The Effect of Peak Count

or Surface Roughness
on Coating Performance
Putting a long-held
assumption about
surface profile to the
test, the authors
show this: profile
peak count can be
measured, it can be
controlled, and it does
make a difference in
coating performance.

A rougher surface has better adhesion

because the area between substrate and
coating is increased. In addition, as the
number of peaks increases, the steepness
of the peaks increases, resulting in dis-
bonding forces that are more shear and
less tension.
To see if we can go beyond anecdotal
evidence about the effect of peak count
on coating performance, we conducted
carefully controlled accelerated expo-
By Hugh J. Roper, Wheelabrator Abrasives; sure tests using six coatings. Coating per-
Raymond E.F. Weaver, SSPC; Joseph H. Brandon, NAVFAC formance was evaluated using pull-off
adhesion tests, and scribe undercutting
Coating adhesion was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4541 using a Type III GM 1, measurements. The only profile variable
self-aligning tester. Courtesy of Elcometer was peak count (number of peaks per
unit length). All panel preparation, expo-

I
t is well accepted in the protective or aluminum thermal spray coating. In sure tests, and data collection were con-
coatings industry that coating per- the present study, the profile height was ducted by Hugh Roper or by participat-
formance is related to the profile held constant and the peak count, or ing coating company technicians under
height of a steel substrate. Coating roughness, was varied. Coating perfor- his direct supervision. This article will
specifications can include a minimum mance was then measured by pull-off show that surface roughness, as deter-
and/or a maximum profile measured in adhesion and scribe undercutting after mined by the number of peaks per unit
accordance with ASTM D 4417, “Test exposure in accelerated test environ- length, has a measurable impact on adhe-
Methods for Measurement of Surface ments. sion and scribe undercutting resistance.
Profile of Blast Cleaned Steel,” usually We have accumulated much anecdotal For a full evaluation of the effect of
using a comparator disk or replica tape. evidence over years of working with roughness, there must be a method to
Some specifiers require an angular pro- abrasives. A rule of thumb for coating measure it objectively and quantitatively.
file, i.e., steel grit rather than steel shot adhesion is that the higher the peak Fortunately, portable stylus instruments
must be used for blast cleaning. This is count, the better the adhesion, provided exist for this specific task. Currently, at
certainly the case when applying a zinc the coating completely wets the surface. least four companies make this type

52 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com

instrument. New laser technology is qualitatively described then is quantified
being developed to replace the mechani- in this report.
cal stylus and possibly enhance the char- Measuring Profile
acterization of blast cleaned surfaces. Three parameters (Rmax, Rt, and Pc)
In addition to simply measuring peak were used to describe the blast profile,
count, there must be a means to control and all were measured with a
it. By adjusting particle size, shape, and Perthometer M4Pi manufactured by
impact velocity, the peak count can be Mahr Federal. A fourth parameter, Rz
controlled independently from profile (average maximum peak height), is
height. In summary, peak count can be Profile was measured with a portable stylus.
included in an ASTM test method under
measured, it can be controlled, and it Courtesy of Mahr Federal development but was not considered in
makes a difference in coating perfor- this study. The Perthometer operates by
mance. could not completely describe a blast drawing a stylus at constant speed
cleaned surface for painting. Scanning across a 0.22-inch (5.6-mm) length of the
Characterization and Measurement electron microscope (SEM) images clear- surface. The diamond point has a diame-
of Surface Profile Parameters ly revealed that steel shot, steel grit, and ter of 0.2 mil (5 µm). The length of travel
As early as 1974 Keane et al.1 recog- nonmetallic abrasives each produce very of the stylus is divided into 7 equal seg-
nized that peak-to-valley distance alone different surface textures. What was ments. The first and the last segments

Key Words
Sampling Length: The length of a straight line trace of seven segments that is representative of the surface whose roughness is to be evaluat-
ed.1 The sampling length is the total length of travel of the stylus during one trace, 0.22 inch (5.6 mm).
Evaluation Length: Consists of five segments, taken from the sampling length after discarding the first and the last segments, used for assess-
ing the profile under evaluation.2 The evaluation length is the part of the stylus travel that is used in computing the surface profile parameters.
It is five-sevenths of the length of travel of the stylus (5/7 · 0.22 = 0.16 inch or 4.0 mm).
Sampling Segment: One fifth of the evaluation length or one seventh of the length of travel of the stylus (1/7 · 0.22 = 0.031 inch or 31 mils or
0.8 mm).3
Rmax: The largest peak to valley measurement in the five evaluation segments of the sampling length.4 The distance from the highest peak to
the lowest valley within each sampling segment is measured. The largest of these five peak/valley distances is recorded as Rmax.
Rt: The maximum peak to lowest valley measurement in the evaluation length.5 Unlike Rmax, when measuring Rt, it is not necessary for the
highest peak and the lowest valley to lie in the same sampling segment.
Mean Line: A line half way between the highest peak and the lowest valley in the evaluation length and centered between the two lines defining
the deadband.
Deadband: That distance above and below the mean line that a continuous trace line must cross in both directions (up and down) to count as a
single peak. The deadband disregards small, spurious peaks due to noise.6 The deadband width is usually adjusted to fall in the range from
0.04 to 0.05 mils (1.0 to 1.25 µm). The deadband was adjusted to 0.06 mils (1.5 µm) in this study to optimize noise reduction and repeatability.
Pc–Peak Count: The number of peak/valley pairs per unit distance extending outside a “deadband” centered on the mean line. The width of a
peak/valley pair is defined by the distance between crossings of the deadband region.7 Because the deadband width is so small compared to
the size of the peaks and valleys encountered in coatings work, the deadband region is essentially the mean line. For all practical purposes, a
peak would be registered if a continuous trace starts below the mean line, goes above it, and then below it.

