Results of Physical Testing Final Report KTA Project No. …lifelast.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/KTA-Tator... · 2013. 3. 5. · Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic disbondment

KTA-Tator, Inc.

Results of Physical Testing Final Report

KTA Project No. 300027R3

Presented to:

Messer’s Mark and Jeff Buratto Lifelast, Inc.

1301 NE 144th Street, Suite 125 Vancouver, WA 98685

[email protected], [email protected] – email

Prepared by:

KTA-TATOR, INC. 115 Technology Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15275 412.788.1300 – phone

412.788.1306 – fax [email protected] – email

www.kta.com

Chrissy M. Stewart

Chemist

June 22, 2011

CMS/CLO:kdw JN300027-Final Report-R3 (300027 Lifelast Final Report – R3.doc)

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

SAMPLES....................................................................................................................................... 1

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................. 2

Water Absorption .........................................................................................................................2

Water Vapor Permeability ...........................................................................................................3

Cathodic Disbondment.................................................................................................................3

Adhesion to Steel (Dry) ...............................................................................................................4

Adhesion to Steel (Wet) ...............................................................................................................5

Impact Resistance ........................................................................................................................7

Abrasion Resistance .....................................................................................................................8

Tensile Strength ...........................................................................................................................9

Flexibility .....................................................................................................................................9

Appendices

A1 .......Photographic Appendix A2 .......Water Absorption Data A3 .......Wet Cup Permeability Form

R3 – A revision was issued at the client’s request to replace the original results for cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to steel and wet adhesion to steel with the retest values obtained in July 2010. NOTICE: This report represents the opinion of KTA-TATOR, INC. This report is issued in conformance with generally acceptable industry practices. While customary precautions were taken to insure that the information gathered and presented is accurate, complete and technically correct, it is based on the information, data, time, materials, and/or samples afforded. This report should not be reproduced except in full.

i

INTRODUCTION In accordance with KTA-Tator, Inc. (KTA) Proposal No. PN100024 and subsequent signed Authorization to Proceed dated January 12, 2010, KTA has performed various physical tests on the coating membrane Durashield 210 provided by Lifelast, Inc. The results of the testing are contained in this report.

SAMPLES

The samples listed in Table 1, “Samples” were received from Lifelast, Inc. on January 11, 2010. It should be noted that at no time did KTA personnel witness the preparation of the samples.

Table 1 – Samples

Sample ID Sample Description

Free Film Sample Four (4) free film sheets measuring 12 x 12 . Designated for water absorption, permeance and tensile strength. Samples

1FL, 2FL, 3FL Three (3) steel panels measuring 16 x 1 ½ coated on one side. Designated for flexibility.

Samples 1WAD through 6WAD

Six (6) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on both sides. Designated for wet adhesion to steel.

Samples 1AD, 2AD, 3AD

Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. Designated for dry adhesion to steel.

Samples 1CD, 2CD, 3CD

Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. Designated for cathodic disbondment.

Samples 1IR through 7IR

Seven (7) steel pipe sections measuring 16 long with a 2 diameter, coated on the outside. Designated for impact resistance.

Samples 1T, 2T, 3T

Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side with a ¼ diameter hole through the middle. Designated for Taber abrasion.

Samples 1S, 2S

Two (2) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. For use as spare panels.

The samples listed in Table 2, “Samples” were received from Lifelast, Inc. on July 23,

2010. It should be noted that at no time did KTA personnel witness the preparation of the samples.

Table 2 – Results of Dry Adhesion Testing – 14 mm Dollies

Sample ID Description Label KTA-1 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 1-DA KTA-2 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 2-DA KTA-3 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 6-DA KTA-4 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 15-CD KTA-5 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 16-CD KTA-6 4" x 6" panel coated white on one side 18CD KTA-7 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-8 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA

Lifelast, Inc. 1 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3

Sample ID Description Label KTA-9 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA

KTA-10 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-11 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-12 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

