ITI,,ILL COPYN-1815

* Sep 1990By R. L. Alumbaugh, E. F. Humm,

and John R. Keeton

Sponsored By Naval FacilitiesTechnical Note Engineering Command

INVESTIGATION OF SPRAY-APPLIED POLYURETHANE

FOAM ROOFING SYSTEMS-IlABSTRACT An experimental investigation of the performance andproperties of spray-applied polyurethane foam roofing systems is

(described. Polyurethane foam studied included densities of 2.0,J 2.5, and 3.0 pcf. Elastomeric coating systems included catalyzed

silicones, moisture-curing silicones, a water-based silicone, butyl-hypalons, hypalons, acrylics, neoprene-hypalon, butyls, chlorinatedrubber, fibrated aluminum-asphalt, catalyzed urethanes, moisture-curing urethanes, urethane-hypalons, neoprene asphalt-acrylicemulsion, rapid-cure urethanes. A rigid cementitious coating sys-tem was also included. Properties of the coating system such asadhesion, tensile strength, wind-driven-rain absorption, impactstrength, and elongation are also reported. After exposure periodsup to almost 12 years, eleven of the 54 coating systems were ratedexcellent or very good at all three of the exposure sites - seashore,desert, and mountain. They included catalyzed silicone with gran-ules, moisture-curing silicone with granules, two acrylic emulsions,three acrylic emulsions with granules, two catalyzed urethanes,one moisture-curing urethane with granules, and a urethane-sili-cone. Effects of foam density and relative importance of physical [-TICproperties on coating system performance are also reported. Deg- ICradation of uncoated foam is also reported. Glass transition tem- " 'LECTEperature tests by the impact and DSC methods performed by USBR O OV 29 SOon contract are also reported. U

NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY PORT HUENEME CALIFORNIA 93043-5003

Approved fof puitic release. disltikXilion is wrilimitod

0 U.(4 u

> E

0 0

E 0 (05

W 41E > " fl 0 4

o- (Nl -a 60.0C 0 o-

~s0 z

EE0m Ne I-0-.o

E E EE

CL5: C E

E EE E

ce i oz 6L 9L LL 9i S i El LL O 6 8 L 9 Z L

1'9 18 1 ' 5 ' ' ' inchesI

£ (N (N4sE. Es ~ E~~ ss. E EEE E E E 5 ~ u w

0

03 E 1: 0S

LL. z- 20 m toE

510

0 2.

-u . 5 -051 61EE- -5- 30

o~L I~5 .SlO .n 53 'D C 5:05 5,q 0) 0

C00 ODn 6' .5: 004~r 'C'f~ ~ *5

(N(N 0 55

0 x~

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUM ENTATION PAG E OMB No. 0704-018

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,Suite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

p1990 Final - July 1976 - January 1986

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

INVESTIGATION OF SPRAY-APPLIED POLY-URETHANE FOAM ROOFING SYSTEMS-II PE - 63725N

PR - Y1316-001-99. AUTHOR(S) WU- DN668003Robert L. Alumbaugh, Ph.D., P.E., Edwin F. Humm,P.E.,and John R. Keeton, P.E., Consultant

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSEIS) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory TN-1815Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5003

9. SPONSORINGRIONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSEIS) 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Naval Facilities Engineering CommandAlexandria, VA 22332

i. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

An experimental investigation of the performance and properties of spray-applied polyurethane foam roofingsystems is described. Polyurethane foam studied included densities of 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 pcf. Elastomeric coatingsystems included catalyzed silicones, moisture-curing silicones, a water-based silicone, butyl-hypalons, hypalons,acrylics, neoprene-hypalon, butyls, chlorinated rubber, fibrated aluminum-asphalt, catalyzed urethanes, moisture-curing urethanes, urethane-hypalons, neoprene asphalt-acrylic emulsion, rapid-cure urethanes. A rigid cemcnti-tious coating system was also included. Properties of the coating system such as adhesion, tensile strength, wind-driven-rain absorption, impact strength, and elongation are also reported. After exposure periods up to almost 12years, eleven of the 54 coating systems were rated excellent or very good at all three of the exposure sites -seashore, desert, and mountain. They included catalyzed silicone with granules, moisture-curing silicone withgranules, two acrylic emulsions, three acrylic emulsions with granules, two catalyzed urethanes, one moisture-curing urethane with granules, and a urethane-silicone. Effects of foam density and relative importance ofphysical properties on coating system performance are also reported. Degradation of uncoated foam is alsoreported. Glass transition temperature tests by the impact and DSC methods performed by USBR on contract arealso reported.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Polyurethane foam roofs, roofing, elastomeric coatings, adhesion, tensile properties, impact 93resistance, moisture resistance, perfonmance, insulation 1. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UI.

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 ('-,,,Pesrntrrd by ANSI Sid l

a

298-102

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND..............................1

INTRODUCTION..................................2

EXPERIMENTAL................................3

Selection of Materials........................3Field Investigations.......................5Laboratory Investigations .......................7Laboratory Tests Conducted by USBR for NCEL. ........... 9

RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS......................9

Silicones...............................9Butyl-Hypalons.............................10Hypalons..............................11Acrylics................................12Neoprene-Hypalon.........................13Butyls.................................13Chlorinated Rubber ......................... 13Fibrated Aluminum-Asphalt. ................... 13Catalyzed Urethanes........................13Moisture-Curing Urethanes. ..................... 15Urethane-Hypalons..........................16Urethane-Silicone.........................16Neoprene Asphalt-Acrylic Emulsion. ............... 17Rapid-Cure Urethane. .......................... 17Rigid Cementitious................... ........ 17Performance of Coating on Foam Aged Prior to Coating .... 17Field Studies Conducted by USBR. ................ 17Photomacrographic Studies. ..................... 18Foam Degradation Rate Studies. ................... 18

RESULTS OF LABORATORY STUDIES ...................... 18

Adhesion Properties........................18Wind-Driven Rain Resistance. .................... 20Impact Resistance.........................20Tensile Properties of Free Film ................. 21Glass Transition Temperature (USBR) ............... 22

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS. ..................... 22

Coating Systems That Performed Best at All. Three ExposureSites.............................22

Coating Systems That Performed Best at Each Site. ....... 23Effects of Exposure Site on Performance Rating. ........ 23Effects of Foaim Density on Coating Performance. ........ 24Influence of Physical Properties of Coating Systems on

Field Performance ...................... 24

V

Page

Exposure Tests Conducted by USBR................24Glass Transition Tests by USBR.................25Foam Degradation Studies .................... 25

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ...................... 26

RECOMMENDATIONS...........................27

REFERENCES .............................. 27

APPEND IXES

A - Foam and Coating Material Names and Sources. ........ A-1B - Investigations Conducted by U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation.......................B-1

Accessioni For

NTIS GRA&IDTIC TABQUnannounced 0

Distribution/7 vailabil -it-V Codes

jAvail and/orDist Special

vi

BACKGROUND

Over the past several years, maintenance of roofs and roofingsystems has become an ever-increasing problem. The problem has beencompounded by changes in composition of bitumen and felts, by materialsshortages, by poor workmanship, and by other factors which lead to poorperformance and short service life of these waterproofing systems.Information available at the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL)suggests that current annual maintenance costs for roofs at Naval shoreactivities is at least 50 million dollars and may be as much as 100 mil-lion dollars.

Because of the increasing seriousness of the roof maintenance prob-lem, NCEL was requested by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command(NAVFAC) to investigate roofing systems. This research was to bedirected toward all areas of roofing problems. The objective of theinvestigation was to provide a significant reduction in maintenancecosts for roofing systems at Naval shore bases by defining existingproblems and identifying conventional and new materials and methods thatmight eliminate or alleviate these problems. An extensive survey ofNaval shore bases was conducted in different climatic areas to defineand delineate their most recent roofing problems (Ref 1).

The experimental program was to ccver a broad spectrum of roofingproblem areas that were either known or would be delineated by theroofing survey. In pursuing this aspect of the program, funds wereprovided to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST -formerly the National Bureau of Standards) to conduct a state-of-the-artstudy covering the effect of moisture on built-up roofs (BUR) (Ref 2).In addition to this contractual effort covering the effect of moistureon BURs, support was also provided to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation(USBR) Research Laboratories to aid in their preparation of a report onan extensive research effort which USBR had conducted earlier in newroofing systems (Ref 3).

Early in the NCEL roofing research program, NAVFAC requested thatthe Laboratory cooperate with the Northern Division of NAVFAC(NORTHNAVFACENGCOM) to develop and carry out an experimental fieldinvestigation of spray-applied polyurethane foam (PUF) roofing systemsat the Naval Reserve Center (NRC), Clifton, New Jersey. Results of thisinvestigation are presented in References 4 and 5. Because of the re-quirement to assist in the development of plans for the experimentalfield investigations of PUF roofing systems, the original experimentalroofing investigations at NCEL were directed toward PUF materials andcoatings for protecting PUF from weathering. Results of initial smallscale field tests were reported in Reference 6. These investigationstook on added significance because of the requirement in the DOD Con-struction Criteria Manual (1972) that all new roofs have a "U" value of0.05 Btu/(hr)(ft 2)(OF) (Ref 7).

NCEL conducted a major investigation into sprayed polyurethane roof-Ing systems. In addition to those efforts mentioned above, the investiga-tion also included: "Decay of Thermal Conductivity of Aged PUF" (Ref 8),

"Fire Tests of PUF Applied Directly to Metal Decks" (Ref 9), "Develop-ment of Guidelines for Maintaining PUF Roofs" (Ref 10), and "Performanceof PUF Roofs Exposed in Tropical Environments" (Ref 11). Reports cover-ing basic information on the requirements for planning and installinggood foam roofs were also prepared (Refs 12, 13).

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 15 years, spray-applied PUF has been utilized in roof-ing systems in ever-increasing quantities. The fact that this usagecontinues to increase significantly is indicative of its acceptance inmany areas. However, as with any new material, this utilization has notbeen without problems. PUF roofing systems are not cure-alls for eachand every roofing problem. Unfortunately, during the in4tial years oftheir use, PUF roofing systems were often proclaimed, by contractors andmaterial suppliers alike, to be a panacea for all roofing problems. Aswith any new material, those in the industry needed time to gain knowledgeand experierce. For example, PUF materials degrade rapidly when exposedto sunlight and must be protected. During the early years, many differentcoating systems were used to achieve this protection and, as might beexpected, the main criterion often was "the cheaper, the better." Littletime was required, however, to learn that just any coating system wouldnot provide the proper protection. It was found that many coating systemsthat performed well when applied to other substrates would crack and flakefrom a foam surface within 6 to 18 months, thus exposing unprotectedfoam to sunlight. It soon became obvious that only an elastomeric typeof coating system has the flexibility, elongation, and tensile strengthrequired to accommodate the rather large expansion and contractioninherent in spray-applied PUF when subjected to ambient thermal cycling.

Because of their lower compressive and tensile strengths, PUFmaterials are more susceptible to physical abuse than many conventionalroofing materials. As a result, roofing contractors, maintenance person-nel, and others who walk or work on PUF roofing systems must learn totreat such roofs with the proper respect in order to prevent or minimizemechanical damage.

As with other roofing systems, PUF materials must be applied toproperly prepared substrates or roof decks. Application over a water-soaked BUR system or over a surface that is dirty or covered with aweathered, chalky paint system would be doomed to failure. This wouldbe true regardless of whether the roofing maintenance system beingapplied was PUF or any other roof maintenance system.

Finally, spray-applied PUF has a somewhat uneven surface at bestand, if improperly applied, can have a very rough surface texture called"popcorn" or "treebark." Not only is the texture of such foam quiterough, but the physical characteristics of the foam itself are frequentlyinferior. The quality of surface texture that can be obtained is largelya function of the skill of the foam spray operator, including his abilityto properly adjust the spray equipment. Popcorn or treebark surfaces ona PUF roof are completely unacceptable because they are very difficult to

coat properly. Since coatings tend to flow from high areas into lowareas, the high points do not have sufficient minimum thickness, leading

to rapid deterioration of the PUF roofing system.In the early days of PUF roofing systems, shaving of the foam surface

was accomplished with a special machine. This provided a smoother sul-face for the coating but the shaving action exposed the cell structureof the foam. In addition, the protective coating system was required tobridge the open cell structure, which greatly reduced the bonding surfacefor the coating. The exposed cell structure also tended to promote pin-holing in a coating placed over it, providing focal points for failureof the coating system. For those reasons, such a procedure is not recom-mended.

A direct rest.lt of potential problems with PUF roofing systems wasthat many reliable roofing contractors were in and out of the spray-applied PUF roofing business rapidly. Since there seemed to be nosolution for some of these problems, NCEL decided to concentrate itsearly research on spray-applied PUF roof systems. The research was intend-ed to generate data that provides guidelines for coating systems to pro-tect PUF materials used in a roof system.

EXPERIMENTAL

The principal objectives of this investigation were to determinehow long the candidate PUF roofing systems perform satisfactorily whenexposed to the weather and which of the candidate systems were superior.The PUF systems were exposed to three different climatic conditions,

i.e., seashore, desert, and mountain. Experience has shown that if thePUF is properly applied to a suitably prepared substrate, the performanceof the system is primarily dependent on the performance of the protectiveelastomeric coating system. That is, with a high quality foam, if thecoating performs well, the PUF roofing systems as a whole can generallybe expected to perform well. The performance of the coated PUF panelsat the three sites was monitored periodically.

Selection of Materials

Spray-Applied PUF Materials. At the time this investigation wasbeing initiated, the National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST - formerly the National Bureau of Standards) completed a report,"Guidelines for Selection of and Use of Foam Polyurethane Roofing Sys-tems" (Ref 14). In preparing plans and selecting materials for thefield investigation at NRC, Clifton, New JIersey, NCEI, conducted astate-of-the-art survey of materials and methods for application of PUFroofing systems. Information obtained in this survey together with thecriteria set forth in Reference 14 were used in selecting the spray-

applied PUF materials.

Foam Systems Used. Early in this work, foam having a density of2 lb/ft' was considered the standard of the industry. Mlany of thesefoams were good but some did not have the proper Underwriters ,abora-tories (UL) fire credentials. A short time later, 2.5 lb/ft 3 densityfoam became readily available and as the program continued, 3 lh/ft 3

3

density foam became the standard of the industry. In fact, the moreimportant property of the foam is compressive strength raLher thandensity and we have for some time recommended a minimum compressivestrength of 40 psi. Generally, a 2.5 to 3 lb/ft 3 density foam isrequired to meet the 40 psi compressive strength requirement.

A wide variety of spray foams were included in the program, bothfrom the standpoint of density and different manufacturers products.The majority of foam systems tested were either 2.5 or 3 lb/ft 3 densityfoams. In some cases where the manufacturers supplied the coated foampanels, records were not available and it has not been possible todetermine what foam was used.

Elastomeric Coating Systems. During the state-of-the-art survey itwas determined that a number of generic types of coating systems hadalready been found to be unsatisfactory for protecting PUF materialsagainst weathering. These types included coatings that were thin inconsistency and brittle in nature, such as latex and oil based housepaints and many of the cutback asphalt coatings. It was also found thatonly elastomeric coating systems performed well when applied over PUF.For this reason, with three exceptions, the only protective coatingsystems included in this investigation are those designed for use onfoam, i.e., with rubber-like or elastomeric characteristics. The excep-tions include: System 15, a high quality fibrated aluminum-pigmentedasphalt; System 21, a cement filled acrylic emulsion; and System 39, athick rigid cementitious type of topping. These were included as a"control" since these three materials are often used over PUF materialseven though their performance records have not been outstanding.

Most generic types of elastomeric coating systems that appeared tohave merit for protecting spray-applied PUF materials were included inthis investigation (Table 1). Table 1 includes combinations of some ofthe generic types, such as Systems 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 19, 23, and 30. Thedescriptions in Table 1 include the number of coats applied, dry filmthicknesses for each coat, total dry film thicknesses, and the foamdensity utilized in the test panels for each system.

System designations marked "A" indicate that the same coating systemwas used but the foam density was different. Systems marked "G" indicatethat granules were applied in the topcoat. Systems marked "C" indicatethat the panels were sprayed with foam and coated by a private contractor.

An additional consideration in the selection of the test systems wasthe permeability of the coating system. There has always been a contro-versy in the industry over whether "permeable" or "breathing or imperme-able" or "nonbreathing" coatings generally perform best as protectivecoatings for foam. Although there are no firm data supporting a case foreither type, it, would appear that both are useful under certain conditions.Actually, all of the coatings are permeable to a certain amount of moisturevapor but vary in their degree of permeability. For purposes of thisreport, coating systems with ratings (ASTM Designation E 96) of less than1 perm are considered vapor impermeable, and systems with ratings greaterthan I perm are considered vapor permeable. Permeability designations forthe various systems are indicated in Table 2.

4

Field lnvestigations

In order to determine the performance characteristics of thevarious elastomeric coated PUF roofing systems, plywood panels weresprayed with PUF, coated, and exposed at three different experimentalfield weathering sites. Periodically, these experimental panels areinspected and photographed, and small samples are removed and returnedto the laboratory for additional study.

Preparation of Experimental Panels. Specimen panels were con-structed from 1/2-inch plywood cut to a 2- by 4-foot size. Two 2 x 4'swere secured across the 2-foot width of the panels for later use in attach-ing the experimental panels to the exposure racks. To assure good aihesionof the foam, the wooden panels were primed with one of several differentprimers. Tnese included: an asphalt roof primer, Federal SpecificationSS-A-701a; a commercial chlorinated rubber; a Federal Specification chlor-inated rubber, TT-P-95; a wash primer, MTI,-P-15328; and a commerciallyavailable butyl primer. Asphalt primers are not recommended because oftheir long dry time. Quick drying primers are recommended. After drying,the back sides of the panels and any other exposed wooden surfaces werepainted to protect them from weathering.

Following proper curing of the primer, the PUF was spray-applied tothe primed surface using a Gusmer Model FF unit. Application was ineither two or three lifts to provide approximately 1-1/2 inches of PUF.This gave 2 to 3 ft2 of foam per pound of the liquid urethane components.The technicians applying the foam exercised great care in properly adjust-ing the foaming equipment in order to obtain quality foam surfaces, i.e.,surface textures as smooth as possible. Very rough surface textures,such as popcorn or treebark, were not acceptable, and any panels havingsuch surfaces were discarded.

Later in the program, some test panels were foamed and coated bycoating manufacturers, using their equipment and their coating specifi-cations. To determine the effects of foam density on coating performance,several different densities were used, as indicated in Table 1.

Four panels to be coated were prepared for each of the systems.Three of these were intended for long term exposure at the three experi-mental sites and the fourth was used to determine selected propertiesafter various periods of weathering at the seashore site. In addition,several panels of both densities of PUF were prepared and were to remainuncoated. Several panels were prepared (foamed and coated) at the sametime.

A detailed description of the coating systems and their applicationis given in Table 1. Trade names and sources of the materials are listedin Appendix A. Coating coverage and thicknesses were determined by spray-ing the systems on steel panels prior to and during application of thecoatings to the foam. Coverage was determined by measuring the wet filmthickness with a wet film thickness gage, and dry film thickness waslater det,:rmined using a magnetic thickness gage. Dry film thicknesseslisted in Table I were primarily determined with a Peak Scale Lupe onsamples cut from the coated foam. Unless noted otherwise, the coatingsystems were easily applied with a 30-to-l airless spray unit.

Exposure Sites. One panel of -nch of the systems described abovewas exposed at. each of three experimental weathering sites. The siteswere carefully selected to provide different weathering conditions. Thethree exnerimental sites are described below. Panels are inclined at aslope of about 3.5 inches in 12. Initial panels we,e installed duringthe summer and fall of 1974 and remained exposed until they were ratedas having failed. Systems remain on exposure as long as they performsatisfactorily (up to 12 years - except at the mountain site - see below).

Seashore Site - Port Ilueneme, California. This site is a tem-perate marine atmosphere located along the coast about 60 miles northwestof Los Angeles. The experimental weathering racks shown in Figure 1 arelocated approximately 200 yards from the surf at an elevation of about10 feet above sea level.

Desert Site - China Lake, California. This site is a dry,high desert area located about 125 miles northeast of Los Angeles. Theexposure racks, shown in Figure 2, are situated on one of the test rangesat the Naval Weapons Center (NWC), China Lake, California, at an elevation

of about 2,440 feet.

Mountain Site - Pickel Meadows, California. This site waslocated at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, PickelMeadows, California (MCMWTC). This activity is located in the SierraNevada mountains about 18 miles west of Bridgeport, California at anelevation of 7,000 feet. The racks are shown in Figure 3. Unfortunately,it was necessary for the test panels to be removed from the racks at themountain site, sometime around June 1982, in order to construct a newheadquarters building.

Performance Characteristics. The performance characteristics ofthe coated PUF roofing systems were determined at periodic intervals byvisual inspections and ratings, and by photomacrographic studies. Inaddition, physical measurements were made on the uncoated control panelsto determine the extent that the foam degrades with time.

Visual Inspections and Ratings. The visual inspections consist ofa careful study and rat ing of the performance characteristics of thecoated PUF panels. Since the first. signs of deterioration of the PUFroofing systems normally occur in the coat ings, the various factorsconsidered relate primarily to coating performance. The performancecharacteristics that wore considered included adhesion, hlistering,chocking, cohesion, cracking, flaking, peeling, pinholing, and haildamage. Where applicable, performance characterist ics covered by ASTMPhotographic Reference St.nndards were used in assigning ratings to theindividnal charncteristics. All of these factors were then consideredin assigning the overall performance ratings presented in this report.

