WHEN THE SUBSTRATE REJECTS THE COATING

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 610 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 11:20 am:    An interesting tale of failure http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=10308&nl_versionid=3450 LEED and NonLEED projects today seem to have fly ash in all concrete (foundations, architectural concrete, insulated precast, floor slabs). I am now wondering if water-based floor covering adhesives are also affected by fly ash. I am interested to know has this happened to anyone out there? Wayne Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 606 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 01:57 pm:    Before accepting the rational it might be useful to get the opinion of a paint chemist of somebody of comparable expertise. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 618 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 02:18 pm:    I haven't heard of any problems, but if certain members of the Federal Government get their way, there won't be any more coal burning power plants, and therefore no more fly ash anyway. E Jones Senior Member Username: ejonesspec Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2011 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 04:58 pm:    There are health issues with airborne silica dust so it is a double bad idea to use abrasive basting to form a profile. Read in the paper today there is a government agency studying serious health risks (I suspect same will go for "recycled" gyp board, it has stuff collected from smokestacks too. there are some good ideas for sustainability, and then there are some bad ones)...but their work is put on hold due to the shutdown. The comments at the end of the article appear to yield some solutions. The one I like best is just to not paint the concrete! What's wrong with the brutalist style of architecture? But don't sandblast it either I guess! Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 607 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 02:57 am:    It is interesting that with the demand for fly ash for concrete what used to be a waste product now brings in revenue. This now makes coal fired power plants more profitable. Isn't sustainability great? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 615 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 10:44 am:    I would be very curious as to which water-based products were tried. There are two products listed in MPI #3 that I've used successfully on concrete containing fly ash without any problems. There are other, similar or better products that haven't been tested by MPI so, even though they would meet the performance criteria, they probably don't meet the spec. The products (including the two listed ones) are water-based adhere to properly prepared concrete including concrete containing fly ash. Maybe MPI needs to create a new category for water-based acrylic coatings for use on concrete with fly ash. Encapsulating fly ash in concrete is, to my mind, a great way to solve the fly ash waste problem. Right now, with greater energy demands than ever, no one is building power plants until this issue is resolved. It seems that every time an alternative energy source is investigated, a downside is found. Welcome to reality. I'm still advocating extensive use of hydroelectric power as a means of controlling water supplies, flood control, and energy creation but there would certainly be incredible upfront cost and logistical problems as well as initial environmental impact. Sure would create an awful lot of jobs though. Sorry, is it too early in the discussion to go off on a tangent? David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 28 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 11:35 am:    Wayne, Thanks for posting this. It seems as though coating failures are some of the most difficult issues to resolve, at least for me. I am saving this article in my book of special knowledge. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 221 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 03:44 pm:    Did anyone go see Emily Hopps and Peter Nelson of SGH give their excellent presentation of concrete flooring failures at CONSTRUCT? They've been doing it for a few years now, and yes the fly ash is one factor. David, Thanks for the giggle. I'm going to rename my office notebook, "My Book of Special Knowledge"!! - Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 611 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 04:24 pm:    I sent my question to my local S-W, BM and PPG reps. BM response is: BM Rep to BM lab: "Have we had any reported issues?" BM lab to BM Rep: "No, but I’m sure we will if it is indeed an oily residue." BM rep back to me: "Not a very reassuring answer. I know that I recommend Corotech V600 Oil & Grease Emulsifier pre- treatment for any new concrete floor- not so for all architectural concrete." Stay tuned. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 619 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 04:55 pm:    So if coal-fired power plants are now more profitable, why is the Federal Government looking to shut down the coal industry? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 608 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 06:57 pm:    The government is not trying to shut down the coal industry rather they are concerned about the pollution related to coal. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1536 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, October 05, 2013 - 03:33 pm:    Profits can sometimes come by shifting expenses to "externalities," in this case pollution, which we all pay for rather than the coal companies who create it. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 29 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 08:11 am:    Good point, John. Do a web search on the W.H. Sammis power plant in Stratton, Ohio, and you will see how bad the environment has to get before a utility is moved to act. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 616 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, October 07, 2013 - 10:00 am:    Agreed John. While corporations do pass added costs to consumers, it would be nice to at least see them pay the bill and have them go through the regulatory process to increase energy fees. Too bad most jurisdictions seem to rubber stamp increases nowadays. Mark, I disagree. I believe that the government is trying to replace coal technology with alternative forms of energy. The problem is that it's a political agenda instead of a real effort to correct the very real problems we're living with. Our options seem limited at best since everything currently available has a downside. Cost, environmental, and regulatory quagmires are all significant barriers to implementing large scale replacement of coal. Let's face it, I don't want a nuke in my backyard and all the flack being generated about wind farms is disconcerting at best. Solar has been fine for small scale other than a couple of installations in Europe. My preference, hydro, is expensive, slow to implement, and has its own environmental impacts. All I ever hear about is "clean coal" but optimistic best guess estimates seem to place implementation between 2030 and 2050. That's a lot of carbon and mercury being dumped into our air and water just so we can have these conversations and find recipes on Facebook. No one seems interested in cutting back on usage (myself included) and the rest of the world is developing quickly which means more downsides will be coming faster than ever. I guess the optimists would say that we can look forward to having lots of great opportunities to solve problems. As to the alternative pozzolan issue, even if initial design were to focus on integral colorants instead of coatings, there is no telling what will happen down the road when new users move into the space and want to renovate or redecorate. Containment on surface blasters has gotten pretty good so if a surface profile is needed, perhaps there can be safe prep methods implemented. I don't believe that we have to give up and go back to using high-VOC primers to get decent adhesion. There are some very good coatings available. Perhaps MPI just isn't set up yet to allow a true comparison between options. Discarding fly ash from concrete mixes because a few coatings don't work shouldn't mean condemnation of the fly ash. Maybe it's time to find other coatings.