The laboratory investigation consisted of performing various physical tests on the coating membrane Durashield 210 in accordance with the specification received from Lifelast, Inc. The specification outlined testing parameters for the following tests: water absorption, permeance, cathodic disbondment (attached cell method), adhesion to steel (dry), wet adhesion to steel, impact resistance, abrasion resistance, tensile strength and flexibility. Retesting of cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to steel and wet adhesion to steel was performed in July 2010. The test descriptions and the results of the testing are provided below. Photographs of the test apparatus and final panel condition are included in this report (see Appendix 1). Water Absorption The water absorption of the Free Film Sample was measured according to ASTM D 570, “Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics.” Three (3) bars measuring 3 x 1 were cut from the free film and the thickness of each bar was measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. The samples were conditioned in an oven maintained at 50°F for twenty-four (24) hours. After conditioning, the samples were immediately weighed. The samples were then submerged in individual containers of deionized water maintained at laboratory conditions of 23.0°C ± 3°C. The samples were removed from the water following twenty-four (24) hours, one week and every two (2) weeks thereafter. The samples were wiped dry of any excess water, weighed and immediately replaced in the water. The percent increase in weight was determined using the following equation: Increase in weight (%) = (wet weight – conditioned weight)/ conditioned weight*100 The percent increase in weight is reported in Table 3, “Water Absorption Data.”

Table 3 – Water Absorption Data

Replicate Avg.

Thickness (mm)

Increase in Weight

(%) 24 hours

Increase in

Weight (%)

Week 1

Increase in

Weight (%)

Week 3

Increase in

Weight (%)

Week 5

Increase in

Weight (%)

Week 7

Increase in

Weight (%)

Week 9 1 0.98 0.376 0.425 0.564 0.658 0.752 0.860 2 0.88 0.390 0.479 0.656 0.750 0.833 0.979 3 0.85 0.365 0.429 0.561 0.694 0.784 0.906


Water Vapor Permeability Four (4) discs of the coating (one [1] designated as the control disc) were cut from the Free Film Sample and tested for water vapor permeability using the inverted water method (Method BW) of ASTM E 96, “Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials.” The thickness of each disk was measured in five (5) spots using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. Each disc was sealed to a 4 diameter glass dish filled ¾ of the way with deionized water. The discs were sealed to the dishes using wax. The dishes were then weighed, inverted and placed into a temperature/humidity chamber maintained at approximately 23.0 C and 50% relative humidity for a period of seventeen (17) days. The dishes were weighed separately at various recorded intervals, and the results plotted on the graph, as well as thickness and area of the discs. The permeance in English (inch-pounds) units is reported in Table 4, “Permeability Results.” A table containing daily weights of the samples and other pertinent data is appended.

Table 4 – Permeability Results

Replicate Avg. Coating Thickness (mils) Permeance

(inch-pounds) Avg. Permeance (inch-pounds)

2 36.0 0.040 0.049 3 32.0 0.068

4 31.5 0.039 Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic disbondment was tested in accordance with ASTM G 95, “Standard Test Method for Cathodic Disbondment Test of Pipeline Coatings (Attached Cell Method)” at ambient laboratory conditions (25°C). The panels were inspected for holidays using a high voltage holiday detector. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on each sample using a PosiTector 600-F3 non-destructive dry film thickness gage. A diameter holiday was drilled into the center of panels KTA-4, KTA-5 and KTA-6 (15-CD, 16-CD and 18CD, respectively). A 4 diameter plastic pipe section was adhered to each panel with silicone adhesive, and the “cell” was filled with approximately 1000 mL of an electrolyte solution consisting of 3% by mass sodium chloride and deionized water. A -3.0 V potential was impressed upon each of the samples for twenty-eight (28) days. The samples were removed and evaluated for disbondment after twenty-eight (28) days. Adhesion was assessed at the immersed holiday site and at one (1) non-immersed site by cutting 45° radial cuts in the shape of an “X” through the coating to the substrate at the sites and manually peeling back the coating with a utility knife blade to determine the extent of coating adhesion loss. The amount of coating disbondment was measured from the original holiday to the furthest point of exposed substrate. A holiday was also drilled in a non-immersed area of each panel and two (2) additional radial cuts were made at the sites. Coating adhesion was assessed in the same manner. Coating thickness measurements and disbondment data are provided in Table 5, “Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing.” A portion of the steel was stained around the holiday. Measurements of the stained area were obtained and reported in Table 6, “Radial Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing.”