Ratings were assigned as follows:

10 = Excellent - The system is performing without any

noticeable deterioration.

94- = Very good - Only very minor deterioration of thesys tem.

9-8 = Good - Although the system shows some deterioration,it is not yet serious.

7 = Poor - System deterioration is becoming serious.Remedial action will be required in the near future.

6-0 = Failed - Deterioration of the system has advan.ed tothe point of requiring immediate maintenance.

Photomacrographic Studies. During the inspections, photo-macrographic studies were conducted on all of the systems a' each site.

Photomacrographs were taken of five different spots, about 1 inch by2 inches in size, on each panel. A template is used so that the samefive spots are photographed during each inspection, thus providing aprogressive record of coating deterioration. Enlarging of these photo-macrographs also provides a record of initial deterioration that is notobvious to the naked eye. Examples of the photomacrographs are

presented later in the report.

Foam Degradation Rate Studies. Each time a group of coated PUFexperimental roofing panels was placed on exposure at a weathering site,uncoated control panels were also exposed at the same site. They wereincluded to enable determination of foam degradation rates as well as todisclose information on the mechanism of degradation.

The device for determining foam degradation is shown in Figure 4.It consists of a rigid gage reference bar (A), made of aluminum I inchthick, which is properly positioned by seating its legs in two positioningpads (B) permanently attached to the supporting 2- by 4-inch cross-pieceof each panel. Readings on the specimen are made by inserting a micro-meter depth gage into each of 11 holes drilled in the reference bar. InFigure 4, the depth gage is shown in hole 4. Degradation of the foam isdetermined by noting changes in the distance from the referenice bar tothe foam surface from reading time to reading time. Before dopth gagereadings are made, degraded foam is brushed away so that the depth gageis seated on a sound foam surface. The foam degradation rate was deter-mined by dividing the total degradation in inches by the total exposureperiod in months. Results for exposure times up to 4 years are shii1 inTable 3 for foams having densities of 2, 2.5, and 3.0 pcf.

Field Tests Conducted by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for NCEL. At

the request of NCEL, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (UISBR) exposed tesLpanels with selected coating systems at two different: sites in Colorldo.Details of the study nre summarized in Appendix B.

Laboratory Investigat ions

In addition to the field exposures, selected physical propertieswere determined on coated and uncoated' PUF samples included in theinvestigation. These properties included: (1) adhesion (2) resistanceto wind-driven rain, (3) impact resistance, and (4) tensile propertiesof free films of the coating systems. Properties (1) through (3) weredeterminod en specimens cut from panels exposed at the seashore site.

-I

Adhesion Properties. The adhesion of the various coatings to thePUF was determined using the NCEL-developed adhesion test method onsamples cut from the second set of coated PUF panels exposed at the sea-shore site. The adhesion properties were determined before exposure and

after varying periods up to 4-1/2 years. The test consists of "gluing"

a cylindrical probe to the coating and then pulling the probe from thecoated specimen in a testing machine, causing the coating to fail eitherin adhesion or cohesion. Except for the silicones, the probes wereglued to the coatings with a polyamide-cured epoxy adhesive. A siliconeadhesive was used on the silicone coatings. Ten values were obtainedfor each coating system and the five highest values were averaged. Thetesting fixture is shown in Figure 5. Results on those that were deter-mined are presented in Table 4.

The adhesion tests were also employed to determine how long the PUFcan be allowed to remain uncoated and exposed to sunlight and weatheringwithout affecting the adhesion of the coating to the foam. Twelve 2- by4-foot plywood panels containing foam with a density of 2.5 pcf wereplaced outside at Port Hueneme to weather for periods of 1, 3, 24, 48, and72 hours, and 9 days before being coated. Six of the panels were coatedwith the silicone of System 2, while the other 6 were coated with theneoprene-hypalon of System 7. The adhesion properties of these coated PUFsystems, determined after being exposed for from 2 months to 4-1/2 yearsat the seashore site, are presented in Table 5.

Wind-Driven-Rain Resistance. The procedure described in militaryspecification MIL,-C-555 was used for this test. Basically, the proce-dure consists of providing a curtain of water on the coated face of thePUF specimen. This water-curtained surface was then pressurized at 5 psito simulate the force of a wind-driven rain. The amount of water absorbedis determined by weighing the specimen before and after exposure. Table 6shows results of wind-driven rain tests made on specimens cut from thesecond set of panels (exposed at Port Hlueneme) before they were exposedand after varying exposure periods up to 4-1/2 years.

Impact Resistance. The impact test device, shown in Figure 6, wassimilar to that described in Reference 3. The impactor (called TUP inReference 3) consists of a plastic cylinder with a I-inch-diameter steelball at the bottom. Metal shot can be added to the impactor to vary theweight. The impactor was dropped throngb a plastic pipe with a 1-1/2-inchinside diameter for a distance of 5 feet, at which point the steel ballportion impacted the coated surface of the PUY specimen. Starting withthe minimum weight of 160 grams, the impactor weights used were 160,200, 300, 400, and 500 grams (maximim). Each test was continied untilthe impactor caused a break in the coat ing or until the maximum of500 grams was roached. At. least five impacts were made at each impactorweight. Results of these tests are shown in Table 7.

Tensile Properties of Free Films of the Coating Systems. The pro-euu dire for dotermining the t ensile propert ies of coating systems used in

this part of the laboratory invest igat. ion is described in Reference 6.Glass plates, one surfaco of which was treated with a release agent, were

8

placed alongside the experimental foam panels. The protective coatingsincluded in this investigation were applied to the treated glass surfaceat the same time they wore applied to the foam surfaces. Where the systemconsisted of two coats, both the base coat and top coat were applied tothe glass plate. The coating systems were allowed to cure on the glassplates and were then stripped off. Prior to testing, the free films werepermitted to equilibrate for at least 7 days in a controlled environmentof 50% R.H. and 700 F. They were then cut into strips approximately 2 cmwide with a special cutter and their thickness determined with a micrometer.At least ten specimens were tested to failure and the five highest

values for tensile strength and for percent elongation were averaged.Results are listed in Table 8.

Laboratory Tests Conducted by USBR for NCEL

At the request of NCEL, personnel at USBR conducted laboratory teststo determine the glass transition temperature of selected coating systemsfurnished by NCEL. Results are presented in Appendix B.

RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

Visual inspection, rating, and photographing of the experimental PUFroofing systems at the three sites have been done at periodic intervals ofabout I year. Because all systems were not exposed at the same time, theydo not have ratings for the same length of time. Table 9 shows exampledata sheets for Systems I and 8. Overall performance ratings were deter-mined by giving consideration to each of the coating deterioration factorsshown across the top of the sample sheet shown in Table 9.

Results for each of the systems are presented in Table 10. Numericalvalues shown in Table 10 are the latest ratings on each of the coatingsystems in the continuing exposure study of the coated PIF panels. Perfor-mance evaluations corresponding to the numerical ratings are listed in thefootnote to Table 10. Results for the mountain site indicate shorterexposure times because of early removal of the test panels.

Si 1 icones

Catalyzed.

Cement Gray Over Medium Gray. At both the seashore and desertsites, .ystem 1 was rated excellent (10, 10-). Although both panelswore suscept ible to bird pecks, the panel at the desert site had severalr:.re. At the mountain site, System 1 was rated good (9) because of pin-

holes and moderate cracking. All the silicone panels became very dirtyin a relatively short time.

Cement Gray Over Medium Gray With Granules. System 1G wasrated excellent (10, 10-) at the seashore and mountain sites, and verygood (9+) at the desert site. The panel at. the mountain site was down-

rated slightly because of minor pinholing. The panel at the desert sitewas downrated slightly because of cracking, breaks in the coating, andhail damage. The granules seem to have minimized the attraction ofdirt.

Off-White.. System 51 was rated excellent (10) but had been

exposed for only 3 months.

Moisture-Curing.

White Over Light Gray. At the seashore site, System 2 wasrated good (9). It began to exhibit moderate cracking and checkingbetween 2 and 4 years of exposure and showed several breaks attributedto bird pecking. The severity of the cracking and checking did notworsen in the next 9 years. This silicone panel also became very dirty.System 2 was rated very good (9+) at both the desert and mountain sites.Both panels were downrated slightly due to minor checking and cracking.They also exhibited bird pecks. At the seashore site, System 2A wasrated excellent (10-), downrated very slightly due to very minor crackingand bird pecks. At the desert site, System 2A was rated very good (9+),downrated slightly due to minor cracking and bird pecks. System 2A wasrated only as good (9) at the mountain site because of moderate crackingand pinholing, along with birdpecking.

White Over Light Gray With Granules. System 2G was ratedexcellent at all three sites.

Emulsion. At the seashore site, System 2q was rated good (9-).Checking and pinholing, which developed almost immediately, increased inseverity over the next 6 years, and there were breaks in the coatingalong with bird pecks. System 29 was rated very good (9+) at the desertsite and exhibited minor checking, cracking, and pinholin At the moun-tain site, System 29 was rated excellent (10).

Butyl-Hypalons

White Hypalon Over Black Plural-Component Butyl. At the seashoresite, System 3 was rated poor (7). This panel exhibited pinholing andcracking of the topcoat which resulted in erosion and peeling of thetopcoat from the base coat. System 3 failed (2) at both the desert andmountain sites due to many pinholes that soon became cracks and endedwith erosion and flaking of virtually the entire hypalon topcoat.

White Single-Component lypalon Over Tan Catalyzed Butyl (Systems 4and 4A) At the seashore location, System 4 was rated excellent (10).System 4, rated good (9) at the desert site, began to show pinholingalmost immediately after exposure. The pinholing grew slightly inseverity with time, and checking and breaks in the coating also contri-buted to its lower rating. System 4 was also rated good (8+) at themountain site. Pinholing and cracking began to develop after about4 years and increased in severity rapidly, causing many breaks in thecoating. There were also several breaks in the coating caused by hail-stones. At the seashore site, System 4A was rated poor (7) due to pin-holing and cracking which eventually resulted in erosion and peeling ofthe topcoat from the base coat. System 4A was also rated poor (7) at thedesert site. After about 3 years of exposure, checking and pinholingdeveloped which became more severe with time. Cracking and breaks in thecoating later contributed to the lower rating. The panel also showed

10

several bird pecks. At the mountain location, System 4A failed (6). Verydense pinholes were seen all over the panel at the start, but they did notbegin to penetrate the coating to the foam until after about 2 years ofexposure. Eventually, cracking developed in the coating which exposedthe foam in several places. Hlailstones also damaged this panel.

White Catalyzed Single-Component Hypalon Over Black Catalyzed Butyl(System 9). At the seashore site, System 9 was rated good (8). Afterabout 2 years, it developed pinholing which became increasingly moresevere. Some of the pinholes went through the coating to the foam.SysLem 9 failed (3) at the desert site. For the first 6 months it seemedto do well but then began to show moderately heavy pinholing all overthe panel. After 3 years, the pinholing developed into cracks whichincreased in severity and finally resulted in line-cracking which causedits failure. At the mountain site, System 9 was rated poor (7). After3 years, it began to exhibit checking and pinholing, the severity of whichincreased rapidly, followed by cracking of the coating. Some hailstonedamage was also noted.

Hypalons

White Single-Component (System-5). At the seashore site, System 5was rated good (8). Checking and pinholing began after about 2 yearsand became moderately severe after 5-1/2 years, resulting in some crackingand breaks in the coating. System 5 failed (5) at the desert site.After 3 years of exposure, checking/crazing and pinholing developed whichincreased in severity rapidly and resulted in serious cracking of thecoating. The panel also showed bird pecks. At the mountain site, System 5was rated good (8-). After 3 years, checking/crazing and pinholing beganwhich increased moderately in severity and resulted in some cracking ofthe coating.

White Mastic (Systems 12 and 12A). System 12 was rated good (9-)at the seashore site. After about 2 years, pinholing developed, whichincreased moderately in severity and resulted in moderate cracking ofthe coating. At the desert site, System 12 was rated poor (7). After2 years, checking/crazing and pinholing appeared which increased inseverity rapidly and resulted in serious cracking. This panel alsoshowed the effects of bird pecking. System 12 was also rated good (8+)at the mountain site. The same checking, cracking, pinholing, andcracking developed here but not as severely as at the desert site.

System 12A was rated very good (9-) at the seashore site, downratedslightly due to moderate crazing. At the desert site, System 12A wasrated good (9-). Checking, which began to appear after 1 year, increasedsignificantly over the next 10 years. Pinholing was moderate. Severalbreaks appeared in the coating, along with bird pecks. System 12A wasrated good (8+) at the mountain site. Checking/crazing and pinholing,which began after 2 years, increased in sevority moderately over the next5 years.

11

Acrylics

White Emulsion (Systems 6, 6A, 20, 31, 43). At the seashore site,System 6 was rated very good (9+), downrated slightly due to light pin-holing and checking. System 6 was also rated very good (9+) at thedesert site, downrated slightly due to light checking and the effects ofbird pecks. System 6 was rated excellent (10-) at the mountain site.Light surface checking and crazing caused a slightly lower rating.

At the seashore site, checking, pinholing, and cracking weremoderately heavy in System 6A, resulting in a lower rating of good (9).System 6A was rated very good (9+) at the desert site, marred slightlyby checking and bird pecking. Moderately severe checking followed bycracking of the coating resulted in a rating of good (8) for System 6Aat the mountain site.

At the seashore site, moderate pinholing caused System 20 to berated down slightly to very good (9+). At the desert site, System 20was rated excellent (10-), light pinholing having only a minor effect.Pinholes and blisters caused a lower rating of good (9-) for System 20at the mountain site.

System 31 was rated excellent (10-, 10, 10) at all three exposuresites. It was rated down very slightly (10-) at the seashore site dueto light pinholing.

At the seashore site, System 43 was rated excellent (10), but ithad been exposed for only about 2 years.

White Emulsion With White Granules (Systems 6G, 24G). At all threesites, System 6G was rated excellent (10-, 10, 10). At the seashoresite, minor blistering caused a slightly lower rating (10-). System 24Gwas rated excellent at all three exposure sites.

White Emulsion With Gray Granules (Systems 35GC, 36GC). At theseashore location, System 35GC was rated excellent (10). System 36GCwas also rated excellent (10-, 10, 10) at nll three sites.

Green Emulsion (System 32). At the seashore location, System 32was rated good (9). Checking, pinholing, and cracking were moderatelyheavy, resulting in some breaks in the coating. At the desert site,System 32 was also rated good (9). Pinholing, which appeared afterI year, increased significantly in severity with time. Erosion of thegreen topcoat was also evident. System 32 was rated excellent (10-) atthe mountain site, ratorl down very slightly due to light pinholing.

White Emulsion Cement-Filled (System 21). At the seashore site,System 21 was rated good (9-). This system is a rigid, cementitiouscoating highly susceptible to shrinkage cracks. Several cracks devel-oped that ran across the whole panel, but the foam was not yet exposed.At the desert site, System 21 was rated excellent (10-), marred only byminor cracking. Severe checking followed by cracking of the coatingcaused System 21 to be rated good (8) at the mountain site.

12

Neoprene-lypalon

White Single-Component Hypalon Over Black Neoprene (System 7). Atthe seashore site, System 7 was rated very good (9). This system wasrated down slightly because of pinholes and erosion of the topcoat. Atthe desert site, System 7 was rated very good (9+). It was rated down

slightly due to pinholes and a few breaks in the coating. At the

mountain site, System 7 was rated good (9) duo to pinholing and cracking.

Butyls

Catalyzed Aluminum-Gray, Aluminum-Pigmented (Systems 8, 8A). Atthe seashore site, System 8 failed (3) after 2 years due to severe

checking and pinholing which resulted in cracking through the coating to

the foam. System 8 also failed (5) at the desert site for the samereasons as above. At the mountain site, System 8 was rated good (8).but was affected rather seriously by pinholing and cracking.

At the seashore site, System 8A was rated good (9-) due to moderately

severe pinholing and checking which resulted in moderate cracking of the

coating. System 8A was rated good (9) at the desert site for the same

reasons as above. System 8A showed moderately serious checking, pinholing,

and cracking which resulted in a rating of good (8+) at the mountain site.

Chlorinated Rubber

At the seashore site, white over gray System 11 was rated excellent(10-), downrated very slightly due to micropinholing. Due to checking

and crazing, System 11 was rated very good (9+) at the desert site.System 11 was rated poor (7) at the mountain site because of checking,

cracking, and hail damage.

Fibrated Aluminum-Asphalt

At the seashore location, aluminum over black System 15 was ratedexcellent (10-), downrated very slightly due to the presence of a fewblisters. At the desert site, System 15 was rated good (9-) due tocracking and breaks in the coating. System 15 failed (6) at the

mountain site principally due to cracking of the coating and haildamage.

Catalyzed Urethanes

Aluminum-Pigmented (Systems 10, 10A, 17). At the seashore site,

System 10 rated poor (7) and developed moderate cracking after about1 year which became very serious in the next 2 years. After 2 years atthe desert site, System 10 began to show severe flaking and spalling and

was rated good (8). It looked excellent for the first 2 years but thendeveloped checking and cracking which worsened rapidly.

System IOA failed in the first year at the seashore site due toextremely severe cracking and flaking of the coating which exposed the

foam.

13

At the seashore site, System 17 was rated good (9). It developedchecking arid pinholing in the second year which increased in severityover the next several years, resulting in some erosion of the topcoat.At the desert site, System 17 was rated good (9-). After the firstyear, checking and pinholing developed into cracking and some flaking ofthe coating. System 17 was also rated good (8+) at the mountain site.Pinholing and checking developed in the first year. The checking turnedLo crazing and cracking.

White Aliphatic Over Aluminum-Gray Aromatic (Systems 13, 13C,13AC). At the seashore site, System 13 was rated excellent (10).System 13 was rated very good (9+) at the desert site, downratedslightly due to moderate pinholing. At the mountain location, System 13was rated excellent (10).

System 13C was rated good (9-) at the seashore location. Pinholesthat developed in the first 3 years developed into cracks and erosion,exposing the foam in spots. At the desert site, System 13C was ratedvery good (9+), downrated slightly by pinholing which developed after4 years but did not increase in severity.

At the seashore site, System 13AC was rated good (9-). Pinholesexhibited in the first 3 years developed into cracks and erosion,exposing the foam. System 13AC was rated good (8-) at the desertlocation, downrated due to pinholing which eventually penetrated to thefoam in several spots. At the mountain site, System 13AC was rated good(9) and exhibited pinholes, later causing cracks which did not penetrateto the foam.

White Aliphatic Over Brown Aromatic (System 38). At the desertsite, System 38 was rated very good (9+), marred slightly by moderatechecking.

White Aliphatic Over Light Gray Aromatic (System 44). At the sea-shore site, System 44 was rated excellent (10-), downrated very slightlyfor light checking. This panel had been exposed for approximately2 years.

White Aliphatic Over Off-White Aromatic (System 25W). At the sea-shore location, System 25W was rated good (9). After about 1 year veryheavy micropinholing developed, but did not penetrate to the foam in thenext 6 years. During the fifth year, severe checking appeared whichresulted in a lower rating. At the desert location, System 25W was alsorated good for the same reasons as at the seashore site. At the mountainsite, System 25W was rated excellent (10-), downrated slightly due tominor checking and pinholing.

White Aliphatic Over Gray Aromatic (Systems 52, 53). At the sea-shore site, Systems 52 and 53 were both rated excellent (10), althoughexposed for only 3 months.

Gray Aliphatic Over Off-White Aromatic (System 25GY). At the sea-shore site, System 25GY was rated good (9). Micropinholing and checkingbecame widespread resulting in a lower rating. At the desert andmountain sites, System 25GY was rated excellent (10).

14

Off-White Aromatic Over Black Aromatic (System 18). At the site,System 18 was rated very good (9+), downrnted somewhat due to heavysurface crazing. At the desert site, System 18 was rated excellent (10-),downrated very slightly because of surfa(.e crazing. At the mountain site,

System 18 was rated excellent (10).

White Aromatic Over Aluminum-Gray Aromatic (System 37). At theseashore site, System 37 was rated very good (9+), downratod slightlydue to checking and pinholing. At the desert, site, System 37 was rated

good (9) because the topcoat had begun to erode and checking had reachedthe stage of incipient cracking. At the mountain site, System 3i wasrated very good (9+), downrated slightly due to checking.

White Aliphatic Over Gray Aromatic (System 46). At the seashoresite, System 46 wa's rated excellent (10-) and exhibited slight. checking.It was exposed for about 2 years.

Off-White Aromatic With Green Granules (System 26G). At. the so-shore site, System 26G was rated good (9) because serious checking wascausing the topcoat to deteriorate and the granules to blow off. Atboth the desert and mountain sites, System 26(; was rated excellent (10).

Moisture-Curing Urethanes

Gray Aromatic (Systems 14, 14A). At. the seashore site, System 14failed (5). In less than 1 year checking/crazing and erosion of thetopcoat had developed. In about 3 years the topcoat was deteriorating,

chalking heavily, and flaking. System 14 also failed (5, 4) at both thedesert and mountain sites due to widespread line checking, cracking, andflaking. System 14A failed (3, 5) at the seashore and mountain sitesfor the same reasons that System 14 failed. At the desert site, System14A was barely rated good (8-) due to checking, crazing, and minor

flaking.

