c/EPA
•ntal Protection
Agei
Municipal Environmen
Laboratory
.nati OH 45268
Research an<
Materials for
Oxygenated
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Construction
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-136
July 1978
MATERIALS FOR OXYGENATED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION
by
H. K. Uyeda
B. V. Jones
T. E. Rutenbeck
J. W. Kaakinen
Division of General Research
Engineering and Research Center
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado 80225
EPA-IAG-0187(D)
Project Officer
James V. Basilico
Waste Management Division
Office of Air, Land, and Water Use
Washington, D.C. 20460
This study was conducted
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of the Interior
Denver, Colorado 80225
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and govenment concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publi-
cation is one of the projects of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.
The recent use of high purity oxygen in the activated sludge process
represents an important advance in wastewater treatment. This report
evaluates materials of construction for use in high purity oxygen treatment
plants and thus improves the application of oxygen technology in wastewater
treatment.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This research study was initiated to identify resistant materials for
construction of wastewater treatment plants using the oxygen activated sludge
process.
In this investigation, samples of a broad range of construction mate-
rials were exposed for periods up to 28 months in the aeration basins of
three operating municipal wastewater treatment plants. All three plants were
using oxygen-activated sludge processes during the exposure period. Mate-
rials exposed included metallies, portland cement concretes, protective
coatings for steel and for concrete surfaces, sealers for joints in concrete,
and plastic and rubber materials. An economic analysis was also conducted to
evaluate the impact of materials recommendations generated by the exposure
testing.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. EPA-IAG-0187(D)
by the Bureau of Reclamation under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Proection Agency.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Exposure Conditions 5
4. Specimen Installation and Examination 12
5. Evaluation Procedures 13
6. Tests Results 25
7. Discussion of Test Results 94
8. Discussion of Economic Impact 105
Appendix • 111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Overall view of site 1 6
2 View of tent at site 1 6
3 View inside tent at site 1 7
4 Overall view of site 2 7
5 Overall view of site 3 8
6 View of splash zone at site 3 . 8
7 Racks for site 1 . . 11
8 Racks for site 2 11
9 Effect of site 1 control concrete by immersion in tap water . . 36
10 Effect of site 2 control concrete by immersion in tap water . . 37
11 Effect of site 3 control concrete by immersion in tap water . . 38
12 Length change in polymer concrete site 1 39
13 Length change in polymer concrete site 2 40
14 Length change in polymer concrete site 3 41
15 Abrasion of concrete surfaces - site 3 ...42
16 Sensitized type 304 stainless steel pitting 54
17 Mild steel pitting 54
18 Low alloy steel corrosion 55
19 Aluminum alloy 6061 corrosion 55
20 Copper pitting 56
21 Grey cast iron graphitization .....56
22 Stressed alloys after exposure - site 2 59
23 Stressed alloys after exposure - site 3 59
24 Butyl coating (C-6) - blistered 81
25 Urethane coating (C-9) - defect free 81
26 Urethane Coating (C-13) - blistered 82
27 Coal-tar enamel coating (C-3) - cracked 82
28 Phenolic-epoxy coating (C-12) - defect free 83
29 Urethane coating (C-14) - blistered 83
30 Phenolic-epoxy coating (C-16) - blistered 84
31 Typical joint sealer performance 92
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Typical wastewater analyses 9
2 Identification - alloys 15
3 Mill test data - alloys 16
4 Identification •- rubber and plastics 18
5 Identification - protective coatings systems 20
6 Application data - protective coatings systems 21
7 Identification - joint sealers . 24
8 Concrete compressive strength test results - site 1 26
9 Concrete compressive strength test results - site 2 28
10 Concrete compressive strength test results - site 3 30
11 Concrete length change test results - site 1 32
12 Concrete length change test results - site 2 33
13 Concrete length change test results - site 3 34
14 Concrete gravimetric test results - laboratory exposures .... 35
15 Test results - steel embedded in concrete - site 1 ....... 44
16 Test results - steel embedded in concrete - site 2 45
17 Test results - steel embedded in concrete - site 3 46
18 Test results - alloys - site 1 47
19 Test results - alloys - site 2 49
20 Test results - alloys - site 3 51
21 Evaluation summary - alloys - sites 1, 2, and 3 53
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Page
22 Test results - stressed metals - sites 1, 2, and 3 58
23 Test results - rubber sheeting 60
24 Test results - plastic sheeting 69
25 Test results - fabric reinforced sheeting 71
26 Test results - rigid polymer 73
27 Test results - protective coatings on steel surfaces - site 1 . . 75
28 Test results - protective coatings on steel surfaces - site 2 . . 76
29 Test results - protective coatings on steel surfaces - site 3 . . 77
30 Test results - protective coatings on concrete surfaces -
site 1 78
31 Test results - protective coatings on concrete surfaces -
site 2 79
32 Test results - protective coatings on concrete surfaces -
site 3 80
33 Evaluation summary - protective coatings for steel surfaces ... 85
34 Evaluation summary - protective coatings for concrete sufaces . . 86
35 Test results - Sealers for concrete joints - site 1 89
36 Test results - sealers for concrete joints - site 2 ....... 90
37 Test results - sealers for concrete joints - site 3 ....... 91
38 Evaluation summary - sealers for concrete joints . . 93
39 Costs of fabricated slide gates . 107
40 Costs of cast iron sluice gates L09
41 Costs of special slide gates 110
viil
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was directed by Mr. J. L. Kiewit, Head, Materials Science
Section. Mr. L. 0. Timblin, Jr., is Chief of the Applied Sciences Branch.
Specimens were prepared and tests were conducted by the following USER
personnel:
Applied Sciences Branch Personnel
B.' V. Jones
C. G. Goodner
W. R. Morrison
V. L. Kuehn
K. B. Goral
H. F. Adams
C. B. Haverland
H. K. Uyeda
Concrete and Structural Branch Personnel
T. E. Rutenbeck
F. E. Causey
V. R. Guy
L. M. Maldonado
A. N. Colling
Directed by:
E. M. Harboe, Head, Concrete Section
J. R. Graham is Chief of the Concrete and Structural Branch
Exposure racks were fabricated by Laboratory Shops personnel under the
direction of Mr. R. E. Edlund, Superintendent.
We wish to acknowledge the cooperation of Mr. L. D. Hedenland, Manager,
Sanitary Operations, Las Virgenes Water District, Calabasas, California;
Mr. J. Lauderbaugh, Superintendent, Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Indianapolis, Indiana;. Mr. R. J. Gozikowski, Director, Wastewater Treatment
Division, Department of Public Works, Fairfax County, Virginia; and Mr. B.
Morrison, Manager, Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia;
in providing their facilities for use as test sites. Messrs. Lauderbaugh
and Morrison also provided the data on the exposure conditions for their
respective plants. Mr. R. C. Brenner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, provided the data for the Tapia site.
The assistance of the developers of the oxygen processes used in the
study, Cosmodyne Corporation, Torrance, California; Union Carbide Corporation,
Linde Division, Tonawanda, New York; and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,
Allentown, Pennsylvania; is also appreciated.
IX
-------
The following individuals provided information and data used in evalu-
ating the economic impact of the materials recommendations:
A. Holtz and J. Puntenney of the Denver Metropolitan Sewage District
J. D. Boyle of CH2M Hill
D. Waskiewicz and R. Spooner of Rodney Hunt Company
P. Heye of Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Inc.
F. French of ARMCO Steel Corporation
The assistance and cooperation of Mr. James V. Basilico, the EPA Project
Officer, are greatly appreciated.
Special mention should be made of Dr. Alfred A. Bacher, retired from the
Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. L. M. Ellsperman, retired from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, whose original efforts initiated this study and
who directed the majority of the work.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
To cope with the ever-increasing quantities of wastewaters to be
treated, considerable emphasis is now being placed on the use of new cost-
effective advanced treatment processes. One such process is aeration with
high purity oxygen in lieu of the traditionally used atmospheric air. The
use of oxygen for aeration offers more efficient and complete oxygen absorp-
tion than obtainable using air. Greater efficiency and the consequent
reduction in retention'time will result in allowing existing facilities to
increase their capacities or throughput rates without increasing physical
plant size. This advantage notwithstanding, it was recognized that the use
of the oxygen activiated sludge process may result in accelerated deteriora-
tion of materials normally used for construction of conventional wastewater
treatment plants.
Thus, in an Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored study, the Bureau
of Reclamation was charged with identifying resistant materials of construc-
tion suitable for use in plants using this advanced process. In this inves-
tigation, samples of a broad range of construction materials were exposed.
Exposure periods were up to 28 months in the aeration basins of three opera-
ting municipal wastewater treatment plants. All were using oxygenated
activated sludge processes. Materials exposed included metallics, portland
cement concretes, protective coatings for steel and for concrete surfaces,
sealers for joints in concrete, and plastic and rubber materials. The three
test sites were the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California
(site 1); the Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
(site 2); and the Westgate Wastewater Treatment plant, Alexandria, Virginia
(site 3). Each plant uses a different oxygen process and all three plants
treat mostly domestic sewage.
An economic analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of materials
recommendations generated by the exposure testing on construction costs.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Many variables require consideration in arriving at sound materials
selection* These factors include mechanical requirements, reliability, main-
tenance considerations, wastewater chemistry, materials availability and ease
of specification, and safety considerations. Because the multidisciplinary
nature of these facets is not within or is only marginally within the scope
of the authors' expertise, no effort has been made to recommend materials of
construction for every component in oxygenated wastewater treatment plants.
Rather, below is a list of materials which were shown to be resistant to this
environment as indicated by this study. As applicable, the materials are
listed in order of resistance (highest resistance first) or, in the case
where more than one material displayed identical resistance, in alphabetical
order.
1. Concretes. -
a. High-quality conventional concretes made with either Type
II or Type V portland cement are suitable for oxygenated waste-
water, secondary treatment tank construction. The selection of
type of cement used should be based on the sulfate concentration
of the particular wastewater. In plants where primary treatment
does not remove all debris, either additional sacrificial thick-
nesses of concrete or a protective coating may be needed.
b. Significant reductions in strength occurred in the
polymer-impregnated concrete. Nevertheless, strengths remained
higher than for nonimpregnated concretes. Therefore, further
long-term tests would be required to assess the performance of
this material.
2. Steel embedded in concrete. - A 41-mm (1.6-inch) thick cover
of dense, high-quality concrete provides excellent corrosion protection
for embedded steel.
3. Alloys. -
a. The following alloys may be used unprotected in these
environments. However, normal sound corrosion engineering prin-
ciples should be followed, e.g., adverse bimetallic couples should
not be exposed.
(1) Stainless steel, Type 201
-------
(2) Stainless steel, Type 304
(3) Stainless steel, Type 316
(4) Sensitized stainless steel, Type 304
(5) Sensitized stainless steel, Type 316
(6) Deoxidized copper
(7) Austenitic cast iron
b. The following alloys should not be exposed unprotected in
these environments. It should be recognized that addition of
sacrificial thicknesses of gray cast iron is a form of corrosion
protection widely practiced in the industry.
(l) Aluminum alloy 6061
(2) Gray cast iron
(3) Low alloy steel
(4) Mild steel
4. Plastics and rubbers. -
a. The lack of substantial difference in physical properties
of polymers tested between tap water and wastewater exposures as
well as between gas and liquor exposures, and the relative stabil-
ity of polymers known to be sensitive to oxidation, indicates that
the exposures encountered in this study do not represent a severe
oxidation environment for higher polymers.
b. Selection of any of the tested products for use in waste-
water treatment plants using oxygen for aeration should be made on
the basis of established engineering properties dictated by the
specific intended use. Products should be especially formulated
for resistance to bacterial attack.
5. Protective coatings. -
a. For steel surfaces
(1) Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary, coating No. C-12
(2) Urethane, proprietary, coating No. C-9
(3) Coal-tar epoxy, MIL-P-23236, Type I, Class 2,
coating No. C-4
(4) Phenolic, proprietary, coating No. C-8
(5) Vinyl resin, USER VR-6, coating No. C-2
(6) Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary, coating No. C-16
(7) Urethane, proprietary, coating No. C-13
(8) Vinyl resin, USER VR-3, coating No. C-l
b. For concrete surfaces
(1) Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary, coating No. C-12
(2) Urethane, proprietary, coating No. C-9
(3) Coal-tar epoxy, MIL-P-23236, Type I, Class 2,
coating No. C-4
-------
(4) Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary, coating No. C-16
(5) Urethane, proprietary, coating No. C-7
6. Sealers for concrete joints. -
a. Silicone, one-component, low modulus, sealer No. S-4
b. Polysulfide, two-component, Federal Specification
TT-S-00227, sealer No. S-3
7. Added costs of the more durable materials, indicated for use by
the results of this study, are negligible when compared to total con-
struction costs.
-------
SECTION 3
EXPOSURE CONDITIONS
Tapia Site
Samples were placed in the secondary treatment facility at the Tapia
site which is a 9.1- by 36.0- by 4.6-m (30- by 118- by 15-foot) water depth
spiral-flow aeration tank (figures 1, 2, and 3).
Nominal flow is 44.8 &/s (1.0 Mgal/d) primary effluent plus 30 percent
return activated sludge. High-purity oxygen is diffused into the mixed
liquor from special submerged aeration diffusers along one side of the length
of the tank.
Oxygen not dissolved or utilized in the mixed liquor is captured by an
inflated polyvinyl chloride tent which covers and seals the tank. This
oxygen, together with other gases, mainly carbon dioxide, a product of organic
metabolism, is then recycled into the mixed liquor by an 850 &/s (1.8 x 10
ft /min) centrifugal blower. The blower feeds the aeration diffusers along
the opposite side of the tank to provide the principal aeration and the
spiral-flow agitation of the mixed liquor.
Speedway and Westgate Sites
Samples were placed in secondary treatment oxygen contact tanks (figures
4, 5, and 6). In both these plants, high-purity oxygen is fed into the
gaseous zone between the liquid surface and the tank cover under moderate
pressure [approximately 17-kPa (2.5 Ib/in )g]. A mechanical agitator with
impellers at the liquid surface and at approximately one-half the liquid
depth, diffuses the high-concentration oxygen atmosphere into the mixed
liquor. (The impeller at the liquid surface resulted in splashing on the
test specimens exposed in the gaseous phase.)
Typical characteristics of these systems during the sample exposure
period are shown in table 1. (Essentially duplicate tables, as applicable,
are provided to reflect both SI and English units.)
The Westgate site differs from the other two sites in that its primary
treatment consists of only a bar screen for removal of large debris. The
other two sites have complete primary treatment facilities.
Specimen Location
Test specimens were exposed in three zones (gaseous, interface, and
liquor) of the covered aeration basins at each of three test sites.
-------
Figure 1. Overall view of the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility (site 1),
Calabasas, California. Polyvinyl chloride tent covering the secondary tank
in which exposures were made is shown in the left foreground.
Figure 2. Closer view of the polyvinyl chloride tent at site 1
-------
Figure 3. View inside the tent at site 1. Concrete cylinders exposed in
the gas phase can be seen (right foreground) along the downstream end of
the tank.
Figure 4. View of one of the secondary treatment trains at the Speedway
plant (site 2). Covers for tanks are constructed of concrete.
-------
Figure 5. View of Westgate plant (site 3). Motors drive impellers located
at the liquor surface and in the liquor. This plant utilizes steel covers.
Figure 6. View of site 3 tank with cover removed to show splashing caused
by the surface impeller. Test specimens were exposed to this splash zone
effect.
8
-------
TABLE 1. - TYPICAL MIXED LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS WASTEWATER ANALYSES
Property
Conductivity ( mho/cm)
PH
Total suspended solids (mg/£ )
Organic material, filterable (mg/£ )
Si 0 (mg/ji)
Total dissolved solids (mg/£)
Cations and anions (mg/Jl )
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
No. 1
1790
7.4
3700
-
11.0
840
71.2
35.1
133.0
26.6
0.0
659.0
26.4
144.0
4.96
Site*
No. 2
2081
7.0
2275
516
36.5
816
80
33.7
150.0
34.4
0.0
10.98
0.2
7.4
—
No. 3
1462
6.0
6044
328
38
1428
84.8
40.4
48.3
109.5
0.0
472.0
1.9
78.1
~
* Site No. 1 - Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California
Site No. 2 - Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site No. 3 - Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
-------
Racks for exposing the specimens at site 1 were fabricated of carbon
steel; the racks were then hot-dip galvanized (figure 7). Racks used in
sites 2 and 3 were constructed of stainless (Type 304) steel (figure 8).
10
-------
Figure 7. Typical rack used to expose test specimens at the Tapia plant,
Figure 8. Racks for supporting test specimens at the Speedway plant,
Similar but shorter racks were used at the Westgate plant.
::
-------
SECTION 4
SPECIMEN INSTALLATION AND EXAMINATION
No modifications were necessary to enable the installation of the test
specimens at site 1. Plant modifications were necessary at both sites 2 and
3 before the test specimens could be installed. The modifications consisted
of removing existing covers from a portion of one of the reactor tanks and
substituting a steel plate to support the specimen racks.
Initially, examinations were scheduled for 3-, 9-, and 18-month exposure
periods. The actual examinations were performed in accordance with the
schedule below:
Exposure time, months
Examination Site 1 Sites 2 and 3
No. 1 33
No. 2 10 10
No. 3 20
Final 22 28
12
-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Concrete
Three types of portland cement concrete were exposed: (1) Type II
cement, (2) Type V cement, and (3) polymer-impregnated concrete (PIC)
consisting of Type II cement concrete which was impregnated with the monomer,
methyl methacrylate, and polymerized. Mix designs for the concretes are
contained in the Appendix'(Section 9).
Concretes were evaluated by (1) determination of compressive strength
change, (2) determination of length change, and (3) visual examination for
change in surface condition. Length determinations and visual examinations
were conducted at the exposure locations. Compressive strength specimens were
shipped to the Denver Laboratories for testing.
Compressive strength specimens were standard 76- by 150-mm (3.0- by
6.0-inch) cylinders. The length change cylinders (also 76- by 150-mm) were
fitted with standard metal inserts for length measurements.
Steel Embedded in Concrete
Samples of concrete containing short sections of reinforcing steel were
exposed to determine the effect of the test environments on the corrosion
rate of the embedded steel. The reinforcing steel sections, 100 mm (4.0
inches) long by 19 mm (0.75 inch) diameter, were cast in 100- by 100- by
200-mm (4.0- by 4.0- by 8,0-inch) long concrete (Type II, Type V, and PIC)
prisms, providing a concrete cover of 41 mm (1.6 inches) minimum over the
steel. Copper lead wires were attached to the reinforcing steel prior to
concrete placement to provide access for electrical tests.
Measurement of corrosion was accomplished by two nondestructive methods,
including steel-to-electrolyte potential measurement and corrosion current
determination.
Steel-to-electrolyte potential was referenced to copper-copper sulfate
electrode (CSE). Magnitude of corrosion current was then determined only on
those specimens showing a high negative (more negative than minus 0.30 volt)
steel-to-electrolyte potential. The potential of uncorroded steel in con-
crete is in the range of minus 0.10 to minus 0.30 volt to CSE. When corros-
ion develops, the potential drops to that of corroding steel which is about
minus 0.55 volt to CSE. Determination of corrosion current was by the
polarization break method, devised by Swerdtfegar of the National Bureau of
Standards, described in the Appendix.
13
-------
The results of the nondestructive tests conducted at the exposure sites
were compared to actual corrosion of the embedded steel as determined after
removal of the concrete cover at the conclusion of the test.
Alloys
1. Unstressed specimens. - Circular coupons [56.7 mm (2.23 inches) in
diameter] were exposed on standard corrosion test spools. All wrought alloy
specimens were 1.6 mm (0.063 inch) thick and the coupons of cast alloys were
3.2 mm (0.13 inch) thick. Metals and alloys tested are identified in table 2
and mill test data appear in table .3. Test spools were fabricated of Type
316 stainless steel and individual coupons were insulated from the spool and
from each other through use of teflon rod insulators and teflon spacers.
Duplicate specimens of each alloy were exposed. Spacing between coupons was
13 mm (0.50 inch). The spacers also provided a crevice whereby concentration
effects could be evaluated.
Sufficient replicate specimens were exposed such that duplicate speci-
mens could be shipped to the Denver Laboratories for evaluation. Average
corrosion rate was computed from weight loss data, and localized corrosion
was determined through pit depth measurements. Procedures for preparation
of coupons for exposure and cleaning of specimens after exposure are
described in the Appendix.
2. Stressed specimens. - In addition to the unstressed circular cou-
pons, stressed specimens of the wrought metals and alloys were also pre-
pared. The stress specimens [200 by 13 by 1.6 mm (8.0 by 0.50 by 0.063
inch)] were bent over a 25-mm (1.0-inch) mandrel and retained in this posi-
tion to provide plastic deformation as well as high tensile stresses.
Stressed specimens were evaluated by visual examination for cracking.
Rubber and Plastics
Materials selected for exposure are listed in table 4.
Twelve rubber materials were selected for exposure. Duplicate sets of
dumbbell-shaped, tensile specimens were cut from each material in accordance
with ASTM: D 412. Holes for mounting specimens on the racks were punched
13 mm (0.50 inch) from each end of the specimens. The specimens were then
looped (end to end) and retained in this position to provide both stressed
and unstressed areas during exposure.
The three flexible plastic sheeting materials were cut into duplicate
25-mm (1.0-inch) wide, parallel edge, tensile test strips in accordance with
ASTM: D 882. These specimens were not looped since stress relaxation
characteristics of the flexible plastic do not make this appropriate.
14
-------
TABLE 2. - IDENTIFICATION - ALLOYS
Code
No,
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
A-4
A- 5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A- 10
A-ll
Coupon
code
12
7
7-CT
21-201
18-304
18-304S
19-316
19-316S
13-1
41-103
43-6061
Alloy type
Gray cast iron
Mild steel
Low alloy steel
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Stainless steel, sensitized
Stainless steel
Stainless steel, sensitized
Nickel cast iron
Deoxidized copper
Aluminum
Specifications*
ASTM: A 48
AISI 1020
ASTM: A 606
AISI 201
AISI 304
AISI 304
AISI 316
AISI 316
ASTM: A 436
ASTM: B 152
AA-6061
* ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
AISI - American Iron and Steel Institute
AA - Aluminum Association
-------
TABLE 3a. MILL TEST DATA - ALLOYS
(metric units)
Alter e**a Ha. A-l A-l A-3
Ooiiana laantlflaatlea 11 7 7-CT
Material He. • 439
Alley UM Cray caat NtU tM alley
tree. ateel ataal
Mill - - V.t. Steel
•eat He. - - 041334
Chealcal avalyata
(parceat by vot(ht>
Carbon 0.10
Hanftaneaa
rhoaphenia
ful fur
fillcoe,
Klcktl
CtirMliM
Molybdaniaa
Coppar
Colwbliai
lltanUB
•oren
Cobalt
0.42
0.10
0.019
0.33
0.11
1.04
•
0.30
»
-
.