Table 5 – Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing

Panel ID Average Thickness (mils)

Average Radial Disbondment – Reference

(mm)

Average Radial Disbondment – Test Area

(mm) KTA-4 48.1 0 7.3

KTA-5* 46.3 13 42 KTA-6 47.4 6.5 28.5

* Panel No. KTA-5 exhibited poor adhesion as evidenced by the disbondment displayed by the reference holiday. The disbonding would have continued to complete failure if assessment was continued.

Table 6* – Radial Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing

Panel ID Average Radial Staining (mm) KTA-4 2.75 KTA-5 3.75 KTA-6 2.5

* Table provided per client request. The radial staining is not typically reported when disbondment data is obtainable. Adhesion to Steel (Dry) Tensile adhesion (pull-off strength) was measured in accordance with ASTM D 4541, “Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers,” Annex A5, “Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type V.” Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The testing surfaces of panels KTA-1 through KTA-3 (1-DA, 2-DA and 6-DA, respectively) were wiped clean and abraded gently using fine sandpaper. The coating was scored to the metal and pull stubs with an abraded test surface of 14 mm diameter were attached to the coating. A two-component epoxy adhesive (Araldite 2011) was used, which was allowed to cure for twenty-four (24) hours at ambient laboratory conditions. The pull stubs were then detached using a DeFelsko PosiTest Automatic Adhesion Tester. The force (in psi) required to remove each pull stub was recorded along with the location of break and approximate percentage of each. The location of break is defined as adhesive (a split between layers), cohesive (within a layer) or glue failure (coating strength exceeds glue strength). Results exhibiting 50% or greater glue failure were not reported in accordance with the method. The average pull-off strength of Durashield 210 is 3460 psi (average of five [5] reported trials). The results of the testing can be found in Table 7, “Results of Dry Tensile Adhesion Testing.”

Table 7 – Results of Dry Adhesion Testing – 14 mm Dollies

Sample ID

Avg. Thickness

(mils)

Pull Stub

Pull-Off Strength

(psi) Location of Break

Avg. Pull-Off Strength

(psi)

Overall Average

KTA-1 (1-DA) 29.0

A 3952 100% adhesive to substrate

3703 3460 B 4060 70% adhesive to substrate; 30% glue failure C 3098 100% adhesive to substrate


Sample ID

Avg. Thickness

(mils)

Pull Stub

Pull-Off Strength

(psi)

Avg. Pull- Overall Location of Break Off Strength Average(psi)

KTA-2 (2-DA) 29.0

D 2876 100% adhesive to substrate

3246*

3460

E 3616 100% glue failure

F 2988 95% adhesive to substrate; 5% glue failure

KTA-3 (6-DA) 30.4

G 3284 100% glue failure

3309* H 2676 15% adhesive to substrate; 85% glue failure I 3334 100% glue failure

* Averages were calculated per client request including all trials, even those that exhibited 50% or more glue failure.

Adhesion to Steel (Wet) Wet adhesion to steel was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 870, “Testing Water Resistance of Coatings Using Water Immersion” in congruence with ASTM D 4541, “Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers,” Annex A5, “Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type V.” Panels KTA-7 through KTA-12 (13-WA, 14-WA, 17-WA, 19-WA, 22-WA and 23-WA, respectively) were immersed up to ¾ length of the panel in water maintained at 38oC ± 2oC. Panels KTA-7, KTA-8 and KTA-9 were removed on Friday, September 3, 2010, for a total of thirty (30) days immersion and panels KTA-10, KTA-11 and KTA-12 were removed on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, for a total of sixty (60) day immersion. Upon removal from the water, the panels were scored to the metal, a 20 mm diameter pull stub attached, and removed twenty-four (24) hours later. Three (3) pull-stubs were attached above the immersion line and three (3) were attached below the immersion line. The data obtained can be found in Tables 8, 9 and 10, below.

