General Information • Section 3 – Summary of Practice • General Information • Section 4.2 – Significance and Use • “A coating system is considered to pass if there is no evidence of water-related failure after a specified period of time.”

  26. ASTM D870 • “Immersion” • Section 7.6 – Procedure • “Wipe test specimen dry. Rate specimens for change in color, blistering, etc. Evaluate specimens no less than 5 min and no more than 10 min after removal from test, ….” • Section 7.6.1 – Procedure • “If possible, rate specimens again after they have been removed from the test for a recovery period …12 to 24 h is generally sufficient.”

  27. ASTM D4585 • “Moisture Condensation Resistance” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General Information • Section 3 – Summary of Practice • 3.3 “Testing may be conducted at temperatures from 100 to 180 F.” • Section 5.3 – Apparatus • “Specimens shall be inclined from 15 to 75 degrees from the horizontal ….”

  28. ASTM D4585 • “Moisture Condensation Resistance” • Section 7.3 – Procedure • “Vapor temperatures of 100, 120, or 140 F are suggested. Other temperatures may be used provided that the temperature is reported …. To ensure adequate condensation, maintain at least 20 F temperature differential between the room and the vapor.”

  29. ASTM D6694 • “Thermal Cycling” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General information • Section 3.1 – Summary of Methods • General Information • Section 11 – Precision and Bias • “The numerical precision of this method is good; however, performance requirements shall be specified in terms of comparison ….”

  30. ASTM D4587 • “UV Resistance” • Section 1.1 – Scope • General Information • Table 1 – Test Cycles Commonly Used • Typical Uses • Cycle #1 - Automotive Coatings • Cycle #2 - Industrial Maintenance Coatings • Cycle #3 - Exterior Wood Coatings • Cycle #4 - General Metal Coatings

  31. ASTM D4587 • “UV Resistance” • Section 4 – Significance and Use • “Variation in results may be expected when different operating conditions are used. Therefore, no reference to the use of this practice shall be made unless accompanied by a report …. That describes the specific operating conditions used.” • Section 8.3 – Procedure • Describes the requirements for repositioning

  32. ASTM D4587 • “UV Resistance” • Section 9.4.2 – Periods of Exposure and Evaluation of Results • “If a standard or specification for use between two or three parties requires a defined property level after a specific time or radiant exposure in an exposure test conducted according to this practice, base the specified property level on at least two independent experiments run in each laboratory to determine the reproducibility….”

  33. ASTM D4587 • “UV Resistance” • Section 11 – Precision and Bias • “The repeatability and reproducibility of results obtained in exposures conducted according to this practice will vary with the materials being tested, the material property being measured, and the specific test conditions and cycles that are used.”

  34. ASTM D695 • “Compressive Strength” • Section 1.1 & 1.2 – Scope • General Information • Section 4.2 – Significance and Use • General Information • Section 13 – Precision and Bias • Inter-Laboratory variance = 875 – 3045 psi

  35. ASTM D4141 • “EMMAQUA” or “Q-trac” • Section 1 – Scope • General Information • Procedure C – Fresnel Reflector Rack Exposure • Section 4.1.2 & 4.3.2 – Summary of Practice • 4.1.2 – describes the reflector rack • 4.3.2 “Procedure C is designed to simulate weathering on both automotive and nonautomotive products.”

  36. ASTM D4141 • “EMMAQUA” or “Q-trac” • Section 5 – Significance and Use • 5.1 “As with any accelerated test, the difference in rate of weathering is material dependent and no single exposure factor can be used to compare two different weathering exposures. • Typically measured in MJ/m2 of ultraviolet radiant exposure.

  37. Correlation Between Tests • There can be a correlation between results obtained on a single product with certain test methods. Most of these connections are fairly common sense, when a minor understanding of the test method is obtained. • Some are much more difficult to understand the correlation if a correlation exists at all.

  38. Rank Order Correlation of Accelerate Exposure vs. ExteriorCleveland Society for Coatings Technology, JCT, 1993

  39. Rank Order Correlation of Accelerate Exposure vs. ExteriorCleveland Society for Coatings Technology, JCT, 1993

  40. Rank Order Correlation of Accelerate Exposure vs. ExteriorCleveland Society for Coatings Technology, JCT, 1993

  41. Marketing • “For business to business marketing it is creating value, solutions, and relationships either short term or long term with a company or brand. It generates the strategy that underlies sales techniques, business communication, and business developments.” *Source - Wikipedia

  42. Marketing Performance Results • Perceived competitive advantages may drive the sales techniques of one company over another. • Communicating value based on incomplete stories may provide one with a false sense of security. • Business development or product development may no longer provide the best value to the end user but may generate greater margins based on perceived value.

  43. Avoiding the Hocus, Pocus • There are no hard and fast rules but one should consider the following: • Decisions about product selection should be grounded in reality and proven with verifiable case histories. • Look to standards that utilize a variety of industry standards to provide pass/fail criteria. • Utilize organizations that develop standards through industry roundtables, like SSPC.

  44. SPPC Paint Performance Examples • Paint 20- Zinc Rich Primers • OZ (Type II): 1000 hours SF, No Rusting, No Blisters, No Undercutting at the scribe • IOZ (Type I): 3000 hours SF, No Rusting, No Blisters, No Undercutting at the scribe Note: Coatings that fail salt fog may perform well under actual service conditions. Coatings that pass salt fog may perform poorly under actual service conditions. • Paint 22- Epoxy Polyamide Paints • Adhesion: 3 Trials = Average of 400 psi minimum • Salt Fog: 500 hours, Minimum rust grade rating of “8”, Blistering shall be no more than blister size No. 4, few.

  45. SPPC Paint Performance Examples • Paint 36- 2K Weatherable Aliphatic Polyurethane Topcoat • Level 1 • QUV Accelerated Weathering, 500 hours • South Florida Exposure, 12 months • Level 2 • QUV Accelerated Weathering, 1000 hours • South Florida Exposure, 24 months • Level 3 • QUV Accelerated Weathering, 2000 hours • South Florida Exposure, 48 months • Minimum Performance Criteria • Gloss Loss = <30 units; Color Change <2.0 Δ E, C.I.E. L*A*B*

  46. Summary • Utilization of the needs of the project will ensure the best value to the owner and will continue to support a competitive bid environment. • While ASTM test results state what, when, and how; they do not govern what a manufacturer publishes as a result. • Marketing practices play very heavily into the positioning of physical performance test results to provide a competitive advantage.

  47. Reference Documents • JPCL May 2010 – “The Dark Side of Misreading the Relevance of Coating Testing” • JPCL March 1997 – “Don’t Pass the Salt (FOG)”

  48. Questions? Kevin Morris Market Director, Water and Wastewater 103 Nutwood Drive Jamestown, NC 27282 Office: +1-336-454-4741 Cell: +1-336-307-5048 Email: kevin.l.morris@sherwin.com

More Related