-
Tmalb ieree«tk MM 493.4
Ylale1 atreattfc •"• * • 381.1
A-4
11-201
73
Ml ataUleaa
ataal
-
20.13
S.3-3.73
•
•
2i.oo
S.3-J.5
14.0-11.0
-
-
•
-
•
-
7*3.0
174.4
A-3
14-304
434
304 atainleea
ataal
fortuM
3407*2
0.03
1.43
0.024
0.00*
0.70
*.10
14.90
442.3
343.1
A-4
11-3041
434
304 ataialaae
•taal I/
340792
.03
.43
.024
.009
.70
.10
14.30
441.)
343.1
A-7
19-314
437
314 ataialaea
tateraetl
41019
0.07
1.33
0.011
0.003
0.44
13.13
14.0)
1.40
0.13
.
.
0,10
3*2.2
144. 1
A-«
l*-314f
437
314 atalnlaia
•taal y
4101*
0.07
1.33
0.011
0.00)
0.4*
13.13
14.03
1.40
0.1)
m
0
(MO
3*2.2
144.1
A-*
13-1
337
M-Kcaia*.
typa I
•tandartf
•raaa
13420
1.70
1.13
„
1.19
13.73
1.09
•
•.14
m
m
-
-
A-IO A-ll
41-10) 43-4041
443
DamldlaeJ AlwiaMi
ceppar alley
ItaodaH
•raaa
^
.
•
*
.
m
m
e>
99. M
m
0.01
214.4
44.9
IlOBfattao.
rarcHt ii 30 an
31
-------
TABLE s>. MILL TEST DATA - ALLOYS
(English units)
Alloy corle No.
Coupon lilpiit 1 firatlon
M.ltortnl M/in*)
Kloni-.itlou (7. In t In.)
A-l A-2 A-3
12 7 7-CT
f,59
Cray cast Mlltl l,ow alloy
iron r.tei?! steel
U.S. Stei-1
041534
0.10
0.42
0.10 •
0.019
0.35
0.11
1 .06
0.30
.
. -
_ _
.
"
71 445
5s!2"5
31
A-4
21-201
75
201 Rtnlnlcfiit
st«fll
JorfleliHou
-
>0.15
5.5~-5!75
.
2 1.00
3.5-5.5
16,0-lS.O
.
.
_
.
-
115 ,000
40,000
-
A-5
18-304
65«
304 sL.itnUss
steel
Fortuna
360792
0.05
1.45
0.026
0.009
0.70
9.10
" 18.50
.
_
-
-
"3,163
-
A- 6
18-304S
656
304 stainless
steel \l
Fortuna
360792
0.05
1.45
0.02C
0.009
0.70
9.10
16.50
.
-
f
.
-
-
93,163
49,782
-
A-7
19-316
657
316 stninlcflft
Btccl
Inp.fcrnoll
41019
0.07
1.55
0.018
0.003
0.64
13.15
16.03
2.40
0.13
-
-
-
0.10
'
85,900
38,600
-
A-a
19-316S
f.57
316 ntllnUni
»teel I/
Inger.ioll
41019
0.07
1.55
0.018
0.003
0.64
13.15
16.03
2.40
0.13
-
•
-
0.10
85,900
3ft, 600
~
A-9
13-1
557
Nt-Rcalct,
Type I
Stnnrl.ini
Urns*
13620
2.70
1,25
-
-
2.15
15.75
2.05
6.24
"
~
-
-
_
-
"
A-10 A-ll
41-103 /i3-ft06I
6ft 5
Dr-oxldlr.rd Alumlrn
copper *\ loy
St ami aril
Brflss
•
.
-
"
_
-
"
-
9V.9B
~
*
0.02
-
33,000
10,000
"
I/
-------
TABLE 4. IDENTIFICATION - RUBBER AND PLASTIC MATERIALS
Rubber Sheeting
R-5 Neoprene - Gaco Western, Inc.
R-8 EPDM - Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company
R-17 Butyl - Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company
R-18 CSPE - Gaco Western, Inc.
R-25 Natural - Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
R-27 Polyacrylate - Thiokol Chemical Corporation
R-29 Butyl - Gates Rubber Company
R-30 EPDM - Gates Rubber Company
R-31 Butyl-EPDM blend - Presstite Division, Interchemical Corporation
R-32 Silicone - Dow Corning Corporation
R-34 Nitrile Butadiene - B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company
R-532 Silicone - General Electric Company
Plastic Sheeting
B-6273 CSPE - Reeves Brothers, Inc.
B-6475 CPE - Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
B-6514 PVC - Pantasote Plastics Company
Fabric Reinforced Flexible Sheeting
B-6386 Nylon reinforced CSPE - Burke Rubber Company
B-6399 Nylon reinforced EPDM - Firestone Coated Fabrics Company
B-6464 Nylon reinforced Butyl - Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc.
B-6467 Nylon reinforced CPE - Snyder Manufacturing Company
B-6468 Nylon reinforced CPE - Snyder Manufacturing Company
Rigid Polymers
RS-1 Epoxy-fiberglass - Shell Chemical Company
RS-2 Polyester-fiberglass - Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.
RS-3 Vinyl-fiberglass - Dow Chemical Company
RS-4 RPM pipe - Johns-Manvilie Corporation
RS-5 HDPE - Hancor, Inc.
EPDM - Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
CSPE - Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene
CPE - Chlorinated Polyethylene
PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride
RPM - Reinforced Plastic Mortar
HDPE - High Density Polyethylene
18
-------
The five, fabric-reinforced, flexible synthetic materials were cut into
76- by 100-mm (3.0- by 4.0-inch) specimens for hydrostatic pressure testing
according to ASTM: D 751, diaphragm burst method.
These specimens were also exposed in a looped condition to provide both
stressed and unstressed areas.
Four rigid, fiberglass-reinforced polymers were cut into 51- by 150-mm
(2.0- by 6.0-inch) samples for exposure. Edges of the exposed specimens were
sealed with epoxy cement to reduce possible wicking in the reinforcement.
Upon removal from exposure, these were bisected and trimmed to produce 13- by
150-mm (0.50- by 6.0-inch) specimens for flexure testing in accordance with
ASTM: D 790, Method I.
High-density, polyethylene drain tubing samples were cut into 100-mm
(4.0-inch) long specimens for visual examination.
The rubber and plastic materials were visually inspected at the time of
removal from the exposure environment and then shipped to the laboratory for
testing. In the laboratory the specimens were photographed and washed.
Vapor specimens were hand dried and placed in an atmosphere of 50 percent
relative humidity and 23°C for a minimum of 3 hours before testing. Inter-
face and liquor specimens were immersed in fresh water after washing and
maintained wet until 2 minutes (maximum) before testing.
Protective Coatings
Initially, nine coating systems were selected for exposure. However,
six additional materials were introduced during the course of the test. Some
of these, as appropriate, were applied to both metal (mild steel) and concrete
(cement mortar) substrates. Metal panels were 150 by 150 by 3.0 mm (6.0 by
6.0 by 0.13 inch) and the concrete panels were 150 by 150 by 25 mm (6.0 by 6.0
by 1.0 inch). The systems applied are shown in table 5.
Surface preparation of the steel panels was by sandblasting to white
metal; whereas, the concrete specimens were lightly sandblasted and sack-
rubbed with a portland cement-sand grout prior to coating.
Specific application data are contained in table 6.
The coating was scored in an X pattern on one 150- by 150-mm (6.0- by
6.0-inch) surface of each panel to determine effects of discontinuities. In
addition to the 15 coating systems exposed on panels, the racks used to
expose the test specimens at site 1 were hot dip galvanized to provide a test
of this coating material.
Evaluation was accomplished by periodic visual observation at the test
site, and visual examination in the Denver Laboratories at the end of the
exposure.
19
-------
TABLE 5. IDENTIFICATION - PROTECTIVE COATINGS SYSTEMS
to
o
Code
No. Generic type
C-l Vinyl resin
C-2 Vinyl resin
C-3 Coal-tar enamel
C-4 Coal-tar epoxy
C-5 Butyl
C-6 Butyl
C-7 Ur ethane
C-8 Phenolic
C-9 Ur ethane
C-10* Anodizing
C-ll** Zinc
C-12* Phenolic epoxy
C-l 3* Ur ethane
C-l 4* Ur ethane
C-l 5* Urethane
C-16* Phenolic epoxy
* Exposed at sites 1 and
** Exposed at site 1 only,
Materials
specifications
USBR VR-3
USER VR-6
AWWA C-203
Mil-P-23236,
Type I,
Class 2
-
-
-
-
—
-
ASTM: A 123
-
-
-
-
-
2 only.
i
Manufacturer
Ameron
Ameron
Koppers Co.
Porter Coatings
U.S. Polymeric
En jay
Carboline
Carboline
Crandalon
CRN Anodizing
Boyles Galvan-
izing
Wisconsin Pro-
tective Coatings
Grove Specialties
United Paint
Gaco Western
Wisconsin Pro-
tective Coatings
Manufacturers
designation
Amercoat 33
Amercoat 23
Bitumastic 70B
Tarset Standard
PC-8152
6120
X 1304-146
Phenoline 368WG
Crandalon
Anodized
Hot-dip gal-
vanize
Plasite 7122
Monopol GS-300
Uni-Tile
VWM-28
Plasite 7155 HHB
Tested
on
Steel Concrete
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 6a. APPLICATION DATA - PROTECTIVE COATING SYSTEMS
(metric units)
Code
No.
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-ll
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
Substrate
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Total dry
Application filjn
Application data method thickness
(mm)
Four coats
First coat thinned 1:1 with vinyl
thinner + three coats
Primer + three body coats + two seal
coats
i
Primer + one coat
Primer + one coat
Three coats
First coat thinned 1:1
Primer + two topcoats
Primer + two topcoats
Two coats
Two coats
Primer + topcoat; topcoat thinned one
pint/gallon of paint with 1:1
jylol/MEK mixture
Primer (thinned 1 pint/gallon with
2:1 ^ylol/MEK mixture) + two topcoats
Airless spray application by manu-
facturer
Airless spray application by manu-
facturer
Electrochemical application to gal-
vanized panels by manufacturer
Hot- dip galvanized
Five coats
First coat (thinned 1:1 with manufac-
turer's thinner) '+ four coats
Three coats
Three coats
Primer + one topcoat
Primer + one topcoat
One coat
Three coats
First coat (thinned 1:1 with manu-
facturer's thinner + two topcoats
Brush
Brush
Brush
Dip
Dip
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Spray
Spray
_
Hot dip
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
0.15
0.15
0.25
2.54
2.54
0.50
0.50
0.38
0.38
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.76
0.76
-
0.07
0.38
0.38
0.88
0.88
0.38
0.38
0.38-0.50
0.30
0.30
21
-------
TABLE 6b. APPLICATION DATA - PROTECTIVE COATING SYSTEMS
(English units)
Code
No.
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-ll
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
Substrate
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Concrete
Steel
Concrete
Application
Application data method
Four coats
First coat thinned 1:1 with vinyl
thinner * three coats
Primer + three body coats + seal coat
Primer + one coat
Primer + one coat
Three coats
First coat thinned 1:1 with xylene
Primer + two topcoats
Primer * two topcoats
Two coats
Two coats
Primer + topcoat; topcoat thinned
1 pint/gallon of paint with
1:1 xylol/MEK mixture
Primer C thinned 1 pint/gallon with
2:1 xylol/MEK mixture) t two topcoats
Airless spray application by manufac-
turer
Airless spray application by manufac-
turer
Electrochemical application to gal-
vanized panels by manufacturer
Hot-dip galvanized
;Five coats
First coat (thinned. 1:1 with manufac-
turer's thinner) + four coats
Three coats
Three coats
Primer + one topcoat
Primer + one topcoat
One coat
Three coats
First coat (thinned 1:1 with manufac-
turer's thinner) + two topcoats
Brush
Brush
Brush
Dip
Dip
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Spray
Spray
-
Hot dip
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Brush
Total dry
film
thickness,
(mils)
6
6
10
100
100
20
20
15
15
18
18
20
20
30
30
-
3
15
15
35
35
15
15
15-20
12
12
22
-------
Joint Sealers
Initially three synthetic rubber, joint sealing materials were exposed,
a polysulfide, a polyurethane, and a silicons, all two-component sealers con-
forming to the physical test requirements of Federal Specification TT-S-227.
During the course of the tests, two additional materials were exposed, a
coal-tar extended polysulfide material conforming to USER specifications and
normally used for sealing contraction joints in concrete canal lining, and a
single-component, low modulus silicone sealant. The sealers exposed are
listed in table 7. These materials were cast in a 150- by 13- by 13-mm (6.0-
by 0.50- by 0.50-inch) joint formed by two concrete (cement mortar) slabs.
Two specimens of each sealer were prepared for exposure in each zone.
After curing, one specimen was extended 25 percent to a joint width of 16 mm
(0.63 inch) and the other compressed 25 percent to 9.5-mm (0.38-inch) joint
width.
Evaluation was accomplished by visual observation for adhesive or
cohesive failure as well as "for surface degradation.
23
-------
TABLE 7. IDENTIFICATION - JOINT SEALERS
to
Code
No.
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Generic
type
Silicone
lire thane
Polysulf ide
Silicone
Coal-tar
polysulf ide
Manufacturer
General Electric Company
PRC Corporation
W. R. Grace Company
General Electric Company
American Poly therm
Company
Manufacturer's No. of
designation Components Specifications
GE-1600
PRC No. 4 primer
PRC 270 sealant
2C primer
Hornflex L sealant
GE-Silpruf
TRP-409 primer
Poly-Seal E-4
2 TT-S-227
2 TT-S-227
2
2 TT-S-227
1
1
2 USER Class S
canal sealer
-------
SECTION 6
TEST RESULTS
Concrete
1. Compressive strength. - Compressive strength test results are shown
in tables 8, 9, and 10.
a. Conventional concretes made using Types II and V cement show no
loss of strength at any exposure site.
b. PIC specimens showed large variations in strength under most
exposure conditions. For sites 2 and 3, all exposures resulted in loss
of strength.
2. Length change. - Length change results are shown in tables 11, 12,
and 13. Table 14 and figures 9, 10, and 11 show the effect of immersion in
tap water on weight increase of the control specimens.
a. Conventional concretes made using Types II and V cement show no
continuing tendency to increase in length. Increases in lengths were
also well below the 0.2 percent generally accepted by the Bureau as
indicative of impending failure from sulfate attack. (Complete failure
by sulfate attack is considered to be 0.5 percent expansion.)
b. The effect of site exposures and laboratory immersion on the
lengths of the PIC specimens are shown in figures 12, 13, and 14. The
specimens continue to increase in length with duration of exposure.
Although much less water is absorbed by the PIC specimens than the two
conventional concretes, their increase in length after 22 and 28 months
of exposure is of the same order of magnitude as the conventional
concretes.
3. Surface conditions. - Generally, only minor changes in surface
appearance have occurred at sites 1 and 2. At site 3, erosion of the surface
was experienced as shown in figure 15.
a. Concrete made with Type V cement suffered the most severe
erosion damage.
b. Less severe erosion damage was observed on concrete made using
Type II cement.
c. PIC was only slightly altered in appearance by the erosion.
25
-------
TABLE 8a. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 1*
(metric units)
Concrete
type
Type II cement
(28 day strength
31.0 MPa)
Type V cement
(28 day strength
29.0 MPa)
Type II cement
polymer
impregnated###
Nominal
exposure
time, mo.
o***
- 3
10
22
- 3
10
22
o***
3
10
22
Compress ive strength (MPa)
(average of duplicate specimens)
Site exposure
Gas
41.6
53.2
51. 6#
35.6
46.5
49.2##
123.0
115.4
93. 6#
Interface
38.3
48.8
53. 0#
32.5
46.0
48. 8#
127.8
132.9
130. 0#
Laboratory exposure**
Liquor 50 percent relative Denver tap water,
humidity, 73°F room temperature
38.6
50.0
49. 1#
33.8
45.5
45. 2#
127.1
83.4
114.0#
32.6
34.1
34.0
35.3
31.9
35.2
40.3
36.1
144.1
151.8
132.9
142.2
39.0
40.3
46.0
35.0
41.4
42.2
139.1
99.9
114.9
* Tapia Water
** E&R Center L
Reclamation
aboratnries ,
Facility,
. USBR. Dei
Calabasas,
iver. Colon
California.
ado.
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 3 months.
# Based on four specimens.
## Based on three specimens.
### Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation,
additional cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE 8b. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 1*
(English units)
ro
Concrete
type
Type II cement
(28 day strength
4500 Ib/in )
Type V cement
(28 day strength
4200 Ib/in )
Type II cement
polymer
imp regna t ed###
Nominal
exposure
time, mo.
o***
- 3
10
22
o***
- 3
10
22
o***
3
10
22
2
Compress ive strength (Ib/in )
(average of duplicate specimens)
Site exposure
Gas
6,040
7,710
7,490#
5,160
6,740
7,140##
17,840
16,740
13,580#
Interface
5,560
7,080
7,680#
4,720
6,670
7,080#
18,530
19,270
18,860#
Laboratory
Liquor 50 percent relative
humidity, 73°F
5,600
7,250
7,120#
4,900
6,600
6,550#
18,440
12,090
16,530
4,730
4,950
4,930
5,120
4,620
5,110
5,840
5,235
20,900
22.010
19,270
20,620
exposure**
Denver tap water,
room temperature
5,650
5,850
6,620
5,080
6,010
6,120
20,170
14,490
16,660
* Tapia Water
** E&R Centpr L
Reclamation
shnrafnri pa .
Facility,
. ITRRR. DPI
Calabasas,
IVPT. C.nTnrs
California.
arin.
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 3 months.
# Based on four specimens.
## Based on three specimens.
Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation,
additional cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE 9a. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 2*
(metric units)
N>
00
Nominal
Concrete exposure
type time, mo.
Type II cement
(28 day strength -
31.0 MPa)
Type V cement
(28 day strength -
29.0 MPa)
Type II cement
polymer
impregnated^
o***
10
28
o***
10
28
o***
10
28
Compressive strength (MPa)
(average of duplicate specimens)
Gas
42.9
44. 1*
40.1
39. 2#
103.1
109.0*
Site exposure
Laboratory exposure**
Interface Liquor
39.9
40. 4*
40.4
41.2*
115.6
102.7*
45.1
43.6*
39.0
42.4*
106.0
118.4*
50 percent relative
humidity, 73°F
26.8
34.5
38.3
29.5
34.5
36.8
138.5
126.7
107.4
Denver tap water,
room temperature
41.0
45.3
38.1
40.3
108.0
77.5
* Speedway Wastewater Treatment
** E&R Center Laboratories. USBR.
Plant, Indianapolis,
Denver. Colorado.
Indiana.
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 8 months.
•* Based on length change specimen with inserts sawed off, results corrected to length/diameter - 2.0.
#* Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation, additional
cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE 9b. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 2*
(Enelish units')
ss
VO
Concrete
type
Type II cement
(28 day strength
4500 Ib/in )
Type V cement
(28 day strength
4200 Ib/in )
Type II cement
polymer
impregnated##
Nominal
exposure
time, mos.
o***
- 10
28
o***
- 10
28
o***
10
28
2
Compress ive strength (Ib/in )
(average of duplicate specimens)
Gas
6,220
6,390#
5,820
5,680#
14,950
15,810*
Site exposure
Interface
5,780
5,860#
5,860
5,960*
16,760
14,890#
Laboratory exposure**
Liquor
6,540
6,320
5,660
6,150*
15,380
17,170*
50 percent relative
humidity, 73° F
3,890
5,000
5,550
4,280
5,000
5,340
20,090
18,370
15,580
Denver tap water,
room temperature
5,950
6,570
5,530
5,840
15,670
11,240
* Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis
** E&R Center Lahorat-ori e>a . IIRRR . Denver. Colorado.
, Indiana*
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 8 months*
# Based on length change specimen with inserts sawed off, results corrected to length/diameter - 2.0.
## Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation, additional
cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE lOa. - CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 3*
(metric units)
Compressive strength (MPa)
Concrete
type
Type II cement
(28 day strength
31.0 MPa)
Type V cement
(28 day strength
29.0 MPa)
Type II cement
polymer
impregnated##
Nominal
exposure
time, mo.
o***
- 10
28
28
o***
- 10
28
28
o***
10
28
28
(average of duplicate specimens)
Gas
41.2
47.9
45.9*
42.7
49.1
49.4*
116.0
119.9
112. 7*
Site exposure
Interface
41.8
47.3
43.4*
40.4
46.5
45.8*
129.2
81.6
115.5*
Liquor
38.2
45.5
46. 1*
41.3
48.2
44.7*
92.2
89.3
118.4*
Laboratory
50 percent relative
humidity, 73°F
29.6
31.0
35.2
29.8
32.5
38.5
129.8
118.6
121.7
exposure**
Denver tap water,
room temperature
38.45
38.2
37.5
40.3
74.5
110.6
* Westgate Wastewater Treatment
** E&R Center L
aboratories
3. USBR.
Plant, Alexandria,
Denver. Colorado.
Virginia
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 8 months.
# Based on length change specimen with inserts sawed off, results corrected to length/diameter - 2.0.
## Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation, additional
cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE lOb. CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS - SITE 3*
(English units)
u>
Nominal
Concrete exposure
type time
Type II cement
(28 day strength -
4500 Ib/in2)
Type V cement
(28 day strength -
4200 Ib/in )
Type II cement
polymer
impregnated##
, mo s •
o***
10
28
28
o***
10
28
28
o***
10
28
28
Gas
5,980
6,950
6,660#
6.200
7,120
7,170#
16,830
17,390
16,340#
2
Compressive strength (Ib/in )
(average of duplicate specimens)
Site exposure
Interface
6,060
6,880
6,300#
5,860
6,750 ,
6,640#
18,740
11,830
16,750#
Laboratory exposure**
Liquor
5,540
6,600
6,680#
5,990
6,990
6,490#
13,370
12,950
17,170#
50 percent relative
humidity, 73° F
4,300
4,500
5,110
4,320
4,720
5,590
18,820
17,200
17,655
Denver tap water,
room temperature
5,580
5,540
5,440
5,850
10,810
16,040
* Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria,
** E&R Cpnf-pr T.ahrtr
sttnri PS
. ITSRR ne
invpf- C.c\1ctrar\n.
Virginia
*** Concrete age when specimens first exposed: 8 months.
# Based on length change specimens with inserts sawed off, results corrected to length/diameter - 2.0.
## Strength before impregnation has little effect on final strength, and after impregnation, additional
cure time does not increase strength.
-------
TABLE 11. CONCRETE LENGTH CHANGE TEST RESULTS - SITE 1*
Nominal
Concrete exposure
type** time, mo.
II 3
10
22
V 3
10
22
P 3
10
22
Length change,
Gas
0.043
0.050
0.022
0.036
0.046
0.041
0.006
0.031
0.053
Site exposure
Interface
0.056
0.070
0.048
0.048
0.050
0.034
0.016
0.036
0.053
* Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas,
** II - Concrete made usine type II cement.
Liquor
##
0.098
0.056
«
0.076
0.062
«
0.037
0.050
California.
percent***
Laboratory
50 percent relative
humidity, 73°F
-0.009
-0.009
-0.008
-0.009
-0.004
-0.005
-0.005
0.003
0.008
exposure*
Denver tap water,
room temperature
0.042
0.050
0.053
0.035
0.037
0.040
0.003
0.021
0.046
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Percent gain (positive values) or loss (negative values) in length as compared to original
length determined at time of exposure, average of three replicate specimens.
