LONG LIFE COATINGS FOR STEEL BRIDGES Winn Darden, AGC Chemicals Americas 55 E. Uwchlan Ave. Suite 201 Exton, PA 19341 (805) 428-6743 Winn.darden@us.agc.com NUMBER OF WORDS: 3,517 ABSTRACT For the last 30 years, coating systems consisting of a zinc rich primer, a middle coat, and a topcoat have been used on steel bridges. The zinc primer is used because it will corrode preferentially to the steel thus preventing corrosion. The middle coat is primarily used to prevent damage, while the topcoat prevents damage to the primer and preserves the appearance of the structure. Current coating systems used on steel bridges give adequate protection from corrosion for up to 20 years. However, the appearance of current topcoats begins to degrade almost immediately, and soon, chalking, loss of gloss, and color fade can occur. This degradation is accompanied by a loss of topcoat thickness, reducing the topcoat’s effectiveness in preventing corrosion. In general steel bridges will need to be repainted within 20 years. A class of coatings called fluoropolymers have been used on steel bridges in Japan for more than 30 years. These coatings have excellent resistance to the elements and offer lifetimes exceeding 60 years in some cases. The use of these materials offers substantial life cycle cost savings and reduced maintenance costs when compared to conventional coatings. This paper will compare field and laboratory test results of coatings made with fluoropolymers with more conventional coatings. Longevity of these coatings will be demonstrated by long term results from bridges in Japan. The life cycle costs of fluoropolymers will be compared to those of conventional coatings. Lastly, coating project profiles for both rail and road bridges will be reviewed. INTRODUCTION Coatings are used on steel bridges primarily to prevent corrosion and subsequent degradation of structural properties; and only secondarily for aesthetics. The development and widespread use of zinc rich primers beginning in the 1970’s have resulted in substantial improvement of corrosion resistance of the typical bridge coating system. Many bridges using zinc rich primers have been in service for more than 30 years without exhibiting corrosion. The struggle has been to find topcoats which can match or exceed the longevity offered by zinc rich primers. The standard coating system developed over this time consisted of a zinc rich primer, an epoxy or urethane middle coat, and a polyurethane topcoat.

Over the last 30 years, many longer lived types of coatings have been used with varying success including the aforementioned polyurethanes as well as other coating types like polysiloxanes. While these topcoats offer significant improvement over materials such as alkyds and chlorinated rubber, these topcoats will begin to chalk and fade years before the primers are affected to the detriment of bridge appearance.

Aesthetics are becoming more important in the bridge market. As cities and communities try to attract residents and businesses, they are requesting the use of attractive colors and designs on infrastructure. Selecting colors like red, blue, and green, using special lighting, and improving landscaping allow repurposing and upgrading of bridges(1). Long term gloss and color retention are difficult with conventional coating systems, meaning that maintenance painting will be required, sometimes after only short periods of time. FLUOROPOLYMER COATINGS Overview Fluoropolymers have been used in coatings since the mid 1960’s, mainly in architectural applications. The best-known fluoropolymer coating is polyvinylidene fluoride, or PVDF. Topcoats made with PVDF

offer a potential life of around 30 years while maintaining color and gloss. However, PVDF coatings are suitable only for shop application via a coil coating process, where temperatures above 200o C are used to form the coating. This made them unsuitable for field application, and almost impossible to use in a steel fabrication shop. A newer class of fluoropolymer resins known as fluoroethylene vinyl ether (FEVE) resins offer characteristics that enable them to be used where PVDF coatings cannot. FEVE resin-based coatings can be thought of as hybrids between conventional polyurethane coatings and pure fluoropolymer coatings. Their unique polymer structure allows them to be dissolved in common solvents and to be chemically reacted to form a crosslinked polymer structure like an epoxy or polyurethane. These properties mean that FEVE resins can be used at room temperature, forming a hard, crosslinked polymer via chemical reaction and solvent or water evaporation. This makes maintenance painting on site and use in steel fabrication shops possible, since elevated temperatures are not required to cure the coating. Because of the fluoropolymer portion of the polymer, FEVE based coatings offer outstanding weatherability and long-term corrosion resistance when compared to conventional topcoats. PERFORMANCE OF FEVE-BASED FLUOROPOLYMER COATINGS Weatherability of FEVE Coatings(2) Two types of weathering tests are run on coatings: accelerated weathering and natural weathering. These are discussed below. Both types of tests monitor gloss retention and sometimes color change as proxies for coating degradation over time. Both gloss and color are easy to measure. Accelerated Weathering Test Results Accelerated weathering tests are commonly used in the coatings industry, mainly due to the long time periods required for natural weathering tests. These tests are hard to correlate with natural weathering. However, they are useful for comparative testing of different coating systems to determine relative performance. When results are compiled from several different accelerated weathering and natural weathering tests, a picture of the long-term performance of a coating system can emerge. QUV-A Test, ASTM D4587 In the QUV-A test, a coating is exposed to a single wavelength of UV light at 340 nm. The coating is exposed to moisture at regular intervals. Gloss retention is measured using ASTM D523. Results are reported as the percentage of gloss retained after hours of exposure and are shown below for four topcoats: a fluoropolymer, an acrylic polyurethane, a polyester polyurethane, and a polysiloxane. The higher the gloss retention, the lower the amount of degradation and therefore the longer predicted life of the coating. Figure 1 clearly shows the improvement in gloss retention of the fluorinated topcoat.