1. Definitions are taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned
Metal Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.” Sampling length is defined as “Traversing Length” in ASME B46.1-2002.
2. Taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal
Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.”
3. The five sampling segments within the evaluation length are defined as “Sampling Lengths” in ASME B46.1-2002.
4. Taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal
Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.” Rmax is also called “Maximum roughness Depth” in ASME B46.1-2002.
5. Taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal
Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.” Rt is also called “Maximum Height of the Profile” in ASME B46.1-2002.
6. Taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal
Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.”
7. Taken from a draft ASTM document “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Surface Roughness of Abrasive Blast Cleaned Metal
Surfaces Using a Portable Stylus Instrument.” Pc is also called “Peak Density” in ASME B46.1-2002 and “Peaks Per Inch Count” in SAE J911.

www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 53

 axis of the panel. A fifth trace was made in
the center of the panel with the stylus
movement perpendicular to the other
traces. Measurements made on the backs
were essentially the same as those made on
the fronts. Profile parameter measure-
ments were very consistent from one panel
to the next and from one batch to the next.
The blast cleaning process was very tightly
controlled for each of the three blasting
conditions, as is evidenced by the uniformi-
ty of the data.

Test Details
The Substrate
All panels were cut from 4-inch-wide (10-
• The vertical scale is distorted because for abrasive blast cleaned steel, the deadband is typically 0.04 to 0.05 mils (1 centimeter-wide) bar stock that came from
to 1.25 µm) while the R value is typically 2 to 4 mils (50 to 100 µm). The deadband for the instrument used in this the same heat of low carbon structural
study was set at 0.060 mils (1.5 µm). At 100 peaks per inch (40 peaks/cm), the average distance between peaks is 10
steel. Final panel dimensions were 4 x 6 x
mils (250 µm). 1
• The distance from the highest peak to the lowest valley in the first segment of the evaluation length is R1; the dis- ⁄4 inch (10 x 15 x 0.6 cm). All steel was
tance from the highest peak to the lowest valley in the second segment is R2; and so on. The largest of R1 to R5 is rust condition A (intact mill scale). No oils
defined as Rmax. were used in rolling or cutting the steel. All
• The average value of R1 to R5 is defined as Rz.
• Rt is the distance from the top of the highest peak in the evaluation length to the lowest valley in the evaluation
sharp edges were rounded by grinding. A
length. The highest peak and the lowest valley do not hole was drilled in the center top of each
have to lie in the same sampling segment. panel so they could be hung on a hook dur-
• The peak count, Pc, expressed as peaks per inch (peaks per centimeter), is computed from the number of peaks
ing paint application and drying. Each
counted in the evaluation length (five evaluation
segments). The “peak” to the left of peak #2 is not counted as a peak since it does not cross the deadband. panel was identified by notches cut into the
• When measuring Rmax, Rz, and Rt, “distance” is measured perpendicular to the mean line as shown in the figure. top (identifying the peak count range) and
•The mean line is half way between the highest peak and the lowest valley in the evaluation length and is centered
the edge (identifying the number).
between the two lines defining the dead band.

Figure 1: Schematic illustrating the profile parameters Surface Preparation

All panels were blast cleaned with a GB
are used only to set the internal calibration of the instrument. (50-55 Rockwell C) steel grit operating mix in a wheel machine
Data from the middle 5 segments are used by the internal at the Wheelabrator Abrasives test facility. The unit is a com-
software to compute the profile parameters. Other stylus mercial machine run under normal operating conditions, not
instruments operate in a similar fashion. special laboratory conditions. The degree of cleaning was
The stylus (Type 150) used in this study has a maximum SSPC-SP 10, Near-White Blast Cleaning. The target profile
profile height range of 6 mils (150 µm). Although the height (Rmax) was 2.5 mils (63 µm) for all panels. After being
Perthometer computes to the nearest 0.001 mil (0.04 µm), the blast cleaned, the panels were sorted, wrapped in VPI paper,
data in this report are often rounded to a hundredth of a mil. and sealed in a plastic bag for distribution.
Terms used in this article are defined in the box titled “Key To keep the profile height constant and change the peak
Words”. Some parameters are illustrated in Fig 1. count density, three different controlled steel grit operating
Each trace yields a printout with the value for each of these mixes of standard SAE abrasive sizes were used. Abrasive
parameters. Five traces were made on each 4 x 6 inch (10 x velocity (wheel speed) was adjusted to maintain the targeted
15 cm) test panel. One trace was made in each corner, one profile depth. There were three different ranges of peak
inch from the edge, with the stylus moving parallel to the long count—high, medium, and low. Small size grit will give many
54 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com
Table 1: List of coatings used
Coating Description Color Nominal DFT
Code mils micrometers
A Polyurethane hybrid gray 20 500
B Polyurethane 15 (modified) black 20 500
the effect of surface profile parameters on coating performance.
C Polyurethane 30 (modified) white 20 500
There is no a priori reason to believe that the effect of peak
D Epoxy gray 7 175
count would be the same for all generic classes of coatings.
E Phenolic high temperature Similarly, all formulations of a generic coating type may not
for immersion gray 15 375
necessarily exhibit the same response to peak count variations.
F Phenolic cream 13 325 The six coatings used in this study are described in Table 1.
Coatings A, B, and C are from one manufacturer; Coating D from another
manufacturer; and Coatings E and F from a third manufacturer.
Paint Application
Each coating was applied at its manufacturer’s facility by in-
Table 2: Number of test panels in each exposure
house personnel. Blast cleaned panels were removed from the
environment and nominal exposure times for each test
plastic bag, unwrapped, and
Coating Exposure No. of Nominal times(1) (h) when panels were tested immersed in methyl ethyl ketone
Code Panels @ Cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 (MEK) for 24 hours. The solvent
A salt spray(2) 6 x x x x x x was visually inspected for oil and
B salt spray(2) 6 x x x x x x other contamination. Some of the
C salt spray(2) 6 x x x x x x MEK was poured off before the
D Prohesion/UV-con (3) 6 x x x x x x panels were removed from the
solvent. Panels were hung on
E(4) salt spray(2) 6 x x x x
hooks in the spray booth and
salt water immersion 3 x x x x
allowed to air dry.
F(4) salt spray(2) 6 x x x x The panels were randomly
salt water immersion 3 x x x x checked for micronic backside
There were one or two panels for each coating - peak count - environment combination. After testing, the same panel was re-exposed
contamination, i.e., minute dust
for further exposure and testing. particles (metallic and nonmetal-
(1) Exact evaluation times were determined by availability of the principal investigator and the testing laboratory. lic) that remain on the panels
(2) ASTM B 117, Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus
(3) ASTM D 5894, Practice for Cyclic Corrosion /UV Exposure of Painted Metal, (Alternating Exposures in Fog/Dry Cabinet and after they are blown down with
a UV/Condensation Cabinet) air or vacuum cleaned. This type
(4) For Coatings E and F, pull-off data at cure were taken from replicate panels that were not subsequently exposed. Panels
in immersion were not scribed. of contamination is referred to as
“backside” because when an
peaks, but the velocity must be increased to achieve the adhesion pull test is performed, the particles are visible on the
desired profile height. Large sized abrasive at lower velocity backside of the coating. Scotch Magic Tape #810 from 3M
will give fewer peaks with the same profile height. Both sides was pressed onto the panels. After removal, the tape was
of each panel were prepared the same. mounted on a bright white surface where contamination
In air blast operations, the same profiling effects can be pro- picked up by the tape became visible using up to 200x magni-
duced by varying the abrasive size, air pressure, nozzle type, fication. This test (similar to ISO 8502-32) showed all test pan-
and flow rate and by consistently maintaining the appropriate els to be extremely clean.
blasting angle and the appropriate nozzle-to-workpiece dis- Both sides of all the panels were coated from the same mix.
tance. Based on field experience, the most effective blast The coating was cured in accordance with the manufacturer’s
angles for recyclable abrasives are between 55 and 70 recommendations.
degrees; for non-recyclable abrasives, the optimum blast angle
is 90 degrees. Exposures
All coatings were not exposed in all environments. Table 2
The Coatings lists the exposures chosen for each coating type. The most
The coating manufacturers (major companies) that participated common accelerated exposure environment was salt spray
in this study were granted anonymity because it was not the (ASTM B 117) with 5 percent sodium chloride. The two phe-
coatings that were to be compared to other coatings, but rather nolic systems were also exposed in aerated synthetic sea
www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 55
Table 3: Raw profile data for panels
with high peak count to be coated with paint system A