# E&R Center Laboratories, USBR, Denver, Colorado. (
## Specimens could not be removed from exposure to determine their lengths after 3 months exposure.
-------
TABLE 12. CONCRETE LENGTH CHANGE TEST RESULTS - SITE 2*
u>
to
Nominal
Concrete exposure
type** time, mo.
II 3
10
20
28
V 3
10
20
28
P 3
10
20
28
* Speedway Wastewater
** II — Concrete made t
Length change, percent***
Gas
0.051
0.059
0.068
0.068
0.046
0.056
0.063
0.074
0.010
0.028
0.060
0.078
Treatment
isino- tvne
Site exposure/A
Interface
0.060
0.066
0.061
0.079
0.053
0.047
0.043
0.054
0.018
0.027
0.043
0.067
Liquor 50
0.051
0.056
0.056
0.054
0.056
0.057
0.053
0.063
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.034
Laboratory##
percent relative
humidity, 73°F
0.000
-0.003
-0.002
-0.018
0.001
-0.001
-0.001
-0.021
0.009
0.010
0.015
0.012
exposure###
Denver tap water,
room temperature
0.046
0.040
0.042
0.028
0.046
0.037
0.045
0.042
0.019
0.021
0.039
0.047
Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
II cement.
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Percent gain (positive values) or loss (negative values) in length as compared to original
length determined at time of exposure.
# Average of two replicate specimens.
## E&R Center Laboratories, USSR, Denver, Colorado.
### Average of three replicate specimens.
-------
TABLE 13. CONCRETE LENGTH CHANGE TEST RESULTS - SITE 3*
Co
.p-
Nominal
Concrete exposure
type** time, mo.
II 3
10
20
28
V 3
10
20
28
P 3
10
20
28
* Westgate Wastewater
** II - Concrete made i
Length change, percent***
Gas
0.059
0.060
0.060
0.069
0.049
0.053
0.053
0.059
0.015
0.029
0.042
0.076
Treatment
is ing type
Site exposure^
Interface
0.055
0.065
0.054
+
0.049
0.044
+
+
+
+
0.023
0.031
0.054
0.081
Liquor 50
0.055
0.066
0.066
0.076
0.056
0.057
0.053
0.063
0.011
0.028
0.043
0.068
Laboratory##
percent relative
humidity, 73°F
0.001
-0.003
-0.007
-0.013
0.005
-0.003
-0.009
-0.012
0.007
0.017
0.011
0.005
exposure###
Denver tap water,
room temperature
0.045
0.042
0.046
0.048
0.043
0.036
0.052
0.025
0.011
0.030
0.062
0.070
Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
II cement .
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Percent gain (positive values) or loss (negative values) in length as compared to original
length determined at time of exposure.
# Average of two replicate specimens.
## E&R Center Laboratories, USER, Denver, Colorado.
### Average of three replicate specimens.
+ Embedded metal inserts were loosened by exposure such that length determination could not be made,
-------
TABLE 14. CONCRETE LENGTH CHANGE TEST RESULTS -LABORATORY* EXPOSURES
Control Nominal
Concrete specimens exposure
type** for site*** time, mo.
3
1 10
22
3
II 2 10
20
28
3
3 10
20
28
3
1 10
22
3
V 2 10
20
28
3
3 10
20
28
3
1 10
22
3
P 2 10
20
28
3
3 10
20
28
Weight
50 percent
humidity, 73 °F
Grams
-3.7
-1.0
2.3
1.0
3.0
4.0
7.7
0.9
2.6
3.9
7.3
-4.8
-2.6
1.3
2.6
4.7
6.6
10.0
0.6
2,6
3.8
7.3
-1.7
0.0
2.4
1.2
1.9
1.9
3.8
0.6
1.4
1.2
4.0
Percent
-0.24
-0.07
0.15
0.06
0.19
0.26
0.50
0.06
0.17
0.26
0.48
-0.32
-0.17
0.08
0.17
0.31
0.43
0.66
0.04
0.17
0.24
0.48
-0.11
0.00
0.14
0.08
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.25
change#
Denver tap water
room temperature
Grams
57.7
61.4
62.5
68.2
71.4
71.5
73.7
70.2
73.6
74.0
76.0
57.0
59.8
61.3
65.6
66.6
67.0
69.0
67.1
69.2
69.5
71.8
11.3
12.4
18.1
9.9
17.4
20.2
23.2
11.4
15.0
17.0
20.7
Percent
3.80
4.04
4.12
4.49
4.70
4.70
4.85
4.62
4.84
4.87
5.00
3.70
3.88
3.97
4.24
4.31
4.33
4.46
4.37
4.51
4.52
4.68
0.71
0.78
1.14
0.62
1.10
1.27
1.46
0.72
0.94
1.07
1.30
* E&R Center Laboratories, USER, Denver, Colorado.
** II - Concrete made using type II cement.
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
i - Xapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California
2 - Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
3 - Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Gain (positive values) or loss (negative values) in grams and percent
based on the original weight determined at time of exposure.
***
#
35
-------
UJ
-
'
1
•
0
D— — — — DPol
j
— 1 1 1 III!
KEY
crete mod* with Typ* II C«me
Crete mod* with Type V cem«
ymer imprtgnoted concrtti
_— - —
>
.
=
-^-
«
t|
n«
ft4
-0
-a
« » K> 20 10 40 90 iO TO 10 tO 100
EXPOSURE TIME, UONTHS
FIGURE 9. EFFECT OF IMMERSION IN DENVER TAP WATER ON ABSORPTION
BY SITE I CONCRETE CONTROL SPECIMENS
-------
- :
1
«
5
Z
% wCiCMT CA
o — w w *
— T— i
;
1
— 1 1 1 — I — 1 — 1 — 1 —
KEY
icrete mode with Type n cement
>crete made with Type V cement
ymer impregnated concrete
)
,
I
>-—~
_
-"*""
>- •-
— — — '
•• •
^-«-
• -*
^^
^^•»
— '
-
— (
-J
—A
_- -°
3 j « 7 8 « 10 tO JO 40 50 *0 70 iO to K
EXPOSURE TIME, MONTHS
FIGURE 10. EFFECT OF IMMERSION IN DENVER TAP WATER ON ABSORPTION
BY SITE 2 CONCRETE CONTROL SPECIMENS
-------
•
0
T
1
Z
5 «
0
1-
z
0
UJ
* ,
0
D DPol
1
1
.
2
KEY
crete mode with Type n cement
crete mode with Type v cement
fmer impregnated concrete
V—
)
—
, ^•»^^—
^ •
— -*
• •
^ <—
— —
• —
^
-i
j — ^
.^
^
5 t 7 9 |0 10 » 40 ftO 40 TO *> »0 HJ
EXPOSURE TIME, MONTHS
FIGURE II. EFFECT OF IMMERSION IN DENVER TAP WATER ON ABSORPTION
BY SITE 3 CONCRETE CONTROL SPECIMENS
-------
0 06
OOi
004
-
.
.
•:
.-
•
0 02
001
A A Inlerloce
D D Liquor
> —-X Lob Immersion
?0
TIME, MONTHS
FIGURE 12. EFFECT OF SITE I EXPOSURE AND
LADORATORY IMMERSION EXPOSURE ON
LENGTH OF POLYMER IMPREGNATED CONCRETE
39
-------
: •
0.07 -
00«
e
.-
-
..
0 05
0 04
_
I
u
A Interfoce
O Liquor
x Lob Immersion
0 05
002
0 01
10 II 20
EXPOSURE TIML, MONTHS
FIGURE 13. EFFECT OF SITE 2 EXPOSURES AND LABORATORY
IMMERSION ON LENGTH OF POLYMER IMPREGNATED CONCRETE
-------
OOB
O07
A InteMoce
O D Liquor
X X Lob. Immersion
10 15 20
EXPOSUfiE TIME, MONTHS
FIGURE 14 EFFECT OF SITE 3 EXPOSURES AND
LABORATORY IMMERSION EXPOSURE ON
LENGTH OF POLYMER IMPREGNATED CONCRETE
41
-------
' \~ .»•
•
U.Pt
Figure 15. - Concrete prisms exposed at aite 3 for 28 months depict the
damage due to surface abrasion. Prefix of specimen code denotes concrete
type, i.e., 2-Type II, 5-Type V, and P-PIC; suffix indicates exposure,
i.e., G-gas, I-interface, L-liquor.
42
-------
Steel Embedded in Concrete
These results are listed in tables 15, 16, and 17. The corrosion rates
of steel embedded in concrete, as determined by steel-to-electrolyte poten-
tials and polarization tests and as verified by visual examination of the
steel after removal of the concrete cover at the end of the test, were found
to be so low as to be insignificant.
Alloys
1. Unstressed specimens. - Average corrosion rate, maximum pit depth,
and crevice corrosion results appear in tables 18, 19, and 20. The evalua-
tion of the data has been summarized in table 21. Alloys were evaluated by
assigning ratings based on their overall performance in all three exposure
zones of all three test sites. The ratings were assigned in accordance with
criteria shown in the table below:
Average corrosion rate (x) Maximum pitting rate (y) Rating
um/yr mils/yr ym/yr mils/yr
x<3 x<0.1 y<3 y<0.1 1
3254 x>10.0 y>254 y>10.0 4
Figures 16 through 21 show typical corrosion of exposed specimens.
The alloys are rated as follows according to their performance in all
three exposure zones at the three test sites:
a. Highly resistant (rating of 1.0)
(1) Stainless steel, Type 201 (Alloy A-4)
(2) Stainless steel, Type 304 (Alloy A-5)
(3) Stainless steel, Type 316 (Alloy A-7)
b. Moderately resistant (1.0 < rating £ 2.0)
(1) Sensitized stainless steel, Type 304 (Alloy A-6)
(2) Sensitized stainless steel, Type 316 (Alloy A-8)
c. Resistant (2.0 < rating _< 3.0)
(1) Nickel cast iron (Alloy A-9)
(2) Deoxidized copper (Alloy A-10)
d. Nonresistant (rating > 3.0)
(l) Gray cast iron (Alloy A-l)
(2) Mild steel (Alloy A-2)
43
-------
TABLE 15. TEST RESULTS - STEEL EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE - SITE 1*
Concrete Nominal Steel-to-electrolyte potential***
type** exposure
time, mo
II 3
10
22
V 3
10
22
P 3
10
22
Gas
-0.11
-0.06
-0.26
-0.12
-0.14
-0.07
-0.11
-0.39
-0.41
volts
Interface
-0.11
-0.09
-0.09
. -0.08
-0.02
-0.12
-0.16
-0.17
-0.09
Liquor
-0.25
-0.05
-0.30
-0.16
-0.12
-0.11
-0.11
-0.22
-0.09
Corrosion rate #^
(grams/year) x 10
Gas Interface Liquor
.
_ _ —
_ _ -
w M —
— — —
_ _ -
_ — —
42
116
* Tapia Water Reclamation
** TT — Concrete made us ins
Facility,
i tvt»e II <
Calabasas,
:ement .
California.
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Referenced to copper/copper-sulfate electrode.
# As determined by "polarization tests which were conducted only on those specimens
exhibiting potentials more negative than -0.30 volt.
-------
TABLE 16. TEST RESULTS - STEEL EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE - SITE 2*
Concrete Nominal
type** exposure
time, mo
II 3
10
20
28
V 3
10
20
28
P 3
10
20
28
Steel-to-electrolyte potential***
volts
Gas
-0.54
-0.11
-0.08
-0.05
-0.63
-0.29
-0.05
-0.05
-0.45
-0.22
-0.16
-0.08
Interface
-0.51
-0.19
-0.21
-0.19
-0.50
-0.13
-0.20
-0.11
-0.54
-0.40
-0.26
-0.26
Liquor
-0.44 •
-0.36
-0.20
-0.14
-0.53
-0.22
-0.23
-0.19
-0.36
-0.28
-0.23
-0.43
Corrosion rate #,
(grams/year) x 10
Gas Interface Liquor
133 277 242
236
_ _ _
— — -
215 360 270
-
_
6 124 45
132
- -
216
* Speedway Wastewater
** II - Concrete made i
Treatment
isinz tvne
Plant, Indianapolis
IT cement.
, Indiana.
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Referenced to copper/copper-sulfate electrode.
# As determined by polarization tests which were conducted only on those specimens
exhibiting potentials more negative than -0.30 volt.
-------
TABLE 17. TEST RESULTS - STEEL EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE - SITE 3*
Concrete Nominal
type** exposure
time, mo.
II 3
10
20
28
V 3
10
20
28
P 3
10
20
28
* Westgate Wastewater
** II — Concrete made i
Steel-to-electrolyte potential***
Gas
-0.49
-0.42
-0.20
-0.28
-0.48
-0.40
-0.20
-0.11
-0.50
-0.32
-0.19
-0.20
Treatment
isine tvoe
volts
Interface
-0.48
-0.33
-0.17
-0.17
-0.46
-0.39
-0.18
-0.10
-0.52
-0.38
-0.24
-0.33
Plant, Alexandria,
TI cement.
Corrosion rate #.
(grams/year) x
Liquor
-0.49
-0.41
-0.27
-0.27
-0.50
-0.44
-0.22
-0.19
-0.52
-0.36
-0.23
-0.47
Viriniga.
Gas
103
100
-
-
39
46
-
-
14
10
-
"
Interface
36
45
-
_
81
95
-
—
6
84
—
87
10
Liquor
103
97
-
—
77
86
-
—
6
96
—
186
V - Concrete made using type V cement.
P - Polymer-impregnated concrete made using type II cement.
*** Referenced to copper/copper-sulfate electrode.
# As determined by polarization tests which were conducted only on those specimens
exhibiting potentials more negative than -0.30 volt.
-------
TABLE 18a. TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 1 I/
(metric units)
Alloy 2/
code ~
No.
4-1
4-2
»-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
ttoalnal
exposure
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
Av«rag« oorroaion rate
(iM/vr)
Oas
66
69
140
107
145
152
91
124
127
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
18
23
46
30
28
30
8
13
20
Interface
89
41
30
109
53
86
86
48
63
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
41
30
38
25
20
119
104
33
Liquor
109
61
69
112
56
114
46
25
51
<3
<
*
<
<
<
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
28
36
56
33
23
51
130
97
66
Maximal pitting rate (im/*rl
Exposed surface
Qaa
711
366
401
914
762
251
1168
884
244
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
76
229
<3
<3
<3
•<3
<3
91
254
259
124
<3
229
86
1321
1006
Perforated
Interface Liquor
356
152
89
508
152
130
345
518
165
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
305
168
114
<3
61
33
1829
1097
475
432
152
122
610
213
201
508
152
130
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
*3
<3
<3
<3
152
305
117
305
122
69
2642
Perforated
Perforated
das
<3
<3
124
<3
853
142
<3
305
76
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
Perforated
Perforated
Crevice }/
Interface
<3
<3
51
<3
Incipient
71
<3
Incipient
104
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
69
<3
<3
<3
<3
960
312
Liquor
<3
<3
15
<3
168
104
<3
137
94
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
53
<3
<3
<3
<3
853
348
I/ Tapla Water ReolaMtlon Faollltjr, Calaba«aa, California
2/ See table 2 for alloy Identification.
i/ Surface beneath teflon apace.
-------
TABLE 18b, TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 1 _!/
(English units)
00
Alloy I/
eode
Ho.
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-3
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
ftwlaal
expo euro
tlaw (BO)
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
Average, eomolo* rete
(•11 •/«•«)
Oaa
2.6
2.7
S.S
4.2
5.7
6.0
3.6
4.9
5.0
^OeX
a(Q 1
^Oel
e{0 1
<0,1
^Oel
<(Jil
*0«1
<0.1
Cae
28.0
14.4
15.8
36.0
30.0
9.9
46.0
34.8
9.6
< 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
3.0
9.0
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
3.6
10.0
10.2
4.9
< 0.1
9.0
3.4
52.0
39.6
Perforated
Interface
14.0
6.0
3.5
20.0
6.0
3.1
13.6
20.4
6.5
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
12.0
6.6
4.5
< 0.1
2.4
1.3
72.0
43.2
18.7
Liquor
17.0
6.0
4.8
24.0
8.4
7.9
20.0
6.0
5.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
6.0
12.0
4.6
12.0
4.8
2.7
104.0
Perforated
Perforated
Cae
< 0.1
< 0.1
4.9
< 0.1
33.6
3.6
< 0.1
12.0
3.0
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
Perforated
Perforated
Crevice £f
Interface Liquor
< 0.1
< 0.1
2.0
< 0.1
Incipient
2.8
< 0.1
Incipient
4.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
4 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
« 0.1
< 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
2.7
4 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
4 0.1
37.8
12.3
4
«
4
«
«
4
4
«
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
6.6
4.1
0.1
5.4
3.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
33.6
13.7
TapU Water KecleMtlon Facility, Calabaeaa, Califenla.
_ See tabla_2_ for alley Identification.
2/ Surface beneath teflon ipaeer.
-------
TABLE 19a. TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 2 I/
(metric units)
*»
VO
Alloy If
code ""
No.
i-1
A-2
4-3
A-4
4-5
4-4
A-7
A-*
A-»
A-10
A-ll
IhMinal
exposure
tlM (BO
3
10
23
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
Average
oorroalon
(im/yr)
) Oaa Interface
99
99
58
165
69
61
99
97
48
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
33
41
30
5
5
3
<3
3
5
20
112
168
20
16
74
20
71
74
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
23
33
41
10
5
15
<3
<3
<3
pat*
Maxloim pitting pate
Exposed supfaoe
Liquor
107
244
221
81
97
127
84
163
97
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
13
23
38
33
51
33
<3
10
Oaa
<3
396
81
1016
762
142
1880
533
180
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
1067
335
142
<3
<3
168
<3
1133
48 Perforated
I/ Speedway Vastemtap Treatment Plant, Indianapolis ,
Indiana.
Intarfaoe
<3
396
345
965
747
104
254
457
Perforated
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
1219
366
18
<3
<3
a
<3
152
142
Liquor
<3
1260
336
762
457
147
610
549
Perforated
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
711
244
48
<3
<3
48
1067
671
Perforated
Oaa
<3
<3
180
<3
198
119
<3
213
175
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
198
160
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
15
(wWyr)
Crevloe 3/
Intepfaee
<3
<3
<3
<3
168
107
<3
107
51
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
1219
320
81
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
201
Liquor
<3
152
130
<3
366
193
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
2/ See table 2 for alloy Identification.
V Surface
beneath
teflon spacer.
-------
TABLE 19b. TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 2 I/
(English units)
Ln
o
Alloy 2/
code
Ho.
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-3
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
ftttlaal
tl»e (BO)
3
10
28
3
1°
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
Average eorroalon rate
(•lie/year)
Gaa
3.9
3.9
2.3
6.5
2.7
2.4
3.9
3.8
1.9
<0.1
<0.1
^0* 1
^0» X
-------
TABLE 20a. TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 3 I/
(metric units)
411oy 2/
code
Mo.
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-1
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-6
4-9
4-10
4-11
expoaure
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
Averaf* oorroalon rate
(uB/vr)
Oas Interface
18
18
13
33
36
25
30
30
23
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
8
18
10
86
13
76
111
36
81
107
38
51
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
18
33
20
18
a
20
3
10
<3
Liquor
69
132
17
76
91
33
71
69
28
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
18
10
3
23
25
18
«3
<3
<3
Maxim* pitting rate (u»/yr)
Exposed surface
Oaa
<3
<3
15
610
183
18
157
152
61
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
305
213
5
<3
<3
18
965
671
221
Interface
<3
<3
71
157
366
257
305
91
191
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
152
15
<3
<3
79
<3
911
231
Liquor
<3
188
23
305
198
61
559
381
107
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
"3
<3
<3
<3
<3
213
76
<3
<3
<3
<3
579
111
Qu
<3
198
91
<3
335
160
<3
262
168
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
122
56
<3
<3
<3
<3
335
330
CreTloe V
Interface
<3
229
112
<3
351
173
<3
213
109
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
61
30
<3
<3
<3
<3
198
333
Liquor
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
53
<3
122
137
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
«3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
229
91
17Veatgate Vaat«water Treatment Plant, 41e«andrla, Virginia
2/ See table 2 for alloy Identification.
3y Surface beneath teflon apaeer.
-------
TABLE 2Ob. TEST RESULTS - ALLOYS - SITE 3 I/
(English units)
ro
Alloy 2
cod*
Ho.
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
ftmlnal
ezpoaure
tlM (no)
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
21
3
10
28
3
10
28
3
10
28
Average corrosion
(nila/year)
CM Interface
0.7 3.4
0.7 1.7
0.3 3.0
1.3 4.5
1.4 1.4
1.0 3.2
1.2 4.2
1.2 1.5
0.9 2.0
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0.
<0i
<0.
<0.
•tOo
•tQ
<0.
•10.
^0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.1
<0.1
cO.l
^0.1
<0.1
*0.1
^0.1
^0 .1
<0.1
^0.1
^0 •!
^0.1
^0.1
(Oil
tfl.l
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.4
0.1 <0.1
rate
Liquor
2.7
5.2
1.6
3.0
3.7
1.3
2.8
2.7
1.1
40*1
Caa
< 0.1
7.8
3.6
< 0.1
13.2
6.3
< 0.1
10.3
6.6
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
4.8
2.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
13.2
13.0
— drevlee I/
Interface Liquor
< O.i
-------
TABLE 21. EVALUATION SUMMARY - ALLOYS - SITES 1, 2, AND 3
Alloy
code
No.
A-l
Performance rating I/
Site
exposure
Gas
Interface
Liquor
3 mo
4
4
4
Site 1 2/
10 oo 22 mo
4 4
3 3
3 3
3 mo
3
2
3
Site 2 3/
10 mo
4
4
4
28 mo
2
4
4
3 mo
2
3
3
Site 3
10 mo
3
3
4
4/
26 mo
3
3
3
Average
3.0
3.3
3-3
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
1
1
1
1.
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
4
4
3
• 4
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3.0
3-3
3.0
3.0
3.3
3-3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
A-9
A-10
A-ll
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.7
4.0
3-7
4.0
I/ Assigned as folbvs in accordance with average corrosion rate (x) and maximum pitting rate (y).
Average coproalon_rata_(x)
ua/yr alls/yr
Maximum pitting rate (y)
iim/yr Bils/yr
x<3
3254
x<0.1
0.110.0
25
y<3
25
254
254
y<0.1
0.110.0
21 Tapla Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California.
3/ Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
\l Westgate Hatewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria. Virginia.
£/ Average of 22-month rating at site 1 and 28-month ratings at sites 2 and 3.
53
-------
,- v#rtf%.-..fr>K
Figure 16. Sensitized Type 304 stainless steel specimen exposed in the gas
zone at site 1 for 22 months. Note pitting due to sensitization.
Figure 17. Mild steel specimen exposed in the gas zone at site 2 for 28
months. Surface is deeply pitted.