Figure 1. Gloss Retention in QUV-A Test(2)

EMMAQUA Test, ASTM G90 The QUV-A test exposes coatings one wavelength of light. However, natural sunlight is a continuous spectrum, not a single wavelength. The EMMAQUA (Equatorial Mount with Mirrors for Acceleration with Water, ASTM G90) test uses mirrors to focus natural sunlight onto the

020406080

100120

Glo

ss R

eten

tion,

%

Hours of QUV-A Exposure

Fluorourethane

Polyester Urethane

Acrylic Urethane

Siloxane

surface of coated panels. As in the other accelerated weathering methods, the panels are sprayed periodically with water to simulate rainfall. Unlike most other accelerated weathering methods, EMMAQUA exposes the coated panels to all wavelengths of natural sunlight, theoretically yielding results closer to long term natural exposure. The results of the EMMAQUA test are reported in terms of the total amount of energy per unit area to which the coatings are exposed. Figure 2 below shows EMMAQUA test results for an FEVE coating, a PVDF coating, and an acrylic urethane topcoat. As in other accelerated weathering tests, the fluorinated coating outperforms the competitive materials.

Figure 2. EMMAQUA Test Results(2)

Natural Weathering Test Results Natural weathering of coatings is the preferred method to gauge coating performance. The drawback to natural weathering tests is the long amount of time required to get results. This is especially true of fluoropolymer coatings, which have expected lives of 30 years or more. Natural weathering tests are often run in areas where exposure to UV radiation and corrosion initiators is highest to determine coating performance under the worst possible circumstances. South Florida in the U. S. near the ocean is a common location for natural weathering test sites. Since it would be impossible to obtain complete natural weathering test results for a fluoropolymer coating prior to commercialization, usually some combination of accelerated and natural weathering is performed. Exterior weathering is done using ASTM G7, “Standard Practice for Atmospheric Environmental Exposure Testing of Nonmetallic Materials.” Figure 3 below shows weathering of a clear and a pigmented FEVE topcoat in South Florida.

Figure 3. South Florida Weathering Results(2)

0102030405060708090

100

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800

Glo

ss R

eten

tion,

%

Radiant Energy, mJ/m2

FEVEPVDFPolyurethane

Corrosion Resistance of FEVE Coatings Accelerated tests are also used in determining corrosion resistance of bridge coating systems. This is due to the long intervals between repainting that are typical in the U. S. bridge market. Because FEVE topcoats have a much longer life than conventional coatings, they should aid in preventing corrosion over time. Test results from several different corrosion methods are given below. Corrosion Resistance Test Results Salt Fog Test, ASTM B117. The ASTM B-117 Salt Fog Corrosion Test exposes scribed coated panels to a 5% salt solution over a period of time, in this case 2,000 hours. Corrosion is measured by the amount of rust in the scribe and under the coating adjacent to the scribe as well as by blisters formed by corrosion products. ASTM D1654 describes how the scribe is made and how the results of the B117 exposure test should be reported. Using Method 1 of this test, the scribe was scraped with a spatula after exposure, then the amount of creepage noted. The rating is from 0 to 10 where 10 means zero creepage. In this case, fluorourethane, polysiloxane, and polyurethane topcoats were applied over a 3-mil epoxy primer on smooth steel. Results from a comparison of a fluorourethane with a polyurethane and polysiloxane topcoats are given below in Figure 4(2).