Table 3a: Rmax (largest peak to valley measurement)

Panel ID Rmax (mils)
1 2 3 4 5 Average water immersion. The epoxy system was exposed in a
prohesion/UV condensation cycle per ASTM D 5894.
1-1-A 2.578 2.490 2.170 2.248 2.404 2.378
Accelerated exposures were conducted by the coating
1-2-A 2.191 2.708 2.137 2.725 1.999 2.352
manufacturers. The principal investigator assisted each
1-3-A 2.370 2.208 2.674 1.995 2.655 2.380 technician with the panel evaluations.
1-4-A 2.526 2.230 2.177 2.114 2.669 2.343
1-5-A 2.314 2.213 2.263 2.786 2.289 2.373 Pull-Off Adhesion Tests
1-6-A 2.283 2.297 2.737 2.285 1.991 2.319 Pull-off adhesion testing was conducted in accordance
with ASTM D 4541 using a Type III GM 1, self-aligning
1-7-A 2.902 2.418 2.867 2.274 2.572 2.607
hydraulic tester from Elcometer. All pulls were done
1-8-A 2.614 2.719 2.169 2.102 2.623 2.445
with the same machine. Many pulls were done on each
sample standard deviation 0.257 Grand Average 2.400
test panel. The dollies were prepared by abrasive blast
standard deviation of the means 0.091
cleaning with steel grit to a minimum profile of 2 mils
Table 3b: Rt (maximum peak to lowest valley measurement) (50 microns), then thorough cleaning with MEK solvent.
They were attached to the test panels with LaPage’s
Panel ID Rt (mils)
steel-filled epoxy adhesive to which a very small
1 2 3 4 5 Average amount of #6 glass beads had been added to ensure an
1-1-A 2.731 2.945 2.375 2.360 2.404 2.563 even layer of glue under each dolly. There were very
1-2-A 2.418 2.796 2.137 2.725 1.999 2.415 few glue failures, and all glue failures were retested. If
1-3-A 2.489 2.293 2.674 2.246 2.655 2.471 bare steel was exposed at the pull-off site, it was
1-4-A 2.779 2.230 2.819 2.214 2.669 2.542 touched up with paint before the panel was re-exposed.
Nothing was done to sites with 100% cohesive failure,
1-5-A 2.354 2.213 2.263 2.786 2.347 2.393
and no rust appeared at these sites.
1-6-A 2.283 2.396 2.737 2.512 1.991 2.384
1-7-A 2.902 2.418 2.879 2.247 2.572 2.604 Scribe Undercutting Measurements
1-8-A 2.614 2.719 2.198 2.124 2.770 2.485 A 3-inch (75 mm) vertical scribe was centered on the
sample standard deviation 0.264 Grand Average 2.482 front of each test panel. The maximum undercutting at
standard deviation of the means 0.082 any point along the scribe was measured from the cen-
ter of the scribe.
Table 3c: Pc (peak count)
Panel ID Pc (peaks per inch) Surface Profile Data
1 2 3 4 5 Average Profile Parameters
1-1-A 125 119 131 144 146 133 At least five traces with the stylus instrument were
1-2-A 131 119 125 119 131 125 taken on each test panel. To show the consistency of the
1-3-A 156 126 144 119 109 131 data, Table 3 gives raw profile data for Rmax, Rt, and Pc
1-4-A 138 144 125 113 106 125
for panels coated with Paint A. Profile data for the other
panel groups is similar.
1-5-A 131 131 156 113 119 130
The value assigned to Rmax for a single panel is the
1-6-A 113 125 113 131 125 121 average of five traces. The average Rmax for these eight
1-7-A 119 138 138 136 138 134 panels is 2.4 mils (˜60 µm). The minimum value of Rmax
1-8-A 131 143 119 144 138 135 for any one panel was 2.3 (˜58 µm) and the maximum
sample standard deviation 12 Grand Average 129 was 2.6 (˜66 µm). Similarly, the values for Rt ranged from
standard deviation of the means 5
a low of 2.4 to a high of 2.6 with an average of 2.5 mils
(˜63 µm). One would expect Rt to be larger than Rmax
because the highest peak and the lowest valley used to
compute Rt do not need to lie in the same segment. The
56 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com
 lowest peak count (121) are within 6 percent of the average
(129). The standard deviation of all the traces was 12, which
means that if another trace was made, there is a 68 percent
probability that it would give a peak count of 129±12, or
between 117 and 141. The standard deviation of the means
was 5; so if another panel was measured by averaging five
Figure 2: Comparison of pull-off data for Coating A for panels with high, medium, and low traces, the average would have a 68 percent probability of
peak counts after exposure in salt spray. Each data point is the average of three pull-off falling within 129±5, or between 124 and 134 peaks per
readings. All pulls for the high and the medium peak count panels were cohesive failures
within the coating itself. All three pulls at 5000 hours for the low peak count panel failed at inch. Other panel sets were also very consistent.
the substrate, where about 50 percent was substrate failure and 50% was cohesive failure. There were 144 panels blast cleaned for this project, 48
with each of the three peak count ranges. The statistical data
Table 4: Summary of statistical data
attesting to the uniformity of the panels is given in Table 4.
on profile parameters for 144 panels
Of the 144 panels prepared for this study, 42 were exposed
Peak Count Rmax Rt Pc in an accelerated test, and six others were used for pull-off
Range mean s mean s mean s data at cure for Coatings E and F.
High 2.44 0.15 2.55 0.14 126 5 From the values of the surface profile parameters given in
Medium 2.52 0.15 2.67 0.13 101 5 Table 4, it is evident that the panel preparation was well con-
Low 2.51 0.13 2.68 0.15 56 4 trolled. It is also evident that profile height as measured by
s= standard deviation of the mean
Rmax or Rt is independent from peak count. The three panel
sets all have essentially the same Rmax and Rt but very dif-
Table 5a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating A ferent peak counts.
exposed in salt spray – average of 3 pulls
Pull-Off Adhesion and Scribe Undercutting
Panel Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
ID Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Data and Analysis
Coating A, Hybrid Polyurethane in Salt Spray
1-3-A High 3700 3367 2950 2617 2383 2217
Each coating group was tested independently. Three pull-off
2-3-A Medium 4500 3766 3333 2383 1983 1883
adhesion readings were made after full cure before any
3-3-A Low 4067 3300 2700 2333 1917 1550 accelerated exposure and at various intervals throughout
the exposure time of 5000 hours. The average of the three
1000 psi = 6.895 MPa
pulls for each panel with Coating A (hybrid polyurethane) is