Table 8 – Results of Wet Tensile Adhesion Testing

Panel ID

Pull Stub ID

Exposure Area Location of Break

Burst Pressure

(psi)

Average Burst

Pressure (psi)

KTA-7 (13-WA) 30 Days

A Dry 85% adhesive to substrate; 15% glue 2291 1734* B Dry 5% adhesive to substrate; 95% glue 1673

C Dry 90% adhesive to substrate; 10% glue 1176 D Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 561

825.7* E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1143 F Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 773


G Dry 10% cohesive in white; 90% glue 2459 ** H Dry 20% cohesive in white; 80% glue 3000

I Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 298 J Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1039

861.5* K Wet 5% cohesive in white; 95% glue 1548 L Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 684


Average Pull Burst Panel Exposure Burst ID Stub Location of Break Pressure Area Pressure (psi)ID (psi)


M Dry N/A – did not pull > 3000 1798* N Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 2190

O Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 205 P Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1605

1115* Q Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 537 R Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1202


A Dry 100% glue 2605 ** B Dry 5% cohesive; 95% glue 1162

C Dry 100% glue 1672 D Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1028

1508* E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1987 F Wet 100% glue 880


G Dry 80% adhesive to substrate; 20% glue 2329 ** H Dry 100% glue 1776

I Dry 100% glue 1933 J Wet 100% glue 1406

512* K Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 434 L Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 590


M Dry N/A – did not pull > 3000 ** N Dry 100% glue 1595

O Dry 100% glue 2903 P Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1612

** Q Wet 100% glue 1698 R Wet 100% glue 1386

* Averages were calculated excluding trials that exhibited 50% or more glue failure. These averages were calculated in accordance with ASTM D 4541, Section 8.5.

** No average value could be obtained because trials had > 50% glue failure.

Table 9 – Thickness Measurements of 30-Day Exposure Panels

Panel ID

Pre Exposure Post Exposure

Thickness (mils)

Average Thickness

(mils)

Thickness (mils)

Average Thickness

(mils) KTA-7

(13-WA) 34.5, 41.7, 39.1, 35.0, 42.3 38.5 38.0, 44.0, 42.3, 45.5, 43.8 42.7

KTA-8 (14-WA) 40.1, 44.3, 39.3, 40.6, 42.2 41.3 41.9, 42.0, 41.2, 48.3, 40.0 42.7

KTA-9 (17-WA) 39.8, 44.3, 43.3, 41.4, 41.5 42.1 40.9, 43.2, 43.1, 44.6, 41.0 42.6


Table 10 – Thickness Measurements of 60-Day Exposure Panels

Panel ID

Pre Exposure Post Exposure

Thickness (mils)

Average Thickness

(mils)

Thickness (mils)

Average Thickness

(mils) KTA-10 (19-WA) 38.3, 40.6, 41.2, 39.0, 41.9 40.2 38.8, 42.8, 42.9, 44.4, 37.7 41.3

KTA-11 (22-WA) 41.0, 40.2, 38.2, 41.4, 39.1 40.0 39.9, 42.2, 41.4, 41.3, 40.7 41.1

KTA-12 (23-WA) 37.4, 44.1, 42.0, 41.8, 41.6 41.4 44.5, 39.6, 41.4, 45.5, 42.4 42.7

Impact Resistance

The impact resistance of the coating material was determined in accordance with ASTM G 14, “Test Method for Impact Resistance of Pipeline Coatings (Falling Weight Test).” Four (4) 16 long pipe sections labeled, Samples 1IR through 4IR were used for this testing. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The pipe was secured in the apparatus outlined in the method. The 3.2 pound weight was dropped from various heights and the locations and the impacted areas inspected for crack or holidays in the coating film using a low voltage wet sponge holiday detector. Sample 1IR was used to determine an appropriate range of impact height. Twenty (20) impact locations were observed on the samples and the impact strength calculated by employing height, weight, and frequency of coating failure data. The results of the testing can be found in Table 11, “Results of Impact Resistance Testing.” The impact strength was determined to be 140 inch-pounds. The calculation employed to determine the impact strength is outlined below.

m = [ho + d(A/N ± ½)] x W Where: m = impact strength (inch-pounds) ho = minimum height at which the less frequent event occurs (inches) d = increment in height of drop (inches) A = sum of the frequency of occurrence at each height increment times the number of increments above the ho value for each observation in the N total N = total number of the less frequent event (coating failures or non-failures) W = tup weight (pounds)

Note: The (-) sign is used when the mean is based on coating failures; the (+) sign is used when it is based on non-failures


Table 11 – Results of Impact Resistance Testing

Sample Avg.