Figure 4. Salt Fog Corrosion Test Results

Left: Polyurethane Right: Fluorourethane

Left: Polysiloxane Right: Fluorourethane

The photos in Figure 4 show the difference in corrosion protection visually. In a more typical test, the creepage from the scribe under the coating is measured. Table 1 below shows these results. The higher the creepage, the lower the creep rating. A rating of 10 is considered to indicate no creepage under the coating.

Table 1. Salt Fog Corrosion Test Results for Creepage

Coating Type Dry Film Thickness, µm Creep, mm Creep Rating (ASTM B1654)

Fluorourethane Clear 53 5 5 Fluorourethane White 38 3 5

Polysiloxane Clear 50 4 5 Polysiloxane White 53 6 4 Polyurethane White 65 7 3

Cyclic Prohesion Test, ASTM D5894 The Cyclic Prohesion Test is an alternative to the Salt Fog Test discussed above. It is winning acceptance in the bridge market because it is believed to more accurately reflect corrosion in the real world. The salt solution used in the test is 0.05% sodium chloride and 0.35% ammonium sulfate. In the test chamber, coated panels are subjected to a UV/condensation exposure and a salt fog/dry exposure cycle. The test is run for a total of 5,040 hours. Gloss retention and scribe creep are reported. Two and three coat systems are tested. The use of two coat systems can reduce coating application time. Table 2 below shows results comparing two and three coat systems(2).

Table 2. Cyclic Prohesion Test Results Two Coat Systems

Coating Type 60⁰ Gloss Retention (%)

Max. Scribe Creep (mm)

Avg. Scribe Creep

(mm) Primer Organic Zinc

Epoxy NA NA

Topcoats Polyurethane 35.6 10 1

Epoxy Polysiloxane 52.2 12 1.2

Fluorourethane 73.2 8 0.8

Three Coat Systems

Coating Type 60⁰ Gloss Retention (%)

Max. Scribe Creep (mm)

Avg. Scribe Creep (mm)

Primer Organic Zinc Epoxy NA NA -

Midcoat Polyamide Epoxy NA NA - Topcoats Polyurethane 54.3 8 0.8

Epoxy Polysiloxane 72.0 12 1.2

Fluorourethane 91.0 8 0.8

In the Cyclic Prohesion Test, two items are of interest: Maximum and average scribe creep and 60o gloss retention. A maximum scribe creep reading of 8 or less is desirable. For an organic zinc primer, average

creep of <4 mm is acceptable. Gloss retention obtained with the fluorinated coating is significantly higher than that obtained with the other two topcoats, indicating superior weatherability. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) EIS allows quantitative determination of coating properties without affecting the coating, and enables detection of small changes in coating behavior in a short time period. Organic coatings initially have a high electrical resistance through the coating. As coatings age, the interconnecting porosity in the coating becomes saturated with water, chloride, oxygen and other corrosion initiators(3). The metal surface is then exposed to corrosion. In this version of the test, the initial impedance of each coating type is measured. Then the coatings are weathered in the SWOM test (Sunshine Weatherometer, an accelerated weathering test). The SWOM test uses a carbon arc light source, which generates a spectrum similar to sunlight but with higher intensity at 350-400 nm. The coated panels are then placed in the salt fog corrosion test. The change in impedance in 100 ohms/cm² is measured for each coating system. The smaller the change in initial impedance, the better the corrosion resistance of the coating system. Figure 5 below shows a graphical representation of the results of the EIS test.

Figure 5. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy Test Results

The zero impedance reading after exposure for the alkyd coating (purple line) indicates that the coating has been destroyed during the course of the test. The intermediate readings for the polyurethane and the chlorinated rubber indicate some degradation. The impedance for the fluorinated topcoat indicates very little change in impedance over time, suggesting that that topcoat retains its initial properties for long periods of weathering. According to some sources, coatings with an impedance of >108 Ohms·cm2 provide excellent corrosion protection, while those with <106 Ohms·cm2 are said to provide poor corrosion protection(4). BRIDGE COATING CASE STUDIES FROM JAPAN(5) Tokiwa Bridge, Hiroshima, Japan The Tokiwa Bridge is in a mountainous area near Hiroshima, Japan. Road salt for snow and ice control is common, leading to highly corrosive conditions. The bridge was painted with an organic zinc rich primer, an epoxy middle coat, and a fluorinated urethane topcoat in 1986. The condition of the bridge was monitored over the next 30 years by Japanese road authorities and photos taken. Gloss and color were also measured. Photos and information are shown below in Figure 6 and in Table 3.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 SWOM,1000 hrs.