Table 5b: Percentage of failure at the substrate given in Table 5a and the description of the mode of failure is
for Coating A exposed in salt spray – 3 pulls per panel given in Table 5b. Figure 2 is a plot of this data.
In order to show the level of consistency of the pull-off
Panel Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
ID Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 data, the value of each pull for Coating A is given in Table 6.
For exposures at 3000 hours and above, the trend is that
1-3-A High 0 0 0 0 0 0
the higher the peak count, the higher the pull-off strength.
2-3-A Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0
This is most pronounced at 5000 hours where the low peak
3-3-A Low 0 0 0 0-0-10 0-15-20 40-50-60 count surface partially failed at the steel/coating interface.
Prior to 5000 hours exposure, where adhesion failure is
0 = no substrate failure
Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the three pulls; almost all cohesive, the peak count is not a factor. The down-
all other failures were cohesive. ward slope of the lines in Figure 2 can be attributed to the
closeness of Rt and Rmax indicates a very uniform surface weakening of the internal strength of the coating as it
profile height. absorbs moisture and ages normally.
As with Rmax and Rt, the peak count value, Pc, assigned to The panels with Coating A were scribed and exposed in
a single panel is the average of five traces. The panel from this salt spray per ASTM B 117. Scribe results are given in Table
group with the highest peak count (135) and the one with the 7 and plotted in Figure 3. The maximum undercutting or
www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 57
 Table 6: Complete pull-off adhesion data in psi for Coating A
(polyurethane) panels exposed in salt spray
Exposure
Hours Pull 1 Pull 2 Pull 3 Average Range*
High Peak Count (Panel ID 1-3-A)
creep from the center of the scribe was measured in millime- @ cure 4100 3400 3600 3700 500
ters. There was no creep evident until 3000 hours exposure. 1000 3700 3100 3300 3367 400
Scribes on panels with high or medium peak count were
2000 3250 2700 2900 2950 550
essentially the same. The panel with low peak count exhibit-
ed the most undercutting. This result is expected since more 3000 2600 2450 2800 2617 350
peaks mean the coating has to disbond along a longer micro- 4000 2450 2300 2400 2383 150
scopic path to affect a visually noticeable creep. Although 5000 2250 2150 2250 2217 100
the low peak count panel displayed 75% more undercutting Medium Peak Count (Panel ID 2-3-A)
than the panels with higher peak counts at 5000 hours (3.5 @ cure 4700 5200 3600 4500 1400
versus 2 mm), if the length were measured microscopically
1000 4100 3900 3300 3767 800
along the metal surface up and down the peaks, the distances
2000 3600 3300 3100 3333 500
may be comparable.
3000 2100 2600 2450 2383 500
Coating B, Polyurethane in Salt Spray 4000 1800 2200 1950 1983 400
Coating B, a modified polyurethane, was also exposed in salt 5000 1750 2000 1900 1883 250
spray. The pull-off data are given in Tables 8a and 8b. The low Low Peak Count (Panel ID 3-3-A)
peak count surface performed worse than the other surfaces @ cure 4600 4000 3600 4067 1000
from early in the test. At 2000 hours and above, for Coating
1000 3300 3500 3100 3300 400
B, the lower the peak count, the lower the average pull-off
strength. The difference was very pronounced by 5000 2000 2550 2750 2800 2700 250
hours. There was not much difference in pull-off strength 3000 1800 2500 2700 2333 900
between the high and the medium peak count surfaces. 4000 2100 1900 1750 1917 350
Scribe undercutting data for Coating B are given in Table 5000 1700 1400 1550 1550 300
9. Peak count did not have an effect on scribe undercutting
until 4000 hours. The effect became more pronounced at * Difference between highest and lowest pull
1000 psi = 6.895 MPa
5000 hours. Higher peak counts retard scribe undercutting
for this modified polyurethane coating. 12a and 12b. Two sets of Coating D panels were exposed in a
prohesion/UV cycle per ASTM D 5894. At 2420 hours
Coating C, Polyurethane in Salt Spray exposure and beyond, the panels with the lowest peak count
Coating C, another modified polyurethane, was also exposed had the lowest pull-off strength. As exposure time increases
in salt spray. The pull-off data are given in Tables 10a and 10b. and as peak count decreases, there is definitely more failure
Unlike most of the other coatings tested in this study, the aver- at the steel/coating interface. The percent failure numbers
age pull-off strength of the medium peak count surface was are the average estimates of multiple observers.
consistently greater than that of the high peak count surface. With epoxy Coating D in the prohesion/UV cycle, scribe
Still, the panel with low peak count had by far the lowest pull undercutting data, given in Table 13, do not show an effect of
strength. The low peak count surface also showed the highest peak count until 2420 hours. The high and the medium peak
percentage of failure at the steel/coating interface. count surfaces are similar until 5560 hours, at which time
The scribe undercutting data for Coating C, Table 11, does there is a definite correlation between peak count and scribe
not show an effect of peak count until 2000 hours. A direct undercutting.
correlation between all three peak count levels and scribe
undercutting does not become evident until 4000 hours. This Coating E, Phenolic in Salt Spray
trend is more evident at 5000 hours. As expected, the high- and Salt Water Immersion
er the peak count, the less the scribe undercutting. Pull-off data for Coating E, a high-temperature phenolic,
exposed in salt spray, are given in Tables 14a and 14b. The
Coating D, Epoxy in Prohesion/UV pull-off strengths of the high and the medium peak count pan-
The pull-off data for Coating D, an epoxy, are given in Tables els were essentially the same. The low peak count panel had
58 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com
 Coating F, Phenolic in
Salt Spray and Salt Water Immersion
Pull-off data for Coating F, a phenolic, exposed in salt spray,
are given in Tables 17a and 17b. Pull-off values did not
