a survey of practices surface preparation for industrial coating work

8/8/2019 A Survey of Practices Surface Preparation for Industrial Coating Work

1/7

Annual Directory of Industrial Painting Contractors. The

majority of the contractors contacted are based in the U.S.

and Canada.

We selected the 2008 Directory respondents for the sur-

vey to minimize sending duplicate forms to the same compa-

ny. Of the 1,500 contractor firms, approximately 100 either

lacked email or had Internet servers that rejected our email.

Of the approximately 1,400 firms receiving the form,

approximately 193 recipients, or 14%, completed it by the

deadline. Not all respondents answered every question.

Unfortunately, we were not able to include every method

and material in the survey. A scientifically developed and

conducted survey was beyond our scope (and budget).

Rather, we developed the survey to get (and provide) an

informal look at current practices in surface preparation. In

this article, we focus mainly on preparing steel, the morecommon of the substrates in the survey.

brasive blast cleaning is the most com-

monly used method of surface prepa-

ration for steel and concrete, according

to responses to a May 2008 JPCLsur-

vey on the state of practices in indus-

trial surface preparation. However, rising costs, compliance

with environmental and worker health regulations, and

advances in surface preparation equipment have led many

contractors to change their methods or materials for surface

preparation over the past ten years, according to nearly half

of the respondents to the JPCLsurvey.

JPCLconducted the survey on line, emailing the question-

naire to most of the 1,500 contractors who had, earlier this

year, identified themselves as industrial painting contractors

when they completed the form for JPCLs March 2008

Surface Preparation for Industrial Coating WorkBy theJPCL Staff

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100%

*178 Respondents

130

120

110

100

90

80

7060

50

40

30

20

10

0 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100%

*189 Respondents

52 www.paintsquare.comJ P C L J u n e 2 0 0 8

Fig. 1: Respondents and Industrial Surface Preparation*

Fig. 2: Respondents and Surface Preparation of Steel*

A

A Survey of Practices:

Amount of the RespondentsWorkThat Is Industrial (by range %) Amount of Industrial Surface PreparationWork on Steel (by range %)

NumberofRespondentsWhoDo

IndustrialSurfacePreparation

NumberofRespondents

WhoPrepareSteel


2/7

A Profile of Our RespondentsAs shown in Fig. 1, 126 respondents of 189 total respon-

dents perform more than 75% of their work in the indus-trial settings. Figure 2 shows that 108 contractors of the

178 who answered the question perform more than 75% of

their industrial work on steel, while in Fig. 3, 28 of 157

respondents perform a majority of their industrial work on

concrete.

Figure 4 reflects the average percentage of industrial

coating contracts for the survey respondents per sector:

private, public, and military. More than half of the con-

tracts are from the private sector.

The Survey at a GlanceTables 15 reflect answers about the frequency withwhich each respondents firm uses a number of the com-

J P C L J u n e 2 0 0 8 53www.paintsquare.com

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100%

*157 Respondents

Never Occasionally Often AlmostAlways

Dry abrasive blast cleaning 5.8% 8.1% 33.7% 52.3%

Wet/water cleaning 20.0% 35.0% 36.9% 8.1%

Power tool cleaning 5.9% 38.2% 45.9% 10.0%

Other 37.3% 39.0% 15.3% 8.5%

Table 1: General Overview of Methods Used Steel

*Rows may not add up to 100% because of rounding.


Blast cleaning with coal slag 33.9% 26.7% 25.5% 13.9%

Blast cleaning with copper 47.2% 35.4% 11.8% 5.6%

or mineral slags

Blast cleaning with 25.6% 22.0% 24.4% 28.0%

recyclable shot or grit

Blast cleaning 50.3% 25.1% 17.4% 7.2%with silica sand

Blast cleaning 77.4% 17.7% 3.7% 1.2%

with sponge abrasive

Table 2: Abrasive Blasting Practices Steel



Ultra-high-pressure (UHP 61.5% 25.4% 8.9% 4.1%water-jetting (>25,000 psi)

High-pressure water jetting 58.4% 28.3% 10.8% 2.4%

(10,000-25,000 psi)

High-pressure water cleaning 32.9% 35.9% 27.1% 4.1%

(5,000-10,000 psi)

Low-pressure water cleaning 19.2% 30.2% 38.4% 12.2%

(


3/7

mon methods of preparing steel. The

answers are qualitative, only, and

therefore somewhat subjective because,

for the sake of making the survey use-

able, occasionally, often, and almost

always were not further defined.

