Document Ozdbqad733n38Y4YL4V3w1XDX

3 Min LismmniBum ,,< '; ,.- C*; fes'^M -is* "S ; ?v:i"'l nor fi oass wmommm r e p o r t no, m467 00? J. N* Xllff, XAb* ^ R. .Morgan, L&b. P. B. Ivans, lab R. B. D&vls, lab D. H. 0OW' ~" , file 05; Jel 723,8 Marshall laboratory June 2, 195a HOUSE PAINT KS.RFCRMA150E VERSUS EXPOSURE LOCATION INTRODUCTION? Because of the recent difficulties in obtaining satisfactory handling of exposure studies at the Canyon, Texas test fences? Consideration is now being given to relocating the Southwest test fence fro canyon to Louviers, Colorado where it would be possible to maintain a'morestrict control of the_ personnel handling the exposures. A review of existing data was made in an effort to answer the following questions? (1) Does the Louviers location give the same type and rate of paint failure as Canyon, Texas? (2) Is a Southwest location necessary or can we obtain the same information from ur test fences in Hialeah, Florida? An extensive study was made in S225'ih which a comparison of all three locations were made. This study was reported in Research Report #312 and in X* R. 0.? Vol. 27? page 147? February, 1935 Additional comparisons have been made between the Texas and Florida locations in Series 8380 and 9066. CONCLUSIONS? 1. From a comparison of ratings after 1 year of exposure, Louviers, Colorado gives about the same rate of failure as Canyon! Texas for both orthodox linseed oil and "Dulux" type paints. 2. For orthodox oil paints the Florida location gives generally the same type and rate of failure as the Texas lo*cilloi7 although there are some specific instances as shown in the I & EC report where the results dlfferequite widely in the two locations. 3. For the ore erosion resistant "Dulux" paints, Florida gives slower failure which may be more of the erosion type contrasted with Almost 100$ flaking failures in Texas. " 4. Because of the emphasis on ore durable vehicles In house paints, a Southwest location will continue to be necessary for testing .of paints over poor grades of lumber. DISCUSSION? Series #225'-was put out in 19$1 and had as Its .primary X g . purpose the determination of paint durability over poor grades of lumber.. In this study# each paint was exposed on six different types of lumber and over six different primer systems so that there are 36 panels of each paint In each location. It has been reported that panel variability ms very great#, but considering the, large number of panels involved, a-good amount :reliability can be placed on the results. The ratings for this Series which are shown in the accompanying tables are on a scale of 0-6 where is no failure, 1,,5 is'A.S.T.M. #8 flaking, 4 is A,S.TJl.#4 Flaking and 6 is A,,S,T,M. #1 flaking. The ratings are for one year exposure and a large majority of panels have reached a significant degree of failure. In Series #8380 and 9068, the ''service life" or time to repaint stage has been estimated from the periodic ratings. The repaint stage Is,considered to be when the paint has reached either #8 A.S.T.M, Flaking or Erosion# #6 A.S.T.M. Cracking or #2 A.S.T.l. checking. There is no complete alkyd system in 2-8380# so it appears that the Florida location gives as fast or faster failure as the Texas location for all types of paint. However, there are complete alkyd systems In S-225 and 9066 which do not fail as fast in Florida as in Texas, it is therefore evident that So long as we are testing for more durable erosion resistant paints exposure In southwest area will, have to be made,' Furthermore# an examination Of the results of S-225 reported in Industrial Is Engineering Chemistry reveals differ* ing results between Texas and Florida when comparing the performance of two similar oil paints. These may be isolated instances# but continuing comparisons must be made before we can rely completely on Florid exposures for orthodox paints. MARSHALL LABORATORY it JEOstmb 5/27/52 E. OTOE DUP030003386 HOPSE mws PERgQHIOTCE VS EIPOSIHE XOCmOM 1. pliability vs Location S-8380 . Se^vioe Life Tex. Fla.. Uilm, Louviers 34,1 isos. 30.8 " 29,4 " S-9066 S-225 Service Life- Bating at 1 year 32.8 Bios , >39.1 " r '' ""m 1* 4 m 144 .8 " :*S '' 1.4 11 2, Durability vs Type of Substrate vs Location White Pine S*8380 8^9066 . Tex. ; Fla. Wilts, Louvlers 37.3 os. 35.3 " 36.3 B .7 .8 n 1! 24 II v 11 Bed Cedar Tex, Fla, tfilm. Louvlers .*** w* 37*5 Mos 41.2 " i,8 n .3 n n *5 11 S, Yellow Pine Tex. Fla, Wilts. Louviers 31.0 taos. 26.2 " 22.6 " 31.6 " 49.3 " 3.0 1.7 1.8 Ti 11 1! 2,8 n 3* Durability vs Type of Finish vs Location L, 0, Prep, Ft. Tex. Fla. Wilts. Louviers 34:6 31.0 30.1 >* Alkyd (Primer Only) V 35.0 37*5 * *w* All systems CT^srar- 1,6 .9 " 1.7 n Oil ResMeec only ITOi S" 3.0*7 ".t 1.6 SI . Tex. Fla. Wilm. Louviers Lead in Oil 32,8 32.0 31,5 ** 35 ' >*53 1.0 " .1 " .2 w 1.0 n - 1.0 " .1 " .3 " 1.3 " Tex, Fla. Wilts. Louviers 29.8 14,5 19.7 MK* *** .e7$ !! 2.5 n '. k n ,7 DUP030003387 0 -i i 0 09 4* Type of Failure vs Location vs Substrate ^.k wmmumui --,&**&-- '** S8b--8o ,--g- r S-9066 "T Mbits Fine ! Tex. Fla. Wllm. 9 .'1/2 (73#) 6 4 1/2 (32$) Ia :ai^3 0 0 l i/a 2%) Red Cedar Tax, Fla. Mila. - ** 4o 12 S. Yellow Bine ' Tex. Fla. Milm. 11 (73#) !XI 10 a i/a (17#) i i/a 4 a iB#) (13# 3 a M2 1/2 (17#) 0 2 5* Type of Failure vs Location vs Type of Paint L. Oi> Fpep-;Faint Tex. Fla. Wilis. 10 1/2 9 8 1 1/2 3 3 04 02 1- 0 2 w JUkyd Primer Only Tex. Fla Wilm. 7 5, 6 1/2 2 6 4 1/2 04 01 0 * 0 2 Lead in Oil Tex. Fla. WXlta. '3 3 0. 1 1/2 1 1 1 1/2 2 * # 5 * ** 1' 0 1 0 DUP030003388