appear to be a function of peak count. The only failure at
the steel/paint interface occurred with the low peak count
panel at the longest exposure time. Although scribe under-
Figure 3: Comparison of scribe undercutting data for Coating A for panels with high, medium,
and low peak counts after exposure in salt spray. cutting is greatest for the low peak count panel, it is only at
the longest exposure time that undercutting correlates
weaker pulls and exhibited substantial adhesion failure at the directly with peak count. Based on the fact that the other
steel/coating interface after extended salt spray exposure. coatings in this study often did not exhibit a correlation
Scribe undercutting data for Coating E is given in Table 15 with peak count until many hours of exposure, it is possible
and shows that undercutting increases as peak count that Coating F would need to be exposed for a much longer
decreases. For Coating E the undercutting was generally in time for similar trends to become evident.
the form of blistering at the scribe; hence, lower peak count Scribe undercutting data for Coating F are given in Table
correlated with larger blisters. 18. There was not much difference in scribe undercutting
The size of a blister is directly related to the adhesion between the high and the medium peak counts. However, at
strength between the coating and the underlying substrate. A the longest exposure, the high peak count surface had the
blister will continue to expand until the component of the least scribe undercutting. After 1000 hours, the low peak
force on the coating perpendicular to the surface at the point count surface definitely showed the most scribe undercut-
where the coating is attached is equal to the adhesion strength. ting.
Consider this analogy. A horizontal line between two poles Cracking (or checking) of the coating after 4222 hours in
supports a weight hung from the center of the line. The line the salt spray is directly related to peak count. The high peak
exerts a force pulling the poles together. If the line is allowed count panel had no evidence of checking or cracking, the
to sag and supports the same weight, the force on the poles is medium peak count panel had slight cracking with no rust,
much less. A blister may form rather quickly in immersion and the low peak count panel had definite cracking with
and then not grow for years. Adhesion strength determines scattered rusting.
the equilibrium size of the blister—the stronger the adhesion, Cracking (to the substrate) or checking is caused by inter-
the smaller the blister. nal stress in the coating caused by shrinking. Thermal expan-
The pull-off data for Coating E in salt water immersion are sion and contraction should be able to be discounted because
given in Tables 16a and 16b. The medium peak count panel the salt fog is not that warm and is held at constant tempera-
had the highest pull strength. However, after extended expo- ture. The only thermal cycling is when the panels cool to
sure, failure at the steel/paint interface increased as peak room temperature during the rating process. Clearly, the low
count decreased. This is the second instance in this study peak count surface had more cracking than the high peak
where the medium peak count surface had higher pull-off count surface.
strength than the high peak count surface, the other being A possible explanation of why cracking is dependent on
Coating C in salt spray. In both of these cases, the low peak peak count follows. As the coating tries to pull apart (i.e.,
count surface still had the weakest adhesion. crack), the “handles” grabbing the coating are the highest
A possible explanation why the medium peak count sur- peaks. With fewer peaks, the distance between anchor points
face has the largest pull-off strength is that the coating did increases. When the coating finally fractures, the gap will be
not completely wet the high peak count surface. It was large, hence, visible. If the peaks are close together, the frac-
known at the beginning of this project that Coatings E and F, ture will be microscopic and not readily visible. The width of
both phenolics, had less wetting capabilities than Coatings A the crack is proportional to the distance between the anchor
through D. When the peak count is very high, the valleys are points because the shrinkage is a percentage of the distance
very narrow. The effect of increased surface area due to high between two points on the coating. Adhesion to the sub-
peak count is negated by the lack of complete wetting. strate is so good that no flaking or disbondment occurs.
www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 59
Table 7: Maximum undercutting (mm) from center
of scribe for panels with Coating A exposed in salt spray
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1-5-A High 0 0 0 0.9 1.5 2
Pull-off data for Coating F in salt water immersion
2-5-A Medium 0 0 0 0.7 1.5 2
is given in Tables 19a and 19b. Peak count only
3-5-A Low 0 0 0 1.1 2 3.5
becomes a factor for the low peak count panel at the
longest exposure time. As with coating E in immer-
sion, the effect of peak count for Coating F may only
Table 8a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating B become prominent after many more hours of expo-
exposed in salt spray – average of 3 pulls sure. If there was incomplete wetting of the high peak
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray count surface, it is possible that with continued expo-
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 sure, the medium peak count surface will still have
1-3-B High 2000 2116 1967 1933 1833 1817 the best performance.
2-3-B Medium 2200 2166 1850 1750 1733 1667
Conclusions
3-3-B Low 2133 1700 1366 1250 1083 958
In this study a portable stylus instrument was able to
1000 psi = 6.895 MPa
objectively measure surface profile parameters. The
parameters corresponding to peak height, Rmax and
Rt, were indepen-
Table 8b: Percentage of failure at the substrate for Coating B exposed in salt spray – 3 pulls per panel
dent from the para-
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray meter for roughness
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 as measured by peak
