COATINGS EXPERTS

Dry Film Thickness vs. Profile

By L.D. "Lou" Ph.D., Teclwiarl Editor
T
his month we: will explore a
stbject requested re<'Jder
in Chile, South America -
the relationship between dry
fi lm th;ck.uess (DF"r'} vs. the prof;J e of the
substrate. OFT is commonly defined as
the thickness of a coating fil m left after
the e"aporation of solvent and other
drring reactions. OFT is usually reported
in mils ( thots<l ndths of an inch). Most
coating products require a minimum
surface profile {roughness) to achieve
proper adhesion to stetl surfaces. which
is t)'picallr mentioned in manufacturer
data sheets.
Is there a relationship between
lh" OFT of a coaling sysl "m and
the profile height on the steel?
The short Jnswer to this questio' is yes.
but that answer won' t be the sane for
every coati ng or situation. Every coating
h<ls a "'sweet spot" whel.'e the right (:Ombi
natlon of prollle, film thickness, surface
cleanli ness/wett ing, Ctlre (:Ondition.
and application method provides the
optimum film forming conditions and
ultlm<lte performance. Contlng suppH
c:rs and spedllers ha.,:e to provide the end
user with a range of acceptable guidelines
to achieve a mlnimum level of acceptable
performance, espedall)' -when you factor
in a budget. As much as we might all like
to h<we unlimited re-sources to do the best
job possible. there is always a budgetary
ceiling. More profile is not better.
Too little profile is not desired either.
Is the peak density a factor,
or is It the cleanliness of the
substrate that Is more Important?
T h< re are commonly accepted rules of
thumb, such as .. the profile s hotld be
approximately 25% of the OFT of the
22 COO'inQsP'ro MOy'20 10
coating applied over i t. '' Unfortunately.
this js jtst one of the common practic;es
that cal\ lead to seriotls difficulties because
it docs not take into consideration the
generic type of coating or the service
environment of that coating. Following
are some of I he thiugs that should be
considered before detennining the prot1le
required under a coating system:
Condition of the steel (mill scale,
general corrosion. pitting corrosion,
etc.)
Generic type of coatJng to l>e applied
directl y 0\'er the profile
'J'ype of profile (angul<lr. peened, etc.)
Solids by volume of coating to be
applied directl y over the profile
(expected shrinkage)
Anticipated t:<posure (physical and/
or chemical/marine)
Actual cleanliness of st1bstrate as
defined by NACE International,
SSPC, or I ntern.-. tionnl Org01niz.ation
for Standardization (ISO) standards
( not to lx confused with profile}
Nonvisible- contaminants (soh1ble
sails, etc.)
Method of application (spray vs.
brush or roll. conventional vs, airless
spray, d cctrostntic spray. etc.)
There are forces that work to detach
a coating from a substrate. They can be
perpendicular to the substrate (tensile).
parallel (shear), or angular (pct'l). There: is
a beli.efthat a tltick coating will do better if
there is a deep anchor prollle. the concept
being that the heavier profile will provide
mecha11lcal Stlpport However. this would
on I)' be useful in resisting shear.
The belief is on I}' V<ll i\-1 if the coJting
is not ad hered to the substrate. If the
coating is stuck to the substrate, t hen
the purpose of the OJnc;hor pattern is to
increase!' the wetted area and randomize
the interf<lce between the coati.ng and
the substrate. A shaJiow but veq sharp
profi le can do t his better thn n a deep,
profile.
One laboratorr in Houston, Texas
rnn lap shear tests on a system that was
3 nlils of and 125 mils of epoxy
Hreproofing where the specified surface
prep W<'IS <'I O.Smil deep pr ofile \ISing
al uminum oxide (AI
1
0 )). T he system had
to exceed I ,000 psi pulloff testing. One
primer manufacturer who failed the test
insisted that it be rerun with a 2.5 to
3-mil pr ofJie obt<'Jined tsing steel gr it.
The srstem tailed at halfthe lap shear that
recorded over the O.Smil profile. Deeper
is not alwa)'S better.