Aluminum Aromatic (System 48). At, the seashore site, System 48 wasrated excellent (10) after about 2 years of exposure.

Tan Aromatic With Gray Granules (System 22G). At the seashoresite, System 22G was rated good (8). It was rated excellent throlgh thefirst 5-1/2 years, but in the next 2 years the topcoat hegai to erode,allowing granules to blow away. At both th desert aid mounltail, sites,System 22G was rated excellent (10, 10).

Brown Aromatic (System 34). At the seashore site, System 34 wasrated good (9), downrated somewhat due to pinhol ing and erosion of thetopcoat.

Aluminum-Pigmented Aromatic WiL.h Granules (System 27G). At theseashore site, System 27G was rated good (9-). It was rated excellentthrough the first 5 years, bt then checking and erosion of the topcoatbecamv serious. At b)oth the desert and niotint ai sites, System 27( wasrated excellent, but the panels there had not been exposed as long asthe ones at. the seashore site.

15

Aluminum Aromatic Over Aromatic With Gray Granules (System 28G).At all three sites System 28G was rated excellent (10, 10, 10).

White Aliphatic Over Brown Aromatic (System 33). At the seashorelocation, System 33 was rated very good (9+). After the first 2 years,pinholing and light cracking developed.

White Aliphatic Over Black Aromatic (System 54). At the seashoresite System 54 was rated excellent (10) but had been exposed for only3 months.

White Aliphatic Over Aluminum Aromatic (System 49). After exposureof almost 2 years, System 49 was rated very good (9+), downratedslightly due to pinholing and checking.

Aluminum-Pigmented Aliphatic Over Aluminum-Pigmented Aromatic(System 42). At the seashore location, System 42 was rated excellent(10) after being exposed for a little over 2 years.

Urethane-Ilypa ions

White Catalyzed Single-Component lypalon Over Aluminum-GrayAromatic Urethane (Systems 16C, 16AC). At, the seashore site, System 16Cwas rated excellent (10-), downratod very slightly due to light pinholing.At the desert site, System 16C was rated good (9-). After 5-1/2 years,minor piholing became serious, resulting in several cracks in the coatingalong with spalling. System 16C was also rated good (9-) at the mountain

site because pinholes had begun to penetrate to the foam. At the seashoresite, System 16AC was rated down slightly to very good (9+) due to deepen-ing pinholes and some erosion of the topcoat. At the desert site, System16AC was rated poor (7). Pinl.oling which developed early became increas-ingly serious, followed later by checking and breaks in the coating. Atthe mountain site, System 16AC was rated poor ()-), downrated becausepinholes began to penetrate to the foam.

Urethane-Si 1 icone

White Moisture-Curing Silicone Over Black Catalyzed AromaticUrethane (System 19). At the seashore site, S,'stem 19 was rated verygood (9), downrated sl ightly because of penetrnt ing pinholes and somelack of adhesion. When there was a minor break in tie topcoat , thetopcoat could be pee led off the base cont rather easily. At the desertsite, System 19 was rated good (9), showing pinholing and serious lossof adhesion of topcoat to base cont. At, the momtain site, System 19was rated good (9-). Pinholing, loss of adhesion, and cracking con-tributed to the lower rat ing.

White Moisture-Curing Silicone Over Tan Moisture-Curing AromaticUrethane (System 23). At the seashore site, System 23 was ratedexcellent (10). At the desert site, System 23 was rated very good (1+),downrnted slightly due to minor loss of adhesion of topcoat. At themountain site, System 23 was rated excel lent ( 10).

Neoprene Asphalt-Acrylic Emulsion

White Acrylic Emulsion Over Black Neoprene Asphalt (System 30). Atthe seashore site, System 30, rated good (9), showed moderate checking,pinholing, blistering, and erosion in the first 2 years which becamemore serious in the next 5 years. At the desert site, System 30 wasrated good (9) because of checking/crazing, cracking, and some flakingin the first year which worsened over the next 6 years. System 30 wasrated excellent (10-) at the mountain site. Minor checking and pin-holing noted in the first year did not worsen over the next 3 years.The panel at the mountain site was exposed for a little over half aslong as the panels at the other sites.

Rapid-Cure Urethane

White Catalyzed Aliphatic Over Brown Rapid-Cure Aromatic (Systems40, 41, 45, 50). At the seashore site, Systems 40, 41, and 50 wererated excellent (10). System 45 was also rated excellent (10-) but wasmarred slightly due to slight checking. Note that these systems wereexposed for moderately short times from almost 3 years down to only3 months.

White Catalyzed Aromatic/Aliphatic Over Black Rapid-Cure Aromatic(System 47). At the seashore site, System 47 was rated excellent (10-),marred very slightly by minor checking. It was exposed for about2 years.

Rigid Cementitious

White Cementitious Over Black Elastomeric (System 39). At. the sea-shore site, System 39 was rated excellent. (10-), downrated very slightlydue to the many small cracks expected with this type of coating. Thecracks have widened slightly, but the foam does not seem to he degrading.

Performance of Coating on Foam Aged Prior to Coating

Ratings for panels where the foam was aged before the coating wasapplied are presented in Table 11. For System 2, a moisture-curingsilicone, the effects of allowing the foam to age seem negligible exceptfor the panel aged for 72 hours. Since the principal deterring factorin this panel was heavy pinholing, it, is prohable that the spraying ofthe coating was not done as well as it was on the other panels in theseries. For System 7, a neoprene-hypalon, the effects of the aging ofthe foam prior to coating also seem negligible.

Field Studies Conducted by USBR

Results of the field exposure studies conducted by USBR for NCEI,on PUF panels with selected coating systems are summarized in Appendix B.

17

Photoinacrographic Studies

As stated above, photomacrographs were taken for several years ofthe study to determine, on a closeup basis, the effects of weatheringupon the coatings. For purposes of brevity in the report, photomacro-graphs were selected for four of the coating systems; two that performedvery well (Systems 1 and 13) and two that failed (Systems 8 and 14).

Photomacrographs of System 1, a catalyzed silicone, are shown inFigure 7.

Photomacrographs of System 13, a catalyzed urethane, are presentedin Figure 8.

Photomacrographs of System 8, a catalyzed butyl, are presented inFigure 9.

Photomacrographs of System 14, a moisture-curing urethane, areshown in Figure 10.

Foam Degradation Rate Studies

Degradation per year for foams with densities of 2.0, 2.5, and3.0 pounds per ft3 are shown in the last column of Table 3 at all threeexposure sites. At each location, degradation varied inversely withfoam density, i.e., the more dense the foam, the lower the degradation.Generally, degradation resulting from exposure at the mountain site(elevation 700 ft) was higher than at the desert site (elevation2,440 ft), and degradation there was higher than at the seashore site.Ultraviolet concentration, which increases directly with elevation, isbelieved to be the principal factor.

RESULTS OF LABORATORY STUDIES

Adhesion Properties

As noted earlier, a second set of panels of the coating systemswas exposed at the seashore site for determining several propertiesincluding the adhesion characteristics. These panels were arrangedso that they could be removed periodically from the exposure racks,samples cut for the selected property tests, and the remaining part ofthe specimens returned to the rack for additional exposure. Theadhesion properties of the coated PUF samples are given in Table 4.

In addition to the adhesion properties of the coating-foam systems,Table 4 also describes the mode of failure, i.e., whether the coatinglost adhesion to the foam or to itself, or whether failure occurredcohesively within the coating or foam. As might be expected, a numberof the systems showed more than one mode of failure. However, failurein the majority of the systems tested occurred cohesively within thefoam (failure mode 6). This would be expected with coating systemshaving good adhesion between coating and foam. Only a few of thefailures resulted from loss of adhesion of the coating to the foam(failure mode 3).

18

Silicones. Referring to Table 4, Systems I and IG (catalyzedsilicone and catalyzed silicone with granules) and Systems 2 and 2A(moisture-curing silicones) showed cohesive failures in the foan(failure mode 6). On the other hand, System 2G, moisture-curing sili-cone with granules, exhibited cohesive failure in the topcoat (failuremode 4) and adhesive failure of granules to coating. After 4-1/2 yearsof exposure, the silicones showed an average adhesion strength of

10.6 kg/cm 2 .

Butyl-Hypalons. Systems 3 and 4 showed mostly cohesive failures in

the base coat (failure mode 5) and adhesive failures of coating to foamsurface (failure mode 3). System 9 failures were principally in the

foam, indicating increasingly improving adhesion properties as time ofexposure increased. The average adhesion strength of the butyl-hypalons

was 11.8 kg/cm 2 .

Hypalons. Systems 5, 12, and 12A all showed cohesive failures inthe foam, indicating good adhesion properties. Average adhesion strength

of the hypalons was 14.6 kg/cm 2 .

Acrylics. For the most part, the acrylics showed cohesive failuresin the foam. The exceptions were Systems 31 and 35 which indicatedadhesive failure between topcoat and base coat. The average adhesionstrength of the acrylics after 4-1/2 years was 18.4 kg/cm 2 .

Neoprene-Hlypalon. System 7 exhibited cohesive failure in the foam.Adhesion strength of the neoprene-hypalon was 17.8 +kg/cm 2 .

Butyl. System 8 showed cohesive failure in the base coat and hadand adhesion strength of 11.1 kg/cm 2 .

Chlorinated Rubber. Cohesive failure in the foam was observed inSystem 11, while the adhesion strength was 17.8 kg/cm 2 .

Fibrated Aluminum-Asphalt. System 15 showed cohesive failure inthe topcoat and adhesion strength of 8.3 kg/cm 2 .

Urethanes. Of the catalyzed urethanes, Systems 10, 1OA, 13, 13AC,and 18 exhibited cohesive failures in the foam (failure mode 6) System 17showed adhesive failure between topcoat and base coat. Systems 2S and26G had cohesive failures in the topcoat. Average adhesion strength ofthe catalyzed urethanes was 13.0 kg/cm2 . Among the moisture-curing mre-thanes, Systems 14 and 14A showed cohesiw, faillres in the topcoat,System 27G exhibited cohesive failure in the foam, and Systems 22G and28G showed adhesive failure of granules to coating. Average adhesionstrength for the moisture-curing urethanes was 15.8 kg/cm2 .

Urethane-Ilypalons. System 16AC, catalyzed urethane-hypalon, showedcohesive failure in the foam and an adhesive strength of 12.0 kg/ cm 2 .

Urethane-Silicones. Systems 19 and 23 showed adhesive failurebetween topcoat and base coat. Average adhesion strength was 5.4 kg/cm 2.

19

Acrylic Emulsion Over Neoprene Asphalt. System 30 exhibit-dadhesive failure between topcoat and base coat and had an adhesivestrength of 6.0 kg/cm 2 .

Table 5 lists adhesion properties of System 2 (moisture-curingsilicone) and System 7 (neoprene-hypalon) on panels aged prior tocoating. For the most part, System 2 panels showed adhesive failures ofcoating to foam surface, particularly in tests on panels which were agedmore than 3 hours before coating. On the other hand, System 7 panelsshowed cohesive failure in the foam regardless of the foam age whencoated.

Wind-Driven Rain Resistance

Table 6 shows results of wind-driven rain tests on coated specimens.

Silicones. Except for System IG, the silicones averaged about1 gram of weight gain. The granules on System iG may have absorbedextra moisture.

Butyl-Hypalons. The relatively poor quality of the coatingmaterials in System 3 (see Table 12) probably accounts for the higherabsorption of water. Weight gain in System 9 was not consistent overthe test period, so a loss in weight is questionable. Note that thebutyl-hypalons are considered to be vapor impermeable.

Hlypalons. The hypalons are also vapor impermeable but gainedslightly more weight than the silicones that are vapor permeable.Weight gain for System 12 seems rather high and inconsistent and istherefore unreliable. Excluding System 12, weight gain in the hypalonsaveraged 1.8 grams.

Acrylics. System 6G showed excessive weight gain after 4-1/2 yearsand is inconsistent with the previous readings. Excluding System 6G,the weight gain of the acrylics averaged 3.7 grams.

Urethanes. Failure of System 10A in the exposure tests (Table 12)indicates that the system was susceptible to admitting water and mayaccount for the extremely high weight gain. The granules in System 22Gmay have absorbed some extra water over the last year. The poor showingof System 10 in the exposure tests (Table 12) may account for the jumpin weight gain in the last period. Excluding Systems 10A and 22G,weight gain in the urethanes averaged 3.9 grams. The urethanes, as agroup, seem to have gained more weight than the other groups, yet theurethanes performed very well in the exposure tests. The significanceof the wind-driven rain test seems in question from these tests.

Impact Resistance

The coating is considered to have failed the impact test when it isruptured. At the point of rupture, the weight of the impactor is recorded.This test was run both before samples had been exposed and after they hadbeen exposed for varying periods up to 4-1/2 years. The impact test

20

results may indizate the resistance of the coated PUF roofing systems todamage by hailstones and, to some extent, by foot traffic. Both can causedamage to a system with low impact resistance. Resiflts nf impact testsare presented in Table 7.

A summary of the average impact strengths of coating systems by typeaftei 4-1/2 years of exposure is shown below.

Average Impact StrengthCoating Sys-tem-TYp _(grams)

Urethane-Si licones 800Urethanes 618Urethane-Hypa lons 550Neoprene-Hypa lons 500Acrylics 473Neoprene-Asphalt/Acrylic Emulsion 400Silicones 381Chlorinated Rubber 260Butyl 250Fibrated Aluminum-Asphalt 129

According to the results, the urethane-silicones, the urethanes, and theurethane-hypalons should have the highest resistance to damage by hail-stones or foot damage. Since the fibrated aluminum-asphalt is not anelastomer, it is not surprising that its impact strength is the lowestof all the other systems.

Tensile Properties of Free Film

Free films of the total coating systems, base coat and topcoat, wereprepared at the same time as the exposure panels. The free films werestripped from the glass plates where they had been applied and, aftercuring times of 3, 6, and 12 months under ambient laboratory conditions,were cut to size and tested to failure in tension. Results are presentedin Table 8 for tensile strength in grams per square millimeter and elonga-tion in percent. Not all systems were tested, but enough were tested toshow the effects of aging in the laboratory on tensile strength. Whilethere are some variations, in most cases tensile strengths increased andpercent elongation decreased as the cure time increased. This same trendis also typical of conventional paint systems (Ref 6).

High tensile properties for coating systems for PUF are believed tobe of primary importance because high tensile strength and high elongationinsure a coating with good flexibility. Good flexibility is required toenable a coating to accommodate the rather large expansions and contrac-tions that occur when PUF is subjected to vicious temperature cycling.

A summary of the average tensile strengths and elongations ot coat-ing systems by type after 12 months of curing is shown below.

21

Tensile Strength ElongationCoatingystem Type (gm/mm2 ) M___

Urethanes 431 749Neoprene-Hypalons 387 251Silicones 294 328Hypalon 203 292Chlorinated Rubber 190 104Urethane-Silicone 177 721Butyl-Ilypalon 130 157Acrylics 88 268Butyl 60 91

The urethanes had the highest average tensile strength as well as thehighest percent elongation. Neoprene-hypalon and silicones were next interms of tensile strength. Urethane-silicone also had a relatively highelongation. Referring to Table 10, the urethanes as a group did fairlywell in performance as did the neoprene-hypalon, silicones, and acrylics.Except for the acrylics, these observations seem to link high tensilestrength with good coating performance. Because there are some notableexceptions, there does not seem to be any iron-clad relationship betweentensile strength/elongation and coating perform:nce on exposure.

Glass Transition Temperature (USBR)

Results of tests to determine the glass transition temperature ofselected coating systems are summarized in Appendix B.

DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

Coating Systems That Performed Best at All Three Exposure Sites

Coating systems with excellent or very good ratings at all threesites after at least 3 years of exposure are shown in Table 12. Of thesilicones, only the two with granules were rated excellent to very goodat all three sites: System 1G (catalyzed with granules), and System 2G(moisture-curing with granules). Both System 1 and System 2 (the samecoating systems without granules) performed well at two of the threesites, as did Systems 2A and 29 (Table 10).

Of the nine acrylics that had been exposed for more than 3 years,five were rated excellent or very good at all three sites, and three ofthose had granules. Systems 6G and 24G had white granules and System36GC had gray granules, so the color of the granules is not significant.

Of the 16 catalyzed urethanes studied, only two were ratedexcollent or very good: System 13, an Aliphatic over an aromatic, andSystem 18, an aromatic over an aromatic. Of the 11 moisture-curingurethnnes studied, only one was rated excellent or very good: System28G, aluminum aromatic over aromatic with granules. It is highlyprobale that the grnnulos enabled the moisture-cured urethane to

22

perform satisfactorily. System 23 utilized a combination of a moisture-curing aromatic urethane topped by the moisture-curing silicone ofSystem 2. Thus, System 23 combines the relatively high tensile strengthof urethane and the excellent weathering characteristics of the silicone.

Coating Systems That Performed Best at Each Site

Table 13 lists those coatings that performed best at each site.For locations similar to the seashore site used in this study (mildsummers, mild winters, and relatively high humidity) several of thesystems would provide quite satisfactory coatings for PUF. One wouldhave a choice of several silicones, one butyl-hypalon, several acrylics,a neoprene-hypalon, a chlorinated rubber, a fibrated aluminum-asphalt,several urethanes, two urethane-hypalons, a urethane-silicone, and arigid cementitious. NCEL personnel have inspected many roofs with analuminum-asphalt or cutback asphalt coating over PUF. Very few of themhad lasted more than a year or two before becoming greatly distressedand in need of recoating. Since aluminum asphalts, such as System 15,have little tensile strength (Table 8), they cannot withstand the ratherhigh tensile stresses developed by the severe temperature changes in afull-size roof. Once the aluminum-asphalt cracks, it soon begins toflake and spall and the exposed foam begins to degrade. It should alsobe noted that System 15 only did very well at the seashore site wherethe temperature changes are not very severe. In addition, the small2- by 4-foot panels used in this study were not large enough to develophigh temperature stresses that are present on temperatures found onroofs.

At locations similar to the desert site used in this study (hotsummers and cold nights in winter but mild days), several systems couldbe expected to provide quite adequate coatings for PUF, as shown inTable 13. Several urethanes would be more than adequate in the seashoreclimate, along with a urethane-silicone and the neoprene-asphalt/acrylicemulsion. Many of the same coating systems acceptable at the desert-type location would also be acceptable at a mountain-type location-moderate summers, cold winters with heavy snow, and relatively lowhumidity.

Effects of Exposure Site on Performance Rating

For most of the coating types, Figure II shows the effects ofexposure site on performance rating. For the silicones, the seashoresite was worst for Systems 2 and 29, and for Systems I and 2A, themountain site was worst. For the neoprene-hypalon, the mountain sitewas worst. For the butyl, both seashore and mountain ratings are lower.For butyl-hypalons, the mountain site was worst for Systems 4 and 4A butnot for System 9. For the hypalons, the desert site was worst forSystem 5 and 12, and there was a trend that way for System 12A. For thechlorinated rubber and the aluminum-asphalt, the mountain site wasworst. For the acrylics, the seashore site was worst for Systems 31 and6G and the mountain site was worst for Systems 6A and 20.

For catalyzed urethanes, the seashore site was worst for Systems 25GY,18, and 26G; the desert site was worst for Systems 13, 13AC, and 37 andthe mountain site was worst for System 17. For moisture-cured urethanes,the seashore site was worst for Systems 22G and 27G.

23

For urethane-hypalons, the desert and mountain sites were low forSystem 16C and the mountain site was worst for System 16AC. In thesesystems, the topcoat is hypalon and there is a similarity between theeffects of exposure site on these systems and the hypalons. For theurethane-silicones, the mountain site was worst for System 19, and thedesert site was worst for System 23. For System 30, the neopreneasphalt-acrylic emulsion, the seashore and desert sites were worse.

The relationships illustrated in Figure 11 indicate that theeffects of exposure site on the performance of the coating systems inthis study are inconsistent and inconclusive.

Effects of Foam Density on Coating Performance

Table 14 shows the effects of foam density on coating performance.Other things being equal, higher foam density is reputed to make thefoam-coating system more resistant to foot and hailstone damage as wellas provide a somewhat smoother foam surface for the coating. Suchimprovements should also enhance the coating system performance. Table 14indicates that the effects of foam density on performance are not con-sistent. Higher foam density did not help the performance of Systems 14,10, 13, and 16. It did help Systems 8 and 12, but improved the perfor-mance of Systems 14 at the desert and mountain sites and System 2 onlyat the seashore site. The apparent conclusion from these observationsis that higher foam density did not consistently improve coating perfor-mance. However, it should be noted that there was no foot traffic onthe panels and the incidence of hail storms at the mountain site wasvery low. As a result, these physical factors had little influence onthe performance of these systems.

Influence of Physical Properties of Coating Systems on Field Performance

The ranking of the physical properties of the top twenty of the coatingsystems by system number and type is shown in Table 15. Ranking, in termsof optimum property, was taken from Table 4 for adhesion, Table 6 for waterweight gain, Table 7 for highest impact strength, and Table 8 for tensilestrength and elongation. To determine the significance, or lack of it, ofphysical properties on field performance, comparisons should be made betweenTables 12 and 15.