54
-------
Figure 18. Low alloy steel specimen exposed in the liquor at site
months. Specimen is perforated.
Figure 19. Aluminum alloy bObl ixposed in the gas zone at site 2 for 28
months. Sample is perforated.
r':
-------
Figure 20. Copper specimen exposed in the gas zone at site 2 for 28 months
Sample is pitted in one localized area only.
Figure 21. Edge view of gray cast iron coupons, unexposed (top) and exposed
for 28 months in the gas-liquor interface at site 2. Thickness loss was
caused by graphitization.
56
-------
(3) Low alloy steel (Alloy A-3)
(4) Aluminum alloy (Alloy A-ll)
2. Stressed specimens. - Table 22 shows the results of exposure of
stressed alloy specimens. The split specimens are shown in figures 22 and
23. All stressed alloys performed satisfactorily in all exposures at the
three test sites except:
a. Mild steel (Alloy A-2)
b. Low alloy steel (Alloy A-3)
c. Aluminum alloy (Alloy A-ll)
Rubber and Plastics
1. Rubber Sheeting. - Physical property test results are shown in
table 23. The effect of exposure on rubber materials is discussed below by
rubber type:
a. Generally satisfactory
(1) Butyl. - Very slight strength loss. Slight shrinkage in
one sample. Swelling and moderate strength loss at site 2 liquor/
gas interface indicating contact with a petroleum product.
(2) Chlorosulfonated polyethylene. - Slight strength and
elongation loss accompanied by slight hardening in all gaseous
phases.
(3) Ethylene propylene diene monomer. - Spotty swelling with
resulting moderate change in physical properties in the splash zone
indicating some petroleum contact.
(4) Polyacrylate. - General moderate strength loss.
b. Satisfactory for limited use
(1) Natural. - Strength loss, softening, distortion, swelling
from petroleum contact, initial ozone cracking, and indications of
micro-organism attack. Use should be limited to applications in
which high strength, high resiliency and resistance to fatigue,
crack growth and tearing are essential, and exposure to oxygenated,
bacteria-laden water, is minimal.
(2) Nitrile-butadiene. - General strength loss with slight
elongation loss. Initial ozone cracking. Should not be used under
conditions of combined stress and atmospheric or ozone exposure.
(3) Silicone. - Severe mechanical damage, caused by suspended
solids and debris, observed in the splash zone. Discoloration of
one product (R-32) accompanied by loss of strength and elongation
loss. Should be formulated for bacteria resistance and limited to
uses not subject to severe abrasive conditions.
57
-------
TABLE 22. TEST RESULTS - STRESSED METALS - SITES 1,2, AND 3*
Ul
oo
Exposure
Alloy** Site
Code No. Identification No. Phase
2 Mild carbon steel, 2*** Liquor
AISI 1020
3# Interface
3# Interface
3 Low alloy steel, 3 Interface
USS Cor-Ten
11 Aluminum alloy, AA-6061 2 Liquor
Liquor
Period Test results
(months)
28 Both specimens com-
pletely fractured
10 One specimen split;
wearing indicative of
abrasion
20 Both specimens split
28 One specimen split
10 One specimen split
20 Both specimends split;
wearing indicative of
abrasion
* Only those materials which split during the course of the exposure are listed. Since
alloy No. 1, gray cast iron, and alloy No. 9, austenitic gray cast iron, are not subject
to this test, only nine alloys were exposed.
** See table 2 for alloy identification.
*** Site 2 - Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
# Site 3 - Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia.
-------
Figure 22. - Duplicate mild steel (top left) and aluminum alloy 6061 (bottom
left) stressed specimens failed after 28 months' exposure in the liquor at
site 2.
Figure 23. - Duplicate mild steel (first two samples, top row) and low alloy
steel (second two samples, top row) stressed specimens failed after
28 months' exposure at the interface at site 3.
-------
TABLE 23a. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING
(metric units)
- MATERIALS R-29, R-17, R-5
Property
5
M
!
u
•*
*4
1
dentation
Parent
::<
Is
as
••MMimBMM
*
"• Ttilcknc*
J Percent ch
»
i
*
Material
Exposure
Exposure
tine, nontha
• 0
3
9
28
0
3
9
•••••in .....•.•^
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
2
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
4
«-29
Butyl - C
14.8
l»-9 14.5 TTF"
13.3 14.2 13.9
13.1 14.2 14 2
13.8 13.9 13lfl
14.5 13.3 14.5
_il4 12.8 14.4
"•a 13.2 13.3
11-2 7.2 13.2
11.8 12.2 14.4
14.1
625
690 655 660
610 645 645
640 620 655
580 620 610
630 570 640
610 565 630
565 540 590
590 380 610
525 530 660
630
64
62 63 62
63 62 63
- ^ M 6?
63 62 64
63 62 61
62 61 62
62 62 63
62 50 61
60 62 63
64
0.5 0.6 o.T
2.0 -1.5 -1.6
1.3 1.3 -1.4
0-2 2.1 3.3
0.3 1.0 0.2
0.3 9.9 0.8
2.1 -0.6 .0.8
-0.1
»-iT
Butyl - C
--°"« interface LKJIM*
10.1
TOTI IO STf—
9.1 8.6 9.i
-M— iW 1*-
9.6 9.1 9*
9.5 8.8 In
- 9.4 9.8 !&-
9.* 9.7 ?.3
8.1 8.6 9.5
375
405 400 315 '
390 340 360
410 320 170
3»5 375 3fio '
375 365 370
335 340 350
375 355 375
390 340 385
320 355 380
390
6?
64 64 £6
65 64 64
63 63 63
64 64 (,(,
65 64 64
64 64 64
63 64 £5
66 64 64
61* 63 63
64
0.4 -O.T -0.9
-2.1 0.2 -2.3
-0.3 -0.8 -0.8
-1.2 -1.2 -1.8
-1.8 -1.4 2.1
-2'2 -0.9 -1.9
-1.2 -1.7 -O.i
-4.0 7.2 -1.6
-1.1 -1.3 -1.9
-1.2
- ., J' H necianation Plant, Calabasas, California ^ L
It! » uPefdW?y "**tew'ltep Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
«!» 1' n«l*f ! Vast«watep Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USBR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
R-5
Meoprene
Oa» Interface Liquor
16.5
».5 16.9 17.1
W.I 15.5 15.5
13.5 14.7 14.8
It. 8 lo. 2 lo.O
16.2 15.3 15.7
"•7 13.1 14.0
1».9 13.8 13.0
11-0 11.7 13.0
290
M 31° 315
290 300 300
JV" ZIO 295
285 300 280 ~~
300 290 265
270 21? 9RA
*« 240 255
270 240 240
220 205 230
73
72 71 73
72 72 70
71 63 68
73 70 72 ""
72 69 68
73 72 69
73 72 71
73 68 70
72 73 71
- tt
0.4 -0.2 0.0
-1.5 -2.1 -2.J
1.1 -18 44
-0.8 0.3 -0.3
-0.8 2.4 5.8
-1.0 -0.2 2 2
-1.1 -1.5 -0:9
-1.3 1.7 -0.1
0.2 -1.4 -1.3
0.4
-------
TABLE 23a. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-29, R-17, R-5
(English units)
Material
Property
Tenalla Stra^th
U/la2
Elongation
Percent
:•<
8 •
•3 w
31
1
B °
M M
ll
Exposure
time, aontha
0
3
9
28
9
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Sita i/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1-29
Butyl - C
Gaa Interface Liquor
2,160
2,175 2,110 2,080
1,940 2.065 2,030
1.910 2,060 2.060
2,015 2,020 2,010
2,115 1,940 2.105
2,000 1.870 2.090
1,865 1.915 1.940
2,070 1,055 1,920
1.725 1,770 2,100
2,047
625
690 655 660
640 645 643
640 620 655
580 620 610
630 570 640
610 565 630
565 540 590
390 380 610
525 530 660
630
64
62 63 62
63 62 63
58 63 63
63 62 64
63 62 61
62 61 62
62 62 63
62 50 61
60 62 63
64
O.S 0.6 0.7
2.0 -1.5 -1.6
1.3 1.3 -1.4
-0.3 0.8 0.5
0.2 2.1 3.3
0.2 1.5 -0.8
0.3 1.0 0.2
0.3 9.9 0.8
2.1 -0.6 -0.8
-0.1
t-17
Butyl - C
1,470
1.470 1,515 1,450
1,320 1,260 1,330
1,340 1.260 1.420
1.330 1,565 1,390
1.400 1.324 1,405
1.390 1.285 1.430
1,375 1,435 1.435
1,370 1,415 1,335
1,180 1,255 1,385
1.440
375
405 400 315
390 340 360
410 320 370
385 375 380
375 365 370
335 340 350
373 355 375
390 340 385
320 355 380
390
63
64 64 66
65 64 64
63 63 62
64 64 66
65 64 64
64 64 64
63 64 65
66 64 64
64 63 63
64
0.4 -0.7 -0.9
-2.1 0.2 -2.3
-0.3 -0.8 -0.8
-1.2 -1.2 -1.8
-1.8 -1.4 2.1
-2.2 -0.9 -1.9
-1.2 -1.7 -0.9
-4.0 7.2 -1.6
-1.1 -1.3 -1.9
-1.2
K-3
2.400
2.400 2.460 2.485
2.200 2.260 2,260
1.960 2.140 2.160
2,135 2,360 2,325
2.360 2.220 2.280
2,065 1,880 2.065
l!«4J i.900 2,05S
2,175 2.015 1.895
1,600 1.700 1,895
2.200
290
315 310 313
290 300 300
300 210 295
285 300 280
300 290 265
270 235 230
225 240 255
270 240 240
220 205 230
270
73
72 71 73
72 72 70
71 63 68
73 70 72
72 69 68
73 72 69
73 72 71
73 68 70
72 73 71
74
0.4 -0.2 0.0
-1.3 -2.1 -2.3
1.1 -1.8 4.4
-0.8 0.3 -0.3
-0.8 2.4 5.8
-1.0 -0.2 2.2
-1.1 -1.5 -0.9
-1.3 1.7 -0.1
0.2 -1.4 -1.3
0.4
Sita 1:
Sita 2i
Sita 3>
Sita 4i
Tapia Water Reclamation Plant. Calabaiaa, California
Speedway Waatewater Treatment Plant, IndUnapolia, Indiana
Weatgate Waatewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
-------
TABLE 23b.
TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-30, R-8, R-32
(metric units)
Material
Property
Tensile Strength
HP*
Elongation,
percent
:<
•
a
. 5
:e
£«
u e
eg
tine, months
3
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
o
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
*
I
Z
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
i
2
3.
l
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
H-30
BPDM . 0
10. a
10.4 11.4 iTT"
9.8 9.3 10.3
9.1 10.4 10.8
10.1 11.4 10.1
10.9 11.7 10.9
10.8 9.8 10.;
10.8 11.4 10.2
11.0 8.7 10.8
8.5 7.9 10. }
11.4
660
670 680 £50
660 580 650
530 600 660
630 665 630
680 605 620
550 505 515
4l5 475 5*0
630 445 545
110 370 485
- 625
68
65 68 68
67 68 68
66 71 66
n 87 85 6ft
66 66 69
67 66 68
57 87 6fl ' "
70 56 69
66 66 70
66
0.2 -0.6 .0.2
-1.9 -1.9 -4.4
0.2 -3.4 0.3
-0.5 0.0 -1.2
-1.2 1.2 1.8
-0.3 1.8 0.3
-0.3 -0.5 -0.8
-2.0 8.8 -0.6
3.0 1.6 -0.4
-0.8
fl-8
EPDM - C
«a Interface Liquor
11.7
11.9 11.9 11.8
10.2 11.1 11.2
10.4 10.9 11.1
11.2 11.7 11.2
11.16 10.8 11.6
11.* 11.5 12.0
11.5 11.9 11.7
11.6 10.2 11.5
11.3 10.0 11.9
11.7
440
475 440 429
395 410 440
420 410 430
450 420 420
400 385 425
«15 410 435
440 430 500
430 365 410
390 370 400
420
66
66 66 66
65 66 67
66 68 68
65 66 68
68 68 68
67 66 67
65 65 67
74 62 68
67 66 69
66
0.0 -1.2 -2.7
-0.6 0.2 -3.2
-0.7 -0.2 -0.8
-0.4 -1.4 -3.3
-2.6 -1.9 0.1
-0.3 3.5 -0.2
-0.1 -0.8 -2.0
-5.1 6.8 -1.3
0.6 3.2 0.2
-0.4
I/ Site 1: rapia water Heoiamatlon Plant, Calabasas, California
Sit* 2: Speedway Waatewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site 3: Veatgate Wastewater Treatnent Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
11-32
Silicon* - D
aa Interface Liquor
6.0
— O- S.S ' i.i
5.7 1.6 5.6
5.1 3,3 6.3
6.9 5.9 «.*
6.8 5.5 5.8
5.5 4.7 6.5
£.5 6.i 5.1
8.2 2.6 5.7
2.8 2.7 2.8
. -_ 6.9
160 160 130
155 85 125
135 45 150
155 150 105
140 140 120
95 150 120
135 140 80
140 60 130
45 50 110
140
74
71 71 •" 70"
71 74 75
73 74 72
"71 "TO 70
71 70 72
, 72 . 70 74
71 72 h
74 62 68
75 71 7i
0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.3 1.6 .5.2
-l.j -0.3 -l.l
-1.0 -0.7 -0.8 "
-0.6 0.2 2.0
-0.4 -0.4 1.0
-0.9 -0.8 ' '-0.3
-1.5 -0.3 0.1
-0.6 -0.8 1.4
-0.8
-------
TABLE 23b. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-30, R-8, R-32
(English units)
LO
Material
Property
Teasila Strength
Ib/ln2
Elongation.
percent
Hardness
Shore "A"
Thickness
Percent Change
Exposure
Exposure
time, months
o
3
9
28
o
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
>
9
28
Site If
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
t-30
EPDH - C
Gas Interface Liquor
1.570
1,515 1.665 1,660
1,430 1,350 1,500
1,330 1,520 1.580
1,465 1,665 1,465
1,585 1.710 1.595
1.580 1,435 1.525
1.570 1,665 1,480
1.600 1,265 1,575
1.245 1.15$ 1,505
1.655
660
670 680 650
680 580 650
580 600 660
630 685 630
680 603 620
550 505 545
615 573 540
630 445 545
410 370 485
623
68
65 68 66
67 68 68
66 73 66
67 68 68
66 66 69
67 66 68
67 67 68
70 36 69
66 66 70
- - 66
0.2 -0.6 -0.2
-1.9 -1.9 -4.4
0.2 -3.4 0.3
-0.5 0.0 -1.2
-1.2 1.2 1.8
-0.3 1.8 0.3
-0.3 -0.5 -0.8
-2.0 8.8 -0.6
3.0 1.6 -0.4
-0.8
•-8
trot - c
Cam Interface Liquor
1.700
1,740 1,735 1,713
1.480 1,610 1,630
1,520 1,590 1,610
1,630 1,705 1,635
1.620 1,575 1.685
1.655 1,670 1.750
1,670 1,730 1,700
1,690 1,490 1.680
1,640 1.460 1.735
1.700
440
475 440 425
395 410 440
420 410 430
450 420 420
400 385 423
415 410 435
440 430 400
430 365 410
390 370 400
420
66
66 66 66
65 66 67
66 68 68
65 66 68
68 68 68
67 66 67
66 65 67
74 62 68
67 66 69
66
0.0 -1.2 -2.7
-0.6 0.2 -3.2
-0.7 -0.2 -0.8
-0.6 -1.4 -3.3
-2.8 -1.9 0.1
-0.3 3.5 -0.2
-0.1 -0.8 -2.0
-5.1 6.8 -1.3
0.6 3.2 0.2
-0.4
1-32
Silicon* - D
Gas Interface Liquor
880
970 975 450
830 680 820
750 480 920
1.005 860 645
990 800 850
810 695 955
955 930 745
1.200 380 830
410 405 420
1,005
180
160 160 130
155 85 123
135 4$ 150
155 150 105
140 140 120
95 150 120
135 140 80
140 60 130
45 SO 110
140
74
71 71 70
71 74 73
73 74 72
71 70 70
74 70 72
72 70 74
71 72 71
74 62 68
73 71 71
72
0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.3 1.6 -3.2
-1.3 -0.3 -1,1
-1.0 -0.7 -0.8
-0.6 0.2 2.0
-0.4 -0.4 1.0
-0.9 -0.6 -0.3
-1.3 -0.3 0.1
-0.6 -0.8 1.4
-0.8
Site 1: Tapia Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasas, California
Site 2: Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis. Indiana
Site 3: Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USER Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
-------
TABLE 23c. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-532, R-25, R-34
(metric units)
Material
Tensile Strength
MPa
Elongation
Percent
Bardneaa
Shore "A"
Thickness
Percent change
tine, months
o
3
9
28
0
3
9
26
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
,1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
it
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
H-532
Silicons - 0
7.5
6.5 7.1 7.6
5.5 6.2 5.9
6.5 6.1) 6.8
5.7 5.0 6.8
6.6 6.7 6.8
3.6 1.7 6.3
7.2
570
565 620 595
130 195 130
180 505 520
120 100 530
515 180 160
280 310 150
535
52
53 52 52
60 51 57
53 51 51
56 52 53
51 51 51
56 51 56
56
1.0 2.9 1.8
1.1 1.7 5.2
0.3 2.9 1.6
0.3 1.0 0.6
-2.6 3.9 1.3
-3.3 1-8 2.1
2.3
R-25
Natural
16.8
11.1 13.3 15.6
10.5 13.8 13-3
11.1 10.3 10.9
10.8 13.9 13.3
10.8 10.6 10.1
11.2 10.3 11.1
1.8 9-7 10.6
8.6 2.9 8.1
1.7 7.1 11.3
8.5
615
610 625 650
600 510 610
620 590 580
560 610 615
590 565 575
560 570 565
270 110 505
515 390 555
150 530 560
510
19
19 50 52
52 50 18
52 19 50
52 19 50
52 50 18
52 50 51
51 50 50
50 11 52
51 51 51
50
0.0 1.1 0.8
-2.1 6.5 0.9
0.2 0.2 2.8
-0.6 0.2 0.2
0.5 1.1 3.5
-0.8 1.3 0.0
-2.0 0.0 -1.0
-1.1 5.8 0.9
-0.9 1.8 0.0
1.7
R-31
NAR
Gas Interface Liauor
22.9
21.0 19.7 20.6
17.5 17.8 19.6
15.9 16.1 16.5
16.7 18.1 19.7
17.1 17.9 18.5
17.1 16.1 16.9
12.3 13-1 16.6
16.2 16.3 16.0
11.8 15.8 15.3
15.1
515
510 620 500
165 160 170
M30 130 130
1)20 WO 530
115 115 110
405 100 100
335 360 385
115 390 380
315 370 330
385
66
66 66 61
68 67 68
71 66 67
" 66 66 67
68 68 68
68 67 68
67 66 67
67 66 67
67 68 68
67
-0.2 0.3 0.7
-1.8 -6.0 1.6
0.0 -0.2 0.1
-0.6 -0.3 -0.1
-0.2 0.1 0.5
-0.7 -0.2 -2.6
0.2 -0.2 -0.3
-0.1 0.6 -0.1
-0.1 0.7 0.1
1.1
\f Site 1: Tapla Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasas, California
~ Site 2: Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site 3: Uestgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 1: USBR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado.
-------
TABLE 23c. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-532, R-25, R-34
(English units)
Material
Property
4
!,
" £
A A
wl
1
Elongation
Percent
ll
A3
Thickneaa
Percent change
Exooaure
Exposure
time, month*
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1-532
Slllcone - G
Caa Interface Liquor
1.100
943 1,080 1.105
810 910 865
950 935 990
835 730 995
970 980 990
325 685 915
1.055
570
365 620 395
430 495 430
480 505 520
420 400 530
515 480 460
280 340 430
535
52
53 52 32
60 54 57
53 51 54
56 52 53
34 54 34
56 54 56
56
1.0 2.9 1.8
1.4 1.7 3.2
0.3 2.9 1.6
0.3 1.0 0.6
•2.6 3.9 1.3
-3.3 1.8 2.1
2.3
1-23
Natural
Gas Interface Liquor
2.450
1.665 1.930 2.270
1,530 2.010 1.940
1.620 1,500 1.590
1.575 2.020 1,940
1.570 1.545 1.470
1,630 1.500 1.620
275 1.420 1,550
1.250 435 1,175
685 1,030 1,640
1.235
615
610 625 650
600 510 610
620 590 580
560 610 613
590 565 575
560 570 365
270 440 505
545 390 555
450 530 560
540
49
49 SO 52
52 50 48
52 49 SO
52 49 50
52 50 48
52 50 51
51 50 50
50 44 52
51 51 51
30
0.0 1.4 0.8
-2.4 6.5 0.9
0.2 0.2 2.8
-0.8 0.2 0.2
0.5 4.1 3.5
-0.8 1.3 0.0
-2.0 0.0 -1.0
-1.1 5.8 0.9
-0.9 1.8 0.0
4.7
1-34
HAI
Caa Interface Llauor
3.330
3.050 2.865 3.000
2,540 2,590 2,850
2.310 2.380 2.400
2,435 2,670 2.870
2,530 2.605 2.690
2.490 2.345 2.465
1.795 1,905 2,415
2,350 2,370 2,330
2,160 2.295 2,225
2.195
515'
540 620 500
465 460 470
430 430 430
420 480 530
445 445 440
405 400 400
335 360 385
415 390 380
315 370 330
385
66
66 66 64
68 67 68
71 66 67
66 66 67
68 68 68
68 67 68
67 66 67
67 66 67
67 68 68
- - 67
-0.2 0.3 0.7
-1.8 -6.0 1.6
0.0 -0.2 0.4
-0.6 -0.3 -0.4
-0.2 0.4 0.5
-0.7 -0.2 -2.6
0.2 -0.2 -0.3
-0.4 0.6 -0.1
-0.4 0.7 0.1
1.4
I/
Tapla Hater Reclamation Plant. Calabaaaa, California
_... .. Speedway Uaatewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site 3: Heatgate Wastevater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4t USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
Site 1:
Site 2:
-------
TABLE 23d.
TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING
(metric units)
- MATERIALS R-27, R-18, R-31
Material
Property
Tensile Strength
MPa
Elongation
percent
Hardness
Shore "A"
&
. §
Z5
5*
.28
es
S
Exposure
tine, months
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
i|
1
2
- 3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
R-27
Polyaorylate
13.9
".» 7-5 12T2—
9.3 12.2 H.6
7.0 7.3 13.0
9-1 6.7 — 875—
11.9 8.1 8.2
8.9 12.3 8.3
10.6 11.6 "12.3
10.7 10.0 7.5
13.0 6.8 11.0
10.6
125
135 95 110
105 135 120
105 100 160
80 70 110
130 110 105
90 . 110 110
95 110 100
120 120 100
130 80 120
110
71
70 71 70
72 72 72
67 71 71
71 72 72
72 72 73
71 70 71
72 72 71
71 70 71
71 68 68
- 72
1.9 2.1 1.3
-8.3 -1.1 -3.0
-1.9 -2.2 -3.2
0.0 0.4 1.6
0.3 0.2 0.8
-2.7 -3.0 0.8
0.5 1.1 1.1
-1.8 -1.6 -2.3
-3.2 -1.1 -2.5
-0.1
R-18
CSPE
Pas Interface Liquor
10. »
9.1 10.7 10.1
8.8 9.3 9.2
9.2 9.6 11.1
8.3 12.2 lO.Jt
9.2 11.3 11.2
8.1 12.3 10.1
9.1 11.2 11.9
9.6 10.0 10.0
7.1 10.0 11.9
8.6
165
1(75 1170 Uo
160 100 110
155 125 150
350 310 1(00
130 390 370
315 110 HOP
330 355 370
380 160 130
290 100 110
310
68
6fl £6 —• 81
69 68 68
67 66 67
71 69 58
70 68 68
72 68 67
71 70 69 —
71 67 68
70 72 68
63
0.0 1.5 1.6
-0.6 1.3 1.5
0.7 0.2 3.1
0.0 1.2 0.7
0.2 2.3 3-2
-0.8 0.3
-0.1 -0.1 -1.0
-0.1 2.5 0.5
-1.6 -0.1 -0.1
13.1
Site 2: Speedway Waatewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Site 3: Westgate Hastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia.
Site 1: USBR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado.
H-31
EPDM/Butyl*
a» Interface Liquor
0.9
0.9 0.9 1.1
0.8 0.8 1.0
0.9 1.0 1.0
0.9 0.8 1.0
0.8 1.0 0.9
1.1 1.2 1.1
0.9 0.8 1.1
1.0 1.1 0.9
200
215 2l)5 2l45
200 210 250
235 210 230
235 255 260
280 265 220
205 290 215
230 235 260
190 230 250
250 260 260
235
-
- -
5.0 -18.2 -20.6
-1.7 -8.0 -1.5
-6.6 -16.2 -12.0
-5.7 -13.5 ^1T9-
-9.0 -8.0 -1.0
-10.0 -31.0 -13.5
-0.7 -i.9 ^T-
-11.1 -31.7 -2118
-28.7 -32.2 -31.2
0.8
' Closed cell expanded rubber.
-------
TABLE 23d. TEST RESULTS - RUBBER SHEETING - MATERIALS R-27, R-18, R-31
(English units)
Material
Exposure
Property
Tensile Strength
Ib/ln*
1-
• 8
P
Hardness
Shore "A"
Thickness
Percent change
Exposure
time, months
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site \t
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1-27
Polyecrylate
Caa Interfact Liquor
2.030
2,130 1,090 1.770
1.350 1.77U 1.690
1.020 1.070 1,890
1,320 98S 1,255
1.730 1,175 1,200
1.295 1.790 1.210
1.540 1.6S5 1,790
1.5C5 1,460 1,085
1.890 1,000 2.040
1.535
125
135 95 110
105 135 120
105 100 160
80 70 110
130 110 105
90 110 110
95 110 100
120 120 100
130 80 120
110
74
70 71 70
72 72 72
67 71 71
74 72 72
72 72 73
71 70 71
72 72 71
71 70 71
71 68 68
72
1.9 2.1 1.3
-8.3 -4.4 -3.0
-1.9 -2.2 -3.2
0.0 0.4 1.6
0.3 0.2 0.8
-2.7 -3.0 0.8
0.5 1.1 1.1
-1.8 -1.6 -2.3
-3.2 -1.1 -2.5
-0.4
1-18
CSPB
Gas Interface Liquor
Ij520
1,315 1.565 1,525
1.280 1,350 1,340
1,330 1.400 1.611
1,215 1,755 1,520
1.335 1.645 1,635
1.7.30 1.785 1.465
1,375 1,625 1,740
1.395 1,445 1.460
1,040 1,455 1,730
1.260
465
475 470 440
460 400 410
4SS 425 450
350 160 400
430 390 370
315 410 400
330 355 370
380 460 430
290 400 410
310
68
68 66 64
69 68 68
67 66 67
74 69 68
70 68 68
72 68 67
71 70 69
71 67 68
70 72 68
63
0.0 1.5 1.6
-0.6 1.3 1.3
0.7 0.2 3,1
0.0 1.2 0.7
0.2 2.3 3.2
-0.8 0.3
-0.1 -0.1 -1.0
-0.4 2.5 0.5
-1.6 -0.4 -0.1
13.4
1-31
tTDH/ Butyl*
Gas Interface Liauor
145
140 145 170
135 120 150
150 120 143
140 155 155
140 130 130
120 155 140
160 180 165
140 120 163
155 170 140
130
200
215 245 245
200 210 250
235 240 230
235 265 260
280 265 220
205 290 245
230 235 260
190 230 230
230 260 260
235
-
: :
: : :
...
3.0 -18.2 -20.6
-1.7 -8.0 -1.5
-6.6 -16.2 -12.0
-5.7 -13.5 -14.9
-9.0 -8.0 -1.0
-10.0 -31.0 -13.5
-0.7 -1.9 -5.3
-11.4 -31.7 -24.8
-28.7 -32.2 -31.2
0.8
Site 1: Tapla Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasas, California
Site 2: Speedway Wastevator Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site 3: Uestgace Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USBR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
* Closed cell expanded rubber
-------
2. Plastic sheeting. - These materials had generally satisfactory
performance.
The chlorinated polyethylene exhibited initial swelling which stabilized
during wet exposure and decreased when dried.
The initial stiffening of the polyvinyl chloride sheeting has continued
throughout the exposure period. Elongation losses generally have been
accompanied by strength increases, indicating loss of plasticizer rather than
attack on the polymer. Limited thermo-gravimetric and infrared analysis also
indicated plasticizer loss correlating with increased stiffness.
The chlorosulfonated polyethylene has shown continued stiffening.
Minimum change in the control (Denver tap water) specimens indicates possible
micro-organism attack.
Physical property test results are shown in table 24.
3. Fabric reinforced sheeting. - These materials had generally satis-
factory performance.
No significant change occurred in the butyl. The ethylene propylene
diene monomer materials had slightly lower wet strength. The chlorinated
polyethylene materials have considerable swelling and slightly lower wet
strength. One chlorinated polyethylene sample was severely abraded at the
interface zone of the Westgate site. The chlorosulfonated polyethylene
showed some increase in stiffness and moderate swelling. Physical property
test results are shown in table 25.
4. Rigid polymers. - No significant change from the rather wide range
of original test results has occurred.
No change was observed in the high-density polyethylene pipe specimens
during visual examinations at the test sites and at the end of the exposure
period. Hoop stiffness tests at the end of the exposure period also indi-
cated no change in the physical properties.
Physical property test results for the rigid polymers are shown in
table 26.
Protective Coatings
The results of protective coatings applied to steel surfaces are shown
in tables 27 through 32. Tables 27, 28, and 29 show the results of coatings
exposed on steel and tables 30, 31, and 32 exhibit the results of coatings
applied to concrete. Typical defective and defect-free coated panels are
shown in figures 24 and 30. The evaluation summary of coatings performance is
shown in tables 33 and 34.
The coatings are rated as follows according to their overall performance
in all three zones at the sites at which the coatings were exposed:
68
-------
TABLE 24a. TEST RESULTS - PLASTIC SHEETING
(metric units)
CT>
VO
Material
Exposure
Property
Ten* lie Strength
MPa
Elongation.
percent
Thiekneaa
i percent change
Exposure
tine. aonths
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
B-6114
PVC
Oaa Interface Liquor
21.5
18.6 21.9 21.6
15.8 - 19.5
21.4 20.8 21.2
22.7 24.9 23.7
21.9 19.5 18.7
20.7 20.2 21.0
22.2 21.4 22.2
21.4 27.2 17.7
21.2 18.6 20.4
22.0
300
265 330 290
220 - 270
270 250 325
235 285 270
230 220 170
210 255 290
255 225 247
210 5 170
225 210 280
295
3.0 0.0 -4.0
-1.4 -1.9 -1.4
-3.5 -1.0 -2.0
-5.0 -6.1 -6.5
-3.9 -1.0 -1.0
0 -1.0 0
-3.0 4.7 -4.3
-7.2 -5.8 -1.5
-1.3 -3.0 0
-5.3
B-6273
CSPE
Oaa Interface Liquor
12.5
12.4 14.5 13.4
10.9 13.4 14,4
13.7 15.7 16. J
14.2 15.8 14.6
14.6 18.0 15.1
18.3 17.7 17.4
14.1 17.3 ' 16.8
16.0 19.2 17.8
20.4 21.0 22.0
14.8
215
230 245 265
260 185 220
205 210 220
225 215 245
190 180 200
155 190 140
202 149 1B3
160 115 150
125 128 132
242
1.5 2.1 1.7
-2.5 -1.8 -4.9
1.1 4.5 4.5
1.5 4.4 2.6
3.5 7.0 4.2
2.4 1.8 2.2
1.0 2.1 2.0
-0.6 4.0 1.8
1.0 1.7 1.8
2.7
B-6475
CPE
Ota Interface Liquor
13.7
13.9 14.8 13.3
12.8 12.1 14.7
13.8 13.1 13.7
14.3 14.3 14.0
12. B 11.8 13.5
9.9 8.9 13.3
13.2 14.1 14.0
13.6 11.2 11.7
11.6 12.4 13.5
13.5
300
340 330 310
350 265 300
320 300 295
2BO 295 300
270 215 290
300 260 265
225 276 312
308 255 248
255 278 305
305
6.2 11.8 7.5
4.1 4.3 2.6
7.8 4.5 11.7
4.8 10.5 8.6
5.3 14.2 9.7
3.0 4.1 5.4
7.2 7.2 -0.3
-0.6 3.5 1.1
-1.3 0 -0.4
6.5
Site l: Tapla Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasaa, California
Site 2: Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Site 3: Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia.
Site 4: USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado.
-------
TABLE 24b. TEST RESULTS - PLASTIC SHEETING
(English units)
Material
Exposure
Property
Tensile Strength
Ib/ln2
Elongation ,
percent
Thickness
Percent change
Exposure
time, months
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
It
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
8-6414
PVC
Gas Interface Liquor
3,130
2,700 3,185 3,140
2,295 - 2,835
SjllO 3,030 3,075
3,300 3,620 3,440
3,180 2.840 2,715
3,005 2,930 3.050
3,224 3,110 3,222
3,116 3,949 2,568
3,075 2,704 2,960
3,203
300
265 330 290
220 - 270
270 250 325
235 285 270
230 220 170
240 255 290
255 225 247
240 5 170
225 210 280
295
3.0 0.0 -4.0
-1.4 -1.9 -1.4
-3.5 -1.0 -2.0
-5.0 -6.1 -6.5
-3.9 -1.0 -1.0
0 -1.0 0
-3.0 4.7 -4,3
-7.2 -5.8 -1.5
-1.3 -3.0 0
-5.3
B-6273
CSPE
Gas Interface Liquor
1^820
1,800 2,110 1,950
1,585 1,955 2,090
2,000 2,280 2,375
2,070 2,295 2,160
2,125 2,620 2,195
2,655 2,575 2,525
2,058 2,510 2,442
2,328 2,798 2,592
2,964 3,050 3,202
2,154
215
230 245 265
260 185 220
205 210 220
225 215 245
190 180 200
155 190 140
202 149 183
160 115 150
125 128 132
242
1.5 2.1 1.7
-2.5 -1.8 -4.9
1.1 4.5 4.5
1.5 4.4 2,6
3.5 7.0 4.2
2.4 1.8 2.2
1.0 2.1 2.0
-0.6 4.0 1.8
1.0 1.7 1.8
2.7
B-6475
CPE
Gas Interface Liquor
1.990
2.020 2,160 1,940
1,865 1,762 2,145
2,010 1,910 1.994
2,085 2,080 2,040
1,870 1,720 1,960
1,445 1,305 1.930
1,923 2,046 2,040
1,982 1,630 1,709
1,686 1,804 1,966
1,961
300
340 330 310
350 265 300
320 300 295
280 295 300
270 215 290
300 260 265
225 276 312
308 255 248
255 278 305
305
6.2 11.8 7.5
4.1 4.3 2.6
7.8 4.5 11.7
4.8 10.5 8.6
5.3 14.2 9.7
3.0 4.1 5.4
7.2 7.2 -0.3
-0.6 3.5 1.1
-1.3 0 -0.4
6.5
I/ Site 1: Tapia Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasaa, California
Site 2: Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
Site 3: Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USER Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
-------
TABLE 25a. TE£T RESULTS - FABRIC - REINFORCED FLEXIBLE SHEETING
(metric units)
Property
JC
u
t*
u •
•ft
w
•
1
2
I1
•5 o
£ "
**
Material
Exposure
Exposure
tine, oonths
0
3
9
24
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
B-6464
Butyl
Nylon reinforced
Gas Interface Liquor
1.1
1.4 1.3 1.3
1.3 -1 1.*
1.4 .4 1.3
1.5 .3 1.4
1.4 .4 1.4
1.4 .3 1.4
1.5 .3 1.4
1.4 1.3 1.4
1.3 1.4 1.4
1.4
-0.1 -0.3 0.3
-1.7 -0.5 1.3
1.1 0.7 0.4
-0.8 0.2 0.0
0.2 2.5 -0.1
-0.2 4.2 1.2
-0.7 -1.2 -1.3
-1.0 1.8 -0.2
l.S 1.0 -0.2
0.0
B-6399
EPDM
Nylon reinforoed
Caa Interface Liquor
1.2
1.1 1.0 1.0
1.1 1.1 1.1
1.1 1.1 1.0
1.2 1.1 1.1
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 1.0 1.1
1.2 1.1 1.1
1.1 1.0 1.2
0.9 0.9 1.1
1.0
0.6 0.1 0.4
0.0 -0.9 0.4
-0.8 1.5 3.7
-0.2 0.8 -2.0
-2.1 2.0 3.6
-0.2 -1.6 1.4
-1.8 -0.7 -1.0
-4.7 0.7 0.5
-1.2 0.2 2.1
M.8
B-6467
CPB
Nylon reinforced
Oaa Interface Liquor
3.4
3.2 3.1 3.1
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.2 3.2 3.2
2.7 3.3 3.3
3.0 3-1 3.1
2.6 3.2 3.3
3-3 2.4 2.5
2.3 2.6 2.8
2.3 2.5 2.9
3.1
5.9 8.4 7.1
4.5 2.0 2.8
5.5 6.1 7.2
1.3 11.1 11.8
9.9 11.8 7.5
8.6 10.5 10.9
6.8 6.2 1.8
7.1 8.6 8.0
10.5 5.2 9.7
16.4
B-6468
CPB
Polyester reinforced
OB 3 Interface Liquor
2.8
2.3 2.5 2.3
2.6 2.6 2.6
2.4 2.4 2.3
2.8 2.4 2.5
2.4 2.4 2.5
2.3 2.6 2.4
2.7 2.5 2.4
2.6 2.5 2.4
2.4 2.4 2.4
2.6
9.2 11.3 11.3
7.6 6.3 6.6
9.4 7.4 11.5
13.4 20.3 20.0
13.2 16.3 17.5
13.3 18.0 18.6
2.6 5.4 2.7
8.4 7.7 7.1
5.7 12.0 8.6
20.9
B-6386
CSPB
•ylon reinforced
Gas Interface Liquor
0.8
0.7
o.s
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.8
5.3
8.5
10.0
14.9
10.6
4.1
9.0
7.«
8.6
Site 1: Tapla Water Reclanatlon Plant, Calabaaaa, California.
Site 2: Speedway Waatewater Treatannt Plant, Indianapolla, Indiana.
Site 3: Westgate Wasteuater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Sit* 4: USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado.
-------
TABLE 25b. TEST RESULTS - FABRIC - REINFORCED FLEXIBLE SHEETING
(English units)
Material
Property
a
44
»
st
«4 «4
•5
« «t
h
Thlcknc**
Percent chance
' Exposure
Expoaure
time, month*
0
3
9
28
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
8-646*
Butyl
Nylon reinforced
213
210 200 200
200 205 205
205 210 200
220 200 210
210 205 205
205 200 210
225 200 205
205 200 205
200 205 205
210
-0.4 -0.3 0.3
-1.7 -0.5 1.3
1.1 0.7 0.4
-0.8 0.2 0.0
0.2 2.5 -0.1
-0.2 4.2 1.2
-0.7 -1.2 -1.3
-1.0 1.8 -0.2
1.8 1.0 -0.2
0.0
B-6399
EPDM
Hylon reinforced
CM Interface Liquor
160
165 150 150
170 160 160
165 160 155
185 165 165
150 150 ISO
140 150 160
180 160 155
170 150 180
140 135 165
150
0.6 0.1 0.4
0.0 -0.9 0.4
-0.8 1.5 3.7
-0.2 0.8 -2.0
-2.1 2.0 3.6
-0.2 -1.6 1.4
-1.8 -0.7 -1.0
-4.7 0.7 0.5
-1.2 0.2 2.1
4.8
B-6467
CPE
Hylon reinforced
505
470 460 455
440 445 445
470 470 470
405 485 485
440 455 460
390 465 480
480 350 365
345 380 410
345 375 435
455
5.9 8.4 7.1
4.5 2.0 2.8
5.5 6.1 7.2
1.3 11.1 11.8
9.9 11.8 7.5
8.6 10.5 10.9
6.8 6.2 1.8
7.1 8.6 8.0
10.5 5.2 9.7
16.4
B-6468
CPE
Polyeeter reinforced
415
~40 370 340
385 380 380
350 355 340
410 350 370
360 360 370
345 385 360
395 365 360
390 365 350
355 360 350
390
9.2 11.3 11.3
7.6 6.3 6.6
9.4 7.4 11.5
13.4 20.3 20.0
13.2 16.3 17.5
13.3 18.0 18.6
2.6 5.4 2.7
8.4 7.7 7.1
5.7 12.0 8.6
20.9
B-6386
CSPE
Hylon reinforced
125
113
120
110
135
155
ISO
160
175
120
5.3
8. 5
10.0
14.9
10.6
9.0
7.8
8.6
I/ Site It Tapla Water Reclamation Plant, Calabaaaa. California
Site 2i Speedway Uaatevater Treatment Plant, Indlanapolla, Indiana
Site 3i Veatgate Haatewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4« USBR Laboratories. Denver. Colorado
-------
TABLE 26a. TEST RESULTS - RIGID POLYMERS
(metric units)
Material
Exposure
Property
Flexural Strength,
MPa
Maximum Strain,
percent
Exposure
time, months
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
it
H
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
i|
RS-1
Epoxy
Gas Interface Liquor
108.3
97.7 130.1 106.3
120.5 115.2 110.7
9<4.3 111.8 101.2
111.6 107.9 123.1
130.7 130.3 116.9
119.2 113.5 103.0
111.6 114.1 107.2
112.6 118.8 91.1
126.2 109.0 119.2
105.1
2.10
1.70 2.12 1.85
1.90 1.88 1.71
1.62 1.83 1.83
1.91 1.81 2.20
2.39 2.26 1.92
2.35 1.88 1.86
1.89 2.09 1.89
1.90 1.96 1.51
2.18 1.88 2.01
1.92
RS-2
Polyester
Gas Interface Liquor
169.1
191.3 153.1 171.2
131.1 112.6 110.3
151.0 189.1 156.8
177.7 166.6 178.1
113.1 H3.0 116.3
171.2 161.5 135.6
110.9 H5.1 H2.0
110.9 181.7 162.6
116.3 131.2 ' 157.3
118.2
2.20
2.81 2.81 3.20
2.27 2.17 2.29
2.81 3.21 2.73
2.58 3.17 2.92
2.61 2.10 2.12
2.58 2.68 2.1)8
2.57 2.60 2.16
2.15 2.78 2.72
2.31 2.48 2.67
2.56
RS-3
Vinyl
Gas Interface Liquor
115.1
170.5 166.3 132.5
98.8' 123.0 102.1)
123.3 122.0 139.7
111.9 96.0 133.3
132.7 119.0 121.9
115.6 115.0 112.7
109.6 112.3 113-3
131.3 112.0 115.2
133.6 140.9 127.0
102.2
2.20
2.12 2.97 2.39
1.46 2.24 1.98
2.28 2.15 2.37
1.75 1.51 2.20
2.0t 2.02 2.00
1.88 1.77 1.86
1.86 1.93 2.00
2.24 2.53 2.52
1.89 2.43 2.04
1.76
RS-5
RPM
Gas Interface Liquor
71.3
58.1 68.8 71.7
52.3 45.4 48.0
61.3 66.6 51.0
74.3 80.7 97.2
90.5 92.1 96.5
97.1 72.7 82.7
71.3 92.5 76.5
80.9 92.8 79.8
89.6 81.9 91.1
80.9
1.59
1.11 1.18 1.72
1.56 1.20 1.20
1.71 1.99 1.61
1.67 1.83 2.10
1.85 2.01 1.56
2.02 1.72 2.07
1.92 2.26 2.06
1.78 1.96 2.32
1.80 1.82 1.68
1.86
LO
I/ Site 1: Tapla Water Reclamation Plant, Calabasas, California.
Site 2: Speedway Vastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Site 3: Weatgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia.
Site It USSR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado.