1-3-B High 3 of 18 pulls showed from 5 to 10% substrate failure count, Pc. These
2-3-B Medium 4 of 15 pulls showed from 8 to 15% substrate failure 20-20-25 parameters are con-
3-3-B Low 13 of 18 pulls showed substrate failure; 10-15% early; up to 50% mid test 70 to 80 trollable using stan-
dard commercially
Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the three pulls; all other failures were cohesive.
available abrasives
in a standard type of wheel-blast machine. (Similar
control should be possible with air nozzles.) Data
Table 9: Maximum undercutting (mm) from the center showed that if profile height is kept constant, peak
of the scribe for Coating B exposed in salt spray count can affect the performance of a coating as mea-
sured by pull-off adhesion strength, scribe undercut-
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 ting, and in some cases cracking. The inference is that
once this relationship between peak count and paint
1-5-B High 0 0 0 2 2.5 3
performance is fully documented, it may behoove
2-5-B Medium 0 0 0 1.5 3.5 4.5
owners to specify a range for peak count as well as a
3-5-B Low 0 0 0 2 6 8 range for peak height.
A common thread woven through all this data is
that over time, the adhesive strength between the sub-
strate and the coating will become less than the cohe-
Table 10a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating C
sive strength within the coating itself. This point is
exposed in salt spray – average of 3 pulls
reached sooner on surfaces with a low peak count.
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray Data from the longest exposure for each exposure test
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 are summarized in Table 20. As expected, surfaces
1-3-C High 1483 1450 1216 1300 1034 900 with higher peak counts form a stronger bond with the
2-3-C Medium 1817 1900 1750 1417 1216 1233 coating. The assumption in this statement is that the
3-3-C Low 1500 1400 1150 900 684 450 coating is able to completely wet the surface, as was
the case for Coatings A through D used in this study.
1000 psi = 6.895 MPa
Coatings E and F, both phenolics, were included know-
60 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com
ing that their wetting and flow characteristics may not Table 10b: Percentage of failure at the substrate
result in complete wetting of the bottoms of the narrow- for Coating C exposed in salt spray – 3 pulls per panel
est or deepest valleys. Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
For all six coatings tested in this study, eventually, Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
the panel with the lowest peak count exhibited the 1-3-C High 0 0 0 0-0-10 0-0-10 0-0-10
poorest performance. Sometimes it took 5000 hours of
2-3-C Medium 0 0 0 0-0-5 0-0-0 0-0-5
accelerated exposure for this difference to manifest
3-3-C Low 0 0 0 0-5-30 0-20-30 0-50-50
itself. This trend was always evident with pull-off adhe-
sion and scribe undercutting, and for Coating F, even Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the three pulls;
all other failures were cohesive.
cracking. The pull-off strength for Coating E in immer- 0 = no substrate failure
sion and Coating F in salt spray were slightly higher for
the low peak count than for the high peak count sur- Table 11: Maximum undercutting (mm) from the center
faces, but they were essentially equal when experimen- of the scribe for Coating C exposed in salt spray
tal uncertainty is considered. Examination of the mode Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
of pull-off failure, however, clearly shows failure at the Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
substrate on only the low peak count surface. 1-5-C High 0 0 0 2 2.5 2.7
There are two possible explanations why peak count
2-5-C Medium 0 0 0 1.5 3.5 4.2
had less effect on performance for Coatings E and F.
First, these two phenolic coatings had less wetting capa- 3-5-C Low 0 0 2 5 7 9
bility than the other four coatings. If the valleys were not
completely wetted, microscopic sections of the substrate Table 12a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating D
would not contribute to adhesion strength. Second, exposed in prohesion/UV cycle – average of 2 pulls
Coatings E and F were only exposed for 4222 hours; so Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Prohesion
perhaps the trend may have been better defined had the Count @ cure 1220 2420 3700 4400 5560
test continued for an additional 1000 hours or so. 1-4-D High 3575 3400 3150 3025 2970 2815
High peak count surfaces performed better than low
1-5-D 3270 3170 3295 2825 2990 2783
peak count surfaces for all three accelerated environ-
2-4-D Medium 3500 3011 3250 3050 2998 2800
ments: ASTM B 117 salt spray, ASTM D 5894
Prohesion/UV, and salt water immersion. The last col- 2-5-D 3420 3370 3275 2850 2648 2605
umn of Table 20 indicates the percentage increase in 3-4-D Low 3350 3140 2950 2875 2620 2530
performance of the high peak count surface compared 3-5-D 3250 3275 3150 2875 2685 2425
to the low peak count surface. 1000 psi=6.895 Mpa
Further research is needed to quantify the relation-
ships among profile height, peak count, degree of clean- Table 12b: Percentage of failure at the substrate for Coating D
ing, paint, DFT, exposure environment, mode of failure, exposed in prohesion/UV cycle – 2 pulls per panel
and expected lifetime of a coating system. Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Prohesion
Count @ cure 1220 2420 3700 4400 5560
Future Work 1-4-D High 0 0 0 0 0 0
This study certainly does not answer all the questions
1-5-D 0 0 0 0 0 0
related to the effect of profile on coating performance.
The authors’ vast experience in this field has led to 2-4-D Medium 0 0–5 0–5 0 0 5–8
other relationships or theories that still need to be veri- 2-5-D 0 0 0 0 12 – 17 8 – 10
fied by testing. Additionally, the authors have sufficient 3-4-D Low 0 0 – 12 5 – 12 8 – 12 11 – 19 19 – 27
personal experience and other evidence to indicate that 3-5-D 0 0–8 5–8 7 – 14 8 – 23 16 – 29
these theories are valid for many common conditions, Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the two pulls
but not necessarily all conditions. 0 = no substrate failure