Table 16 was compiled by comparing the listing of coating systems thatshowed excellent or very good performances in Table 12 with the listings inTable 15. Not many of the coating systems that performed best appear in thetop twenty of each of the physical properties. Adhesion has the most repre-sented, but several of the best systems were not tested for tensile strengthor elongation in effect. There appears to be little correlation betweenlaboratory tests and field performance, i.e., the individual physicalproperties do not seem to directly and consistently influence field per-formance.

Exposure Tests Conducted by USBR

Below is a summary of the results at the Denver site in Table B-1 ofAppendix B.

24

USBR Rating Denver Site

Excellent System 38 - UrethaneGood System 6 - Acrylic

System 31 - AcrylicSystem 13 - Urethane

Fair System 2 - SiliconeSystem 29 - Silicone

System 9 - Butyl-HypalonSystem 35 - Acrylic

Poor System 15 - Aluminum-Asphalt

Comparison of the above results with those in Table 12 reveal thatseveral of the coating systems are found in both lists. Systems 6(acrylic), 31 (acrylic), and 13 (urethane), rated good by USBR, are alsoin the list of Table 12. System 15 (aluminum-asphalt), rated poor byUSBR, does not appear in the listing of Table 12. NCEL tests (Table 10)showed that System 15 performed well only at the seashore site.

Results at the Greeley site shown in Table B-i of Appendix B aremore difficult to compare with NCEI, results because no overall evaluationwas expressed and because the time of exposure was only I year. USBRfound the same susceptibility of silicones to damage by bird pecks as NCELdid. System 15 (aluminum-asphalt) experienced serious hail damage whichwas expected due to its low tensile strength, low impact strength, andnonel astomer ic nature.

Glass Transition Tests by USBR

Three-year glass transition temperature (T ) by the DSC method forSystem 6, an acrylic, indicate that this materi§l would become brittleat 50°F (Table B-2 of Appendix B). If this measurement is correct, System 6could be susceptible to serious damage at temperatures below 500F. Thismaterial (System 6) was based on earlier acrylic raw materials thattended to become brittle with aging. Currently available 100% acryliccoatings do not generally embrittle with aging as shown by the other twoacrylics listed in Table B-2 of Appendix B. System 15 (an aluminum-asphalt) shows a T of 70F, and System 38 (a urethane) has a T of 120F.

g g

Foam Degradation Studies

Foam degradation per year for foam densities of 2.0, 2.5, and3.0 pcf in Table 3 vary from 0.14 inch per year for density of 2.0 pcfat the seashore site to about 0.23 inch per year for the same density atthe mountain site. Foam degradation rates decreased significantly asthe density increased. At the seashore site, the degradation rate offoam with a density of 3.0 pcf was about two-thirds as much as that forthe 2.0 pcf, while at the mountain site, the rate of the 3.0 pcf foamwas about half that of the 2.0 pcf. Similar results were found at thedesert site. Increasing ultraviolet concentration accounts for the high-er degradation rates at the desert and mountain sites. It is easy tosee that uncoated PUF 2 inches thick when sprayed could be reduced to aslittle as 1-inch thick after 5 years of exposure.

25

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Eleven of the coating systems included in this study were ratedexcellent or very good in performance at all three of the exposuresites, as summarized below. They are not listed in order of performance.

Coating Type System Comments

Silicone IG Catalyzed cement gray over mediumgray, granules

Silicone 2G Moisture-curing: white over lightgray, granules

Acrylic 6 White emulsion

Acrylic 6G White emulsion, white granules

Acrylic 31 White emulsion

Acrylic 24G White emulsion, white granules

Acrylic 36GC White emulsion, gray granules

Urethane 13 Catalyzed: white aliphatic over grayaromatic

Urethane 18 Catalyzed: off-white aromatic overblack, aromatic

Urethane 28G Moisture-curing: aluminum aromaticover aromatic, granules

Urethane/ 23 White moisture-curing silicone overSilicone tan moisture-curing aromatic urethane

2. Six of the above eleven coating systems had granules, indicat-ing the importance of using granules in the coating system.

3. Several of the coating systems had performance ratings ofexcellent or very good at one or two of the sites but not at all three.For a climate similar to one of the sites where they performed well,they would be quite suitable there.

4. The effects of exposure site on field performance of the coatingsystems were inconsistent and inconclusive.

5. Higher foam density did not consistently improve the perform-ance of coating systems. Foam densities used were 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 pcf.

26

6. The eleven coating systems that were rated excellent or verygood at all three sites did not consistently have optimum physicalproperties such as adhesion, water absorption, impact strength, tensilestrength, and elongation. On the other hand, several of the coatingsystems that ranked relatively high in terms of physical properties didnot do very well in terms of performance.

7. Foam degradation studies reveal the absolute necessity ofcoating PUF to protect it from ultraviolet radiation which can cause asmuch as 0.2 inch of degradation per year.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Eleven of the 54 coating systems used in this study are recom-mended for coating PUF at any and all locations. They are listed in thefirst item of "Findings and Conclusions."

2. Any PUF density up to 3.0 pcf is recommended for roofing systems.If heavy foot traffic or hail is expected, the higher densities with aminimum compressive strength of 40 psi are recommended.

3. Although the effects of physical properties on performance wereinconclusive, coating systems with relatively high impact strength,tensile strength, and elongation are recommended for protection againsthailstones, foot traffic, and extreme temperature changes.

4. All PUF roofing systems should be protected with a provenelastomeric coating system.

5. To further establish the long-time efficacy of coating systemsfor PUF, this study should be continued.

REFERENCES

1. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Memorandum TM-52-77-3:Roofing survey of Naval shore bases, by J.R. Keeton and R.L. Alumbaugh.Port Hueneme, CA, Mar 1977.

2. National Bureau of Standards. Technical Note N-965: Effects ofmoisture in built-up roofing - A state-of-the-art literature survey, byH.W. Bushing, R.G. Mathey, and W.J. Rossiter, Jr., and W.C. Cullen.Washington, DC, Jul 1978.

3. United States Bureau of Reclamation. Technical Report REC-ERC-76-4:Laboratory and field investigation of new materials for roof construction,by B.V. Jones. Denver, CO, Apr 1976.

4. Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Note N-1450: Experimentalpolyurethane foam roofing systems, by J.R. Keeton, R.L. Alumbaugh, andE.F. Humm. Port Hueneme, CA, Aug 1976.

27

5. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Note N-1656: Experi-mental polyurethane foam roof systems - II, by R.L. Alumbaugh, J.R. Keeton,and E.F. Humm. Port Hueneme, CA, Jan 1983.

6. Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Note N-1496: Investigationof spray-applied polyurethane foam roofing systems, by R.L. Alumbaugh andJ.R. Keeton. Port Hueneme, CA, Jul 1977.

7. Department of Defense. DOD Construction Criteria Manual, DOD 4270.1-M,Oct 1972.

8. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Technical Note N-1643: Thermalconductivity of weathered polyurethane roofing, by D.A. Zarate andR.L. Alumbaugh. Port Hueneme, CA, Sep 1982.

9. . Technical Note N-1683: Underwriters laboratoriesfire tests of sprayed polyurethane foam applied directly to metal roofdecks, by R.L. Alumbaugh and S.R. Conklin. Port Hueneme, CA, Dec 1983.

10. . Technical Note N-1691: Preliminary guidelinesfor maintenance of polyurethane foam roofing systems, by R.L. Alumbaugh,S.R. Conklin and D.A. Zarate. Port Hueneme, CA, Mar 1984.

11. . Technical Note N-1742: Experimental polyurethanefoam (PUF) roofing systems - III: Naval Station, Roosevelt Roads,Puerto Rico, and Naval Facility, Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, byS.R. Conklin, D.A. Zarate, and R.L. Alumbaugh. Port Hueneme, CA,Jan 1986.

12. Civil Engineering Laboratory. Purchase Order Report P.O. No. 79-MR-461:Principles of urethane foam roof application, by Keith H. Coultrap. Tempe,AZ, Coultrap Consulting Services, Inc., Jun 1980.

13. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory. Users Guide UG-0011: Usersguide for poly-urethane foam roofing, by K.H. Coultrap. Tempe, AZ,Coultrap Consulting Services, Inc., R.L. Alumbaugh and E.F. Humm,Port Hueneme, CA, Apr 1987.

14. National Bureau of Standards. Technical Note N-778: Guideline forselection of and use of foam polyurethane roofing systems, by W.C. Cullenand W.R. Rossiter, Jr., Washington, DC, May 1973.

28

Ca 0li f 0 0D 00

0 H0 0 0 ,-

U)

a) (A U4) C-) (D 0 ) it Lt-r) 0 0 0 0 C00 00

0

04-

4))

004

*004)0 4) 0

4-

0

400

o0 0)0

00 t02 60

0 a) 44) 4)4W V) 4J3.10 4-1 L) 4) Z

4)-. ca in14 + 0 +

W-J 4-)4 ) + 0 .4-1-4 -H :j 9 ! 40 U 4) 4) a) 4) 4-1 $-4 4) co 10 >) Q4)

r. r. H 0 ;- to r 4- 40 00 k 00 0 z~ ~ 0 ;

60 0O. P 4 C. 4 0

4) 0 XI.00 r.c r.o 0 t 9~. ~ 0 r. 0 r a04- 00 u pu 0 1-4 01k 0 4 00u4) 0 4)0 04()0u

r4U6 'H 60 ub 0C r-II N r-4 N1 -4 N I3t i- -H -H .1 - ca -- 4 :> o > V cd N

4)oU (co (ca ca -4 414) r- p ) ,-4 0 () cij -1 ,--l ~ 1-4-

4 Q) *H k H A - . - 4', p , V - U ( 0 (00 C: :-H :3 V H:3 i]6 H ' OH V 0- 4) z 4 " 9 +jr

0ar - 4.4. -. -4 r i - - o C3- O.-

N1 0 1 N 0 0- 0 >0110

0 0 0

N0 0 k 0 N 0 0 0

m- 41c -4 Mi -4 ., QF )m F 4-3P 43P -

U) Z

29

0r 4- C) 0Z) Z 0 if) (D0 0 V)~

0 C 0 4 l C lC l Ai C1i0 C Cl C CA

CU V) if 0 C0 C0 C0 0D 0- Q

0 H '.0 D' -c 0I '10 '0 CA 'D (D \0 Cl) OlI-B . -4 CYI Cl C C CA Cl4 C4 Cl c') Cl

-4 V)4 ) V) C00( U-)f 0 0

0/' 41C2r .4 4 -4 C 1 4 1 '

0.

00)

4-3V

0oa c H0 14 4-4 4-4

c 4-1 00 00*

o) U0 )

* 4

i 5 -i 0 0

c-a 0; '-4H AHof 4) 0 ca C a (

CC '-4 -4 C% -4 4 u0 C) ca 0 (a 0 (0

H Ca -4

cc4 .0 a

ci CC:V) 0. a)i 4) 0) 0)(2) 0)

2 r. 0 4 i a)i P; 4)0 0 00 p p .0 C

2 U Q2 ) a) 2 ) 0)Q) 0 000- a) .0 UU 0 )

W -1"A0) )

-4 00 0--, 4> - .000 V)= .0 r.4)9 a-

004 (al -C 0)(0 3.-H0 0 0 0~ Ul H) H V-)u *H .

U- H - H -H 4- u 5 5T5ca -H V) V) (A ca -i r4 -

0 pl r-4 (0 .0i- cO(0 -4( 4j~ 4Y) : (0j 4jC (a cc 5a ca* ca. -0)0 . (n (AE3 0)) 1-) -04- V0 04-j V V 4J 04-) a a

w) ( ~ ) 0) d)u cc (1) ) 4) ) ca u (QC ) U r.C 0 N N N 0 0

0 H -4 4) 0G) u >1 >%, a0) u 0u 0 0I 4U 0 " A 1 4 '- V). '-'. (n n0,

ca > 0(d 0 (d (13 (a (00 (a j cd (0 0(0a0 co cc

A ( 4 0 0 W (0 a)~ (01- .0

S *:< z u) L) L) u:

U -4

4)h "D AD 0 r- CC 0 0 -Cl CDl

H - 0 0 0 Lfl 0 0 00

in C 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0

-HVO uj 00000 0 0 00

. H tf (o 'Q if) 0-f NN) CA 01 - f ' 0 CuO CA 0-4 NN 4 1-4 -

0

0(-z

W-V-

4) u

0 -4 . -4 ca

0 -4

'-4 0 rA.-4 a a) 0u co -,

-41 0 'a0

co '-a $ ) 0HF4 p- 1-4 -Y o 4J 0 4- 0 ca k

cac ( 0 00 0 0oa)-4 0) -4 0 0 -0 14 -4 w- I-o m-( 04C p

00 00 9 9 9 -4 4p. i- 4

4) ) c .4 a -) 0 a4) C)9:1 3t 3t A jk0 -(a~ (a) caV d 40 c 0

El u u 4c d -I' E - ) 0 a

to -4 0- - -43 0 ca c 1 l 1V) (a co 4 ca C 0 0 cc ogo r4 2 4 2- - -

00 0O -U U - H H COI 9 4 g 0 0 4- r V "r.k- J - kH U-H U- o Ac ri rNe 1 C~ 0

aj ca 0a coc ac 0 w ~ C9 -4-4 --4-4 I )C

4o..) w ~ 4 )J a)H -i0 04 0 H 4

co ca co u u O acacV 0 0 0 4-3 d0 4J 1 0+- 4.j- -004- 0 41

4) uco d)~ u a 0 o a 0 a ) 0O ca ) c 0 wOc0N 0 N 0 N 0 w- 4~ 0 N 0 0 0

4) ( >wO 41)O u :j j w0 (3)u a > 0 (1)V)20 '-U0, Ur 0. V) QP p J M )0. (A 0, L0, ( '4 U 0.

0-~ PpH p H 'o -4 w F 4-E- PPQ Fl 4. 0 - WPco a co 0 0 o co c

V) < ( 4 10 D I-4) 1-4 -4 1-4 -4 1-4

C/z '

'3 1

P4-1-1 44 CD L 0 V)( 0 C) U-r) 0

0 r41 C) ) 0 04 0l 0l 04 0

0- 0 ~ 0 \0 r- 0

H ) £1) 0 0 (0D C0 0

.H i CD I- L 0

0+-cts C4.- '- ( J N N4 i-I C) NA 1-4 .- 4

-000uz

(12 I 4A4

0 A

4J0 1- -41-- 4-)0 6) 0 4-)

0 1460 0 W0:u OT "0 £14-3 9 $4- COco 4) 0 0 Q)

0 W-l 93 9d Q -4 H- Q)*If4-) k 4 4 -4 0 1-4 0

0 -H6 4b.4 2- 60 -H0) 1 - 4-

60 3t $- 0 3t c~0-H 0

ca 0' i-i) 41 -4- 0 *0) kd 0r.cc -H a)0 4J ~ - 4--) P 0 *.- " -4 ca

0 -1 -4H kd 0'a 0 4- tCO 4 ;-H o 0 i- Ea-H 0) 0 at 6

-1 v 0 0- a0 *-P., 1 4)c - 0Hr- .4H p -0 d 4I-4 41i 1-

a) -H4 -V ) 0 (d-- V)4-4 0 600

(a2 w ~ 0 4-1 -H0 W 1..1 -U 4) V.a, 304 (12 rl -HH- 4 4J - -H -*

4) p 0 0d -r k-- .,- -4 ., 4)11

E3 0 0 0 23 0 000 uC u 001 -H 'o 1 01 -H .1I 0) 0u 4~JP ~ 00 u -4 4 a 41) 4J W,0 4-i P- 0 .1 4£1 H- .H -H N 64 H 0 ca 141-k -H1 -H 4J-4 k- -H a -H )

> 041 V) >,~ :3 -H a 4-~ :J 0 p c0 1 41 u IUTo2 co~ - -i P 3t r-4 0 Q)4-) 41 39 c 04)c c

0 22 a )cd£12 , 6 O) 4)- 8-21 0 01 4 k -4 - 5260 ~00 41~ -H k-- CO ~-H-H P g0 -H -1 -H4 Cd ~00 0

Cd-I1- k dd ca 00 0 0 p rd-4-4Ca 4-j-H ~CCd u E3 0 ((j w0 to0523 0Cd Cd 6o. 0 40 ca co60

4J ) -H -H 0. a r.ca (1 0L V1) ' - .4 £12 0 0 -- -0 4- 4- -4 0) 6 p-- -44 p 1- -- k 4 14-

0 j~ :j r- :j :3 P4. :j :j0cc- c-- 23 -4 u uC- co c. 0 0 co

,a0 - a0 - 0 -H . 1 0 4-) 0 4--$ ~ 10 1 0 04J4)0)Cd 4) ucd 4-4 a) 00Cd u0C 0a 0) u a ) d u(N 0 N 0 0 a 1-- k- 0 0 N 0 64- 1- 01-'-(10 u ~ -H 0- :j 0w0 .- >00 4). u ~0,-4 (n 0 '--I(12 a. CI. 0- 4- (n " -4 ,-4 (n P -4 4-) 4-3 V) "al Cd0 c Co 0 01 £12 (A V) d 0 > oc 0 w LAd wd £12 £ C0pH M-~ p- 5o - -4H00E- w 1-- aCI El i -H -H 0(a ca W 0 0 0 ca ca 0 0

p~ 'D 0 0 CD 00n ;)o Ny C. 4 1 4 Lf '0 - 00N1 Nl N N1 CN N N N '

32

0 0. a 0l 1

cn 0 0) CD C 0D 0 0 0 0) 14-1-4 0

02 C4 0t -4) CN C14 LI (r--4-

HO U 00 00

00-4 CDuL

4- E314 1

0 4-i(a ( -4- ( N C1 (N-4 (N4 N .-1- C4~- '-4

0

0

0

00

0 0i

V) 0 0 0

00 -4)

0 4-)) 14J 1-4 1-4-4W~~~~. :J CO-4H ) 4) -

SH 0 0l e 0H- 4a4)-i 1:11 4 4) Q -)1'i 4E.0H4.H C) 4 *H 4- a - i w-

a I)H -4 4 k 41 4-3~ cc a . 4 41 0Ci $ 114 at 60 4) ( 0 0 3t 3t H ()4 4do ~ 4 )

0 CQr " w a . k -44 w~ 241 0 "4-00 u ~-02-p :3 ~ 0 a HC0d. 00- ~C13-H

H4p W~0 1.-4 9 4 - 4 k. 0 -'-4 '- . o 60 odd (a IC 0 0 c~: cad H0c 3 i4

4-J 1 c H Hd ~H *H 2 4J 4-Jca in (n LI) V) V) 0 -40 1- -4 k.. r-4 4 - 4-4.. 43)..0) V) 4-1j 0 : 1 :j :4i3 0 4-i 0 41

VCn *0 41 1 0 4-J 0 41 "0. U0 4J e 20 4co 4)~ u c 0- uCd 0) 0)C Ou co 4 0) )u co

.0 0 L) U 1-4 0 1w u u 0 (~ 0 U. 0I ) 00) *H . *H ;jQ)u j 1 rq H) H 4) u0 0)

k- 1)). 'l-4 0 V.i) , ri i . -I r-4V)~ " (A 0, " dCh 0.

d 0 (A (d 0 1 p c 0 a( 0 4 (d

C13~~ ~ ~ ~ 0)u u 00 u a(

(Na) CDC Cl) ED CD r- 00(N CA Cl ml ml m Ln \0 nl Cl) cl

CJ z C)

33

4j 4-J

H 440 0 0 0 0

PA (2) ci*)

ccI 0) 0D 0 0 0 0 0

04 C4l 00 C

*H (D LD CD 0 00 00C 0 0 0 0 D0

'4-4 VI04-p

co -A -1 -1 -4--1-- r4,.-.4 C4

0 L)

4)

0

0

-4 0

u) 0 9-4 -4 r.

0a 0 4-J O -F- a- CL -4-4 -

o $-4 -

Ho V 0kH-4r

4-1 () 4) 0 4-) 60 H +j-1

(a a5 ) co54-) p -a) C 4co 3

a- 4-) -) 9 94 - 3 4 -)- 4 4j-o() -4a -

0- l 0 -1 4-) -H 0 -4 0 0 4 41)

42) a) , 4) 4) - 4)) P.04- ) 4 C) ca-- u

u)- 4OJ j -1H- 0 :j . H u 0j: -400 -H JA- ~0H 0- 4J0 H~ -H u-4 c

(A 5-4 k .*H, 4 4)r cl kI0 a O $4'

*H 0~) 0 0 0dd( 0-C 0 caU1 0

pH H) 0 4) 4-,

0 ca -. * aj- k .. (a * C.. k. .

0 41 " 0p- 1 0 - a, 0 4j ' -04-) V 04-j '00-4)

N 0 N 0 w- 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 w->, ~w u : W0 *H >1 ) > () >(0) -44) 0 0

U- () 0, w 0. * V) -I r-4V) P. -4UV 0 ( 0 :, V) " 4-)ca 0 0 U n o0 co go 0 (3ca0 c 0 0 c d0 V)

ca co 0~ u- 0 03o o (a 0

0r- 00

0 9 n

0 cc C 0 0 D 0

V0W -D C)' ( D C- ( 0 0 (D

CH u 00 00 Q0 00U) Co

L) 8 CA.- -4 C4 r 11 -

H

I4-4 V)

04-pw - '-4 1-1 "l '- C 1 (N

0z

4-)

0 .4-4 4-4~0 0

* 4

0

0 0ca 2

cc 0

4-)4-)

Eg-H r-0) -' >,' - OH

kc 0 0 H 3 "4 300 0 60 .