-------
TABLE 26b. TEST RESULTS - RIGID POLYMERS
(English units)
tutorial
Exposure
Property
Flcxural Strength,
Ib/ln2
Maxima Strain.
percent
Exposure
time. month*
0
3
9
28
0
3
9
28
Site I/
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
RS-1
Epoxy
Caa Interface Liquor
15.710
14,180 18,870 15,430
17,490 16,720 16,070
13.680 16.660 14.690
16,200 15,660 17,900
18,960 18,900 16,960
17.290 16.470 14.950
16,200 16,560 15,550
16.340 17,240 13,700
18,310 15,810 17,290
15.300
2.40
1.70 2.12 1.85
1,90 1.88 1.71
1.62 1.83 1.83
1.94 1.84 2.20
2.39 2.26 1.92
2.35 1.88 1.86
1.89 2.09 1.89
1.90 1.96 1.51
2.18 1.88 2.01
1.92
RS-2
Polrtattr
Gaa Interface Liquor
24.530
28,190 22,260 25,270
19,450 20,690 20,350
22.350 27.440 22.750
25,780 24,170 25,880
20,800 20,750 21,230
25.270 23.870 19.680
20,450 21,090 20,600
20,450 26,790 24,020
21,220 19,040 22,820
21.500
2.20
2.84 2.84 3.20
2.27 2.47 2.29
2.81 3.21 2.73
2.58 3.17 2.92
2.61 2.40 2.42
2.58 2.68 2.48
2.57 2.60 2.46
2.45 2.78 2.72
2.31 2.48 2.67
2.56
U-3
Vinyl
Gaa Interface Liquor
21.050
24,730 24,120 19,220
13,610 17,840 14,860
17.890 17JOO 20^270
16,240 13,930 19,340
19,260 17,260 17,690
16.780 16.680 16.350
15,900 16,300 16,440
19,480 20,600 21,060
19,390 20,450 18,430
14.830
2.20
2.42 2.97 2.39
1.46 2.24 1.98
2.28 2.15 2.37
1.75 1.54 2.20
2.04 2.02 2.00
1.88 1.77 1.86
1.86 1.93 2.00
2.24 2. S3 2.52
1.89 2.43 2.04
1.76
U-3
IPH
Gaa Interface Liquor
10.350
8,430 9,990 10,400
7.598 6,590 6.970
8.900 9.660 7.846
10,790 11,710 14,110
13,130 13,360 14,000
14.090 10.550 11.960
10,350 13,430 11,100
11,740 13,460 11,580
13,000 11,890 13,220
11.740
1.59
1.41 1.48 1.72
1.56 1.20 1.20
1.71 1.99 1.64
1.67 1.83 2.10
1.85 2.01 1.56
2.02 1.72 2.07
1.92 2.26 2.06
1.78 1.96 2.32
1.80 1.82 1.68
1.86
I/ Site 1< Tapl* Water Reclamation Plant, Calabaaaa, California
Site 2t Speedway Waatevater Treatment Plant, Indlanapolla, Indiana
Site 3: Weatgate Uaatewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
Site 4: USBR Laboratories, Denver, Colorado
-------
TABLE 27. TEST RESULTS - PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON STEEL SURFACES - SITE 1*
Coating Film Defects***
Site 1 Exposure
Ul
Nominal
Code exposure Gas
No . ** t ime , mo
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-3
C-6
C-8
C-9
C-i
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
1* 7
19
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Slight impact damage
Slight impact damage
Thin area on edge
with corrosion
Thin area on edge
with corrosion
Corrosion on unscored
site, 1 percent
Corrosion over 100 per-
cent of area
Corrosion on edge
Corrosion on edge
One impacted area
with rust
One impacted area
with rust
No defects
No defects
Few breaks in coating
Few breaks in coating
Interface
No defects
Pinhead blistering
around score
No defects
No defects
Slight impact damage
Alligator cracking,
both sides
No defects
No defects
Pinhead blistering
around score
Corrosion over 100 per-
cent of area
No defects
Blisters with corrosion
One impacted area
One impacted area
No defects
No defects
Film deterioration
Complete loss of film
Liquor
Slight pinhead blistering around
score
Slight pinhead blistering around
score
No defects
No defects
No defects
Slight alligator cracking
No defects
No defects
Pinpoint blistering over
cent of area
Pinpoint blistering over
cent of area
One impacted area
Blisters with corrosion
Two impacted areas
Two impacted areas
No defects
No defects
Film deterioration
Complete loss of film
100 per-
100 per-
*
**
***
#
Site 1 - Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California.
See table 5 for coating identification
See figures 24 through 30 for typical examples of coating defects.
Exposure racks were coated with this material.
-------
TABLE 28. TEST RESULTS - PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON STEEL SURFACES - SITE
Coating Film Defects 3/
Site 2 Exposure
2 \l
£
No.
C-l
C-I
C-3
C-»
C-I
c-t
c-i
c-a
C-10
C-12
C-I]
C-l*
C-I*
Nominal
expoeure
dm.
nontlu
3
10
20
21
}
10
20
211
)
10
20
29
3
10
10
21
3
10
JO
2>
J
10
20
2«
J
to
20
?»
3
10
20
28
9
17
3
12
3
12
>
12
3
17
Ml
•llitere around acora
Bl later* around acore
Bllitere around acora
tlliteri around ecera
No defecta
Us defecti
No dofecti
No delicti
No defecti
No defecti
No defecti
Alligator cracking, both ildee
Nil elcctl
No efectl
No edcte
No efectl
No efeetl
No efecta
No defect!
targe ilnhiid bllitfti, >Ul(ii cor cruckltiE
No dtCoctl
rinlit.J bllittn, both «ld«»
rinhiid btlitiri, both ildti
Scvtre pinlioad bllicorlnci both (Id**
No clrfrcti
No flrfectl
Ho i Tj^ through JO (or typtol example! of coating defect!
-------
TABLE 29. TEST RESULTS -
PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON STEEL SURFACES - SITE 3 I/
Coating Film Defects 3/
Site 3 Exposure
V
Cod.
Ho.
IM
C-l
C-l
C-4
C-i
C-l
C-*
c-io
C-12
C-l)
C-U
C-l*
Nuelnal
ettpuaUI'a
t lew .
KMMlthl
}
20
211
}
10
20
211
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
U
1
10
20
21
10
20
It
]
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
i
17
)
12
J
12
3
12
J
12
C.I
Plnhaad bllitera around aeore
Hfihead bllatera around acore
Piuhead bll.tere around .core
No dufecti
Nu defecta
Hu defocte
No defect.
No dufecl.
Alligator cracking, Lottt »ld«ie
Alligator cracking, both aide*
Alligator cracking, both aldva
No d«(ucc«
flitli«a«J bllitcring around acore
Flnhend till»terLng around iicora
Fluhuad ullatarlng around •uori)
Plnhaad bllatitra, boch ildaa
Plnhvad bllicarf. both ildua
I'lnlmad bllit.r., both ildan
rinhaad bllitara, both >IJad blliluri. bntli ildca
n»hld«<
Ho d.f»cti
Chipping around cantar hola
Cliluping nrouad cantar hola
No defacta
Mo dafecta
No ilifictl
No defactl
Ho defactf
Pll« datarlorated
No dafacti
No delicti
No difactl
rinhaad bltatarlng, both aldaa
No defaccn
Kevera ptnhead b^ltterlng
Bllatarlng, topcoat; only
Bllatarlng, topcoat only
Interface
Plnhaad bllatara around acora
V
Bllatarlng, both aldi-a
No da f ICC II
No uafacta
y
No dafocla
Coating etabrlttUd
Alligator crucklng, lioLh itdei
y
AUl];ator cracking, both «ldaa
No dvfecta
Nu J.lectt
«/
No dalacta
rlnhaad bltican, both ald«a
Flnliaad bllsK-ri, both aldaa
flnhoad bllatara around acora
i/
I'lnhvaJ bli.ler.. koth aide!
No dafacte
Slight cracking dua to acorlng
y
Slight' cracking dua to acorlng
No defect.
Nu daCecta
if
No dafacta
y
film deteriorated
No dafacti
No defects
No defcctl
Plnlicad bl later! , both aldea
Flnhe.d bll.ten, both .10..
Plnliead bltlter.f both aide.
Bllatari. topcoat only
Bllateri, topcoat only
Liquor
No detecti
l*lnhead bll.teri around acore
Plnliead bllatera, both ildea
No dut'ucti
No d.Coct.
No detetrte
No detect*
Kecli.ulc.l dautage
M.cluiiicul tlomagfc
Hecli4inical damage
nlllttator cracking, both aide!
No detect.
flnlittud blister, around .core
rinhcad bllituri around acore
Plnliuad ulllten around acore
rinhuad bll.turi around icore
Pliihuad bluteri, both ilde*
Swem vruilon of coating
SUIMI eruilon ul coating
Plnlivud bllitun. liulh ild«N
No dafeeta
Chipping around canter hole
No defeete
No defecta
Ho defuctl
No defect.
No defecta
Film deteriorated
u
No dafictl
*/
Plnhead bllstcra, both ildae
y
Plnheed bll.terl, both lido.
*/
Slight bll.terlng, topcoat only
±f Site 3 - HealgiUa Wcttawater TreaEucnt Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
I/ S«e Table S lot coating Identification
I/ S«« Figurua J4_ tlirougli 30 (or typical **a.nple« of coating defect*
4/ Sample could not t>« r*tri«v«d Cor evaluation during thl* Ln«p«ction
-------
TABLE 30. TEST RESULTS - PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON CONCRETE SURFACES - SITE 1*
Coating Film Defects***
Site 1 Exposure
Nominal
Code exposure
No.** time, mo
Gas
Interface
LiquOr
oo
c-i
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
No defects
No defects
Craters on scored side
Craters on scored side
Slight pinhead blistering
on scored side
Slight pinhead blistering
on scored side
No defects
No defects
Impacted area,
unsored side
Impacted area,
unscored side
Slight cratering
Slight cratering
Pinhead blistering over 100 per-
cent of surface
Pinhead blistering over 100 per-
cent of surface
Craters on scored side
Alligator cracking, both sides
Pinhead blistering, both sides
Pinhead blistering both sides
Blisters and flaking, 100 per-
cent of area
Blisters and flaking, 100 per-
cent of area
Pinhead blisters, 100 per-
cent of area
Flaking
Slight cratering, large pin-
head blisters
Slight cratering, large pin-
head blisters
Pinhead blistering over
100 percent of surface
Pinhead blistering over
100 percent of surface
Craters on scored side
Slight alligator cracking
Pinhead blistering, both
sides
Pinhead blistering, both
sides
Blisters and flaking,
100 percent of area
Blisters and flaking,
100 percent of area
Pinhead blisters,
100 percent of area
Pinhead blisters,
100 percent of area
Slight cratering, large
pinhead blisters
Slight cratering, large
pinhead blisters
* Site 1 - Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California.
** See table 5 for coating identification
*** See figures 24 through 30 for typical examples of coating defects.
-------
TABLE 31. TEST RESULTS - PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON CONCRETE SURFACES - SITE 2*
Coating Film Defects***
Site 2 Exposure
Nominal
Code exposure Gas
Mo.** time, mo
C-l
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-S
M2
C-13
t-14
t=K" •
C-16
* Site
** SPP 1
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
?8
3
10
20
?«
3
10
a
1?
3
12
3
12
3
12
2 -
Fahlr
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Craters
Craters
Slight alligator cracking
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Pinhead blisters, both
sides
Pinhead blisters, both
sides
Pinhead blisters, both
sides
No defects
Severe blistering, both
sides
Severe blistering, both
sides
Severe blistering, both
sides
No defects
No defects
No defects
Ho defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Large blisters
No defects
Pinhead blisters
No defects
Alligator cracking
No defects
Few blisters, top-
coat only
Speedway Wastcwater Treatment
? 5 for coatina identification
Interface Liquor
No defects No defects
Pinhead blisters, both No defects
sides
Pinhead blisters, both Pinhead blisters abound score
sides
Large blisters Pinpoint blisters, both
sides
No defects Mechanical damage
Alligator cracking, both Slight cratering
sides
Alligator cracking, both Slight cratering
sides
Alligator cracking, both Alligator cracking, both
sides sides
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
Some erosion of coating General blistering
Pinhead blisters, both Severe blistering, both
sides sides
Severe blistering, both Severe blistering, both
sides sides
Blistering, alligator Severe blistering, both
cracking sides
No defects No defects
Severe blistering, both Large blisters around
sides score
Severe blistering, both Severe blistering, both
sides sides
Severe blistering, both Severe blistering, both
sides sides
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects No defects
No defects Blisters, both sides
Lar9e blisters Blisters, both sides
No defect Blisters around score
Large and pinhead Large blisters, both sides
blisters
No defects No defects
Alliqator cracking Alliiqator cracking
No defects No defects
Few blisters, top- Blisters, topcoat only
coat only
Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
*** See figure 24 through 30 for typical examples of coating defects.
79
-------
TABLE 32. TEST RESULTS - PROTECTIVE COATINGS ON CONCRETE SURFACES - SITE 3 I/
Coating Film Defects If
Site 3 Exposure
00
o
4
e-l
e-j
C-4
C-3
C-4
e-»
c-t
c-u
c-u
C-U
c-t»
c-u
•pttft*
W
W
t*
10
M
t
10
M
H
1
1*
I*
M
1
W
M
It
1
I*
W
at
i
to
so
It
1
U
1
U
1
U
i
U
1
U
«.
•• fefMtl
n«htW klliura* Wth ildt.
ririM*4 kltiltn. Wth .U««
to fefKt.
AlllMt** cmklit. Wth t«r incklMt Wth •!«•>
to Mftct.
riahuJ kllltirlM. Wth >U»
•Uhu4 klttMrllf, Wth «!•«.
••«|I«CU
•UW«4 kllitm. Wth ilotl
ritku4 kllittri. kftk ildii
riihul klliltn, k»tk «MH
riihiW kllitm. kytk •!••
riahtW kllwtri, Wth •!<«
rt*ku4 klUttri, Wtk •!<••
CnMtli*
Cntttlit
Cratitlit
M tefKtl
M MtMtt
•> 4, wth .u«.
•It.ttrlag AnttaJ K«ra
Illion, Wth life.
lltttit htlitnlii. t»rt oily
Llfwt
IK «t(Mt>
NiWM kll.ttr., Wtk
ri>hM4 ktlit.ri, Wth
rtihM* ktl.t.t., Wtk
>!«•
,14,,
,14,,
ItochMlul 14M
icon
•c*r.
=sa:
|14»
Altl|«»r crackl»| m4 kll.t«rUf
•ttiht Hl.t.rl.i. t*f«
«-„
(lit 1 . «nt«nn K»tm««r TrMtant rlut. AlrafcU. «lr(Uia
t« TtkU i lot cxtlii UntilIcttin
*•« ri|un( n tkraufh III lor tfflttt «u«U> •! cMtla| 4*(Mtt
(•*!• tMM HI W ratrim? (« mlMtlo. Aitll* thl« UtMctlM
-------
Figure 24. Blistering of proprietary butyl coating (No. C-6) on steel
(left) and concrete substrates.
'
Figure 25. Defect-free proprietary urethane coating (No. C-9) on steel
(left) and concrete substrates. Roughness is characteristic of application,
81
-------
3--S
Figure 26. Blistering of proprietary, one-component urethane coating
(No. C-13) on steel (left) and concrete substrates.
Figure 27. Cracking of coal-tar enamel coating (No. C-3) on steel (left)
and on concrete substrates.
82
-------
Figure 28. Defect-free phenolic-epoxy coating (No. C-12) on steel (left)
and concrete substrates.
•
' -
Figure 29. Severely blistered prorietary urethane coating (No. C-14) on
steel (left) and concrete substrates.
83
-------
Figure 30. Blistering (topcoat only) of proprietary phenolic-epoxy coating
(No. C-16) on steel (left) and concrete substrates.
84
-------
TABLE 33. EVALUATION SUMMARY - PROTECTIVE COATINGS FOR STEEL SURFACES
Cod*
*».
C- 1
C- 2
C- 3
C- 4
C- 3
G- •
C- 1
e- •
C-10
C-ll
C-1I
C-13
o-i4
C-lt
ut«
expoeure
Cu
Interface
Cu
Interface
Limner
Cu
Interface
Uquor
Cu
Interlace
Liquor
CM
Interface
Liquor
Cu
Interface
Uquo»
Cu
Interface
Liquor
Caa
Interface
Uquor
Cu
Interface
Liauor
Cu
Interface
Cu
Interface
Uquor
Cu
Interface
Cu
Interface
Liquor
Cu
Interface
Uquor
fit* 1 I/
7.0. line.
1 1
1 . 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 4
2 4
2 2
1 1
1 1
4 4
2 4
4 4
2 2
1 4
2 4
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
~ ™
3 3
4 4
-
.
-
Performance Rat
SIM 2 3/
3 yea » mom 10 ma 12 an* 17 MM 20 mot It noe
1 - I - - 2 2
I - 2 - - J 2
I - 1 - - 2 3
1 - I - - 1 1
J - 3 - - 3 3
1 - 1 - - 1 2
| - 1 - - 1 4
I - 4 - - 4 4
t 2 - - 2 4
1 - 1 - - 1 1
1 - 1 - - 1 3
I - 1 - - 1 1 _
> - 1 - - 1 4
» - 2 - - 2 4
1 - 2 - - 2 4
J - 3 - - 3 4
» - 1 - - 2 3
1 2 - - 24
1 - 1 - - 1 2
1 - 1 - - 1 1
1 - 1 - - 2 2
1 - 1 - - 1 1
I - 1 - - 1 1
I 1 - - 1.1
1 - - 4 - -
1 - - 4
1 ...
1 -
1 -
? Ill
j - - -
, -
i • : : :
3 ...
3 -
J ...
-ing I/
lite 3 */
3 eoe » une> 10 no* 12 no* 17 une 20 noe 21 no*
2 2
2 ...
2 - - 2
1 1
1 -
1 1
1 - 4 - - 4
4 - 4
2 - 2 - - 2
1 - 2 - - 2
1 _ 1 ...
1 - 2 - - 2 2
2 - 4 - - 4 4
2 - 4 - - - *
2 - 2 - - 2 4
1 - 4 - - 4 4
2 - 2 - - - 4
2 - 2 - - 2 4
1 - 2 - - 1 2
1 2 --- 2
1 - 2 - - 2 2
1 I - - 1 I
1 1 - - - 1
1 - 1 - - 1 1
- I 4
1 - - 4 - -
1 1
1 1
_ i
1 4
1 .
I ...
4 _
3 - - 3
3
Average S
1.7
2.7
3.0
1.0
1.7
1.3
3.3
4.0
4.0
1.7
1.7
1.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.3
3.7
4.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
•Igheet
S/
3.0
1.7
4.0
1.7
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
I/ Aeelfned u follove: 1 - Mo defect*
~ 2 - Defect" attributable to application
3 - Minor or fen defect*
4 - Severe defect*
If Tael* Hattr tectarnation Facility. Calabaia*. California
~ Speedvar Vaetewater Treatwnt riant. Indlanapoli*, Indian*
Vestgate Hutmter Treawent riant. Alexandria, Virginia
1 Avenge of rating* aligned after llnal evaluation, at •itc*
(M*Mlc*l value) of average rating* for gives coetlng
•coring, or mechanical
85
-------
TABLE 34. EVALUATION SUMMARY - PROTECTIVE COATINGS FOR CONCRETE SURFACES
Performance Rating I/
oo
Code
No.
C- 1
C- 3
C- 4
C- 5
C- 6
C- 7
C- 9
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-1S
C-16
Site
exposure
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Gas
Interface
Liquor
Site 1 21
7 mos 19 mos
1 1
4 4
4 4
2 2
2 4
2 4
2 2
4 4
4 4
1 1
4 4
4 4
2 2
4 4
4 4
2 2
4 4
4 4
-
-
-
-
-
-
Site 2 3/
3 mos 10 mos 12 mos 20 mos 28 mos
11-11
14-44
11-24
12 23
14 44
22 24
11-11
1 1 - 1 1
11-11
14-44
24-44
44-44
14-44
14-44
12-44
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
11-11
1 - 1 - -
1 - 1
1 - 1 - -
1 - 1
1 - 1 - -
4 - 4 - -
1 - 4
1 - 4
4 - 4 - -
1 - 4 - -
1 - 4
1 - 4 - -
1 - 3
1 - 3 - -
1 - 3 - -
I/ Assigned as follows: 1 - No defects
Site 3 y
3 mos 10 mos 12 mos 20 mos 28 mos
14-44
1 4 - - 4
14-44
14-44
3 4 - - 4
22-44
14-44
1 1 - - 4
14-44
14-44
2 4 - - 4
24-44
14-44
2 4 - - 4
22-22
12-22
1 2 - - 2
12-33
11-11
1 1 - - 1
11-11
1 - 1 - -
1 - 1
1
1 - 4
1 - 4
4
1 - 4 - -
1 - 4
4
2 - 4 - -
2 - 4
- 4 - -
3 - 3 - -
3 - 3 - -
- 3 - -
Average 5/
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.3
4.0
3.3
1.7
2.3
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Hlehest i/
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3 0
2 - Defects attributable to application, scoring, or mechanical damage
3 - Minor or few defects
4 - Severe defects
21 Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California
37 Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
A/ Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
!/ Average of ratings assigned after final evaluation at sites exposed
bl Highest (numerical value) of average ratings for a given coating
-------
No defects - Highly resistant - rating of 1.0
Defects attributed to application, scoring, or mechanical damage -
Moderately resistant - 1.0 < rating < 2.0
Minor or few defects - Resistant - 2.0 <
rating £ 3.0
Severe defects - Nonresistant - rating > 3.0
Coatings exposed for only 12 months at just two of the three field test
sites are preceded with an asterisk.
1. Coatings for steel surfaces. -
a. Highly resistant
Cl) Urethane coating, proprietary (coating No., C-9)
(2) *Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary (coating No, C-12)
b. Moderately resistant
(1) Vinyl resin, USBR VR-6 (coating No. C-2)
(2) Coal-tar epoxy, MIL-P-23236, Type I, Class 2 (coat-
ing No. C-4)
(3) Phenolic, proprietary (coating No. C-8)
c. Resistant
(1) Vinyl-resin, USBR VR-3 (coating No. C-l)
(2) *Urethane, proprietary (coating No. C-13)
(3) *Phenolic-epoxy, proprietary (coating No. C-16)
d. Nonresistant
(1) Coal-tar enamel, AWWA C203 (coating No. C-3)
(2) Butyl, proprietary (coating No. C-5)
(3) Butyl, Proprietary (coating No. C-6)
(4) Coating for galvanized steel, proprietary (coating
No. C-10)
(5) Galvanized, ASTM: A 123 (coating No. C-ll)
(6) *Urethane, proprietary (coating No. C-14)
2. Coatings for concrete surfaces. -
a. Highly resistant
(1) Coating No. C-9
(2) *Coating No. C-12
b. Moderately resistant
(1) None
87
-------
c. Resistant
(1) Urethane, proprietary (coating No. C-7)
(2) Coating No. C-4
(3) *Coating No. C-16
d. Nonresistant
(1) Coating No. C-l
(2) Coating No. C-3
(3) Coating No. C-5
(4) Coating No. C-6
(5) *Coating No. C-13
(6) *Coating No. C-14
(7) *Urethane, proprietary (coating No. C-15)
Joint Sealers
The results of sealers for concrete joints are shown in tables 35, 36,
and 37. Figure 31 shows typical defect-free and defective sealers. The
evaluation summary for sealants appears in table 38.
The sealers are rated as follows according to their performance in all
three exposure zones at the field sites.
Sealers exposed for 12 months only and at just two of the three field
test sites are preceded with an asterisk.
No defects - Excellent - rating of 1.0
Surface defects only - Satisfactory - 1.0 ^ rating _<_ 2.0
Adhesive or cohesive failure - Unsatisfactory - rating > 2.0
1. Excellent. -
a. *0ne-component, low modulus silicone (code No. S-4)
2. Satisfactory. -
a. Two-component polysulfide (code No. S-3)
3. Unsatisfactory. -
a. Two-component silicone (code No. S-l)
b. Two-component urethane (code No. S-2)
c. *Two-component, slow-set polysulfide (code No. S-5)
88
-------
00
SO
TABLE 35. TEST RESULTS - SEALERS FOR CONCRETE JOINTS - SITE 1*
Sealant Defects***
Site Exposure
Nominal
Code exposure
No.** time, mo
S-l
S-2
S-3
3
10
22
3
10
22
3
10
22
Gas
25 percent
extension
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
Interface
25 percent
extension
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
75 percent
bond
failure
75 percent
bond
failure
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No .defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
Liquor
25 percent
extension
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
80 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Surface
cracking
*
**
Site 1 - Tapia
See table 7 foi
Water Reclamation Facility,
r sealer identification.
Calabasas, Calfironia.