Anothe r labo rato r y did some
pioneeri ng work on adhesion when
solvent less coatings were in their infancy.
and concl uded that the tendency of a
coating to blister in immersion senice-
(water) was in\'Crsd y proportional to t he
surfncc profile. Ob\'iously, the increased
surface area in contact with the coating
l ncrcascd the force required to remove
tbe coating, which would iJlchde those
forces created by osmotic pressure. Other
\'ariables, such as increased s urface
cleanliness due to -an effort to -achieve the
deeper profile. ma)' have plared a part.
What has changed significant l y is the
rheology oft he coating materials we now
commonly ust. Inarguably, the surface
tension -and wetting characteristics of
solventbOrne Coatings varr significantly
from solvemless coatings. Previousl y
an aggressive profile would increase
adhesion, but that is not necessarily true
today. Wit h a reallr <lggres.sive profile.
some of the solvent less coatings wil l
fuji to wet the sur f<lce full y i n the lower
portions of the surface profile.
A not her practical study wns done
NAC CoOl Ung lnspectorliJlStructor
while attending to large ship dry docking
repai rs. He found that ifa Yessd bottom
were blasted to remove all old paint and
growth, it would take about 25% mort
epoxr primer than epoxy interrnedi<lte
even though both wtre applied at the
same measured OFT. Since this happened
on more than one occasion, at differ
ent shipyards in different countries, one
can olly Olssurne that the 25% increase
in materiaJ us.l.ge had to do with fi lling
in the profile. Of course, all of this was
maintenance work for these ships. which
did have: some pitting, and the grit used
to blast w;1s \'ery coarse. Profiles were
typically in the 4 to S mil range. even
when water j etted as they were in the
Grand 80lh<'Jmas. 1-'ig\li.'C I s hows \-l eeply
pitted steel after abrasive blasting i n an
old ballast tank.
Table l fronl International Marine
Coatings (AktoNobel) prO\' ides some
V<'J iuable pract;cal regarding DF'r vs.
pro111e as it apphes to coati ngs consump-
tion with different t)'pes of abrasive and
abrasive blas.t iJlg.
Table 1
Surface blastmg method Blast profile DFT"loss" Pa1nt Loss due to
roughness, %
(Oesned OFT- 125 1Jil1}
Round steel shots
Fine open blasting
Coarse open blasting
Old pitted re-blasted
0.50
S0-100
100.150
150.300
It is an accepted fact that each
coating moderately narrow range
of profile t hat works best. Outside of
that range, t he results tend to tnper off.
While it is true that thicker films work
better 0\'1!-r more aggressive prontes,
when the pt;.lk density is too high to
allow the thkker film to flow into the
valleys of t he profile, the value of t he
increased surface area is lost. Nl}te:
a(l/u:siiJII is nol acllwlly
incrt!ased; it is simply more surface Me! a
'lJ/;JH WffJ
PosiT est
Coat ing Thickness
Gage for measuri ng
non-magnetic
coatings on steel
10
35
60
125
4
29
49
100
per app"nnt surfau anw over which lht'
mc!asurement is made.
Is there a significant differ
ence of OFT vs, profile within
generic coating types?
For ambient services. more often than
not. a zinc-rich primer is l ncorp-orated
into the coating system as the primary
means of obtaining ad hesion alo ng
with corrosion resistance. T his coating
becomes the found<ltion of the recom
Tough enough for any environment
DeFelslco
40 Years of Quality
No batteries/electronics
Accurate and dependable
Free Cert ificate of Calibration ,..
traceabl e t o NIST .H>.
Mo<lc 1n U,S,A,
Defelsko Co11>orallon Ogdensburg, NV 13669
Phone: + 1-315-393-4450 Toll Free: 1-800-448-3835
www.defelsi<o,com email: techsale@defetsko.com
In Inq uir y 134
MOY 20t0 a www.coo;j:ngspromog.com 23
'
Fi gure 1.
PI><>Jo
mended profile r egardless of t he DFT
of the coating system applied over the
zinc pri mer. (( 40 IJ. m of zinc is to be wet
applied over 0'1 surf.-ace. i t would be
almost impossible to achieve "'nonl inaUy..
40 1-11n over a SO Ilm anchor pattern, o r
profile he;ght. Nominal 10 J..Un is the
accepk d standard 20%. That suggests
32 to 48 1-un is the acceptable OFT range.