www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 61

Table 13: Maximum undercutting (mm) from the center
of the scribe for Coating D exposed in prohesion/UV cycle
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
Count @ cure 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1-4-D High 0 0 0.5 2 4 6
2-4-D Medium 0 0 0.75 3 3 15 Theory 1: A surface with a consistent profile height will
provide better coating performance than a surface with an
3-4-D Low 0 0 2 8 16 35
inconsistent profile height.
Discussion: With a consistent profile height, the anchor points for
Table 14a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating E the coating will be more uniform and will be more evenly dispersed,
exposed in salt spray – average of 2 pulls thereby distributing the internal stresses of the coating more evenly,
which should lead to less cracking and improved adhesive charac-
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222 teristics.
According to a paper3 by Yuly Korobov, high internal stresses
1-3-E High 2725 1275 1420 1076
may be created at uneven anchor points within a coating. These high
2-3-E Medium 2725 1960 1400 1031
unbalanced stresses can cause cracks to develop in the coating and
3-3-E Low 2600 1795 550 600 also degrade the cohesive strength of the coating.
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-E, 2-3-E, and 3-3-E. Theory 2: Surfaces prepared to SSPC-SP 10 may have higher peak
1000 psi=6.895 Mpa
counts than surfaces prepared to SSPC-SP 5, all else being equal.
Discussion: When the surface is blasted to obtain the White Metal
Table 14b: Percentage of failure at the substrate (SP 5) finish expected by the inspector, the surface of the substrate
for Coating E exposed in salt spray – 2 pulls per panel can be overworked and the internal integrity of the substrate
reduced. Therefore, overblasting can reduce the cohesive strength of
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222 the substrate to a point that it becomes weaker than the adhesive
strength of the coating; thus, failures occur within the substrate. For
1-3-E High 0 10 – 20 0 0
a given abrasive and for a given set of blast parameters, as blasting
2-3-E Medium 0 0 0 0
continues, the peak count will decrease slightly as SP 10 approaches
3-3-E Low 0 0 100 – 100 50 – 60 SP 5. To achieve SP 5 more abrasive must be thrown at the surface.
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-E, 2-3-E, and 3-3-E. Continued blasting over time will flatten more existing peaks than
0 = no substrate failure
Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the two pulls will be created, resulting in lower peak density. The maximum peak
density for a given abrasive under fixed conditions occurs close to a
Table 15: Maximum undercutting (mm) from the cleaning level of SP 10.
center of the scribe for Coating E exposed in salt spray Overblasting commonly occurs when inspectors attempt to match
the color of a newly blasted surface with SSPC-VIS 1 photographs.
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray This is particularly acute on previously coated steel, on heat treated
Count @ cure 1027 2892 4222
steel, and on non-standard alloys.
1-4-E High 0 0 6 12 Theory 3: The optimum conditions for a wide range of standard
2-4-E Medium 0 0 4.4 17.5 coatings that will completely wet the surfaces are a 2.5 mil (65 µm)
3-4-E Low 0 0 16 30 profile height and a peak density between 120 and 150 peaks per inch
(50 and 60 peaks per cm).
Discussion: The two independent mechanisms to regulate surface
Table 16a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating E exposed area are peak count and peak height. The greater the surface area for
in salt water immersion – average of 2 pulls the coating to bond, the better. More peaks provide more surface
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) area. If there are too many peaks, the valleys become too narrow for
Count in Salt Water Immersion complete wetting. As peak count increases, for common industrial
@ cure* 1027 2892 4222
coatings, the valleys become so narrow that the finite size of the pig-
1-2-E High 2725 1600 1290 875 ment particles and coating viscosity prevent complete wetting of the
2-2-E Medium 2725 2200 1500 1013 surface. The particles get stuck part way down the valley and may
3-2-E Low 2600 2325 630 950 bridge over. Coatings perform better on high peak count surfaces as
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-E, 2-3-E, and 3-3-E.
long as they can wet the surface.
1000 psi=6.895 Mpa Another way to increase the surface area without increasing the
62 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com
 Table 16b: Percentage of failure
at the substrate for Coating E exposed in salt water
immersion – 2 pulls per panel
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h)
Count in Salt Water Immersion
peak count is to increase the height of the peaks. However, for @ cure* 1027 2892 4222
a given peak count, as the height increases, the slope of the 1-2-E High 0 10 0 0
peaks increases and the valleys become narrower. The mini- 2-2-E Medium 0 0 0 1 – 20
mum valley width limits the height at which a coating will per- 3-2-E Low 0 0 70 30 – 40
form adequately. The authors have collected a large amount of
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-E, 2-3-E, and 3-3-E.
anecdotal data that indicates that 2.5 mils (65 µm) surface pro- 0 = no substrate failure
file may provide the most effective adhesive properties for Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the two pulls

most coatings. Much of this data is from manufacturers that

Table 17a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating F
have tried many combinations of coatings and surface profile
exposed in salt spray – average of 2 pulls
and have standardized on 2.5 mils (65 µm).
Theory 4: Surfaces contaminated with micronic backside Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
contamination are susceptible to premature coating failure. Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222
Discussion: Micron sized particles are inherent in the abra- 1-3-F High 2925 2900 2635 2175
sive blasting process and can contribute significantly to the 2-3-F Medium 3100 3150 3025 2650
loss of adhesion. This dust can originate in the abrasive 3-3-F Low 3150 2650 2475 2276
material or the surface to be blasted, or it can be generated
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-F, 2-3-F, and 3-3-F.
during breakdown of the abrasive particles in the blasting 100 psi=6.895 Mpa
process. Micronic dust may become attached to the sub-
strate by electrostatic or magnetic forces or by being driven Table 17b: Percentage of failure at the substrate
for Coating F exposed in salt spray – 2 pulls per panel
into the blast cleaned surface by the abrasive.
This dust may be seen without magnification, and is so Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
tightly attached to the steel substrate that it is difficult to Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222
remove by blowing down, vacuuming, or even power wash- 1-3-F High 0 0 0 0
ing. Momber et. al.4 also showed micrographs illustrating 2-3-F Medium 0 0 0 0
how this dust could be mechanically trapped by peaks being
3-3-F Low 0 0 0 15 – 25
bent over by subsequent abrasive blasting. According to this
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-F, 2-3-F, and 3-3-F.
theory, for best coating adhesion, one should not blast any 0 = no substrate failure
longer than is necessary and should use a non-friable low- Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the two pulls