*** See figure 31 for typical examples of sealant defects.
-------
TABLE 36. - TEST RESULTS - SEALERS FOR CONCRETE JOINTS - SITE 2*
Sealant Defects***
Site Exposure
Code
Mo.**
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Nominal
exposure
time, mo
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
12
3
12
Gas
25 percent
extension
No defects
No defects
No defects
10 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Interface
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Uo defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
25 percent
extension
No defects
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
20 percent
bond fail-
ure
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Liquor
25 percent
extension
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
5 percent
bond fail-
ure
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
* Site 2 - Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana.
** See table 7 for sealer identification.
*** See figure 31 for typical sealant defects.
90
-------
TABLE 37. - TEST RESULTS - SEALERS FOR CONCRETE JOINTS - SITE 3*
Sealant Defects***
Site Exposure
Code
Nominal
exposure
No.** time, mo
S-l
S-2
s-3
s-4
S-b
3
10
20
2*
3
10
20
28
3
10
20
28
3
12
3
12
Gas
25 percent
extension
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Interface
25 percent 25 percent 25 percent
compression extension compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
100 percent
bond fail-
ure
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
cracking
Liquor
2§ percent
extension
25 percent
bond
failure
50 percent
bond
failure
50 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
bond
failure
100 percent
cohesion
failure
100 percent
cohesion
failure
100 percent
cohesion
failure
100 percent
cohesion
failure
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
I
No defects
1
Surface
cracking
25 percent
compression
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
No defects
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
tion
Surface
degrada-
Surface
degrada-
tion
I
No defects
t
Surface
cracking
*
**
***
1
Site 3 - West gate Wastcwater
Treatment Plant,
Alexandria, Virginia
See table 7 for sealer identification.
See figure 31
Sample could
for typical sealant defects.
not be retrieved for this inspection.
91
-------
Figure 31. Typical joint sealer performance in these tests. S-l is a
two-component silicone sealant which has incurred bond failure, S-2 and S-3
show surface degradation of two-component polysulfide base material exposed
in compressed (S-2) and stretched (S-3) condition and S-4 is intact one-
component, low-modulus silicone.
92
-------
TABLE 38. EVALUATION SUMMARY - SEALERS FOR CONCRETE JOINTS
Performance Rating I/
Code
No.
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
Site Stress
exposure type
Gas Tension
Compression
• Interface Tension
Compression
Liquor Tension
Compression
Gas Tension
_ Compression
Interface Tension
Compression
Liquor Tension
Compression
Gas Tension
Compression
Interface Tension
Compression
Liquor Tension
Compression
Gas Tension
Compression
Interface Tension
Compression
Liquor Tension
Compression
Gas Tension
Compression
Interface Tension
Compression
Liquor Tension
Compression
Site 1 2_/
3 mos
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
_
—
-
•
-
10 mos
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
—
—
-
—
-
22 mos
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
_
—
-
—
-
3 mos
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Site 2 3f
10 mos
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
:
-
-
-
12 mos
-
:
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
;
j
2
2
3
2
3
2
20 mos
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
28 mos
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 mos
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
-
Site 3 4/
10 mos
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
• 2
2
2
2
2
-
:
:
-
~
-
12 mos
-
:
-
-
—
—
-
—
—
j-
j
j
2
2
2
2
2
2
20 mos
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
-
:
-
-
-
28 mos
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
-
:
-
-
:
-
Average 5/
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.0
1.7
1.0
2.3
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
Highest
6/
2.3
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
I/ Assigned as follows: 1 - No defects
2 - Surface defects
3 - Adhesive or cohesive failure
2/ Tapia Water Reclamation Facility, Calabasas, California
_3/ Speedway Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indianapolis, Indiana
j»/ Westgate Wastewater Treatment Plant, Alexandria, Virginia
_5/ Average of ratings assigned after final evaluation of sites exposed
j>/ Highest (numerical value) of average ratings for given sealer
-------
SECTION 7
DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
Concrete
1. Length change. - One established method of determining progression
of deterioration of concrete exposed to a given environment is to monitor its
change in volume with respect to exposure time. Whereas loss in volume of
concrete is normally merely indicative of dehydration, an increase in volume
can show not only increase in saturation with water but also effects of
chemical and physical reactions.
The expansive effects of both freeze-thaw deterioration and sulfate
attack are examples wherein concrete deterioration can be manifested by an
increase in volume. These increases in volume are the result of internal
pressures produced by the freezing of water in freeze-thaw deterioration and
by chemical reaction in sulfate attack.
Small volume changes of concrete are difficult to determine accurately.
Therefore, its length, a dimension which is easily and accurately measured,
is monitored as a reflection of its volume.
In addition to lengths, weights were also determined for control speci-
mens exposed in 50 percent relative humidity at 23°C and immersed in Denver
tap water at room temperature in the laboratories. Weight change of concrete
when exposed to these two laboratory control environments is merely the result
of absorption or loss of water.
Many materials expand with an increase in moisture content. This
characteristic is shown for the concrete specimens exposed to the two labo-
ratory environments by comparing weight change and length change results.
Whereas only slight changes in both length and weight have occurred in those
specimens exposed in air, substantial increases in both weight and length have
resulted for all specimens immersed in water.
It is interesting to note that in all three sets of control specimens
(those for site 1, site 2, and site 3) concrete made with Type II cement is
the most absorptive. Permeability to water is an indication of concrete
quality and density; higher permeability corresponds to lower concrete
quality and density. Concrete made with Type V cement is slightly less
absorptive. The polymer-impregnated concrete is substantially less absorp-
tive than the other two, although not completely impermeable to water. In
polymer-impregnated concrete, the voids present before impregnation are, to
94
-------
some degree, filled with the polymer. Thus, there are fewer voids and, hence,
less capacity for water to be absorbed.
The length change test results of samples exposed to site conditions are
not so easily analyzed. The concrete specimens made from Type II and Type, V
cements increased in length initially in all three exposures (gas, liquid-gas
interface, and liquor) at all three field sites. After this initial increase
in length, which is undoubtedly the result of water absorption, the lengths
of the specimens fluctuate, apparently due to the changing site conditions.
Since no continuing tendency to increase in length is observed, it is con-
cluded that field exposure has produced no detrimental effects to these two
types of concrete. Additionally, the increases in lengths for these samples
were well below the 0.2 percent generally accepted by the Bureau of Reclama-
tion as indicative of impending concrete failure from sulfate attack.
Complete failure in sulfate attack is considered to be 0.5 percent expansion.
It is assumed that expansion caused by chemical or physical attack in an
oxygenated wastewater environment can be judged by the same criteria.
It is evident that the PIC specimens in this study continue to increase
in length with duration of exposure. In fact, although much less water is
absorbed by the polymer-impregnated concrete than the other two concretes
exposed in this study, its increase in length after 22 and 28 months of
exposure is of the same magnitude as the other two concrete types. The
expansion appears to be caused by moisture, as both wastewater and fresh
water immersion result in continued increase in length of the same order of
magnitude. There are at least two possible explanations for this continued
length increase. First, since the voids in the polymer-impregnated concrete
are plugged with the polymer, it simply may take longer for expansion to
occur than it did in the conventional concretes. The expansion may then
level off as it did for the conventional concretes. Because the specimens
were ovendried prior to impregnation, the total expansion due to absorption
may be greater than it was for conventional concrete. Secondly, moisture may
have an adverse effect on polymer-impregnated concrete. If this were so,
longer exposures should show continued expansion exceeding 0.2 percent.
Further long-term exposure is needed to confirm or disprove this possibility.
2. Compressive strength. - The compressive strength cylinders were
broken at a load rate of 14 000 kPa/min (2.0 x 10 Ib/in min). At site
2, some of the compressive strength specimens came loose from the exposure
rack and were irretrievable. It was therefore necessary to use the length
change specimens, with metal inserts on each end to determine the 28-month
compressive strength results. The ends were sawn off to remove the inserts
and the shortened cylinders were tested. The results were corrected to
equivalent results on cylinders with a length-to-diameter ratio of 2.0. As a
check on the validity of this approach, the length change specimens were also
tested for compressive strength at site 3 where the normal strength cylinders
were also available. For concrete containing Type II and Type V cement, the
strength results on the length change specimens were almost identical to the
results on the compressive strength cylinders. This indicates that the
28-month values for site 2 are valid. The polymer-impregnated specimens at
site 3 indicate variability in the 28-month strengths as determined by the
two different sets of cylinders. This will be dip Bussed later.
95
-------
In all compressive strength computations except the 28-month results at
sites 2 and 3, the nominal diameter was used to compute the area. For the
28-month results, the length and diameter of all specimens were measured.
This was because surface erosion had become significant at site 3 and because
of the variation in length of the specimens with inserts that were sawed.
Concrete made with Type II cement shows no strength loss at any exposure
site. For example, at site 1 all strengths exceed the strength at the time
the specimens were first exposed. At sites 2 and 3, the initial strengths
(strength at the time the specimens were first exposed) are slightly lower
than the 28-day strengths but this is not significant and is probably due to
variability in fabrication of the test specimens. At both sites 2 and 3,
concrete containing Type II cement gained strength beyond the 28-day strength
under all test conditions. At all three sites, each exposure condition (gas,
interface, and liquor) produced higher strengths than the 50 percent relative
humidity laboratory control specimen exposure. This indicates that suffic-
ient moisture was present to continue hydration of the cement in all three
exposure conditions and that the composition of the wastewater does not alter
the normal cement hydration processes. In fact, results at sites 1 and 3
indicate that the cure at the field site was superior to the cure of labo-
ratory specimens submerged in tap water.
In general, exposure of concrete containing Type II cement resulted in
strength increase with age at all three sites. The small decrease shown in a
few cases is not significant considering the variability of concrete and
considering the fact that all strength values exceed the 28-day strength.
The exposure of the concrete made with Type II cement to oxygenated waste-
water treatment plant conditions did not reduce the compressive strength but
provided continued moist curing which increased strength.
Results on concrete made with Type V cement for all three sites were
similar to those for concrete made with Type II cement. For all three sites,
all exposures produced compressive strengths greater than the initial
strengths. In general, all exposure conditions produced stronger concrete
than the laboratory 50 percent relative humidity cure, indicating hydration
of the cement is being continued by the presence of moisture. Again, results
from sites 1 and 3 indicate that curing at the site produced stronger con-
crete than laboratory cure with specimens submerged in tap water. As with
the Type II cement concrete, the Type V cement concrete, in general, showed
an increase in compressive strength when exposed to various oxygenated waste-
water treatment plant environments.
The polymer-impregnated concrete specimens showed large variations in
strength under most exposure conditions, although all strength values exceeded
the highest strengths for conventional concrete. For sites 2 and 3, all
exposures produced strengths lower than the initial strength. At all three
sites there are exposures showing a decrease in strength with length of
exposure. There are also exposures at all three sites that show no consistent
trend.
Results at site 3 at 28 months of exposure are especially significant.
Two sets of specimens were tested at this exposure time. The first set was
96
-------
the specimens that had been fabricated for compressive strength testing. The
second set was composed of length change specimens with the ends sawn off to
remove the metal inserts. Results were corrected to a length-to-diameter
ratio of 2.0. As mentioned previously, results on concrete made with Type II
and Type V cement indicate that both sets of specimens gave similar results.
For the polymer-impregnated specimens, however, this was not the case. In
both the interface and the liquor exposures, there is a significant difference
in the strengths of the two sets of specimens at 28 months of exposure.
Thus, there is variability in strength of the polymer-impregnated specimens
even when exposed under identical conditions. Since some of the compressive
strengths of the polymer-impregnated concrete are significantly lower than
the initial strengths, we must conclude that one of two possibilities caused
this strength difference. Either the polymer-impregnated specimens are
losing strength at different rates (even if in the same environment) or the
specimens were not uniform in strength initially after polymerization. From
the test results alone, it is not possible to prove which of these two
possibilities caused the strength variations.
3. Surface erosion. - Generally, only minor changes in surface condi-
tions have occurred at the Tapia and Speedway sites.
At the Westgate site, the most severe erosion occurred in the interface
zone in the concrete fabricated with Type V cement. Less severe erosion was
observed in all zones with the Type II specimens although noticeable change
can be seen in the Type II vapor specimens. Good compressive strength
and lack of significant volume change indicate that this is a surface condi-
tion. The polymer-impregnated concrete was only slightly altered in appear-
ance. Results at 28 months of exposure were similar to those at 10 months
with the erosion of the Type V and Type II cement concretes continuing.
As mentioned earlier, debris not trapped by the bar screen at the
Westgate site were fed into the secondary treatment tank where the test
specimens were exposed. These solids are removed in primary treatment at the
other two sites. It is concluded that these solids inflicted the abrasion
damage to the concrete cylinders. The fact that specimens in vapor exposure
were also affected is explained by the turbulence of the liquor and water
within the tank.
Steel Embedded in Concrete
Portland cement-mortar and -concrete coatings on steel derive their
corrosion-inhibiting quality from formation of an insoluble, passivating,
oxide film on the steel surface due to the highly alkaline environment. In
addition, when voltage is imposed on a mortar- or concrete-coated steel
surface, this film generates a counter-voltage (polarization) such that,
within limits, no current will flow. This passivity and resistance to
current flow developed by properly designed, dense, high-quality portland
cement coating are sufficient to overcome the potential differences in
virtually all naturally occurring fresh water and soil conditions. Environ-
ments high in concentration of chloride ions are the major exception.
Therefore, the excellent performance of concrete in preventing corrosion of
embedded steel in these tests was not surprising. The highest concentration
97
-------
of chloride observed was at site 1. At site 1 the chloride concentration
was found to be 144 mg/£. Seven hundred mg/A chloride is the generally
accepted threshold concentration above which passivity may be destroyed
provided the chloride is accompanied by oxygen.
Alloys
1. Unstressed specimens. - The poor performance of aluminum, gray cast
iron, and carbon steels in this test was anticipated.
Aluminum alloys are notorious for their susceptibility to pitting in
high solids waters such as wastewater. Aluminum alloys derive their corros-
ion resistance from formation of a passive oxide film on their surfaces.
Nearly all corrosion of aluminum results from deterioration of this passive
film in localized areas resulting in pitting. Since aluminum has been found
to pit deeply in conventional plants, it appears that the poor performance in
these tests cannot be directly attributed to oxygenation.
Carbon steels have been found to pit in aerated, near-neutral waters.
Corrosion in aqueous environments is basically an electrochemical reaction
wherein electrons are released at the anode with metallic ions formed by
oxidation going into solution. At the cathode, electrons are accepted and
negative ions form. Action at the anode and cathode are interdependent,
i.e., neither can proceed without the other. In the case of iron (steel) in
water, iron goes into solution as ions and electrons are left behind in the
metal at the anodic areas. These electrons travel through the steel to the
cathode where they combine with hydrogen ions to form hydrogen gas. In
neutral, slow-moving waters, the evolution of hydrogen gas at the cathode
proceeds and accumulates as a layer of hydrogen on the metal. This layer
decreases the cathodic reaction and thus the reaction is referred to as
cathodic polarization. Therefore, corrosion proceeds very slowly in quies-
cent, deaerated waters. Dissolved oxygen in the water upsets the equilibrium
condition established by cathodic polarization. The oxygen reacts with the
accumulated hydrogen to form water. As the hydrogen is removed in this
manner, corrosion is allowed to proceed. Dissolved oxygen concentration,
therefore, controls the rate of corrosion of iron and steel in wastewater.
Corrosion of gray cast iron was by a process of selective dealloying
commonly referred to as graphitization or graphitic corrosion. Cast iron
consists mainly of iron and carbon with small amounts of silicon and manga-
nese. The graphite is cathodic to iron, and thus an excellent cell exists.
The iron is selectively dissolved leaving a porous mass of graphite, voids,
and corrosion products.
Both copper and the austenitic cast iron suffered moderate uniform
corrosion rates, less than 250 ym/yr (10 mil/yr). Sensitized 304 and 316
austenitic stainless steels were rated as only moderately resistant because
of some minor pitting observed in the gas zone at one of the test sites.
This pitting corroborates our past experiences as well as those of other
investigators, in which sensitized austenitic stainless steels have been
found to be susceptible to pitting. Sensitization is caused by heat treat-
ment such as welding followed by slow cooling. The generally accepted theory
98
-------
for this phenomenon is that this treatment results in chromium carbide
precipitation at the grain boundaries which in turn reacts galvanically with
adjacent metal devoid of chromium. This phenomenon is known as intergranular
corrosion.
As anticipated, the stainless steels, Types 201, 304, and 316, provided
excellent resistance to these environments.
2. Stressed specimens. - Of the alloys exposed in the stressed condi-
tion, all passed this "go-no go" type of test except mild steel, low alloy
steel, and aluminum. Since these materials also were found to be nonresist-
ant when exposed as unstressed coupons, it is difficult to assess the effect
of the stress. However, it was noted that all splitting occurred at the
highly stressed, plastically deformed ends of the test specimens. Therefore,
it appears that stress on these alloys in these environments does accelerate
the rates of deterioration of these nonresistant materials.
Rubber and Plastics
Relatively little detrimental change has occurred in the rubber and
plastic materials. Such changes that did occur were the result of specific
environmental conditions which reacted somewhat differently, both in type and
extent of reaction, with each polymer group. In addition to the different
reaction of each basic polymer, behavior of specific products is greatly
influenced by the variety of substances which are added to the compound, such
as antioxidants, antiozonants, curing accelerators, cross linking agents,
fungicides, reinforcing fillers, antibacterial agents, and extenders. For
example, a material which might be a good antibacterial agent could adversely
affect the oxidation rate of a polymer, or two manufacturers' products using
the same polymer may perform differently as a result of the type or amounts
of such additives.
The factors in the environment of this study which could be expected to
influence the behavior of polymers are:
1. Oxidation (including ozone attack)
2. Biological attack
3. Water
4. Physical damage
Thermal degradation and photodegradation will not be considered to any
extent because of the relatively cool operating temperatures and the absence
of sunlight at the exposure sites.
1. Oxidation. - Since this study deals with oxygenated systems, it
is important to know that oxygen is generally the most common factor in
polymer degradation. All polymers react with oxygen at combustion
temperatures and sunlight generally accelerates the process. Fortu-
nately, with the absence of light and with the low temperatures encoun-
tered in this study (14° to 26°C), oxidation proceeds very slowly for
most polymers. For example, the oxidation rate of linear polyethylene
at 140°C is roughly 10 times the rate at 100°C. Furthermore, at 100°C,
99
-------
oxygen uptake reaches a relatively early plateau. Measurement would be
difficult at temperatures below 30°C since the rate of oxygen absorption
is extremely slow. Even natural rubber absorbs oxygen very slowly at
temperatures below 50°C.
Polymer selection is basic in reducing oxygen attack potential.
Oxidation in polymers is a complicated process that involves chain
reactions which result in the formation of unstable peroxy free radi-
cals. Olefinic unsaturated hydrocarbon double bonds and other unsat-
urated functional groups present favorable sites for stabilization of
these free radicals. Thus, silicone polymers (R-32 and -532) with their
silica-oxygen molecular backbone are among the most stable toward
oxidative degradation. Ethylene propylene diene monomer (R-8 and -30),
which has residual unsaturation only in pendent side groups and not in
the main chain, is very stable as is unbranched polyethylene. Branching
generally decreases oxidation resistance. Butyl rubber (R-17 and -29),
having its hydrocarbon chain interrupted by a relatively few double
bonds, is also quite resistant to attack. Natural rubber (R-25) with
its high chemical unsaturation (presence of double bonds) is among the
most susceptible of polymers to oxidation. Nevertheless, natural rubber
was included in this study since it is still widely used, especially in
items such as water pipe gaskets.
Modification of polymer chains by addition of electrophilic side
groups such as chlorine in neophrene rubber (R-5) has a protective
influence on the double bond. This is generally more permanent protec-
tion than is reliance upon antioxidants, which are used up in the
performance of their function. Where oxidation rates are very low,
antioxidants may provide satisfactory protection.
The effect of ozone on polymers is similar to normal oxidation in
that it attacks the double bond but the process is simpler since the
attack is direct. An energetic reaction occurs as a result of the
electrophilic character of ozone. Scission of the double bond occurs in
a reaction between the electron-deficient terminal oxygen atom of the
ozone molecule and the electrons of the double bond, ultimately
resulting in the formation of polyperoxide and carbonyl compounds.
Unlike oxidation, in pzonation the thin film of the ozone reaction
product (approximately 10 mm) is sufficient to restrict the access
of ozone molecules to the underlying rubber if the rubber is unstrained.
Therefore, unless rubber is strained (usually beyond 3 to 5 percent
elongation), it appears not to have been affected by ozone and indeed
suffers no significant damage. In the strained state, cracks appear
which generally vary inversely in depth and directly in number to
the degree of strain, with little change in the rubber between cracks.
As would be suspected the resistance of different rubber products
to ozone attack is similar to their resistance to oxidation.
No unusual behavior of rubber or plastic products with regard to
oxidation has been experienced in this study. The only attack of oxygen
100
-------
(0. or 0-) that is significant is ozone cracking in the natural
rubber (R-25) and in the nitrile-butadiene rubber (R-34). These two
materials were highly sensitive to ozone. In tests conducted at the
Bureau of Reclamation Laboratories, both materials developed cracking
within 8 hours when exposed to an atmosphere of 0.5 ul/1 ozone at 38°C.
Initial ozone cracking could also be observed after 12 days in the
laboratory atmosphere of less than 0.05 ul/1 ozone and approximately
25°C.
It is significant that no difference in cracking was observed in
any of the three zones nor was there any increase in cracking between
the 3- and 9-month inspections. There was a difference in severity
between sites corresponding to least delay (Tapia) and greatest delay
(Westgate) in the time between stressing the specimens and installation
at the sites. (It was necessary to stress the specimens prior to
shipment.) Specimens of natural rubber stressed at the same time as the
Westgate specimens and immersed in tap water at the Bureau of Reclama-
tion Laboratories at the same time that the Westgate specimens were
installed show nearly identical severity of ozone cracking at a 9-month
inspection as the Westgate specimens, whereas specimens immersed immedi-
ately after stressing showed no evidence of cracking. Therefore, it is
concluded that the cracking occurred before samples were installed at
the test sites and not as a result of the oxygenated wastewater environ-
ment.
This environment does not represent a very severe oxidation envi-
ronment insofar as higher polymers are concerned. This is evidenced by
the lack of substantial difference in physical properties between
the tap water and the wastewater specimens, as well as between specimens
exposed in gas and liquor zones. It is also indicated by the relative
stability after the 3-month exposure in the undamaged natural rubber and
the nitrile-butadiene rubber which, among polymers selected for this
study, are known to be the most sensitive to oxidation.
2. Biological attack. - Certain types of bacteria can utilize
hydrocarbons, including rubber, as energy sources in their metabolism.