Thickness (mils)

Replicate No. Height of Drop (inches) Observations

2IR 39.0 1 42.0 Non-failure 2 45.0 Non-failure 3 46.5 Failure

3IR 49.7

4 46.5 Failure 5 46.0 Non-failure 6 46.0 Failure 7 45.5 Failure 8 45 Non-failure 9 45 Failure

10 45 Failure 11 44.5 Failure

4IR 40.5

12 44.5 Failure 13 44.5 Failure 14 44 Failure 15 44 Failure 16 43 Non-failure 17 43 Failure 18 42 Non-failure 19 42 Failure 20 42 Non-failure

Abrasion Resistance Taber abrasion resistance was determined in accordance with ASTM D 4060, “Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser.” Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. Triplicate 4 x 4 panels were weighed then subjected to 1000 cycles using a 1000g load and CS-17 abrasion wheels. Post weights were acquired for the samples, and the weight loss (in mg) reported. The results of the testing are contained in Table 12, “Taber Abrasion Resistance Results.”

Table 12 – Taber Abrasion Resistance Results

Sample Avg. Thickness Initial (mils) Avg. Thickness

Final (mils) Weight Loss

(mg) Avg. Weight Loss

(mg) 1T 16.1 15.4 15.0

17.5 2T 18.3 17.6 19.7 3T 18.0 17.5 17.8



Tensile Strength

The tensile strength of the coating material was determined in accordance with ASTM D 412, “Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Rubbers and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension,” Method A. Eight (8) specimens were cut into a dumbbell shape from the free film using Die C. The specimens were pulled with a Tinius Olsen Universal Testing Machine at a rate of 0.2 inches per minute. The tensile strength was calculated using the force required to break the specimens along with the width and thickness of each. The dimensions of the sample were measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. The individual results of three (3) replicates are reported along with the average in Table 13, “Results of Tensile Strength Testing.”

Table 13 – Results of Tensile Strength Testing

Replicate Cross-Sectional Area (in2) Force to

Rupture (lbf) Tensile Strength

(psi) Avg. Tensile

Strength (psi) C 0.008680 29 3341

3245 F 0.008582 28 3263 G 0.007662 24 3132

Flexibility Flexibility testing was performed on Samples 1FL, 2FL and 3FL in accordance with ASTM D 522, “Mandrel Bend Test of Attached Organic Coatings,” Method B. Each panel was bent 180 over a 3 mandrel then examined visually with a 5X illuminated lens for cracking along the axis of curvature. No cracking was observed on the samples.

APPENDIX 1

PHOTOGRAPHIC APPENDIX

Water Absorption Apparatus

Water Absorption Samples

Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 1 of 9 JN300027R3

Permeance Apparatus

Permeance Samples


Cathodic Disbondment Apparatus

Cathodic Disbondment Samples


Dry Adhesion Apparatus

Dry Adhesion Samples


Wet Adhesion Apparatus

Wet Adhesion Samples


Impact Apparatus

Impact Samples


Taber Abrasion Apparatus

Taber Abrasion Samples


Tensile Strength Apparatus

Tensile Strength Samples


Flexibility Apparatus

Flexibility Samples


APPENDIX 2

00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01

0.0120.0140.0160.0180.02

0 20 40 60

quar

e R

oot o

f Im

mer

sion

Tim

e

Increase in Weight (g)

Lifelast 290675 Water Absorption

Replicate 1

Replicate 2

Replicate 3

Lifelast, Inc.Water Absorption Data

A21 of 1

June 22, 2011JN300027R3

Lifelast, Inc.Water Absorption Data

A21 of 1

June 22, 2011JN300027R3

Initial Weights: 2.0221 1.921 1.8881 (Immersion Time) Increase in Weight 1 Increase in Weight 2 Increase in Weight 3

0 0 0 04.898979486 0.0076 0.0075 0.006912.9614814 0.0086 0.0092 0.0081

22.59424706 0.0114 0.0126 0.010629.09896905 0.0133 0.0144 0.013134.2928564 0.0152 0.016 0.0148

38.88444419 0.0174 0.0188 0.0171

0 20 40 60

Squ

are

Increase in Weight (g)