80 0)8

4J $-4 H -uH 1

'H _C: c -H 41u ;j 41 41 1 44J 'Hp(b0 caa 4.J. C 4J C 4) J C

cn ') ci'l I ' H ca -4 0o ') 'H

w - 0 NV) 0 0 4 N 0-1.

0, k0 -Ac (0 (0 (0 04'- 4 - . -60 ~ ca 01 Z044C )V c a C ac o

9-) 4-

0~ k- (4 '(

::j pV) 0 :3 p j 4-j 4-

Table 2. Permeability Designations

System Type Vapor Permeability

Silicone Permeable

Butyl/Hypalon Impermeable

Hypalon Impermeable

Acrylic Emulsion Permeable

Neoprene/Hypalon Impermeable

Butyl Impermeable

Aluminum-Pigmented Permeable

Hydrocarbon Modified

Chlorinated Rubber Permeable

Urethanes Permeable and impermeable

Aluminum Asphalt Impermeable

Urethane/Hypalon Impermeable

Urethane/Silicone Impermeable

Neoprene Asphalt/Acrylic Permeable

Rigid Cementitious Permeable

36

0 k

0 >1 ,f a u 0 ,C L 0 1

O 000 000 000

00 CO r-

0o0 I

'-'4 a\ '-0

-00

U) i I I I I I I

0 0

4j-

u 00 1 4(

0D g o 0- - - C'N 1 a4C-o 0- ol r- CtxC1 0 00 C1 00 1.-4- x 00 x- 00 - - 0 1 I) I w r4 D 1

~~~~0 0 0 0-'-- u 0''- I ~ -',.0 i 04 4- k-c~' 0- co. I o O~

.4 0 00 00 -) 0

o0 co -4- 0 00) - 41- 1- 00 1-4 -4 r-

P , 0 0 .0

0t 0 co---'' 0 C14 C- -o 0f r)\ CD 4 404 0o Hl C1. 4 if ,-If4 \0 .- ~-, 0

Cf) p,- r-V))f

D 0 c' C)" C C) C C (D (D 0

0 0- 0C'J 4) 0f0 CD 00-tChC14, 1-i'- C14~ CA' LI C' CA- 4 C A 4) -

CY 0*C *()-10 )C rN"' 00 0 00 000 0 j) A4

0 0

0 - C-N C-N; C C-N C- i- - C- 14j

C14 C 0 N0 00 000 -

CN(CJ C-C'C 0 (2 0

CIO 0 r C14r-v oO00r H~C

000 0 00C 0 00 P-0

0~~ 0

CA C-N (-n jN C-N C) C- iCNC-'J0~~c Q'0 '-c ~~

370

4)f4

14 24 9 0 10 '0 l N4 Ln a 0 a00' a a a a 1 '0 '0 15*4 .*lI

NN

100' 0 0': '0 ON NI'. 00: 0~It 94u 0. N .n . .n t . .l 0. 1

+- t - - - -- -- - -I

Q)

455 L '

N .O O

+- t 0 -0

hN -- a0 -0Iw A.

45L

54 $4~ 0 It '0 0 N. P 0 It O f0 - 'r1 .'0. 1 0 '544 .40 C I454 5n 0'

>4 (U4

0t ________________

NN

0 54 *11 P0 05 0 n o -. IO A Itr' ' o. I -t It 1S 45 th 5- N .5 .

54 0 -' '0 I 0 '0N P0 at a0 1 10 a 10.00 a. a'00 44 m 4 64 A

.4 54 0 , 50 m '0

Ln i

54 C4N4

O M 54 -A . 5

0 ____L___

k4 W iig S N N a Lt5 N l P0 0a I0 ~ It It

44 0. N - - - - - - - N 4 N N -

It 6 J '0 ,4

0 .~I L. i;54 4 0 _ _ _

NN

0' 5 0' NA Ny 0 0 0 N N 00t0 0 P0.A .4 . . . .5 .

A 5 P 0 0 0 . P -0 N

,4 -4 A 4>1a IL itL41 0 A h__ _ __ _ _ _ A__ _ _ _ A__C__

~ u05 - ' 0N 0 0 IS5t 0"L0

(a'. 5n 54 N 'D -C .5 PA440.~~~~p 't'0 5N P ' 0

Its ~ - - N N --

4545

4)

0'0

'0I 4) -4' 0 0 10 1

>- 0 - 0 -- .- --

4,j

1, " I I I N 01 1 1 N

9 1 ;Vr 0L 0 I0 a 0 '0i 100 a

4,j

14

I IW 0 tUEa'0

N

)>: U.

NB. 10 Ita a Nm44 41 04 .- ' 0 10'01LL

AJ PA N a - .. - - lb CD

64

4 -4,

.

N . 14(

044, .I ~ 1 4 ' 0 ' t' 0 N ' o4 0

A. 4

14 *-0

P4 I. A .1 1 u I

04 0 0t' N A0 t- 0 m04 . 0 0 I I '0

A5 A' .4 -1 N -. 14 A > -

1., 14, 01 $

41I 44 a. u

6 '0 0 I0 0 0' A0 40- N 'a uo 1, 9 jI 8 'a . . . . . . . . v I .. M

IAN uI 0 0 1 4 .t 10 I " '0 0o m t34t- I '4'4 .. 4 N c 14 - -

'01 '0 m '0 a. a0 I I 10 '0 m m xIV,14 I or d W rI 0 I

0' 4- 4 0 A0 0 IC4N ND 0 0N '0Ll 1 I 0 0 I IF4 N N . .. .4. -

* m39

d) -

CD j I a Nc

'4 6- U i C9 0!

2n %It: Ii0.w

NO

'T 0 t F '' 'Ul CD(n a n

4)rI IA 1M '4-11

to:4

NON

A : U . c*I . I It 4Ab Nm N .4in.

4)

>-40 U.0 II

Ul I .

C4 NCI 6

N 4 '4N 10 oC I a, tOi Ln ' I I I A 'C 'U 'n41 ~ ~ .4 CJC N

in

'4

o)4) .

6. IN N

Ia I Ifl L I c

V)X

'So ~fe'44 . C C U N. 'C I rI I cC N N c

0) *I4 64 10 4 1 4- 4 0 tO 0O k' 0tO L s

4.4 0 4) I I 0a.~ u N ' I I I N uU 110 N

14 .4C -.4 4)4.)Ix' '.4 -,I I I

liE 4& .4- .- ak -Co , c cu0)4b 41m4 o''or .

40 41 Nm00 ' 0 N r4t41N 0'V N 1 -o 4*0 U A I n10

A' A A N4 Ak N A'

05M ItC'440

40

(A 0

14 'm-

Na. bIN

14

NO

4.

C4

0 II

>.: iiN0 -

+I th I

M 14 4)

A kv4).4IN1 AV

NO -

S.. bN

4'bm

I~ 0I

91S 0 ' 0

.,40 u I_

_0 4

1.I % I I . Ac3u m

14N~ 0 I i

A

>4M A 0 4 .Lm 0 o 4 4 4 0 C

A4) A IL 1 )1. M '1

14 4-

.4'

0~ ~ 41 04 M' -~

I4) 4t 4'It IP

a)

u4

CIA4 0 AiNO

00 0l LtI 0: i N N

'0 4N M M-0

PA54

0 4 .4

4)4 )

bs 'sQ.

-h 0 - - -- - -0 j

CL 4)O4 54 O .0 ?

54 -A 0: 'fl'0n'0It*00. 54 .X -4

4) )4-

1 . LL1

4) N l

gn .9 .

pn rn'D'____ ___ ___ a.

go (D to I

Cl 9 0: C9 0r, I o 4) r0'0l 0r O DCC0r

C4 0A E PAen-.A1 64 U.1

4.. 254

54.

In '0N N N e

401100 s0 0 aA w

O H 3Ai 00 AAA A

442

It

14

4

12 4

54

vIL 0 000 CIO I I 0I N) m.~ I C 0 0IA I

14

Ln a 0 '-"-0 0- -00 - N CJ N-C LA N NtN 00

41 1140 0 inL

00St LA LA;L -OI LA 000 00~' 0 0 pn a N co-~5~U

'~.o.

4 Na. 0 00 >. .0- -O '0' 0 00.-0.

4) 4) 04

114 14 1 A 4St~~P >41 N NNN 05 O2N IC 4 L N N I 5

4) 0.............. A A r- r- r. I> .0 04 OA OA A .0 5 ..4 .0 0 0ILa.0 000 0 00- N 0NN L 0 N- - N

00

L+ 0 0 0 0- OQ- , 0 0 00- -o.44.4.42. - .. 00 0 0

00

H4 4)14 445 1 I

443

1 40 It) 0 W I r I I It) I I c0 I LA I IIO* . . . . I 1 I * I

NA. C M fn - -; Ln 4

'4

14 '.4 1(4

641

tIt)

>- Il IA a a N Go C! 04'qA~ I

Ln 1. C; N ; 0; IN N 0 0Wi

WI aC4C

NO 1& I 0 ~ I .4-

Na. 0. WI 0 0 N 0 0I W 0 01

4A 40 404

IL 141 ) ) l

0 M a 4 N -4 1 4.4 AI1 A 4J , b, b m i 1 * U 4J

41 4A- L u I , U a* UW

- f -54 I. 1 4S I4- b.k .4- 0 .4 .+- -D.4- 1 0 u 0

0 N 4 4 c

g1 44 141 0 6 001 14 PA N I 0 N i0

V> I 0-. 14 N. 4-4k.. -4A -41 -. WI

12 - I A1.1 A R a M

4400

0

>4

aO m .lL I I IC4 0 1 O

94

4)43

,I 't I I I

.A O 0 0

94

r. to 0'00I

's. - N -9 - -

4

44 Ls. 0A a

4430 0

e44f

0 0

0 "'0 944

4 u* u CO .0 ISO MC .C A A A u 4-I

r3Ll. a. a. a -4 -

0 k N4 . A :

4.314 1

014 0 0 v-3

0 I 4 44. a Lu .uc c Ar4 r Q c 43 c +I a, A. NillMN 00 4 >'04 Ur r44 1Nk-

4- r4 r- 0 urI >

rq ar4 .0 > 0 r a. 4 1 4

0 0

4343

co 00Q 4 00(D0 C)000 00-4 000010014I0-44) (AU r 0 'i O O f)0 Lft)~I V)u~ trf0 Lt 00 00 00n l

>4 0 C )CV cnID C14 - CACNCf C 44 4 4 I' e

4) U) C 0 I I I II I II I II 0 0 1 I O1

44 44 0 -4

U) 4)U w a (I 00 I I I O I I o oml~ I 0-4 ~ICf) -0Lf ) -4

4 ) 000 0 0000 0 D o 0 D0 0 0aa l 1 0 C14' 0 0 N0 )OCf LI >\ 4-4 rU) 00000 --40~ 0'00 00CJC' f r I LCI) I m0C'0A Lf 0IL 4f i-4- f- ~ f

U) 4)I

4)

4 o (a1k

41 CU) kD 00C)0000 00CD0 00C)0 C)0D0m0 I 00 ( I UlO ISEn' 0- 0 000 00 o D 0 I 0 0OON L 1 00C I ru Lni

co 0 C)C) L bL'0% - 4 -4 .- A C 1r4 c'L L) -4 C' 4C14 U) %

00 4) ) .

'4-4

V) L/)

U) >1 U) I I I 1 0 4' I I II I II I I I 1 1 1 04) 0 1 1 0 1 0 ~ I0 1 10 Ut)Lfl I

. w

4a)

H0 V) 00 00 1 0 000 0 0CD0 0 0 a r-o 0 1 u1 1 anC

o - 0 ~ C CY) f OC' L) C'J CfJC-4 V)C'J'J' If C.J '4C

a) " )

r)- 4 ' D( n( ) C 0C )0C D0 0 0C CD 01 ( Ln Dl) 0 . D . L l0 .

0 z CA CA C C (1 Cl 4 0'CA C -,4- C N nmmmm NN

(/))

06

:j 0 C) 0 0(A 0 0' ko 04 ooo0Ooo co 10 .00, 1 0 1 1

0)~ Ln C1 C4 -4 4 -t004 4 \ r- a'0 a

0 0

>4 0 CO 0 r- 0 1 un C I 1 0 r- Iun C4 "0 r-4 r- C14 \0 00 00 0 4t m' m

al :3C aor

Ia. C1410 CA\0M04) *Lx

. 4 Q)

a) 0 0 0 0 0 000000' 000100010 Utf) aCO V)u 0 0 '0 \0 '0 00 000 I Lf) l) C> 0 00 af Lr4

co4)

0 ) 0~ 0 0 f n11\) 00c D0 0 "4- 0 0n 411r n0 f 0 0 0 0an .fa 0 Lt)o'o o'

.0 0 VL/) .4-4 LI) \Z aC m U~I)a1in aa4m60 Ln'

02

in N- IO (n4 a' 1 L

.(4

4Z() 0 0 00 000 N00-4 V 0 0 \0 0 o OOOC'1 I 1 01 1 0 01 ICO n1

440Ln' c4') .-4 LA) -4 V) V) 00 m I LI)~ Lt)

0 0 0l 0.' OA00LJ0 0 00 0 0OLI)0 0

o 0 l C4 C4 C4 Cl 4 Cl 4) Cl4C4)C) M 04 M C) C40CAlCn C

4).

-4

U)

f4-00

aca

CU) 4 4) ~ U0 w 0 (0 41 u~ D4 DC

0)1, 00 0a' .-4 - -4 -1-4 M4' 4 C4 .-4 Cf) I Cl- -4 4 CA M" C4 C4

44

47

4)U V) Q C)0 00 0 III0 I 0 00 0 'I

(1) (A I I 1 0r tffLf 0 0a a

CCd

00 10 ca a a> 0 In

it)Lr 4

;j ~ C)~ n 10 0a a a00 >4U V) J C- 1 1 U)r- 1'0 a a

0 r, V) Cf)O

d'-4

-d co C~ Cd (a~ ca c4) 0) L)~f I I -44 '10 i I I I I

4-I >-. C'JI1CA V I I I I I I. 0 ~ '

a) 0 r .'

0 l 0

42) 4) 0 0l1C' a0 a- a 1V ) Lf) I VI V)I LI) I I I0 ce) C' m' m

C14

0

0 u 0D I LI) 0~ 0 II440 'o a' -' a

- - D 0 0 00 0D a 00

V) U

r-4 Ud)

w) > 41

4JC1

-U4 U) caI)

0 V) )) I

5,4 "-Il C

48

0

+- "D. Bn '.0 I w N a B0W)n m%

6 Ryl n I m o I " I C'.I m -4mr " 0N C ' \D C-4 -4 -4 C1 -4- n 0 tV

V) 0-4

0

O'. CIB CA Mr- 1 '4 1 C) IC4 ' - 4-H w ) \D-. m' I CN m 0 .0 1 0D I C) C -4 0 0 C

*0 CNNC C) C4 -4 N -- 4

V)

00

4-)0

ca V)- - 44

0

-4 -

obc4) L)4)4-

4-4 ~0V) 0 '

-)

1 C1 Co4r 1 4C 0 o -1 1rj 1 1 B D -W) 0b -iet I I- H CDtC' Ct)N Il B m

r4 -4- -4 0C)-

00

V) 0y41)

P+

0

-4 4J N

r. C4C1 0 0 -W 4-IN

U)/

k~ 0 )'U'

00

-4f

49

0

caa 00 too I

64 C 4 -4 ) ) n I4i 4

(-4

w U2 0-- 0O \0 I 0\ I r- \0 m 4 a M M 4 -I .- C14 -0 4Cn -4 -4 0 m C4f M c') M

.0P I) C0 CD O0 41 ~ O Cf)I I-1 00In 04'

0' t- ' - C 'C.

0

~0 0

0) 4j

-r $4N 00' r 1 - MI0 0 () N r' -4 ce) 't -4 N4 -

L) L) ~ 0 4-

4--4

co -1 , \

4-.0 0

H 4 -1

0

4 P

-) $:(a .

0) .0 HC4

0 '50

0-)-

(aI 1 -1'I

U) 0

0 E. ,) 4- C

CO d) 4-)0

@II

bo ON- 41 J J

-M { - . I I r-

0 -1

: 0-- 44

004)

b. o

4- 0

0 o4 co

a).)

.00

0) 21 0

-H-r.) 4--4SI

-4-

M d)

0 0.

Ifl%6-4

S -4J

0 01-4 co-H

Wr 4- - ) -)4-4 I I)

4- 0 4

d) 00- 0)

04 0/ .40)~0 0 ~ -I m

54 .r4C~I51

0 03 0 c00 0 fq IL4 to 0- u 14

014 8 8 .. 1 4 4b 4. .4.% 5 r- 5 C41 144 4 c 4 42

94 41 M1 .9 4 4 a u054 a. 41 A8 L41u .4 '4'4 41 Uj ' r-4 X-5 4 5. .

4- 41- 39 M> .0.x0 0 .1 a g )0 V4' U0 4 X A~ 4 ~0 ~ ~ 0 - 4 1'..

-48 N 0~5 .4 m8 480 u4 M104 .46 4 55. 4A 4 4A 41 -A 41 -A

r.-4~ -441 0 Q N 0 54 1.~048

b ' ~ 0 4in 0 -4 N0

M N N to 0 04.4 G ) I II I I II4141~ ~ ~~ 100- N 00 -

0 094 a4

... 4I 0 CIA1 1 0 N N NZm 0

~41 0 >1 >10 .4 - r. c

414 0 -A N NA054

4A 0 0 00000 0 0 0 a

in

4.) .44 0 0 0 0 0

0A

1 40 0.4 48 #A48 u 141 N1 41 C5r4 0 0 0 0 0 N '54 LL. . 0 '. -p4'1p 410 A. 4&-4 r-1 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .54 0 &8 n

411 04I.

0 k 4.

P8 b C1I

93 -,C - -- - - -I. M. 2 _ _ _

'4 a

4A

41II

A 00

0 0

41

40.0 b% 0 - - 0 0

41 .4

I- 0410

"4

4152

a -4 a, , -O -n 0, a a

0

01

+ + + + +

0' 't~oo ON 0,io i e ~

I + + - +

0 O0- CO 0 - -- - -a ' G O4)E e 1 1 1 lIi II I IIIIII 1 I II0o I -.. l~' r- , 0 1 r- N wflrIN-N

4)4

AM 0%

5 1 1+ 1 + +'4j - 00 0 0 0' co ODOC C'AON. ol 0O.O I O 0,L c c oo l I la

A

4

U, -- - -- - -1 -

$441

00

th AU 0 t0- 4- A C

14 -i 4 U A I A A1 T

xU -o Or-4>1> 1 21 -

ILMM > ' 4m t

AU! A-I A C 4 c ct 0 0 A 1

0 ,

A. CL 0w4 w$464 6 14

00)4 4)

r- . > c 4

41 r 4' 0 0 AA4) 40 00 - 1 xr

-r4 4) AU 1,.4 r_ rz GU.

144 ) AUA .1 4 -

$4 14 A. a.

o 114 Uk 14 I 4' A.m u 4) 4) 0)

4) r' 0 40 0 0 4A .4bA 04 A A. o' -. . .4 k -4 -

4' m I a, >4 f 1-1 aidU >4> A1 3 -A 41 a3 ak'-4 114 A 14 AA. A

$4 01P

01 ... -. 5A

0

a11 lii 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 iIn

I I I I I Iol tAIrl Ck0 L Ir a i I l r n ,? 1 11, 11 1 l l

4)l C 10,o a, aO la0 1 1 18111101 a ii Co I iioII ,r

I->I

44 + + I ++.4 + +

'A 0 Im It I-. 1 I 44I I

-4 04 N

0 ~

bak

Jbb

4)

2 k

-41 4)

M0 4J0 2 1

'.4 40. ri. $ 4 .-a41 M bt 814 111l0> 1

A A 41 9 m 0 k t 4 1444k1AI4. 3 -4 4W bk SiQ

Si.S M .4 4. A 1414E 14 r414 4 W 1>4( 2t X u r4 A

C 0 84 0 w 014b 14A 41+4

040. 0 >i.1 4.u >4 .4. 14 014MA 0I .1A4A4 aIL4a 0 A~ 04 >4 mi 144) 0 I m aI a.G 4u '4 -P. A~C 1 m4 m 91 141414S 1v

M4 v4 P4 H 4 U. . ba ba 00 ) )mi m m 14 4-94 C14 Cl~ C*4 C A

OWiA'. 4.. C44,O~ C.1 4 A14A1A14m1o4 r. -A S2 ).4 0 44)D 1448 SL )44 IL04A IL a. A.~~ 1 m0

1. A' 0 i4 S .i4 . .S. gA.§0 4 A

A. A4A4A4.4.m.4 *-.4 14-A~S~I 'S . iSi A q SI M i f 4. 4 1. 1414 C4 CC CC 4 4)C > f m. m. m MA Si4 ii M4SiC.A.4C4)W')

Si4 0 .4 M ..4.A.41 c M A. A. 41 .AA 0 a 4 -C0 M )

Si44 4 -414 Siir~ -44. 0ia 1f 44. 4Jg~ .( .'.4 Si A C ASi'AAA .4 - A Si 4M t AMt %t t h i ,

M Si r4 4) 4 4 48 1W 4I. r - i k C .1 - 4.5 . 5-r o

U 4) U~0 N 1411 I.44 S.

C ) 4 . C r-4 .4 .~.r4 M a-4 1-4, -4*r-4 4 4.04 4 4 4-.4-4 C. aA4 4- 4. 0 Si 14 1 4444 14444ii Soii~~~~f

14 M4 S 4 4. 4444 4444... IA4.. '4 '. .. '. 0 R

.4 A14 4

514

0

2l l " 0 Itii4 4ie e

a b% i ee

444

OP,. 0 00 0 -

2c a 0ci

A 42IOK In I -0 44

o'40A - .4A

4b u

4 ~4 u4 0'64.if s I

a 40

C;C04 0 v

N 0 4 4)

c4 1s .

40. 44 Ag M I4A -IL a4 6 4 w

A.4 04 A b%14 > 444 I mi 0+0IsA4 vi 0P 4 3as A &A.4 9>.) as as040 r4 A 4) A4 0'41 ~ A .1 4b0s 41 A) ua aso 0 4). 4) 4b'4 44A tEC *. u 4 4 A 4 ->441)4 .4'.4.44 as4. 41C m4 as 4) .4 1.4 .4 a Q6 >1 4) 40)4A) 4 64 41 40 0 0 ) A 44 ol 4) ". A. :a as 11 k A. or "S C" 04)4) 00.A 0 A A 03to4 14C 2 41I Is155U

Table 11. Overall Performance Ratings for Coatingson Foam Aged Prior to Coating

Foam Age System 2: Moisture-Curing System 7: Neoprene-Before Coating Silicone Hypalon

I Hour 10a 'b 9+

3 Hours 10- 9+

24 Hours 10- 9+

48 Hours 10- 9+

72 Hours 9- 9+

9 Days 9+ 9+

aFor performance equivalents, see Footnote a to Table 10.

bAll panels were exposed for 10 years and 7 months at the seashore site.

56

4) -

co

140

u~ uco V)

Q) co

0~~ -4-

V0 k ;31d+-

1-4~ ~ 1- I 1

- bo 00 a, k, 0 > J

W 1-n bd 0ak0

k- -43 1-4u

U 0 00- k 0 > ) k-

+, a, a, 00 0oca 4J) u- U 0

rA -4 31 -4 0 0 1-

(3 0L0. 02SH r . P3 P: 04

03 0 12* 1

a, N4 uu u u~ u N *Nk

H~i H IH-H -H -H >%- PN- :34,-) -4 -4-4 -4 -4 -4 +j 4J)

41 ) a,(c vi car - C0U (nV) a, 4J *-4 4-)$~ 4 -) J-4>, C4 co 0 u o0 0

cn rlL)L)~ X

0-4 -j ElaCl

C1

5144

go

bt V

UJ U 1.11 u H

coIf

C/~ a, -57

00

0C-4 N I I II I I I I -

'4

V)V

04 4 00)0

"a U CA ac G I r - -4 0a 1 1~ 1o -4 N N a a D (Y aI 4 a a0 >

>

0

0) p) U - % 1

pp 0

0 N

(n0 0l

04 4)-020 u (n

.If0 040 4- ,4U - Ip) DL 1-4 l C)I44 0 4o 4A)400 1 A

(/0 0 ) -)C n

-4a ~ U a - ~ C

4) 4-)cr

-44

4) p(n -44

~~0HV

0~~ 0 l Q0 U o 0 -4 4

-4 .u -4

(II ~ 058

0a0

0' r, 1 a I a I I I I I I

~Ct I

0 4)

0)

4) 0c'eJ'CC-)

1 C440)

4-)

(1)

P--Cl) 4-4

44 0$4 .- ~C C~ a) a a

0) ) -4 a% CI- a1 a a aN

Cl 0) a'C C' c r'JL C'

-' I C) I<-4 1

44

0

0)Q

0)0))

C4420V)0)4)

V)) 4-V0)

4)I I 0 0) a a H a)

0 aa -a V) .1 =OI I 'L) CL' -4 (1)

Cr. 0

V)

U))

-4

41 4-) 0 . r44

C)~ -4 4 W4U

C/) '.-' H )~ 59

Table 14. Effects of Foam Densityon Coating Performance

System Foam Performance Ratings

Number Density Seashore Desert Mountain

4 2.0 10 9 8+4A 2.5 7 7 68 2.0 3 5 88A 2.5 9- 9 8+10 2.0 7 8 6

IA 2.5 2 --

12 2.0 9- 7 812A 2.5 9+ 9- 8+13 2.0 10 9+ 10

13AC 3.0 9- 8- 914 2.0 5 5 4

14A 2.5 3 8- 516A 2.0 10- 9- 9-

16AC 3.0 9+ 7 9-2 2.0 9 9+ 9+

2A 2.5 10- 9+

aPounds per cubic foot.

60

4)4 4) 4))4 a )4di ) 4) 0 ) 4) 4 4) mC a411 m1 0 000 1 0 . 11 ., 1a.4 0 0 40 041.A.'4) -4A A .0 .A .2L u u -4 A r4 A 4 r-4CU 94 -4 -4 r4 6441A >,14 41 r141 4 41 4 4) >, 41 > 4)> M a4 41 .10

AA 4 '4 4 '44 I .A >' AS ~ in in :3 P 4

4 N

0

4w

41

mC 1140 0 1111m0 11 0 0 11 0 ..4'4"40 10 10 '.AA.44) 1A4 4A A A u A C) C A '4 2 q 04 -4CA 4 4,-l 4 A4AA 4141 A- 041 44141'-A 1 -4 A. 41 M 0 >4 4AA44 >, M, 4 >, M4

4)) H-4 1.)-4 4 4 -4 4) A. .- 4 41 1 4) 41 IL41 a.4) '4

&I -A ~ A' A44. '4 '.4 S4 .'49

A4 la ~ N hi OD .. N, -l h N - .-0 m0 a' 414 ?AC c PA M )N PA N 04 10l. -

4) k

4b f

404 4) 4)4 )4J4 0 1-

CA in .)A.4

4. 4)

CL 4

U...

VU '.4 CC C Ci toC C- CO U 0, CQ w) C 0, '4, cc4>, 4 - N 0110 -'0. 000 0 N0 0I '0 00 '.4 VA.4. NO 4