Table 1 gives an overview. Perhaps

not surprisingly, just over half of con-

tractors who responded use dry abra-

sive blasting almost always, while

power tool cleaning ranked second in

frequency of use at 45.9%. Wet and

water methods ranked third at 36.9%,

and Other methods ranked fourth

(39%). Other methods contractors

reported for preparing steel (that were

not part of other questions on the sur-

vey) included track blasting, hand tool

cleaning, solvent cleaning, steam clean-

ing, diamond grinding, and wheel blast-

ing.

Of the abrasives we listed in Table 2,

recyclable steel shot and grit had the

highest percentage of materials almost

always used (28%).

Wet and water methods of cleaning

have not, according to our respondents,

caught up with dry methods in fre-quency of use, but there is strong occa-

sional use of the five types of wet

methods we listed (Table 3).

And of alternative methods that we

offered as choices in the survey (Table

4), power cleaning had the highest rat-

ing. Other methods recipients listed

(that were not part of the survey else-

where) included blasting with alu-

minum oxide, paint stripping with

steam, and blasting with crushed glass.While we must underscore the fact

that these results are relative and

somewhat subjective, they indicate, as

shown in Table 5, that contractors do

use a variety of methods to prepare

steel; every method identified is used to

one degree or another, albeit not by all

contractors.

The same can be said of contractors

who prepare concrete (Table 6). The

response to our question about fre-

quency of use of nine methods indicat-


Click

ourReadereCardatpaintsquare.com/ric

ClickourReadereCardatpa

intsquare.com/ric
http://www.us-minerals.com/http://www.flowcorp.com/


4/7


1 (most 2 3 4 5 (least N/Acommon) common)

Dry abrasive blast cleaning 48.2% 15.9% 10.6% 7.1% 10.0% 8.2%

open blast cleaningwith expendable abrasives


self contained machine

with recyclable abrasive

Wet abrasive blast cleaning 3.7% 7.5% 14.9% 18.0% 28.0% 28.0%

Low-pressure water cleaning 18.9% 16.5% 20.1% 11.0% 18.3% 15.2%

(25,000 psi)

Powel tool cleaning 22.1% 29.1% 16.3% 17.4% 9.3% 5.8%

Paint removal 4.8% 7.2% 14.4% 13.8% 36.5% 23.4%with chemical strippers

Table 5: Overall Use of Methods Steel


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Private Public Military

Fig. 4: Average % of Industrial Coating Contracts by Sector

ed that many methods have a place in

the contractors repertoire. No method

was rejected by everyone, just as no

single method was the only one used.

Trends: From Tougher Regsto Better Technology

We also asked contractors if their sur-

face preparation methods had changed

over the past ten years, and if so, how.

165 people responded to the question.

Just over half, 53%, said their prac-

tices had not changed in 10 years,

while just under half, 47%, said their

practices had changed. For those who

have made changes in the way they

conduct surface preparation, here are

some of the changes or causes of

AveragePercentageofContracts

SECTOR

ClickourReadere-Cardatpaintsquare.com/ric
http://www.aurand.net/


5/7


change that they described.

Five persons specifically said that reg-

ulations or other restrictions had led

them to change how they worked: con-

tainment/disposal requirements were

cited. EPA-OSHA and cost have elimi-

nated media blasting, noted another.

One respondent reported, We used

to use inexpensive silica sand (99% of

our work is new steel) and now the

insurance companies do not allow the

silica providers to sell to blasting con-

tractors. Our raw product costs have

increased almost 4 times.

Other comments on the regulatory cli-

mate were more general: stricter

requirements and enforcement of speci-fications, and rule[s] and law[s]

enforced.

Without naming regulations on blast-

ing operations as a reason for changes in

their work, many respondents said that

in the past ten years, they have shifted

CAN ONE UNIT BLASTAND POWER TOOL CLEAN?

THE X-MACHINE CAN!