dusting abrasive. Methods are needed to identify, evaluate its

Table 18: Maximum undercutting (mm) from the center
impact, and remediate micronic dust.
of the scribe for Coating F exposed in salt spray
In this study, ultra-clean panels were used to minimize any
effect of backside contamination caused by micronic dust. Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Spray
The only profile variable was peak count. Count @ cure 1027 2892 4222
Theory 5: Optimum performance will be obtained when the 1-4-F High 0 6 15 16
peak count is matched to the wetting characteristics of the 2-4-F Medium 0 2 10 23
primer. 3-4-F Low 0 15 36 37
Discussion: For the best corrosion protection, the peak count
should be chosen as high as possible, but not so high that Notes
complete wetting does not occur. Conversely, coatings should 1. J.D. Keane, J.A. Bruno, and R.E.F. Weaver, Surface Profile
be formulated with maximum wetting properties so that high for Anti-Corrosion Paints, Publication #74-01, SSPC: The
peak counts can be used. Surfaces with low peak counts and Society for Protective Coatings, Pittsburgh, PA 15222
complete wetting can outperform surfaces with high peak 2. ISO 8502-3, Preparation of steel substrates before applica-
counts and incomplete wetting. Wetability is determined by tion of paint and related products–Tests for the assess-
many factors such as solvent, fineness of grind of pigment, ment of surface cleanliness–Part 3: Assessment of dust
and temperature. Empirical testing may be required to deter- on steel surfaces prepared for painting (pressure-sensitive
mine the optimum peak count for a particular coating. tape method)
www.paintsquare.com JPCL / June 2005 / PCE 63
Table 19a: Pull-off data in psi for Coating F Table 20c: Maximum undercutting (mm)
exposed in salt water immersion – average of 2 pulls from the center of the scribe

Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Water Immersion Coating Peak Count % Improvement
Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222 (Exposure/Time) High Medium Low Low to High
1-4-F High 2925 2875 2700 2700 A (B 117/5000 h) 2 2 3.5 43

2-4-F Medium 3100 3000 3050 2750 B (B 117/5000 h) 3 4.5 8 62

3-4-F Low 3150 3225 2725 2275 C (B 117/5000 h) 2.7 4.2 9 70

* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-F, 2-3-F, and 3-3-F

D (D 5894/5560 h) 6 15 35 83
1000 psi=6.895 Mpa. E (B 117/4222 h) 12 17.5 30 60
F (B 117/4222 h) 16 23 37 57

Table 19b: Percentage of failure at the substrate for Coating F

3. Yuly Korobov Ph.D., “Stress Analysis as a Tool in Coatings
exposed in salt water immersion – 2 pulls per panel
Research,” MP, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 1990, pp 30-35
Panel ID Peak Exposure Time (h) in Salt Water Immersion 4. A. W. Momber, S. Koller, and H.J. Dittmers, “Effects of
Count @ cure* 1027 2892 4222 Surface Preparation Methods on Adhesion of Organic
1-4-F High 0 0 0 0 Coatings to Steel Surfaces,” JPCL, Nov. 2004, p. 44-50
2-4-F Medium 0 0 0 0
3-4-F Low 0 0 0 10 – 15
Hugh J. Roper has been the technical sales representative since
* At cure, the panel IDs were 1-3-F, 2-3-F, and 3-3-F
0 = no substrate failure. 1989 for Wheelabrator Allevard Canadian Operations, where he is
Multiple entries indicate the percent substrate failure for each of the two pulls
responsible for technical services for all of North America and spe-
cial assignments in South and Central America. He ran his own
Table 20a: Final pull-off data in psi
business from 1985 to 1989, and he worked for Wheelabrator Corp.
Coating Peak Count % Improvement Canada in accounting and engineering capacities from 1972 to
(Exposure/Time) High Medium Low Low to High 1985. He is a certified SSPC Coating Specialist and a NACE level 3
A (B 117/5000 h) 2217 1883 1550 43 Coating Inspector Technician. An active member of ASTM
B (B 117/5000 h) 1817 1667 958 90 International, SSPC, NACE International, and the National
C (B 117/5000 h) 900 1233 450 100 Association of Pipe Coaters, Mr. Roper serves on several joint
SSPC/NACE technical committees on surface preparation, coating
D (D 5894/5560 h) 2799 2703 2478 13
application, metallizing, training, and abrasive blasting.
E (B 117/4222 h) 1076 1031 600 79
E (immersion/4222 h) 875 1013 950 -8 Raymond E. F. Weaver has been employed by SSPC since 1972—
F (B 117/4222 h) 2175 2650 2276 -4 first as the coordinator of the SSPC research projects and co-author
F (immersion/4222 h) 2700 2750 2275 19 of many technical reports and publications stemming from these
1000 psi = 6.895 MPa
projects—and more recently in the area of standards development.
He has also been involved in preparing and grading the Protective
Table 20b: Maximum percent failure Coating Specialist (PCS) examinations. He authored the SSPC publi-
at the substrate on adhesion pulls cation “Practical Math for the Protective Coatings Industry.” Mr.
Weaver is currently a mathematics professor and former chair of
Coating Peak Count % Improvement the mathematics department at the Community College of Allegheny
(Exposure/Time) High Medium Low Low to High
County–Boyce Campus, where he also taught physics from 1972
A (B 117/5000 h) 0 0 60 100
until 1984. He received his BS in physics from the College of the
B (B 117/5000 h) 10 25 80 88
Holy Cross and his MS in physics from Carnegie-Mellon University.
C (B 117/5000 h) 10 5 50 80
D (D 5894/5560 h) 0 10 29 100 Joseph H. Brandon is a Protective Coating Specialist for the Naval
E (B 117/4222 h) 0 0 60 100 Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC), Port Hueneme, CA.
E (immersion/4222 h) 0 20 40 100
F (B 117/4222 h) 0 0 25 100
F (immersion/4222 h) 0 0 15 100

64 JPCL / June 2005 / PCE www.paintsquare.com