APPENDIX 3

y = -1E-05x + 113.75

110.86

115.90

Wei

ght (

gram

s)

1

344.54

350.48t (g

349.00

350.00

351.00

352.00

353.00

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0

Wei

ght(g

ram

s)

Time (hours)

Lifelast 300027 Inverted Wet Cup

Date Hours Cup #1 (g) Cup #1(grain) Cup #2 (g) Cup #2(grain) Cup #3(g) Cup #3(grain) Cup #4(g) Cup #4(grain)03/22/10 0.0 113.75 1755.19 351.32 5420.87 352.04 5431.98 326.08 5031.4803/23/10 24.0 113.75 1755.15 351.31 5420.71 352.01 5431.51 326.03 5030.6103/24/10 48.0 113.75 1755.12 351.30 5420.56 351.96 5430.80 325.93 5029.1503/25/10 72.0 113.75 1755.13 351.29 5420.40 351.94 5430.45 325.86 5028.0403/26/10 96.0 113.75 1755.13 351.08 5417.16 351.91 5430.02 325.77 5026.6003/29/10 168.0 113.75 1755.12 351.82 5428.54 325.51 5022.5703/30/10 192.0 113.75 1755.10 350.17 5403.12 351.78 5427.90 325.40 5020.9403/31/10 216.0 113.75 1755.13 351.74 5427.33 325.30 5019.3304/01/10 240 113.75 1755.15 350.12 5402.35 351.72 5426.96 325.20 5017.8104/02/10 264 113.75 1755.10 350.10 5402.04 351.68 5426.47 325.10 5016.2604/05/10 336 113.75 1755.09 350.06 5401.43 349.68 5395.53 324.76 5011.0904/06/10 360 113.75 1755.10 350.05 5401.27 349.29 5389.47 324.66 5009.4304/07/10 384 113.745 1755.085 350.030 5400.963 349.174 5387.755 324.55 5007.81

1 2 3 4 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0Thickness(in) 0.0380 0.0360 0.0320 0.0315

Radius (in) 2.2500 2.2500 2.2500 2.2500Radius (m) 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 Time (hours)Area (sq.m) 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103

Slope (grams/hr) 0.00001 0.0041 0.007 0.004 y = -0.0041x + 351.37Area (sq.ft.) 0.1104 0.1104 0.1104 0.1104 2WVT(grams/hr/sq.m) 0.001 0.400 0.682 0.390

Permeance(WVP metric perms) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001Permeability (perm cm) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

356.42Slope (grains/hr) 0.00014 0.06326 0.10801 0.06172

WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft.) 0.001 0.573 0.978 0.559

ram

s)

Permeance (WVP English) 0.000 0.040 0.068 0.039Permeability (perm in.) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001

Temperature 70.00000 h

Vapor Pressure 732.00000 mm Hg g

28.82000 in Hg ei

Humidity change (as a decimal) 0.50000 (100% to 50%) W

METRIC AVERAGES: 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0WVT (grams/hr/sq.m) 0.491Permeance (metric perms) 0.001

Permeability (perm cm) 0.000 Time (hours)( )

ENGLISH AVERAGES:WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft) 0.703 y = -0.007x + 352.593

Permeance (WVP - inch pounds) 0.049Permeability (perm in.) 0.002

y = -0.004x + 326.14

324.40324.60324.80325.00325.20325.40325.60325.80326.00326.20326.40

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0

Wei

ght (

gram

s)

Time (hours)

4

Lifelast, Inc.Wet Cup Permeability Form

A31 of 1

June 22, 2011JN300027R3

INTRODUCTIONSAMPLESLABORATORY INVESTIGATIONWater AbsorptionWater Vapor PermeabilityReplicate

Cathodic DisbondmentAdhesion to Steel (Dry)Adhesion to Steel (Wet)Impact ResistanceAbrasion ResistanceTensile StrengthFlexibility

300027 Final Report - R3 Appendix 2 - Water Absorption Data.pdfSheet1

300027 Final Report - R3 Appendix 3 - Wet Cup Permeability Form.pdfSheet1

Documents

Results of Physical Testing Final Report KTA Project No. …lifelast.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/KTA-Tator... · 2013. 3. 5. · Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic disbondment