Paint testing - how dumb can we be? We have all been testing paint for years, and it is an expensive venture. Even though we tested paint and made a careful scientific selection, we experienced failures in the field application. We said ah-ha, we are not getting the surface preparation and the application in the field that we get in the laboratory, so we started better surface preparation and application specifications and started inspecting the work. We still experienced failures in the field that were unexpected. We again said ah-ha - our tests are not indicative of the field exposure - so started the era of paint test panels. Every shape and size you can imagine - sharp edges, round edges, weld splatter, depressions, water traps, scribes, taped X's, 1/8" wide, no 1/16" wide, no 3/16" wide, no 5/64" wide, tilted so many degrees and toward some direction. We even have a chemical analysis of the steel from which the panel was made. Still, we have unexpected failures. We call these programs paint testing programs, but this is the one thing we have not tested - the paint. We all assumed it is exact, its ingredients always the same, never varying in presence or amount. How dumb can we be?

Subject
Costs, Materials, Silicones, Manufacturing, Raw material, Molecular weight, Solvents, Vibration, Zinc, Epoxies, Alkyds, Paints, Resins
© 1972 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
1972
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.