SaltSpray,

500 hrs.

SaltSpray,

1000 hrs.

Impe

danc

e, 1

00M

ohm

s·Cm

2

FEVE

Polyurethane

ChlorinatedRubberAlkyd

Figure 6. Photos of Tokiwa Bridge Over 30 Years

1993

2008

2016

Table 3. Gloss and Color Retention for the Tokiwa Bridge After 30 Years

Gloss and

Color Change Initial

Gloss 2008 Gloss 2016 Gloss 2008 Color

Change Before Wiping 60o Gloss 75.2 66.2 52.7 ΔE=3.5

Gloss Retention NA 88.0% 70.1% After Wiping 60o Gloss 75.2 77.6 73.2 ΔE=2.3

Gloss Retention NA 103.2% 97.3% The red coating had excellent gloss and color retention over the thirty-year period. The paint remains on the bridge today. Daiichi Mukoyama Bridge, Near Hiroshima, Japan The coating system on the Daiichi Mukoyama Bridge was applied in 1986. The bridge, like the previous one, is in a mountainous area where road salt is used for deicing in the winter. It too was monitored over the last 30 years, and gloss retention measured. Results are shown below in Table 4 and Figure 8.

Table 4. Gloss Retention After 30 Years for the Daiichi Mukoyama Bridge

Gloss and Color Change

Initial Gloss 2008 Gloss 2016 Gloss

Before Wiping 60o Gloss 52.4 46.5 28.3 Gloss

Retention NA 88.7 54.0%

After Wiping 60o Gloss 52.4 49.9 38.7 Gloss

Retention NA 95.2% 73.8%

Figure 7. Photos of Daiichi Mukoyama Bridge over 30 Years.

No corrosion or degradation of coating

No chalking

The lack of chalking on the fluorourethane topcoat after 30 years indicates that the degradation of the coating by sunlight, corrosive initiators like chloride and water, and other elements is minimal. The lack of corrosion on areas like flanges is also notable. RAIL BRIDGE PROJECTS Healy Street Station Bridge (Chicago, IL) The Healy Street Station Bridge is owned by METRA, a commuter railroad in the Chicago area. The railroad operates 242 stations on 11 different rail lines. METRA is the fourth busiest commuter rail system in the US and is the largest outside the New York City area. METRA owns its rolling stock and is responsible for all stations along with the respective municipalities. METRA’s operating arm, the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, operates seven of the lines, while Union Pacific and BNSF operate the other four(6). In 2017, METRA began a project to renovate the Healy Station on the Milwaukee North Line. The $7.3 million project involved removal of existing infrastructure and construction of new platforms, shelters, lighting, and storm sewers. The project included painting and waterproofing the adjoining rail bridge over Fullerton Avenue. It was completed in 2018(7).

The METRA specification calls for surface preparation in accord with SSPC SP-6, “Commercial Blast Cleaning Finish” with a final angular anchor profile of 37 µm (1.5 mils). The surface was cleaned free of grease, oil, rust, and other contaminants. A 3-coat system was applied: An organic zinc-rich primer at a dry film thickness (dft) of 75-125 µm (3-5 mils), an aliphatic polyurethane middle coat at a dft of 75-150 µm (3-6 mils), and a fluorinated urethane topcoat at 50-75 µm (2-3 mils). The coatings were applied at temperatures ranging from 2o C to 33o C(8). Photos of the repainted bridge are shown below in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Healy Station Bridge, Chicago, IL

Other Rail Bridges Fluorinated topcoats have been used on more than 40 rail bridge projects primarily in the Far East over the last 30 years. These include commuter, freight, and high-speed rail bridges. Photos of several of these are shown below in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Rail Bridges from the Far East

Yeongjong Grand Bridge

Inchon, South Korea

Tone River Bridge Near Tokyo, Japan

Hiroshima Monorail Hiroshima, Japan

North Bisan Bridge

Sakaide, Japan

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS FOR FEVE COATINGS(2) Life cycle analysis offers insight into the actual cost of a coating system to the asset owner, in this case the owner of a bridge. Life cycle cost considers not only the cost of the coating system, but costs related to the coating project as a whole. Such costs include labor, surface preparation, staging costs, rigging and containment, and travel. In general, these costs that are unrelated to the cost of the coating system or its application predominate and can account for more than 90% of the cost of repainting a bridge. A life cycle cost study using labor and material costs averaged over several bridge projects in Japan was conducted. Results are discussed below.