0'1 4 -4) -

inA IL 1 '44.

.4~t 00411

4~~6 N NI. ' ~ 4 4

0m M

04~~ ~ ~ ~ A bS 4U -40___ rC 11A1 . I 414r

C 4414) 4) 4b C

A)4 4) \N m) 0 ) 4 ) 4 )

A-. .14 044- 4 A0 4 446 o co u, -cc a, c uLn o

11 41 4141414PA

0 4) 4 A

'.4t 4A~ .

11~ t. bb- . WNh N4 -4 Na.

r.r - - u r Af . E 41 .

NMP 41 41 'dN m 0 -A m N m*1 4aN A 0m W 0 0 0 0 0IL k t '4 -. 4 41 M -

41 4. 4) 4

.. C Co C CI

61 2

Table 16. Relative Importance of Physical Properties in CoatingSystem Performancea

System-Number Ranking of Each Physical Property From Table 15

From Table 12 Adhesion Absorption Impact Tensile Elongation

1G N.I.T.Tb N.I.T.T. N.I.T.T. Not Tested Not Tested2G N.I.T.T. 12 9 Not Tested Not Tested6 5 6 N.I.T.T. N.I.T.T. N.I.T.T.6G 6 N.I.T.T. 14 N.I.T.T. 1531 17 18 17 14 N.I.T.T.

24G 7 N.I.T.T. 18 Not Tested Not Tested36GC Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested N.I.T.T. 11

13 11 13 N.I.T.T. 1 618 12 N.I.T.T. 6 2 5

28G 2 Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested23 N.I.T.T. N.I.T.T. 3 Not Tested Not Tested

acorrelation between Tables 12 and 15.

bNot in top twenty ranking of the given property.

62

Figure 1. Experimental panels at seashore site, Port. Hienomp,California.

\ \t--AG

Figure 2. Experimental panels at desert site, NWC, Chinn Takp,California.

03

a. Summer

~no

h. W Irit or

Si giirn 3. Exper fmpiit id plin I n t moiiiit Iill F i to MCMWF(C, Pluo MoIow

Cn I i forr i n.

BB

Figure~~~~~~ 4. Devic fA eiirn aeo erdto fuca~ i~h

foam.

651

C-

C.

C-

c~c

E

C-

C-

-t

C

C-

x

C;1~-

shotretainingplug

release pin 5 ft lead shot

from specimen

1 in. steel ball - -

cut-away detail of impactor

cut out for air releaseand removal of impactor

: :. PUF specimen

plywood backing

Figure 6. Impact tester and weighted impactor.

67

"low.

I' t'Il't'I'I'l'I't'l'IIlI'IuIlHlw

a. Before exposure. b. After I year and 4 months.

.4

c. After 3 years and 3 months. d. After 5 years mid 7 months.

0. After 6 yenrs and 13 moiths.

Figure 7. Photomncrogrnphs for Systefm 1, cntnlyzod iliconp.

68

a. Before exposire. b. After 1 year and 3 months.

4k,."

c. Arter 3 years and 3 months. d. After 7 years and 10 months.

Figure S. Photomcrographs for Syrt. m 13, cat-alyzod urotlhano.

69

186

a.Before exposure. b . A fter I year mid 3 months.

S-

r.After 4 years-- aid 10 inoiflus. d. Aftor 6 veirs ind 8 months.

Fi gi re 9 Photomn: rog raphs S of Sys to 8m B n t 1yzed hti ty.v

70

1) Afe I~ o ll l

-o 4

Fi im I(. Pdrtv c-) -111 O

0.

U)

Q)

C0.

Q)

CCu

aD 0

U) /) _ 0

0 C)00

CN)

I .C 0

C UN

U )

C

00

-41

IN 0)LID

C0>--

0CV4

0.0

2)i 1EC CN

c CCu

W (N

CL)

27

Appendix A

FOAM AND COATING MATERIAL NAMES AND SOURCES

PUF MATERIAL

Priorietary Name Source

A. CPR Upjohn 485-2 (2 pcf) CPR Division, The Upjohn Co.B. CPR Upjohn 485-2.5 (2.5 pcf) (Now Dow Chemical USAC. CPR Upjohn 485-3 (3.0 pcf) Urethanes Department

Midland, Michigan 48674)Note: Dow Chemical nolonger markets sprayfoam systems.

D. FSC - 21 - (2.0 pcf) Foam Systems Co.E. FSC - 26 - 3 (3.0 pcf) Riverside, CA 92507FSC - 234 - 3 (3.0 pcf) (This company is no longer

in business.)

G. Isofoam SS - 00125A/00126B (3.0 pcf) Witco Chemical Corp.(Now Isocyanate Products Inc.900 Wilmington RoadNew Castle, DE 19720)

H. PDL Thermaster (2.0 pcf) Polymer DevelopmentLaboratories, Inc.212 W. Taft Ave.Orange, CA 92665

I. SWD - 525 (2.5 pcf) Southwest Distributing Co.P.O. Box 1422

Mesa, AZ 85201

J. Utah 125 - 4S (3.0 pcf) Utah Foam Products, Inc.527 So. 2165 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84104

K. Polyfoam 251 (2.5 pcf) Anchor Foam Systems, Inc.

Waukesha, WI 53187(This company is no longerin business.)

L. Brand of foam unknown

M. Carpenter C290 (3.0 pcf) Carpenter Insulation andCoatings Co.443 Bronz WayDallas, TX 75236

A-i

COATING MATERIALS

Coating System No. Source

1. Silicone weather coatings Silicone Products Department3308/W501C base coat, General Electric Companymedium gray Waterford, New York 12188 (A)*

3304/W3007C topcoat,cement gray

2. 3-5000 Construction Coating Dow Corning Corporation2G. Gray base coat Midland, Michigan 48640 (A)

White topcoat

3. U.S. Polymeric U.S. PolymericPC8105 butyl base coat Santa Ana, California 92707 (A)PC8204 hypalon topcoat (This company is no longer in

business)

4. Elastron United CoatingsElastron No. 858 butyl 1130 E. Sprague Ave.

base coat Spokane, Washington 99202 (A)Elastomir No. 35 hypalon

topcoat

5. Monolar mastic Foster DivisionNo. 6036 Amchem Products, Inc.

Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 (A)

6. Diathon United Coatings1130 E. Sprague Ave.Spokane, Washington 99202 (A)

7. Gaco-Flex Gates Engineering CompanyN118 neoprene base coat Wilmington, Delaware (A)H-10 hypalon topcoat

8. Vapalon Exxon Chemical Company USANo. 6126 Aluminum-gray 8230 Stedman Street(Coating no longer Houston, Texns 77029 (A)available)

9. Chem-Elast PlasChem Coatings5011 butyl base coat P.O. Box 1979095501 hypalon topcoat St. Louis, Missouri 63144 (A)

10. Roof-Flex CarbolineRoof-flex 156 Roofing Products Division

350 Hanley Industrial Ct.St. Louis, Missouri 63144 (A)

A-2

11. Elastomeric Roof Coating The FlintKote Company

83011 East Rutherford, NJ 07073 (A)

(This company is no longer

in business.)

12. GacoFlex Iypalon GacoWestern, Inc.

H2500 P.O. Box 88698Seattle, Washington q8188 (A)

13. Weather/Flex Plus Irathane Systems

Irathane 300 base coat Industrial Park

Irathane 394 topcoat Hibbing, Minnesota 55746 (A)

14. ElastoDeck Pacific Polymers

ElastoDeck 5001 15801 Moran Street

Unit F.

Westminster, California

42683 (A)

15. Alumination Republic Powdered Metals

Permaroof base coat 2628 Pearl Road

Alumination 301 topcoat Medina, Ohio 44256 (A)

16. Weather/Flex Irathane Systems

16A. Irathane 300 base coat Industrial Park

Irathane 157 topcoat Hibbing MN 55746 (A,C)

17. Roof-Flex Carboline, RoofingRoof-flex 145 base coat Products Division

Roof-flex 156 topcoat 350 Hanley Industrial CT

St. Louis, MO 63144 (G)

18. Gaco U-66 Gaco-Western, Inc.U - 66 base and topcoats P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 98188 (G)

19. 3-5000 Construction Coating Gaco-Western, Inc.

Gaco U - 66 base coat P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 98188White 3-5000 Constructlon Dow Corning CorporationCoating topcoat Midland, MI (G)

20. A-5400 Gaco-Western, Inc.

White base and topcoat P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 98188 (G)

21. Thorotherm Thoro System Products

White base and topcoat 7800 N.W. 38th St.

Miami, FT, 33166 (B)

A-3

220. H.E.R. Contech. SonnebornTan base and topcoat Roofing Products DivisionLight gray granules 711 Computor Ave.(Coating no longer Minneapolis, MN 55435 (G)available.)

23. 3-5000 Construction Coating Contech.SonnebornTan base coat Roofing Products Division

711 Computor Ave.Minneapolis, MN 55435

White 3-5000 Construction Dow Corning CorporationCoating topcoat Midland, MI 48640 (G)

24G. SWD Southwest Distributing Co.White SWD acrylic base and P.O. Box 1422topcoats Mesa, AZ 85201 (I)

25. Ureflex Foam Systems Co.Off-white Ureflex base coat Riverside, CA (D)White Ureflex topcoat (This company is no longer

in business.)

26G. Ureflex Foam Systems Co.

Off-white Ureflex base and Riverside, CA (D)topcoats with green granules (This company is no longer

in business.)

27. XB-5796 3MAluminum XB-5796 base and Adhesives and Sealerstopcoats (Coating no longer Divisionavailable) St. Paul, MN 55101 (L)

28G. XA5762/XG5724 3MGray XA5762 base coat and Adhesives and Sealersgray XG5724 topcoat with Divisiongreen granules (Coating St. Paul, MN 55101 (L)no longer available)

29. 3-5035 Construction Coating Dow Corning CorporationLight gray 3-5035 base and Midland, MI (G)topcoats (coating no longeravailable)

30. Liquid Boot ACIBlack liquid boot base Buena Park, CA (G)coat, white acrylic topcoat (This company is no longer

in business)

31. Acryflex Foam Systems Co.White Acryflex base and Riverside, CA (D)topcoats (This company is no longer

in business.)

A-4

32. Chem-Elast Chem-Elast Coatings, Inc.Green Chem-Elast acrylic P.O. Box 197909base and topcoat St. Louis, MO 63144 (D)

33. Hydrotherm ACIBrown Hydrotherm 2000 base Buena Park, CA (L)coats, white Hydrotherm topcoat (This company is no longer

in business.)

34. Hydrotherm ACIBrown Hydrotherm 2000 base Buena Park, CA (L)and topcoat (This company is no longer

in business.)

35GC. A-5400 Gaco-Western, Inc.White A-5400 base and topcoat P.O. Box 88698with gray granules Seattle, WA 98188 (J)

36GC. Rapid Roof Conklin Company, Inc.White Rapid Roof base and 4660 West 77th St.topcoats with granules Minneapolis, MN 55435 (B)

37. Elastroperm E-300 Coatings for IndustryAluminum Elastroperm E-300 319 Township Line Roadbase coat and white Elastroperm Souderton, PA 18964 (L)topcoat

38. Ureflex 100/200 Foam Systems Co.Brown Ureflex 100 Riverside, CA (E)base coats, and white (This company is no longerUreflex 200 topcoat in business.)

39. Tufcon Hutchison Roofing Co.Black fibrated asphalt base 7096 Broadwaycoat #10 grit granite embedded Lemon Grove, CA 92045 (I)in base coatWhite cementitious topcoat

40. Rimspray Polymer DevelopmentBrown Rimspray base coat Laboratories, Inc.White PDL topcoat (Coating 212 W. faft Ave.no longer available) Orange, CA 92665 (H)

41. Futura-Thane/Futura-flex Futura Coatings, Inc.Tan Futura-thane 524 base coat 9200 Latty Ave.White Futura-flex 550 topcoat Hazelwood, MO 63042 (L)

42. 1XF5761/PD5796 3MAluminum 1XF5796 base coat Adhesives and SealersAluminum PD5796 topcoat Division(Coatings no longer available) St. Paul, MN 55101 (L)

A-5

43. Sunshield Anchor Coatings, Inc.White Sunshield 790A 6016 [Now owned and operatedbase and topcoats by: Gaco-Western, Inc.

P.O. Box 88698Seattle, WA 98188 (K)]

44. Ure-base/Ure-cap Anchor Coatings, Inc.Light gray Ure-base 6001 [Now owned and operatedbase coat by: Gaco-Western, Inc.White Ure-cap 6000 topcoat P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 98188 (K)]

45. Ureflex 150/2001 Foam Systems Co.Brown Ureflex 150 base coat Riverside, CA (E)White Ureflex 2001 topcoat (This company is no longer

in business.)

46. Ure-base/Aro-shield Anchor Coatings, Inc.Light gray Ure-base 6001 [Now owned and operatedbase coat by: Gaco-Western, Inc.White Aro-shield 6002 topcoat P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 98188 (K)]

47. Armor-shield/Aro-shield Anchor Coatings, Inc.Black Armor-shield 7000 [Now owned and operatedbase coat by: Gaco-Western, Inc.White Aro-shield 6002 topcoat P.O. Box 88698

Seattle, WA 981.88 (K)]

48. Ure-shield Anchor Coatings, Inc.Aluminum Ure-shield 6006 [Now owned and operatedbase and topcoats by: Gaco-Western, Inc.

P.O. Box 88698Seattle, WA 98188 (K)]

49. Ure-shield/Ure-phatic Anchor Coatings, Inc.Aluminum Ure-shield 6006 [Now owned and operatedbase coat by: Gaco-Western, Inc.White Ure-phatic 6008 P.O. Box 88698topcoat Seattle, WA 98188 (K)I

50. Fiitura-thane/Ftitura- flex Futiira Coatings, Tnc.Brown Fitura-thann 5000 9200 Latty Ave.base coat Hazelwood, MO 63042 (L)White Futura-thane 5550 topcoat

51. Silicone 7850 The Neogard CorporationWhite silicone 7850 6900 Maple Ave.base and topcoats Dallas, TX 75235 (M)

A-6

52. Permathane TC FR The Neogard CorporationGray Permathane TC FR 70500 6900 Maple Ave.series base/intermediate coats Dallas, TX 75235 (M)White Permathane TC FR 70500series topcoat

53. Permathane TC A FR The Neogard CorporationGray Permathane TC A FR 70500 6900 Maple Ave.series base/intermediate coats Dallas, TX 75235 (M)White Aliphatic 7491/7955topcoat

54. Permatbane FR The Neogard CorporationBlack Permagard 7419 base and 6900 Maple Ave.intermediate coats Dallas, TX 75235 (M)White Permathane 7443 secondintermediate and topcoats

*The letter in parenthesis following the coating materials source and

address refers to the particular foam used with that coating systom(see listing of PUF material above). Where more than one foam wrS usedwith a particular coating system, all foams are listed.

A-7

Appendix B

INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

At the request of NCEL, field and laboratory tests were made on PUFpanels with selected coating systems supplied by NCEL.

Field Tests

Coated PUF panels were placed at the USBR laboratory exposure siteat Denver, Colorado and also at the Weld substation at Greeley, Colorado,which is an area frequently subjected to moderate hail. Results of thetests after exposure of 3 years at the Denver site and 1 year at theGreeley site are shown in Table B-1. USBR personnel did not use thesame performance evaluations as did NCEL personnel, so the results arestated by word descriptions.

Silicones. At the Denver site, System 2 showed poor adhesion andit was subjected to severe bird pecking. Its general condition wasfair. At the Greeley site, System 2 was also subjected to bird peckingbut had good adhesion. It should be noted that the panel at Greeley hadbeen there only 1 year.

At the Denver site, System 29 was also subjected to severe birdpecking, showed poor adhesion, and was in fair condition. At theGreeley site, System 29 had light pinholes, one bird peck, and pooradhesion.

Butyl-Hypalon. At the Denver site, System 9 exhibited many smallpinholes and showed minor hail damage and good adhesion. Its generalcondition was fair. System 29 showed severe pinholes, much craying, andfair adhesion.

Acrylics. System 6 had minor hall damage at the Denver site andfew pinholes. It showed fair adhesion and was in good condition. Atthe Greeley site, System 6 hns many pinholes, splits in the valleys, andfair to poor adhesion.

At the Denver site, Systpm 31 exhibited minor bird pecking, hadfair adhesion, and was in good condition. At the Greeley site,System 31 had very light surface pinholes and fair adhesion.

At the Denver site, System 35 showed small pinholes, moderatebird pecking, and good adhesion. It was considered to be in faircondition. At the Greeley site, System 35 showed many large pinholesand had fair adhesion.

Fibrated Aluminum-Asphalt. At the Denver site, System 15 had minorhail damage, and showed minor bird pecking and fair adhesion. It wasconsidered to be in poor condition. At the Greeley site, System 15 haddamage from small halistones but had good adhesion.

B-i

Urethanes. At the Denver site, System 13 showed small pinholes,slight hail damage, good adhesion, and was considered to be in goodcondition. At the Greeley site, System 13 exhibited pinholes in thevalley, one bird peck, and fair to poor adhesion.

System 38 had few pinholes and good adhesion at the Denver site.It was considered to be in excellent condition. At the Greeley site,System 38 showed light surface pinholes and good adhesion.