Introducing the Xm1200 from ARS: the industrysfirst combined Blast and Power-Tool Unit

When youve got projects that require blasting AND power-tool cleaning,the X-Machine puts everything you need on a 15 deck for easy access!

Powerful positive-displacement vacuum clears waste from power-toolshrouds, allowing continuous operation from multiple heads

Fast, efficient clean-up of waste at the end of the day at 50x the powerof a drum vac

Auto-fill blast pot with two Thompson II Valves permits two-nozzlecontinous blasting; on-board 5kW generator for power

Aftercooler / desiccant air dryer for your compressed air

ARS supplies a complete line of blast / recovery systems, dust collectors, and

more. Take a good look. Youll like what you see.

Tel 330.536.8210 Fax 330.536.8211 www.arsrecycling.com sales rentals leases upgrades repairs parts accessories

Proven Technology...Custom Solutions

ADVANCED

RECYCLING

SYSTEMS

1 (most 2 3 4 5 (least N/Acommon) common)


open blast cleaning

with expendable abrasives

Dry abrasive blast cleaning 19.0% 14.3% 14.3% 5.4% 23.1% 25.2%self contained machine

with recyclable abrasive

Wet abrasive blast cleaning 2.1% 10.6% 21.3% 12.8% 26.2% 27.0%

Low-pressure water cleaning 21.3% 18.4% 20.6% 13.5% 8.5% 17.7%

(25,000 psi)

Powel tool cleaning 14.7% 23.1% 17.5% 11.9% 14.7% 18.2%

Paint removal 7.0% 13.4% 16.2% 12.0% 26.8% 24.6%

with chemical strippers

Table 6: Overall Use of Methods Concrete


Clic

kourReadere-Cardatpaintsquare.com/ric
http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/http://www.arsrecycling.com/


6/7


booth. It has revolutionized our busi-

ness, wrote one contractor. Another

recipient noted simply the companys

Upgrad[ing] of equipment, use of after

coolers, dryers, sizes of blast hoses, dif-

ferent nozzles, etc.

One contractors response about

changes combined cost-effectness, regu-

latory compliance, and advances in tech-

nology: We do mainly maintenance pro-

jects that do not give us a lot of time for

prep so cleanup was always an issue. In

the past we power tooled most of the

jobs because of this reason. Now with

better equipment and abrasive technolo-

gies, we are able to do a better, safer sur-

face prep and clean up in the same time

that power tooling used to take.

to different abrasives for blast cleaning

or to other methods altogether, and

many of the changes pose fewer risks to

workers and the environment.

Approximately 15 respondents have

switched to recyclable abrasives exclu-sively or are using them more often.

Remarks on the switch included We

are shifting towards all recyclable blast

materials, more steel abrasive used on

a daily basis, more recyclable abra-

sives than expendable, stopped using

silica and went with grit, and recycling

with steel grit is the biggest change.

Other media in the mix now werent

used by some contractors ten years ago.

Comments included sponge, soda, ultra-high water; utilizing environmentally

improved blast mediums (water and

glass); ceramic micro bea[d]s blasting in

an enclosed cabinet; using a lot of

crushed glass; and use of grits (coal

and copper slag).

Cost effectiveness figures in changing

materials for some contractors. One

noted, We use primarily mineral slag

and are switching more towards alu-

minum oxide and steel grit as costsincrease.

Almost as many respondents have

switched to water cleaning methods or

are using them more often than they did

10 years ago. We have substantially

increased the amount of steel and con-

crete surface preparationwith UHP

waterblasting equipment, wrote one

contractor. Another said that in the last

10 years, his company has used only

HP water cleaning at 7200 psi

hot/cold.

Some contractors noted benefits of

the switch: Use mostly water now

instead of some type of sand or other

abrasivemore cost-effective, less haz-

ardous, wrote one person surveyed,

while another said simply, higher pres-

sures, less water.

Taking advantage of advances in

equipment also figured in some compa-

nies changes in practice. We have

added a 60-foot steel grit blast & paint

ClickourReadere-Cardatpaintsquare.com/ric
http://www.clemcoindustries.com/


7/7

Click our Reader e-Card at paintsquare.com/ric
http://www.chariotrobotics.com/http://www.chariotrobotics.com/

a survey of practices surface preparation for industrial coating work

Documents