The cost per m2 of two topcoats is shown below in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparative Topcoat Cost

Topcoat Type Topcoat Thickness, µm Topcoat Cost, $/µm Polyurethane 55 $4.08

Fluoropolymer Topcoat 55 $12.01 The fluorinated urethane topcoat costs almost three times the cost of the polyurethane. Based on only these costs, the polyurethane would seem to offer a substantial price advantage over the fluorinated topcoat. However, all costs associated with the recoating project must be included to get a clear picture of the true outlay for the project. These costs along with the life cycle analysis are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Applied Coating System Costs and Life Cycle Analysis

Coating System Costs Polyurethane Fluoropolymer Topcoat Total Painting Project Costs,

$/m2 $85.65 $93.87

Estimated Coating Life, Years 18 30 60 Total Applied Coating System

Cost, $/m2/Year $4.76 $3.13 $1.56

Cost Ratio 100 66 33 The coating systems are each three coats: a zinc-rich primer, epoxy middle coat plus topcoat. The cost of the primer and middle coat are the same for both coating systems, so the only difference in coating cost is driven by which topcoat is used. Other recoating project costs are the same for each coating system. When all these costs are considered, the premium paid for the fluorinated topcoat is only about 10%. The true cost of the coating system is given in the third row of Table 6, when the estimated coating life is considered. Once that is done, the FEVE coating system has a 33% advantage over the polyurethane if a 30-year life is assumed; a 66% advantage if 60-year life is used. CONCLUSIONS Accelerated and real time weathering and corrosion testing, as well as experience in the field, show that fluoropolymer coating systems offer improved performance over conventional coating systems. In addition, they offer life cycle cost advantages reducing the need for maintenance painting over the life of the structure. This not only reduces the costs associated with repainting, but also traffic delays and other social costs. There is substantial evidence that FEVE coating systems offer good performance for 60 years, providing the best match between the life of the coating and the life of the bridge. REFERENCES

(1) HistoricBridges.org website, Blue Bridge, Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad Bridge, 2015. (2) Darden, Winn, World Steel Bridge Symposium, “Toward a 100-Year Bridge Coating System:

Bridge Topcoats in Japan,” Baltimore, MD, April 11-13, 2018. (3) O’Donoghue, Mike, Garrett, Ron, Datta, Vijay, Roberts, Peter, ICI Devoe Coatings, Aben,

Terry, Powertech Laboratories Inc., “Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy: Testing Coatings for Rapid Immersion Service,” Materials Performance, 42, September 2003, pp. 36-41.

(4) Murray, J. N., “Electrochemical Test Methods for Evaluating Organic Coatings on Metals: An Update, Part III, Multiple Test Parameter Measurements,” Progress on Organic Coatings 31 (1977), pp. 225-391.

(5) Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport, Hiroshima National Highway Office, Chugoku-Shikoku Regional Development Bureau, “Tracking Report on the Evaluation of Fluorine Resin Coatings,” December 2016.

(6) Wikipedia, “Metra,” Revised May 2019.

(7) Wisniewski, Mary “Metra Starts $7.3 Million Renovation at the Station Near the 606,” Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2017.

(8) Metra, “General Conditions and Specifications for Healy Station and Bridge Improvements,” Section 09960, Prepared by Muller & Muller, Sept. 11, 2014.

Long Life Coatings for Steel Bridges

Winn Darden, AGC Chemicals Americaswinn.darden@us.agc.comwww.lumiflonusa.com

Presentation Overview• Overview of Conventional and Fluoropolymer

Topcoats• Weatherability of Fluoropolymer Topcoats

• Accelerated weathering• Natural weathering

• Corrosion Resistance of Fluoropolymer Topcoats• Life Cycle Cost Analysis• Case Studies

Topcoat Overview• Conventional Coating Systems

• Zinc rich primer, epoxy, and polyurethane topcoat• Good corrosion protection• Topcoat begins to chalk and change appearance

quickly• Fluoropolymer Coating Systems

• Zinc rich primer, epoxy, and fluoropolymer topcoat• FEVE polymer technology• Developed in the early 1980’s; in wide use by the

1990’s• FEVE topcoats withstand UV exposure more than 2-3

times longer than conventional coatings.