Widespread deterioration of natural rubber water pipe joint gaskets in
Europe has been reported to be the result of attack by two types of
bacteria of the genus streptomyces. No deterioration of synthetic
rubbers (other than polyisoprene) has been reported in Europe and no
deterioration of natural rubber, widely used for pipe gaskets in the
United States, has been reported. Accelerated soil micro-organism tests
conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation on several rubber products
(mainly butyl and ethylene propylene diene monomer) have shown no
adverse effect after 10 years of exposure. It appears that rubber
compounds most resistant to oxidation and ozone attack may possibly be
the most resistant to attack by mico-organisms. Indeed, P. B. Dickenson,
in the Rubber Journal (August 1965), opines that biological degradation
of rubber must be preceded by an oxidation process that breaks the long
hydrocarbon chain into shorter molecules which may then be consumed. In
contradiction to this, some evidence of bacteria attack on the highly
oxidation-resistant silicone rubbers has been reported and butyl rubber
101
-------
may be affected by sulfate-reducing bacteria. The polyethylene family
of polymers, including chlorinated (B-6475) and chlorosulfonated poly-
ethylene (R-18), appears to be highly resistant to micro-organism
attack, as is the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin, although plasticizers
used in flexible PVC (B-6414) are commonly attacked with resultant
stiffening of the material.
Results of these tests indicate some samples have suffered biologi-
cal attack. One natural rubber (R-25) sample after 9 months of exposure
in the mixed liquor at the Tapia site showed some sign of localized
attack. Several small circles (3 to 6 mm in diameter) showed discolor-
ation and pitting accompanied by deterioration to a depth of approxi-
mately 1 mm. Discoloration in one silicone rubber may also have
resulted from micro-organism attack. The flexible PVC has shown some
stiffening as well as some increase in yield strength indicating attack
on the plasticizer. However, the increase in strength indicates no
resin attack. During more than 10 years of USSR field experience with
flexible PVC in canal lining, the relatively slow loss of plasticizer
has caused no problems where protection from mechanical damage has been
maintained. The plasticizer loss eventually produces a rigid PVC
sheet. Rigid PVC has been used as a liner, but it is difficult to
handle during installation, does not conform well to uneven subgrades,
and in general is more labor-intensive than flexible PVC sheets.
3. Water attack. - Reaction of water with polymers merits serious
study especially where continuous immersion is involved. In this study
water reaction may have less potential for deterioration than micro-
organism attack. The reason for this is the high availability of
micro-organisms in the wastewater and because only materials known to be
resistant to water attack were selected for exposure. However, for
certain materials, water attack may be of primary significance.
Although some studies have shown that in aerated water, immersion
oxidation rates are reduced, other properties may be affected.
As in the case with oxidation, reaction of polymers with water may
lead to chain scission (softening and decompositon) or to cross linking
(hardening and brittleness). Previous USER experience has shown
embrittlement occurring in the polyacrylate (R-27) from water attack
although at somewhat higher temperature than occurs in wastewater
treatment plants. The polyacrylate, therefore, was closely observed for
indications of water attack. Attack of water on polymers must be
preceded by permeation of the water through the bulk of the polymer.
This is usually accompanied by some evidence such as unusual softening
or swelling which has not been observed in the polyacrylate. Further the
changes in the physical properties of the polyacrylate although somewhat
erratic appear to have stabilized.
4. Physical damage. - A wide variety of physical abuse has been
encountered by samples exposed to the three sites in this study and at
least as wide a range can be expected elsewhere. The principal damage
102
-------
sustained has been tensile rupture of both silicone (R-32 and -532)
specimens and a deep scratch in one reinforced chlorinated polyethylene
(B-6468) and one reinforced butyl (B-6464), all at the interface of the
Westgate plant.
5. Other damage. - Some unusual swelling of butyl and EPDM rubber
samples occurred at the interface location at site 2. An oil spill was
suspected by plant operators during the period in which swelling was
encountered. In localities where problems of continuous contact with
liquid hydrocarbons occur, the long-term effect of such exposure should
be investigated.
Protective Coatings
To facilitate evaluation of the large number of coatings specimens
exposed in this study, a numerical rating system was established to reflect
performance. Performance of coatings after each exposure interval at each
exposure zone at the three test sites was designated numerically as follows:
1. No defects.
2. Defects attributable to scoring of the protective coating film,
such as blistering around the score only, or mechanically induced, such
as by impact or abrasion.
3. Few or minor defects. A minor defect was defined as one which
did not impair the protective effectiveness of the coating. Examples
include blistering of the topcoat .only and few, small blisters.
4. Severe defects. Severe defects include cracking and gross
blistering.
Such a numerical rating system allows almost unlimited flexibility for
mathematical manipulation and makes analysis of a large number of specimens
exposed for various periods of time in three zones of three test sites
manageable.
The performance of standard USER immersion coatings, VR-3, VR-6, coal-
tar enamel, and coal-tar epoxy, in these exposures was disappointing.
Whereas these materials normally provide a minimum of 20 years of service,
with minimal maintenance, when exposed to fresh water, defects appeared after
only short exposure periods in these wastewater environments.
The VR-3 and, to a lesser degree, the VR-6 vinyl systems proved to be
susceptible to blistering, the coal-tar enamel to pattern cracking, and the
coal-tar epoxy to slight alligator cracking.
It is interesting to note, however, that of the coatings obtainable
under standard specifications exposed, the coal-tar epoxy and the VR-6 proved
to be most resistant.
103
-------
The cracking of the coal-tar enamel coating which resulted in an overall
evaluation in the nonresistant category is difficult to explain. This
coating is projected to have a 50- to 100-year service life in Bureau applica-
tions. It is surmised that the highly oxidative nature of oxygenated waste-
water resulted in scission of the coal-tar polymer chains. Heretofore,
cracking of this enamel has been experienced only when exposed to cold
temperature and to sunlight exposure*
Both coatings which received highly resistant ratings for steel also
received highly resistant ratings when tested over concrete. These were the
phenolic-epoxy and urethane coatings, both proprietary materials. At that
point, similarity of performance over the two substrates ceased to exist.
Whereas 8 of the 14 coatings applied to steel were rated resistant or higher,
only 5 of the 10 coatings tested on concrete substrate achieved this rating.
In addition, whereas three materials received a moderately resistant rating
when applied to steel, none of the coatings tested on concrete achieved this
rating. These comparisons indicate that concrete surfaces are more difficult
to protect by coating.
Joint Sealers
Of the five joint sealers exposed, only one, the single component,
low-modulus silicone sealant survived the test free of defect. Commonly used
sealers for such applications, including the urethane and silicone, both
two-component materials conforming to Federal Specifications TT-S-00227,
failed to maintain bond to the concrete in these tests, whereas the two-
component polysulfide material, also conforming to TT-S-00227, displayed
surface distress but no adhesion or cohesion failure.
The continuous stress imposed on the sealants during these tests, i.e.,
25 percent tensile and 25 percent compressive, is quite severe. Neverthe-
less, recognizing that Federal Specification TT-S-00227 requires materials
resistant to a total joint movement of 50 percent and since the same stresses
were applied to all sealants, the test should not be considered unfair.
These test results should not be used out of context, i.e., the stress
imposed during these tests should be compared to stresses to be expected by
the design of specific joints. However, since the single-component, low-
modulus silicone material performed without defect when stressed to 25
percent extension and compression, one can safely assume that this sealer
would perform well at lower stress levels also. Also, if such lower stress
levels are anticipated, although the polysulfide material rated higher than
either the two-component silicone or the urethane sealers, the selection of
the latter materials is indicated because the silicone and urethane materials
themselves were not attacked as were the polysulfide sealants.
104
-------
SECTION 8
DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC IMPACT
Some of the materials recommended for an oxygen activated-sludge plant,
as indicated by the results of these tests, are more expensive than those
ordinarily used in conventional activated-sludge plants. The costs of
necessary materials substitutions and additional requirements were considered
in order to evaluate the economic impact of the materials recommendations.
This study was limited to comparison of relative costs of materials
exposed in those plant locations where elevated oxygen concentrations occur
as a result of oxygen injection: in the aeration basins (mixed liquor tanks)
and in piping, valves, etc., between aeration basin outlets and secondary
clarifier inlets. Components in these locations include the concrete tanks
and covers (if any) of the aeration basins and various flow channels; slide
gates and sluice gates; waterstops and joint sealers; piping and valves;
metal railings, probes, hardware, etc.; plus protective coatings as required
for these surfaces. The corrosion potential in other plant locations would
be essentially the same as in a conventional plant. Since special equipment
for mixing and for generating and handling oxygen are not required in a
conventional plant, costs for these items were not evaluated. Other cost
differentials, such as for operating costs and capital costs due to the
differences in processes (for example, aeration basin size) are not within
the scope of this study.
The wide range of wastewater treatment plant designs made it impossible
to determine a single set of traditionally used materials for either conven-
tional or oxygen treatment plants. Obtaining general materials cost data
applicable to either type of plant was also not feasible. However, by
considering, in detail, the designs and materials specifications of two
typical oxygen plants and the costs of using alternative materials, it was
possible to obtain sufficient information to draw an overall conclusion in
regard to economic impact; namely, that the additional costs of corrosion-
resistant materials recommended for an oxygen plant are negligible as com-
pared to total construction costs.
Chosen for economic evaluation were the Englewood-Littleton, Colorado
plant and the new expansion of the Denver Metropolitan Sewage District
plant, both currently under construction. The 880-A/s (20-Mgal/d) Englewood-
Littleton plant uses Food Machinery Corporation1s (FMC) MAROX system and was
designed by Henningson, Durham, and Richardson (HDR). The 3200-A/s
(73-Mgal/d) Denver Metro plant addition contains Union Carbide's UNOX system
and was designed by CH2M-Hill.
105
-------
These sewage districts and engineering design firms were contacted to
obtain specific details concerning relevant components and materials of
construction. Upon studying the designs, specifications, and some cost data
for the two plants, it became apparent that the present materials recommen-
dations would have the greatest economic impact on the costs of sluice or
slide gates. However, it also developed that the installed costs of these
gates and their differential costs among alternative materials were clearly
insignificant as compared to the overall construction costs, which are
dominated by costs of concrete structures. These two case studies are
detailed below.
Case I: Englewood-Littleton Plant
In the Englewood-Littleton plant, all specified materials, with one
exception, are in agreement with the present materials recommendations. This
exception is that the slide gates are constructed of aluminum rather than of
a more corrosion-resistant material. According to the project engineer for
HDR, aluminum was chosen because it traditionally has been used for slide
gates in conventional plants. HDR considered that specifying a more
corrosion-resistant material was not necessary, although they were not aware
of any corrosion data or operating experience with the MAROX system to
substantiate their selection of aluminum. They based their choice upon past
performance in conventional plants.
The costs of the aeration basin slide gates for the Englewood-Littleton-
plant were obtained from the local respresentative of ARMCO Steel Corporation,
the manufacturer of these gates. ARMCO also supplied cost data for gates con-
structed of the recommended materials. A cost of coating with coal-tar epoxy
[$30/m ($3/ft ) of surface installed, which may be conservatively high]
was used to calculate costs for epoxy-coated carbon steel slide gates.
Results (table 39) indicate that the additional cost of using stainless
steel as compared to aluminum is only $12,600 for all 78 gates and is clearly
insignificant in comparison to the total plant cost of just over $20,000,000.
These results also indicate that a savings would have been realized by using
coal-tar epoxy coated mild steel slide gates as compared to the unprotected
aluminum. However, the corrosion and abrasion resistance of material for
construction of components exposed to severe abrasion and wear, e.g., gate
seals and seal contact surfaces, should be considered since on these areas,
protective coatings can be quickly worn away.
The above slide gates are for low-pressure applications. Higher heads
[greater than 15 kPa (5 feet of water)] would require different designs of
sluice gates and different materials such as cast iron. For example, the
cost of an ARMCO 0.61- by 0.61-m (24- by 24-inch) cast iron sluice gate is
$1,750, and of a similar 1.5- by 0.76-m (60- by 30-inch) gate, $4,900.
Adding an epoxy-coal-tar coating would increase each of these prices by less
than $200. Again wear surfaces would require special consideration.
106
-------
TABLE 39. COMPARISON OF COST* OF SLIDE GATES**
o
•vl
Material of construction/
protective coating
Carbon steel/coal-
tar paint ***
Carbon steel/galvanize***
Carbon steel/epoxy***
Aluminum/none
Stainless steel/none
Cost
0.6 m x 0.6 m
1 gate
$350
370
374
800
900
(24 in x 24 in)
30 gates
$10,500
11,100
11,220
24,000
27,000
1 .5 m x 0.7 m
1 gate
$525
625
563
1,250
1,450
(60 in x 30 in)
48 gates
$25,200
30,000
27,000
60,000
69,600
Total cost
78 gates
$35,700
41,100
38,220
84,000
96,. 600
* Provided by Armco Steel Corporation. Comparisons between tables should not be made because of
differences in accessories and gate applications.
** Required for aeration basins at Englewood-Littleton Sewage Treatment Plant.
*** Coating of all surfaces of these gates is not applicable. Wear surfaces should be constructed
of corrosion and abrasion resistant materials.
-------
Case II; Denver Metro Plant
In the Denver Metro plant addition, all materials in the covered aera-
tion basins and piping to the secondary clarifiers are in agreement with
present materials recommendations. Sluice gates are coal-tar epoxy coated
cast iron. Waterstops and joint sealers consist of such recommended materials
as neoprene rubber and polysulfide sealant, respectively. Concrete is the
predominant material used in the aeration basins and represents the largest
cost.
The costs of the cast iron sluice gates (complete installation including
stems, hoists, anchor bolts, etc.) as supplied by their manufacturer, Rodney
Hunt Company, are given in table 40. Also listed are prices which include
the additional costs of epoxy coal-tar coating, assuming $30/m ($3/ft )
for coating materials and labor. Note that the relative cost of adding this
coating is less than 1 percent of each gate price, but some surfaces of the
gate may not be suitable for coating, e.g., high wear areas.
Prices for various sizes of fabricated slide gates of aluminum and
stainless steel (table 41) were also obtained from the Rodney Hunt Company.
Although these slide gates have the same opening as the sluice gates in table
40, they would probably not be serviceable at the Denver Metro plant because
of the higher heads and other requirements. Note that these cost data agree
with those in table 39; aluminum slide gates prices are less than 20 percent
cheaper than those of stainless steel in these sizes.
A rough estimate of the installed costs of waterstops and joint sealers
in the Denver Metro aeration basins was $12,000. Variations in this value
among various materials alternatives were found to be insignificant (instal-
lation is the largest portion of total waterstop or joint sealer cost) as
compared to total capital cost. Total cost of the Denver Metro plant addi-
tion is about $25,000,000.
108
-------
TABLE 40. COMPARISON OF COSTS OF COATED AND UNCOATED CAST IRON SLUICE GATES*
Unit cost
Gate size Uncoated** Coated***
48
30
60
42
inches by
inches by
inches by
48 inches $5,176 $5,272
48 inches* 8,608 8,668
72 inches 8,545 8,725
inches diameter 5,536 5,594
TOTAL
Number
used
8
8
1
10
27
Total
Uncoated
$ 41
68
8
55
$174
,408
,864
,545
,360
,177
cost
Coated
$ 42
69
8
55
$176
,176
,344
,725
,940
,185
* Used in the aeration basins of the Denver Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant.
** Provided by the Rodney Hunt Company. Prices for complete installation including stems, hoists,
anchor bolts, etc. Comparisons between tables should not be made because of differences in
accessories and gate applications.
*** Estimated assuming an added cost of $3 per square foot for a coal-tar epoxy coating. However,
coating of all surfaces of these gates is not applicable. Wear surfaces should be constructed
of corrosion and abrasion resistant materials.
# Includes costs of a special electric operator.
-------
TABLE 41. COMPARISON OF COSTS* OF SLIDE GATES CONSTRUCTED OF
STAINLESS STEEL AND ALUMINUM
Cost
Gate size
1.2
0.7
5 m
1.0
m by 1.2
m by 1.2
by 1.2 m
m (48
m (30
(60 in
m diameter (42
in by 48 in)
in by 48 in)**
by 48 in)
in diameter)
Stainless steel Aluminum
$4,444
7,779
7,079
4,778
$3,508
7,059
5,648
4,018
* Provided by the Rodney Hunt Company. Comparisons between tables
should not be made because of differences in accessories and
gate applications.
** Includes cost of a special electric operator.
110
-------
APPENDIX
Typical Concrete Mix Data
Type II and
polymer-impregnated
Type V
Cement, Laboratory No.
Aggregate source
Cement content,
cement/concrete
Sand content, percent
by volume of aggregate. 42
Water-cement ratio
by weight
Slump
Entrained air, percent
Total aggregate,
aggregate/concrete
M-6400
Clear Creek if
977 kg/m3 (549 lb/yd3)
0.51
76.2 mm (3.0 in.)
5.6
5319 kg/m3 (2990 lb/yd3)
M-5207
Clear Creek I/
934 kg/m3 (525 lb/yd3)
42
0.51
83.8 mm (3.3 in.)
6.0
5367 kg/m3 (3017 lb/yd3)
If A local aggregate deposit used in Bureau of Reclamation concrete testing
programs.
Aggregate Gradation
No
2/
. sieve 2/
Pan
100
50
30
16
8
Total
U.S: Standard
Sand
Opening (mm)
_
0.149
0.297
0.59
1.19
2.38
sieves.
Percent
retained
5
16
24
25
15
15
100
Coarse aggregate
Size Percent
4.76-9.53 mm (4-3/8 in.) 40
9.53-19.05 mm (3/8-3/4 in.) 60
100
111
-------
Type II and Type V portland cement concrete specimens were cured for 14
days at 23°K (73.4°F) and 100 percent relative humidity. The specimens were
then stored at 23°K (73.4°F) and 50 percent relative humidity until shipped to
the test site for exposure.
Concrete-impregnation Procedure
Specimens prepared for impregnation were treated as follows:
1. Cure - 10 days at 100 percent RH, 23*K (73.4°F).
2. Dried in oven at 163°K (325°F) for 24 to 72 hours.
3. Cooled to room temperature for 24 hours.
4. Weighed to nearest 0.1 gram.
5. Specimens impregnated:
a. Vacuum of 100 kPa (1 atmosphere) applied to impregnator for
period 1/2 hour
b. Impregnant, methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer catalyzed
with o, 8, butylazo isobutryonitrile, stirred for
1/2 hour
c. Impregnant introduced into impregnator while vacuum was
being maintained
d. Vacuum released from impregnator and 376 kPa (40 Ib/in g)
pressure applied using compressed air
e. Pressure soaked in catalyzed monomer for 1 to 1-1/2 hours
f. Pressure reduced to 100 kPa (atmospheric)
6. Polymerization of catalyzed monomer-impregnated specimens was
accomplished by wrapping in foil and heating in oven to 75°C (167°F) for
a period of 16 hours and allowed to cool to room temperature.
7. Specimens weighted to nearest 0.1 gram.
Percent loading was calculated for each specimen from the impregnated
and dry weights. Average loading was 6.47 percent by weight.
Metals and Alloys
Corrosion coupons for the stressed and unstressed corrosion tests were
procured from Corrosion Test Supplies Company, Baker, Louisiana. Data
contained on certificates submitted are shown in table 1.
The circular unstressed and rectangular stressed corrosion specimens
were prepared for exposure as follows:
1. Degreased in hot vapor degreaser using perchloroethylene
solvent
2. Washed with grit soap until free of water breaks
112
-------
3. Sensitized specimens (304 and 316 SS only) were then heated to
650°C (1200°F) for 1 hour and cooled slowly
4. Circular coupons weighed to nearest 0.1 milligram
5. Mount circular coupons on corrosion test spools
6. Stress rectangular specimens [bend over 25.4-mm
(1-inch mandrel)]
Cleaning procedure following exposure was accomplished as follows:
1. Photograph
2. Wash carefully to remove all soluble material with soap
3. Chemical cleaning of respective specimens as shown below:
Stainless steels: Washing with soap using a stiff-bristle
brush and rubber stopper
Cast iron, mild steel, low alloy steel, and austenitic cast
iron: Immersion in hot caustic solution (20 percent sodium
hydroxide with 200 grams of zinc dust added per liter),
followed by washing with soap using a stiff-bristle brush
and rubber stopper
Copper: Immersion in 70 percent nitric acid solution followed
by washing with soap using stiff-bristle brush and rubber
stopper
4. Drying and weighing to nearest 0.1 milligram
Corrosion rate was calculated using the following formula:
(WL) x (534) ^_
Corrosion rate - (D) x (A) x (T) -~
where: Corrosion rate is in mils/year
D is the metal density in grams /cubic centimeter
A is the surface area of the coupon in square inches
T is the exposure time in hours , and
WL is the weight loss in milligrams
or: Corrosion rate
where: Corrosion rate is in millimeters/year ^
D is the metal density in milligrams /mm ~
A is the surface area of the coupon in mm
T is the exposure time in years
WL is the weight loss in milligrams
113
-------
Steel Reinforcement in Concrete
Polarization Break Method of Determining Corrosion Rates of Steel Reinforce^
ment Embedded in Concrete
Sketch of test schemtic is shown below.
potentiometer •
calonel
reference
cell
To electrode
.•variable reelstor
,
=0
. r
^i_
, 5
h
3
* 1
1 1
II
ll
l«
!!
H
> i
u
%
— ele
— nli
eter
electrical lead to rebar
water electrolyte
reinforced concrete specimen
Polarization curve apparatus
Current is slowl^increased by decreasing the resistance (variable
resistor) until the impressed current is sufficient to overcome the anodic
corrosion current. This point is determined by plotting the steel to elec-
trolyte potential versus the log of the impressed current (E log I curve).
The anodic current is the current at the break in the E log I curve. Simi-
larly the cathodic corrosion current is determined by reversing the polarity
of the cell. The corrosion current is then computed from the formula below:
I =
la Ic
la + Ic
where: I is the corrosion current (amperes)
la is the anodic current (amperes)
Ic is the cathodic current (amperes)
The corrosion rate is then computed as follows:
W = F x I x t
where: W is the weight loss due to corrosion
F is Faraday's Number, 9.07 kg/ampere/yr (20 Ib/ampere/yr) for steel
t is time (years)
114
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-136
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI>*NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
MATERIALS FOR OXYGENATED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
5. REPORT DATE
July 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
H. K. Uyeda, B. V. Jones, T. E. Rutenbeck, and
J. W. Kaakinen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Division of General Research
Engineering and Research Center
Bureau of Reclamation
Denver, Colorado 80225
ID. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-0187(D)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Interior
Project Officer: James V. Basilico, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.,
(202) 426-3974
16. ABSTRACT
This research study was initiated to identify resistant materials for
construction of wastewater treatment plants using the oxygen activated sludge
process.
In this investigation, samples of a broad range of construction materials were
exposed for periods up to 28 months in the aeration basins of three operating muni-
cipal wastewater treatment plants. All three plants wereuus-ing oxygen-activated
sludge processes during the exposure period. Materials exposed included metallics,
Portland cement concretes, protective coatings for steel and for concrete surfaces,
sealers for joints in concrete, and plastic and rubber materials. An economic
analysis was also conducted to evaluate the impact of materials recommendations
generated by the exposure testing.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
*Activated sludge process
*Corrosion prevention
*Corrosion tests
Sewage treatment
Protective coatings
Dissolved gases
Oxygen
Materials
Waste water
*0xygen activated sludge
Construction materials
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
125
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
115
OUSGPO: 1978 — 757-140/1402 Region 5-1
------- |