Laboratory Tests

The objective of the laboratory study was to determine the glasstransition temperature (T ) of each coating. The glass transitiontemperature is the temperature at which an elastomeric material becomesa brittle material. If an otherwise elastomeric coating should becomebrittle at a to-be-expected low temperature, it would be subject tocracking from either hailstones or foot traffic as well as temperaturecontractions.

Tests to determine T were done by the impact method and also byusing a Perkin-Elmer Diffdrential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC). T deter-mined by the DSC is much more precise than it is when determinedgby theimpact method. Not much work has been done to correlate the twomethods. T by the impact method would be determined by plotting theimpact strength of the material versus the temperature, over thetemperature range in question. The T would be the temperature at whichthe impact strength took a sudden droo, as shown in Figure B-1. Impactmethods have an inherent dependence on coating thickness, which issignificant in this study because the PUF coatings not only vary inthickness but also have hidden flaws. T by the DSC method has nodependence on coating thickness. g

Results are presented in Table B-2. The correlation between thetwo test methods is good with the exception of the silicones, whichis explained in the footnote.

B-2

0

a) c

nu

* 4U4

0:

B-K

k

1-44

V '4- U H a

0 q) •a) ',4- .4-4 (1% co

.•1 , N > a) 01-4 U) 0 0 -400-. 0 .00 , ) 4 r. 0 -1 4 4)

V, 0 0U000 a) 02- ,4~a

0 9 H 0.0 -) ,- ua0) 0 -H L) La A ca 0 'o ~

0.0 (1) '44 0 .- 4 0

u ~ ~ B4 a - co c o o o o o[- 1 0 9 .> ooO

0- u co 0 G)14U 0.Il. 0 1-4 C) 0o -40 -H 0 0

0 4-41- k 004- + 0 V) 0H 4-4w 010il -H -.00- 14 4 k. 1-::s 0 .0 r. p r~4 ~ 104 (120

U2 th 0- .), A 0HO-A-0 c 0 0 C)0 w 0.14 -4 a2)-- -41 -- - (a0 -14-) r.

flk (A)- 1U)) (12 0 0 Ud) ) >% ~ k0%()c V 4 a

V a 0 0 > 10 -H k. 0 .-'q 00i L) 0 *co 0 )V 10 10 0 -r-4 -qH"

V 0 0o X:~0 (0 4-4 P-0 0 4.44 4~a)

U 1 --H

0 a)0 00 1 -H -H - 0

V1) U W H En2 H(1 (2 ) a) -H a) -U -n

4- 0 0 -4 a) 10(12 0. v A 0 0 0 k k-0 Xa 0 H V -H 00 '-4 - r

UE w- H- 00 -) CO 0 0 r0 0-k k 0 co rA -r Po co 0 H,

k) 0-0 04-4 0. '0 4) A. 00 Eno- - .--o J-' ,a 0 0. 00 0

4) 0. 0. 0* O0 0~ 4J- .0>- U 4)04-4 -4-0 . a 0

0 .~-0 4-4 .0., )-4 0H 000 0o0. 04 b; H)~ 10 (A 00 n -4 -4x 0 0) Ln -- 000 ca) 0) .- 4U ) 0O

S- -q4) ) 0 4 . En 4) 0 -I~d0-W 0 0 0 4 V 10 ., 04J

4-4 a ) -) 0 • - - 0 0O H-'V r0 o) 0 -) co 0

P,00 .0 -H')0 H -H4 040 V0 .-- '-- -0- -V U0

0 4-104-- 0 H 400 0 0 0 0 )•-H . k -H -1 -40 '1 04t4 0 4-4 - 0 -

-H--H 0 -H )k V 0 r r.r.B-+Uo (d.0 0 0. H HgH 0 0-0 -H4 0 0

a)0 0 5-- .^ 0A A0 "00 -q 4 0-H HOO 4.--~ )0 u0w0 w) 0) cc u 0- a 04-'+ 0) -4

k- 1-i $014 1-4 -4 -Hi-H 1-HH .-4 0-H 0-4H)1a)14 (a', 0 $40 "a-4 V -*4 0V -4co 1 0)

-4 >-H >-H 9 .0-1.4 0 o u0 V u 0 u

(n (4-4U) 44 t 4-4 Z ko0U2l0. ~0. u2Vu 44)

4)-4

.a El1-4

e'J co) m' 1-4 -

000 H

0 u

HP 4H

01B-4

(n

0 ( 00 (a0c

>4 0 F% 0 Co cr-44 't

$4 00 0aC)O uo 0E D 0 000 00 Oro , U') LIC4

a)2 U) d) P o a% r-. v) 1 -4 4-1 41

>-4 0

4.J 4-4

U)0 f.4.10)0' .94 a. 4

go 00 m' a it) C c-jaON 0 LJnI~ 00a%u ) P o C0 co 1t-I C' J N %DI )4

1-4 a I1 4. 1 1'4 0 3 .- 4 0)

P 4J 4 O

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 14 0)) d) 0 4-)

cc ON m 00 a% C4 m -4 4J -4

0 C 'j-,- 0 0' rc:

-'-4

U) 14 U

V)0U 0 l) 0 N 4' 4o - a% 'n4-)'0U

01 41A CJ-4 c'-1 c'r4M C14 4r

-4 0-H-' P., 0 0O9 0 4.4 .0

in 4J1.4-4 ON 00 40 4"___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _

V) 4) 0-4 E

-4 003 4) .- 404-10 CAj 0% a' %D L LCI (cn 00 6

m2 w12 C14' m -4 '-4( 0) 00

4-1 0N1- .4 "0

-4)0d -4 0 1 0

1.4 4-1-4 01 E- 0

00 -'4 U)4 C 5H a-40A

k. >14J-'4x

00 A _- 0.

00 U 0.0 60 ca-

0d 0 -4 410 u r-4 -

-44J P4-d.

B-5

DISTRIBUTION LIST

3M CO / CRL, Anal (Luoma), St. Paul, MN ARMY ENGRG DIST/ Phila, Lib, Philadelphia. PAACEC RESEARCH / A.J. Willman, Washington, DC ARMY ENGRG DIV / ED-SY (Loyd), Huntsville, ALADSS / Phillips, Raleigh, NC ARMY ENGRG DIV I 1-NDED-SY, Huntsville, ALADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, INC I Ops Cen Mgr (Bednar), ARMY EWES / Lib, Vicksburg, MS

Camarillo, CA .,RMY EWES / WESCD (TW Richardson), Vicksburg, MSAF / 1004 SSG/DE, Onizuka AFB, CA ARMY EWES I WESCD-P (Melby), Vicksburg, MSAF / IS CESSIDEEEM, APO San Francisco, ARMY EWES / WESCW-D, Vicksburg, MSAF/ 438 ABO/DEE (Wilson), McGuire AFB, NJ ARMY EWES / WESGP-E, Vicksburg, MSAF/ 6550 ABG/DER, Patrick AFB, FL ARMY III IC / 7th ATC, Grafenwohr, GE, APO New York,

*AF / 92D CES/DCME, Fairchild AFB, WA ARMY L-MC / Ft. Lee, VAAF / AFIT/DET (Hudson), Wright-Patterson AFB, OHl ARMY MMVRC / DRXMR-SM (Lenoc), Watertown, MAAF / AFIT/DET, Wright Patterson AFB3, O11 ARMY MTMC / MTT-CE, Newport News, VAAF / Capt Holland, Saudia Arabia, APO New York, ARMY TRANS SCH / ATSP-CDM (Civilla), Fort Eustis, VA

*AF / CESIDEMC (Neal), Sheppard AFB, TX ARVID GRANT & ASSOC / Olympia, WAAF/ CSR 4200 (K. Davidson), Patrick AFB, FL ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO / RE Smith, Dallas, TXAF HIQ/ ESD/DEE, Hanscom AFB3, MA BABCOCK & WIL)COX CO / Tech Lib, Barberton, OHAF HQ / ESD/OCMS, Hanscom AFB, MA BALLSTATE UNIV / Arch Dept (Meden), Muncie, INAFB / 42 CES/DEMU (Dreschsel), Loring AFB, ME BATITELLE / D. Frink, Columbus, OHlAFB / 42 CES/Ready Officer, Loring AFB, ME BECHTEL CIVIL, INC/I Woolaton, San Francisco, CAAF-B / 82nd ABG/DEMCA, Williams AFB, AZ BLAYLOCK WILLIS & ASSOC / T Spencer, San Diego, CAAFB / HQ MACIDEEE, Scott AFB, IL BRADFORD ROOF MANAGEMENT / John Bradford, Billings, MTAFB I IIQ TAC/DEMM (Pollard), Langley AFB, VA BRANSTROM, L/ Ann Arbor, MIAFESC / DEB, Tyndall AFB, Fl, BROOKHAVEN NATL LAB / M. Steinberg. Upton, NYAFESC / DEMMIIus, Tyndall AFB, FL BROWN & ROOT/ Ward, Houston, TXAFESC / TIC Lib, TyndalI] AFB, FL BULLOCK, TE / La Canada, CAAFSC / DEEQ (P. Montoya), Peterson AFB, CO BUREAU OF RECLAMATION / D- 15 12 (GS DePuy), Denver. COAMERICAN CONCRETE / Lib, Detroit, MI C. W. GRIFFIN / Denville, NJAMERICAN SYS ENGRG CORP/ V. Williamson, Virginia Beach, CAL STATE UNIV / C.V. Chelapati, Long Beach, CA

VA CALIF MARITIME ACADEMY / Lib, San Ramon. CAAPPLIED SCI ASSOC, INC / White, Orlando, FL CALIFORNIA / Nay & Ocean Dev (Armstrong), Sacramento, CAAPPLIED SYSTEMS / R. Smith, Agana, CANNON CONSULTING & ENGINEERING CO. /Richard P.ARCHITECT, INC. / Felix L. George, San Diego, CA Cannon, Spatanburg, SCARC-rEC, INC / Ches Inatru Div, Tech Lib, Glen Bumnie, MD CBC / Code 10, Davisville, RIARIZONA STATE UNIV / Design Sci (Kroelinger), Tempe, AZ CBC / Code I5, Port Hueneme, CAARMY / 416th ENCOM, Akron Survey Tm, Akron, 011 CBC / Code 15 5, Port Hlueneme, CAARMY / CEIHSC-FU-N (Krajcwski), Ft. Belvoir, VA CDC I Code 430, Gulfport, MSARMY / Ch of Engrs, DAENJ-CWE-M, Washington, DC CBC / Code 470.2, Gulfport, MSARMY / Ch of Engrs, DAEN-MPU, Washington, DC CBC / PWVO (Code 400), Gulfpiort, MSARMY / FESA-EM4 (Kamey). Ft. Belvoir, VA CBC / PWO (Code 80), Port I lueneme, CAARMY / HIQ Europe Command, AEAEN-FE-U, Heidelberg, GE, CBC / PWVO. Davisville, RI

APO New York, CBC / Tech Lib, Gulfport MSARMY / I IQDA (DAEN -ZCM), Washington, DC CBCI/ Tech Lib, Davisville, RIARMY / Kwajalein Atoll, BMDSC-RKL-C, APO San Francisco. CBI INDUSTRIES, INC. / Coatings & Materials Research. Plainfield,ARMY / POJED-O, APO San Francisco, IIIARMY /R&D Cmd. STRNC-WSA (Kwoh Ilu), Natick, MA C13U / 40 1, OIC, Great Lakes, 11.ARMY BELVOIR R&D CEIN / STRDE-BLORE., Ft. Belvoir, VA CBU / 405, OIC, San Diego, CAARMY CECOM R&D TECHI LIBRARY / ASNC.EI.C-l-T, Ft CBU / 411, OIC Norfolk, VA

Monmouth, NJ CBU / 417, OIC, Oak Hlarbor. WAARMY CERL / CERI.-E.S (DL, Johnson), Champaign, 11, CHIAO, JC / Hlouston, TXARMY CERL /CERI.-FS (ILawrie).('hampa ign. 11. CI IEM CORP/ Dearborn Chem Div Lib, Lake Zurich. IL,ARMY CI-XI / CERXL-FSD (1) Chu), Champaign, 11. CI IIDS ENGRG CORP / K.M. Childs, Jr.. Medfield, MAARMY CI-RL / Lib, Champaign, IL. CITY OF AUSTIN / Gen Svcs Dept (Arnold), Austin. TXARMY CORPS OF ENGRS I A. A7ares, Sacramcnto, CA CITY OF LIVFERMORIE Dack ins. PE , Livermore, CAARMY CRREL / CRREL-IiA (Phetteplace), I lanover, NIl CITY OF NIONTIXREY /Const Mgr (Rcichmuth). Monterey. (CAARMY CRREI./ CRREL-EC (Flanders), Ilanover, Nil CL.ARK. T. / Redding, CAARMY CRREL / CRRLI-XG (Eaton), H~anover, Nil CLARKSON C'0l.. OF T ECH I CE Decpt, Potsdam. NYARMY ( RRF I./ Iskandar, Hlanover, Nil (1O 0IXDNO, Logs, OP.424C, Wash ington. DC'ARMY DEPO(T/ Letterkenny, SDSI.E-EF., Chambershurg, PA COASTAL SCI & I-NGRG / ('Jones, Columbia, SCARMY INIOT / Letterkenny, SDSI.IE-SF. Chambersbhirg, PA COGUARD R&D CEN / ~ib, Groton, (7ARMY EllA! / IISIIB-EA-S, Aberdeen Proving (,rou~nd, MD) COL.LINS INGRG, INC/ M* Gvarlich, Chicago, 11,ARMY 1:1lA / IISIB-EW, Aberdeen Proving Ground, NMI) C'OLORADO) STATE UNIV / ("[-Dept (Criswell), Ft. Collins. COARMY ENGRG DIST/ CNPS-EI)-SI), Seattle. WA COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION CO/I Engrng Lib, Hlouston, TXARMY ENGRG D)IST / ILih, Seattle, WA COM GI]NI-MF/ I.ANT. SCE, Norfolk, VAARMY ENGRG DIST/ Lib. Portland, OR COM GEiN I.MF / PAC, S('IAI (05i), Camp IIM Smith. IllARMY EN'GRG DIST/ IMVCO.AiBcntlcy. Vicksburg, MIS ('(M GUN F)URTIf MARDIV / Base Ops. New Orleans, IA

COMCBLANT/ Code S3T, Norfolk, VA GULATI, RIPU / Rockv ille, MDCOMDT COGUARD / Lib, Washington, DC HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. / T.C. Dunn, Cambridge, MACOMFLEACT / PWO, FPO Seattle, HANDLEY, DM1/ Gulf Breeze, FLCOMFLEACT / PWO, FPO Seattle, HARDY, S.P. / San Ramon, CACOMFLEACT / SCE, FPO Seattle, HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSP & INS CO / Spinelli, Harnford,COMNAVACT / G.T. Clifford, London, UK, FPO New York, CTCOMNAVACT / PWO, London, UK, FPO New York, HAYNES & ASSOC / H. Haynes, PE, Oakland, CACOMNAVAIR / Lant, Nuc Wpns Sec Offr, Norfolk, VA HAYNES, B /N Stonington, CTCOMNAVAIRSYSCOM / AIR-7 14, Washington, DC HLENRICO CO. GEN SVCS I .1W Warren, Richmond, VACOMNAVAIRSYSCOM / Code 422, Washington, DC HERONEMUS, W.E. / Amherst, MACOMNAVLOGPAC / Code 43 18, Pearl Harbor, III HIRSCH & CO / L Hirsch, San Diego, CACOMNAVMARIANAS / Code N4, FPO San Francisco, HQ AFESC/DE / Firman, Tyndall AFB, FLCOMNAVRESFOR / Code 08, New Orleans, LA IIUD/FHA / Office of Architecture and Engineering Standards,COMNAVRESFOR / Code 823, New Orleans, LA Washington, DCCOMNAVSUPPFORANTARCTICA / DEl', PWO, FPO San INSPEC, INC.I/ Jennings, Minneapolis, MN

Francisco, INST OF MARINE SCIENCES / Dir, Morehead City, NCCOMOCEANSYS / PAC, SCE, Pearl Harbor, HII INST OF MARINE SCIENCES / Lib, Port Aransas, TXCONSOER TOWNSEND & ASSOC / Schramm, Chicago, IL INSULATED ROOFING CONTRACTODRS / Irwin H. Stumler,CONTINENTAL OIL CO / 0. Maxson, Ponca City, OK Louisville, KYCORNELL UNIV / Civil & Environ Engrg, Ithaca, NY INTL MARITIME, INC/ D. Walsh, San Pedro, CACORNELL UNIV / ILib, Ithaca, NY IOWA STATE UNIV / Arch Dept (McKrown), Ames, IACORRIGAN, LCDR S./I USN, CEC, Stanford, CA IRE-I'ITD / Input Proc Dir (R. Danford), Eagan, NCOULTRAP CONSULTING SERVICES / Keith Coultrap, Tempe, JOh NSON CONTROLS, INC / Trug Dept. Milwaukee, WI

AZ JOUR OF DEF /C. Wallach, Ed, Canoga Park, CADAVY DRA VOl/ Wright, Pittsburg, PA KEENE STATE COLLEGE/I Dept of Science, Keene, NHDAY ZIMMERMAN/BASIL CORP/ Fitzgerald, Hlawthone, NV KING SAUD UNIV, RSCII CNTR / College of Engrg, Riyadh,DE PALMA, J R. / Picayune, MS KOSANOWSKY, S5/ Pond Eddy, NYDEPT OF LABOR /Job Corps, (Mann), Imperial Beach, CA LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATL LAB / FJ Tokarz, Livermore, CADEPT OF STATE / Foreign Bldgs Opt, BDE-ESII Arlington, VA LEHIIGHI UNIV / Linderman Library, Bethlehem, PADFSC / OWE, Alexandria, VA LEO A DALY CO / Honolulu, IIDILLINGHIAM CONSTR CORP / (IID&C), F Mcliale, Honolulu, 11I LEONARD STODLBA, ALA /P. BrinckerhofT, Sacramento, CADOD / DFSC-FE-, Alexandria, VA LIBRARY OF CONGRESS /Sci & Tech Div, Washington, DCDODDS / PAC, FAC, FPO Seattle, LIN OFFSHORE ENGRG / P. Chow, San Francisco, CADOE / Wind/Ocean Tech Div, Port Tobacco, MD LINDA HALL LIBRARY / Doe Dept, Kansas City, MODTICI/ Alexandria, VA LONG BEACH PORT/I Engrg Dir (Allen), Long Beach, CADTRCEN / Code 284, Annapolis, MD MAO / 16, CO, MCAS, Tustin, CADTRCEN / Code 4120, Annapolis, MD MAINE MARITIME ACADEMY / Lib, Castine, MEDTRCEN / Code 522, Annapolis, MD MALCOM LEWIS ASSOC ENGRS, INC / M. Clerx, Irvine, CADTRCEN / Commander, Bethesda, MD MARATIION OIL CO / Gamble, Houston, TXDTRCEN / Commander, Bethesda, MD MARBKS / Sec Offr, FPO San Francisco,DTRCEN / Commander, Bethesda,. 11) MARCORBASE I Code 4.0 1, Camp Pendleton, CADTRCEN / Commander, Belthesda, .AII MARCORBASE / Facilities Coordinator, Camp Pendleton, CADUKE UNIV /CE Dept (Muga), Durham, NC MARCORBASE / Maint Offr, Camp Pendleton, CADURI.ACI , O-NEAI.. JENKINS & ASSOC / Columbia, SC MARCORBASE / PAC, FE, FPO Seattle,EARL & WRIGHIT CONSULTING ENGRGS / Jensen, San MARCORBASE / PAC, PWO, FPO Seattle,

Francisco, CA MARCOR BASE / PWO, Camp Pendleton, CAELASTPORT INTI., INC / Jil Osborn, Mgr, Ventura, CA MARCORBASE / PWO, Camp Lejeune, NCED)WARD) K NODA & ASSOC/ Hlonolulu, III MARCORDIST / 12, Code 4, San Francisco, CAINERCOMP / Amistadi, Brunswick. ME MARCORPS / FIRST FSSG, Engr Supp Offr, Camp Pendleton, CAEPA / Reg ViII Lib, Denver, CO MARINE CONCRETE STRUCTURES, INC / W.A. Ingraham,ISCO SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS (ASIA) / I-IIE L.TD_, Singapore Metairie, LAEVAL.UATION ASSOC. INC / M.A. Fedele, King of Prussia, PA MARITECH ENGRG Donoghue, Austin, TXFAA / Code APM-740 (Tomita), Washington, DC MARITIME ADMIN /MMA, Lib, Kings Point, NYFACTORY MUTUAL ENGINEERING / Hlank ins, Charlotte, NC MARTIN MARIE17A ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC/ Or'k RidgeFIShEIR, R; Sdui Diego, CA National Laboratory, Oak RiFLIORIDA INST OFITECI / CE Dept (Kalajian). Melboume, IL, MC CLELLAND ENGRS, INC / Lib, H ouston, TXFOREST INST FOR OC'EAN & MTr/ ILib. Carson City, NV MC DERMO-17, INC/ E& M Div, New Orleans, LAFOWLERX, 1.W. / Virginia Beach, VA MCAS / Code I JE.50 (Meyer), Santa Ana, CAGARD) INC/ L.B Hlolmes. Niles, 1I, M1CAS /Code 6EI)I, FM Seattle,GDM & ASSOC, INC. / Fairbanks, AK MCAS / Code LCU, Cherry Point, NCGENERAL. DYNAMICS / D-443 (Leone), Croton. ur MCAS / 1:l Toro. Code I I D. Santa Ana. CAGLO)TECIINICA I, ENGRS, INC / Murdock. Winchester, MA MCIJI / Code 555, Albany, GAGIANNOITI & ASSOC. INC/ Annapolis. MD MCI.B / PWVC (Sachan), Barstow, CAGIIEP OIC, Corona. CA MCRI)AC / AROICC, Quantico, VAGID)IEN CO / Rsch Lib, Strongsville, Ofl MCRI)AC / M & L Div, Quantico, VAOOVERNOR'S ENERGY OFFICE / I lyland, Concord, NIlI MCRDAC / Meeh Engrg Mgr, Quantico, VAGoSA / Code Engrg Branch, Poll. Washington. DC' MCRDAC / NSAP Rep, Quantico, VAGSA / Code PCI)P. Washington. D)C MCRDAC / PWD, Quantico, VA