FEVE Fluoropolymer StructureFluoroethylene (FE) segments: Durability Vinyl ether (VE) segments: Gloss, hardness, solubility, flexibility and the ability to crosslink

Advantages of FEVE Topcoats• Excellent weatherability (30+ year topcoat life)• Superior gloss and color retention• Good corrosion resistance• Superior resistance to chalking• Shop or field applied (new construction and maintenance)• Uses standard painting equipment & application methods• Formulated to meet all air quality regulations• Resistant to airborne chemicals and acid rain• Resistant to cleaning solvents used to remove graffiti

Weatherability of FEVE Topcoats• Accelerated Weathering Tests

• Short time frame for results• Limitations in accurately simulating real environment• Used as screening tool and comparing coatings

• Real Time Weathering Tests• Accurate results• Very time consuming: up to 20 years to complete• Often done in harsh conditions, e.g. South Florida

• Use Gloss Retention as Measurement

Accelerated Weathering: QUV-A

0102030405060708090

100110

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Glo

ss R

eten

tion

(%)

Hours of QUV Exposure (UVA-340 Bulbs)

FEVE Coating

Polysiloxane Coating

Acrylic UrethaneCoating

Accelerated Weathering: EMMAQUA

0102030405060708090

100110

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200

Glo

ss R

eten

tion

(%)

Radiant Energy (MJ/m²)

FEVE coating

PVDF coating

Acrylic Urethanecoating

Real Time Weathering: South Florida

0102030405060708090

100110

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Glo

ss re

tent

ion

(%)

Years of ExposureSouth Florida

FEVE Yellow CoatingFEVE Clearcoat

Real Time Weathering: ChalkingChalking (coating degradation by UV light and corrosives) is

rated from 0-10, with 10 being no chalking and 0 being severe chalking over the entire coating surface.

Corrosion Resistance of FEVE Topcoats

• Corrosion Resistance Drives Use of Coatings on Steel Bridges

• Primary corrosion resistance provided by zinc primer• Topcoat serves to block corrosion initiators like oxygen,

water, and chloride• Fluorinated topcoats have low degradation rates

maintaining corrosion protection over longer periods of time

Corrosion Resistance: ASTM B117 Salt Fog Test

Left: Polysiloxane Left: PolyurethaneRight: FEVE Right: FEVE

Corrosion Resistance: ASTM D5894, Cyclic Prohesion Test

2 Coat SystemMax. scribe creep < 8 3 Coat SystemAvg. scribe creep < 4

Corrosion Resistance: Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) Test

EIS: Sets up corrosion cell on coated steel panel. Coating degrades, corrosion initiators move through the degraded coating setting up new cells. The difference in impedance is measured.

Corrosion Resistance: Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) Test

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 SWOM,1000 hrs.

SaltSpray,

500 hrs.

SaltSpray,

1000 hrs.

Impe

danc

e, 1

00M

ohm

s/Sq

. Cm

.

FEVE

Polyurethane

ChlorinatedRubberAlkyd

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Life Cycle Cost: Bridge Painting Activities

2010/11 DOT Bridge Paint Program Work Activity Breakdown

27%

13%39%

11%10%

Rigging andContainmentSurfacePreparationMisc. PaintActivitiesTravel

PaintApplication

Life Cycle Costs: FEVE vs. Competition

Case Study: Tokiwa Bridge, Hiroshima, Japan

1993 2008 2016

Case Study: Daiichi Mukoyama Bridge, Hiroshima, Japan

30 Years: No corrosion or degradation.No chalking.

Case Study: Healy Station Bridge, Chicago, IL

• Metra Bridge on Milwaukee North Line• $7.3M Project to Renovate Healy Station

• New platforms, shelters, lighting, storm sewers• Painting and waterproofing bridge over Fullerton Ave.

• SSPC SP-6 commercial blast with 37 µm profile• 3 coat system: OZ primer (75-125 µm), polyurethane middle

coat (75-150 µm), FEVE topcoat (50-75 µm)• Project completed late 2018

Case Study: Healy Station Bridge, Chicago, IL

Other Rail Bridge Projects

Yeongjong Grand Bridge Tone River Bridge North Bisan BridgeInchon, South Korea Near Tokyo, Japan Sakaide, Japan

Hiroshima MetroHiroshima, Japan

Conclusions

• Based on laboratory and real time testing, FEVE coatings provide excellent weathering and corrosion resistance

• Expected topcoat life of 30-60 years can be achieved.• Substantial reduction in maintenance painting• Life cycle cost reduction vs. conventional coatings

QUESTIONS

Long Life Coatings for Steel Bridges

Winn Darden, AGC Chemicals Americaswinn.darden@us.agc.comwww.lumiflonusa.com