But is that above the peaks. the
avcrngc peak height, or from the bottom
of the peak valley? IJl proctical terms. the
desired OFT will be one that has a reason
able coverage over the peaks to address
the service. Since the zinc is solvent based.
it also must be applied in such a wa)' as
to 01llow jt to shrink back as the solvent
flashes off. Extendi ng the subsequent
coats in t his case to complete l he coating
syste1n, whether the appl kation OFT of
t he subse-quent coats is 120 j.lm o r 210 j.lm
matters little. sjncc the jntim:ue relation
ship between the zinc and the substrnte is
foremost.
Is there on applicable Inter
notional standard that covers
measuring profile vs. OFT?
Prom l hc poi nt of \'icw of coating thick
ness measurement. ISO 198101 descr ibes
two methods for wi th the profi le
resulting from abrasive dcaning of a
substrate. Acc-arding to the main bod)' of
24 COO'inQsP'ro MOy'20 10
the text. the gauge is adj usted to measure
on a s mooth surface and then a correction
value is subtracted from the thickness
measurement depending o n the profile as
defined by ISO 8503- 12, the ISO Surface
Comparator.
'f his method was selected becatse it
is often the case that the coating has been
applied before the inspector a rr ives to
measure the fi lm thjckness and it is not
possible to adjust the gauge to the sudacc
that has been
T he correction values contai ned
i n t he document a r c fine blasJ;: IO
medium blast=25 a nd coarse
blast::;40
' l"his method meO'lsures the thick
ness of the coatlng over the peaks of the
profile. In t he ca.."c where the actual blast
profile }s not known. the defat It ' '<l lue is
25 pm. I f a coaling thickness of I 00 tJm is
req ui red for n pri mer on a medi um blast
profile, then the avernge thidwess for the
area to be tested should lx 125 .un when
measured directl y using a gauge
to masurt o n a smooth surface ( i.e . J 25
J.lln lc!;s the 25 correction value}.
The second method for adJusti ng
the coati ng thickness gauge is co ntai ned
jn an ::umex to 1$0 198-10. This describes
the twopoint adjt1stment tec.hnique -
where a t hin foil wi th a val ue just less t han
the Goating thickness to be measured is
used to set the lower adjustment point
on the uncoated profile. and n thicker
foil abo,e the value of the coatiJlg to be
measur<. --d is used to set the upper adjust
ment point. This an nex was i ncluded to
allow countries that historically used this
technique to continue wit h the practice.
J n trials it was show Jl that these two
ml!-t hods agreedoscly. wi t hin a rew
when t he average \'aluc of thicknes$ O\ 'CI'
an a tea is compared. This tr ial also used
dest r uctive measurement to confir m
that the -.,.a lues measure\-! were, i n fact.
t he t hickness \'alues over the peaks of
t he profi le.
Summary
Yes. there is a relationship between Of'!'T
an(i profile as it applies to the perfor
mnnce of t he coating system npplicd O\'er
th<l t profile. However. that relationshi p
is not a simple one. Using r ules or t humb
to determi ne the specified DFT wit hout
taking into consideration the trpe of
coaling, t he applicatlon method, and thl!-
intended service en\' ironment might very
well lead to less t han optimal pcrformam:c
of the coating S)'Stem applied over that
profile. All of the information compiled
i n t his article appl ies to carbon stet !. It
wotld not be appropriate to assume that
the same relationship exists over other
subst rates such as concrete. fibcrgla!;s,
stainless steel, aluminULu, etc. Also, this
article docs not ddve det pl)' into the
t}'Pes ofa\-l hesion (chemical \'S. m.echani
cal, etc.). CP
Referen<es
I J$0 19840:2004, ond vorni.shc.s-
Cortosion ptOIIKi ion of $1661 slrvcrvr6s by
ptoledive poi nt sy.dem.s-MeosUfemenl of, anrl
1Xt:plon<;e aitcrio for, Jh. lbicknc.s.s f)! dry films
o.n rough ISO,
1004J.
2 fSO 8503.J: l988, " Pteporotion ol .steel
.subslrolcs before opplication ol pQints ond
producr, - tough,.,ss cfl.oroe
/eiislit:.s ol brad-.cleoned 'I eel Jubs.troles - Pori
I: SpCKilicorions ond definirions for ISO wrlocq
oii')J)O'fOIO(S fot of O'brO$/'wt
.. cfconcd .surlocr:.s"" (Gcncvo, Swit::criQIHi:
ISO, i998}.