MERMEL, TW / Washington, DC NAVAVNDEPOT / Code 640, Pensacola, FLMICHIGAN TECH UNIV / CO Dept (Haas), Houghton, MI NAVCAMS I SCE, Wahiawa, HIMILLER, R.W. / San Diego, CA NAVCAMS / WESTPAC, SCE, FPO San Francisco.MISSOURI I Nat Res Dept. Energy Div, Jefferson City, MO NAVCOASTSYSCEN / CO, Panama City, FLMIT/ Engrg Lib, Cambridge, MA NAVCOASTSYSCEN / Code 2360, Panama City, FLMIT/ Lib, Tech Reports, Cambridge, MA NAVCOASTSYSCEN / Code 423, Panama City, FLMOBAY CORP-PLASTICS/ M. Kocak, Pittsburg, PA NAVCOASTSYSCEN / Code 715 (J. Mittleman), Panama City, FLMOBIL R&D Corp / Offshore Engrg Lib, Dallas, TX NAVCOASTSYSCEN / Tech Lib, Panama City, FLMOFFATI & NICHOL ENGRS / R. Palmer, Long Beach, CA NAVCOMM DET / MED, SCE, Sigonella, Italy, FPO New York,MT DAVISSON / CE, Savoy. IL NAVCOMMSTA / Code 401, Nea Makri, Greece, FPO New York,NAF / Dir, Engrg Div, PWD, FPO Seattle, NAVCOMMSTA / PWO, Thurso, UK, FPO New York,NAF/ PWO, FPO Seattle, NAVCONSTRACEN / Code B-I, Port Hueneme, CANALF/ OIC, San Diego, CA NAVCONSTRACEN / Code D2A, Port Hueneme, CANAS/ Chase Fld, Code 18300, Beeville, TX NAVCONSTRACEN / Code T12, Gulfport, MSNAS / Code 072E, Willow Grove, PA NAVEODTECHCEN / Tech Lib, Indian Head, MDNAS/ Code 163, Keflavik, Iceland, FPO New York, NAVFAC/ LANTDIV Code 102, Larry Hershi, Norfolk, VANAS/Code 183, Jacksonville, FL NAVFAC / LANTDIV Code 401, Les Toler, Norfolk, VANAS / Code 1833, Corpus Christi, TX NAVFAC / N62, Argentina, NF, FPO New York,NAS / Code 18700, Brunswick, ME NAVFAC / NORTttDIV Code 102A, Tom Wallace, Philadelphia, PANAS / Code 22, Patuxent River, MD NAVFAC / PACDIV Code 102, Minato, Pearl Harbor, HINAS / Code 6234 (C. Arnold), Point Mugu, CA NAVFAC / PWO, Oak Harbor, WANAS / Code 70, Marietta, GA NAVFAC / SOUTHDIV Code 102, Mark De Ogbum, Charleston, SCNAS / Code 725, Marietta, GA NAVFAC / WESTDIV Code 102, Robert Deaver, San Bruno, CANAS / Code 8, Patuxent River, MD NAVFACENGCOM / Code 03, Alexandria, VANAS / Code 83, Patuxent River, MD NAVFACENGCOM / Code 03T (Essoglou), Alexandria, VANAS / Fac Mgmt Offc, Alameda, CA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04A, Alexandria, VANAS / Lead CPO, PWD, Self Help Div, Beeville, TX NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04A 1, Alexandria, VANAS / Memphis, PWO, Millington, TN NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04A I D. Alexandria, VANAS / Miramar, Code 1821 A, San Diego, CA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04A3, Alexandria, VANAS / Miramar, PWO, San Diego, CA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04A3C, Alexandria, VANAS / Miramar, PWO, Code 187, San Diego, CA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 04B3, Alexandria, VANAS/ NI, Code 183, San Diego, CA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 05 1A, Alexandria, VANAS / P&E Supr, FPO Seattle, WA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 063 I, Alexandria, VANAS / PW Engrg, Patuxent River, MD NAVFACENGCOM I Code 083, Alexandria, VANAS / PWD Maint Div, New Orleans, LA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 09M1 24 (Lib), Alexandria, VANAS / PWO, FPO Seattle, WA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 1002B, Alexandria, VANAS / PWO, Cecil Field, FL NAVFACENGCOM/ Code 163, Alexandria, VANAS / PWO, New Orleans, LA NAVFACENGCOM / Code 1651, Alexandria, VANAS/ PWO, Willow Grove, PA NAVFACENGCOM CHESDIV / Code 112.1, Washington, DCNAS / PWO, Kingsville, TX NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / AROICC, Coleville, CANAS / PWO, Moffett Field, CA NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / AROICC, Quantico, VANAS / PWO, Bermuda, FPO New York, NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / Code 923, Everett, WANAS / PWO, Keflavik, Iceland, FPO New York, NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / DROICC, Lemoore, CANAS / PWO, Sigonella, Italy, FPO New York, NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / DROICC, Santa Ana, CANAS I Whidbey Is, PW-2, Oak Harbor, WA NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / North Bay, Code 1042.AA,NAS / Whiting Fd, PWO, Milton, FL Vallejo, CANASI Memphis, Dir, Engrg Div, Millington, TN NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / OICC, FPO San Francisco,NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS / Building Materials NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / OICC, FPO San Francisco,

Division, Gaithershurg. Md NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / OICC(ROICC, Virginia Beach,NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS / Robert Mathey, VA

Gaithersburg, MD NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / ROICC (Code 495),NATIONAL ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION / Robert Portsmouth, VA

Lacosse, Rosemont, IL NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / ROICC, Corpus Christi, TXNATL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES / NRC, Naval Studies Bd, NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS I ROICC, Jacksonville, FL

Washington, DC NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / ROICC, Twentynine Palms, CANAVAIRDEVCEN I Code 8323 Warminster, PA NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS/ ROICC, Crane, INNAVAIRENGCEN / PWO. Lakehurst, NJ NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / ROICC, Point Mugu, CANAVAIRPROPCEN / CO, Trenton, NJ NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / ROICC, Keflavik, Iceland, FONAVAIRTESTCEN / PWO, Patuxent River. MD New York.NAVAL ED & TRAIN CIN / Code 42, Newport, RI NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / SW PAC, OICC, APO SanNAVAL ED & TRAIN CFN / PWO, Newport, RI Francisco,NAVAL ED & TRAIN CEN / Util Dir, Newport, RI NAVFACENGCOM CONTRACTS / Trident. OICC, Saint Marys,NAVAL WAR COLLEGE / Code 24, Newport. RI GANAVAUDSVCIIQ / Dir. Falls Church, VA NAVFAC-NGCOM LANTDIV / BR OW. DIR, Naples, Italy, FIONAVAVIONICCEN / Code D-701, Indianapolis, IN New York,NAVAVIONICCEN / PWO, Indianapolis, IN NAVFACFNCCOM LANTDIV / Code 1112, Norfolk, VANAVAVNDEPOT/ Code 6 1000. Cherry Point, NC NAVFACINGCOM NORT1IDIV / CO. Philadelphia, PANAVAVNDEPOT/ Code 61000, Pensacola, FL NAVFACF2qGCOM NORTHIDIV / CO, Philadelphia, PA

NAVFACENGCOM NORTIDIV / Code 04, Philadelphia, PA NAVSHIPYD / Mare Is, Code 106.4, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM NORTItDIV / Code I i, Philadelphia, PA NAVSI IIPYD / Mare Is, Code 202.13, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM NORTIIDIV / Code 202.2, Philadelphia, PA NAVSItIPYD / Mare Is, Code 280, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM PACDIV / Code 09P, Pearl Harbor, II NAVSHIPYD / Mare Is, Code 401, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM PACDIV / Code 2011. Pearl Harbor, HI NAVSHIPYD / Mare Is, Code 457, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM SOUTHDIV / Code 04A3, Charleston, SC NAVSIIIPYD / Mare Is, PWO, Vallejo, CANAVFACENGCOM SOUTIIDIV / Code 0525, Charleston, SC NAVSiIIPYD / Norfolk, Code 380, Portsmouth, VANAVFACENGCOM SOUT1HDIV / Code 1021F, Charleston, SC NAVSIIIPYD/ PWO (Code 400), Long Beach, CANAVFACENGCOM SOUTIIDIV / Code 10211, Charleston, SC NAVSIIIPYD/ PWO, Bremerton, WANAVFACENGCOM SOUTHDIV / Code 4023, Charleston, SC NAVSIHIPYD / Tech Lib, Portsmouth, NHNAVFACENGCOM SOUTHDIV / Code 405, Charleston, SC NAVSTA / A. Sugihara, Pearl Harbor, IIINAVFACENGCOM SOUTIIDIV / Code 406, Charleston, SC NAVSTA / CO, Long Beach, CANAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 04A2.2 Lib, San Bruno, CA NAVSTA / CO, FPO Miami,NAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 04B, San Bruno, CA NAVSTA / CO, Brooklyn,, NYNAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 09B, San Bruno, CA NAVSTA / Code 4216, Mayport, FLNAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 0911/20, San Bruno, CA NAVSTA / Code 423, Norfolk, VANAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 102, San Bruno, CA NAVSTA / Code N4214, Mayport, FLNAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 403.2 (Kelly), San Bruno, NAVSTA / Engrg Dir, PWD, Rota, Spain, FPO New York,

CA NAVSTA / PWO, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, FPO New York,NAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 406.2 (Smith), San Bruno, NAVSTA / PWO, Rota, Spain, FPO New York,

CA NAVSTA / Util Engrg Offr, Rota, Spain, FPO New York,NAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / Code 408.2 (Jeung), San Bruno, NAVSTA/ Code 423, FPO Norfolk, VA

CA NAVSUPPACT/ CO. Naples, Italy, FP0 New York,NAVFACENGCOM WESTDIV / PAC NW Br Offc, Code C42, NAVSUPPFAC / Contract Admin Tech Lib, FPO San Francisco,

Silverdale, WA NAVSUPPO / Sec Offr, La Maddalena, Italy, FPO New York,NAVFUEL DETI OIC, FO Seattle, NAVSUPSYSCOM/ Code 0622, Washington, DCNAVIOSP/ CO, Millington, TN NAVSWC/Code E21 i (Miller), Dahlgren, VANAVIIOSP/ lid, Fac Mgmt, Camp Pendleton, CA NAVSWC/ Code G-34, Dahlgren, VANAVIIOSP / PWO, FPO Seattle, WA NAVSWC/ Code W41CI, Dahlgren, VANAVIIOSP/ ROICC Offc (Watson), Beaufort, SC NAVSWC/ Code W42 (GS Haga), Dahlgren, VANAVIIOSP / SCE (Knapowski), Great Lakes, IL NAVSWC / DET, White Oak Lab, Code W50, Silver Spring, MDNAVIIOSP / SCE, FF0 San Francisco, NAVUSEAWARENGSTA / Code 073, Keyport, WANAVHOSP/ SCE, Newport, RI NAVWPNCEN / AROICC, China Lake, CANAVJ1OSP / SCE, FPO Seattle, NAVWPNCFN / Code 2634, China Iake, CANAVMAG / SCE, FPO San Francisco, NAVWPNCEN / Code 2637, China Lake, CANAVMARCORESCEN I LTJG Davis, Raleigh, NC NAVWPNSTA / PWO, Yorktown, VANAVMEDCOM / NWREG, Fac Engr, PWD, Oakland, CA NAVWPNSTA EARLE / Code 092, Colts Neck, NJNAVMEDCOM/ PACREG, Code 22, Barbers Point, I NAVWPNSTA EARLE/ PWD (Lengyel), Colts Neck, NJNAVMEDCOM / SCE, Jacksonville, FL NAVWPNSTA EARLE/ PWO (Code 09B), Colts Neck, NJNAVMEDCOM / SWREG, Code 35, San Diego, CA NBS / Bldg Mat Div, Mathey, Gaithersburg, MDNAVMEDCOM / SWREG, SCE, San Diego, CA NBS / Bldg Tech, McKnight, Gaithersburg, MDNAVMEDRSCIIINSTITUTE / Code 47, Bethesda, MD NCR / 20, CO, Gulfport, MSNAVOCEANCOMCEN / Code EES, FPO San Francisco, NCR / 20, Code R70, Gulfport, MSNAVOCEANO / Code 6200 (M Paige), NSTI, MS NEASE, A.D., JR / Panama City, FLNAVOCEANO / Lib, NSTI., MS NEESA / Code III E (McClaine). Port Hueneme, CANAVOCEANSYSCEN / Code 9642B, San Diego, CA NEESA / Code 11 3M2, Port Hueneme, CANAVORDSTA / Code 0922B 1, Indian I lead, MD NETPMSA / Tech Lib, Pensacola, FLNAVPETOFF/ Sec Offr (Code 20), Alexandria, VA NEW MEXICO SOLAR ENERGY INST / Dr. Zwibel, Las Cruces,NAVPETRES / Dir, Washington, DC NMNAVPGSCOL / Code 1424, Lib, Monterey, CA NEW YORK STATE MARITIME COLLEGE / Longobardi, Bronx,NAVPGSCOL / Code 68WY (Wyland), Monterey, CA NYNAVSEASYSCOM / Code 05M3, Washington, DC NMCB / 3, Ops Offr, FPO San Francisco,NAVSECGRU / Code G43, Washington, DC NMCB / 40, CO, FPO San Francisco,NAVSECGRUACT / CO, FPO Miami, NMCB / 5, Ops Dept, FPO San Francisco,NAVSECGRUACT / PWO (Code 40), Edell, Scotland, F0 New NMCB/ 74, CO, FPO Miami,

York, NOAA / Joseph Vadus, Rockville, MDNAVSECGRUACT/ PWO, FPO Miami, NOAA / Lib, Rockville, MDNAVSECSTA / Code 60, Washington. DC NORDA / Code 112 ISP, NSTL, MSNAVSIIIPREPFACI SCE, O Seattle, NORDA / Code 352, NSTL, MSNAVSIIIPYD/ Carr Inlet Acoustic Range, Bremerton, WA NORTIIDIV CONTRACTS OI11ICE I ROICC, Colts Neck, NJNAVSIIIPYD/ CO, Philadelphia, PA NORTIIWESTERN UNIV / CE Dept (I)owding), Evanston, II.NAVSIIIPYD/ Code 134, Pearl Harbor, III NRI./Code 251 lWashington, DCNAVSIIIPYD / Code 202.4, Long Beach, CA NRL I Code 2530.1, Washington, IX"NAVSIIIPYD / Code 202.5 Lib, Bremerton, WA NRI / Code 6123, Washington, ICNAVSIIPYD/Code 308.05, Pearl Harbor III NRL/ Code 6127, Washington, DCNAVSHIPYD/Code 308.3. Pearl larbor, Ill NSC /Code 43, Oakland, CANAVSIIIPYD/ Code 382.3, Pearl Harbor, III NSC / Code 700, Norfolk, VANAVSIIIPYI) / Code 443, Bremerton, WA NSC / PWO, Williamsburg, VA

NSC I SCE, Norfolk, VA QUIRK, J / Panama City, FLNUHN & ASSOC/ A.C. Nuhn, Wayzata, NM RADIANT EQUIP CO / Amo, San Andreas, CANUSC DET /Code 2143 (Varley), New London, CT ROBERT LYONS / Houston, TXNUSC DET / Code 3322 (Brown), New London, CT ROOF CONSULTANTS INSTITUTE / William Correll, Raliegh, NCNUSC DET / Code 44 (Munn), New London, CT ROOF INDUSTRY CONSULTANT / James E. Magowan, Dublin,NUSC DETI Code 5202 (Schady) New London, CT CANUSC DET I Code TA 131, New London, CT ROOFING INDUSTRY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE / Fricklas,NUSC DETI Lib, Newport, RI Englewood, CO 80112NY CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE/ Lib, Brooklyn, NY ROOFING MATERIALS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY / Laaly,OCNR / Code 1114SE, Arlington, VA Los Angeles, CAOCNR I Code 1121 (EA Silva), Arlington, VA SAN DIEGO STATE UNIV /CE Dept (Noorany), San Diego, CAOCNR / Code 1234, Arlington, VA SCIENCE APPS INTL CORP/ /Alexandria, VAOCNR / NRL (Prout), Alexandria, VA SEATTLE PORT / W Ritchie, Seattle, WAOFFICE OF SEC OF DEFENSE / OASD (P&L)E, Washington, DC SEATTLE UNIV / CE Dept (Schwaegler), Seattle, WAOREGON STATE UNIV / CE Dept (Hicks), Corvallis, OR SHIVE-HATIERY ENGINEERS INC. / George Kanz, P.E., CedarOREGON STATE UNIV / CE Dept (Yim), Corvallis, OR Rapids, IAOREGON STATE UNIV / Oceanography Scol, Corvallis, OR SIMPSON, GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC / Hill, Arlington, MAPACIFIC MARINE TECH I M. Wagner, Duvall, WA SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUCTRY, INC/ PolyurethanePADILLA, LM. / Oxnard, CA Foam Constractors WashPAULI, DC / Silver Springs, MD SOUTHWEST RSCH INST / M. Polcyn, San Antonio, TX

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV / Rsch Lab, State College, PA SPCC/ PWO, Mechanicsburg,, PAPETERSEN, CAPT N.W. / Pleasanton, CA SPIELVOGEL, L ! Wyncote, PAPHIBCB / 1, CO, San Diego, CA SRI INTL/ J.L. J.nes, Chem Engr Lab, Menlo Pl:rk, CAPHIBCB / 1, P&E, San Diego, CA STATE HOUSE / Off. of Energy Resources, Augusta, MEPHIBCB TWO / CO, Norfolk, VA S"ATE OF CONNECTICUT / Energy Div, Hartford, CTPHILADELPHIA ELEC CO / E. D. Freas, West Chester, PA STATE UNIV OF NEW YORK / CE Dept, Buffalo, NYPILE BUCK, INC / Smoot, Jupiter, FL STATE UNIV OF NEW YORK / CE Dept, Buffalo, NYPMTC / Code 5041, Point Mugu, CA STATE UNIV OF NEW YORK / Physio Dept, Buffalo, NYPRESNELL ASSOC, INC / DG Presnell, Jr, Louisville, KY STEPHENS, KNIGHT & SHERIDAN, INC. / Ralph Knight.PURDUE UNIV I Engrg Lib, West Lafayette, IN Cincinnati, OHPWC / ACE Office, Norfolk, VA STEVENS, TW / Dayton, 011PWC / CO, Oakland, CA SUBASE I Bangor, PWO (Code 8323), Bremerton, WAPWC / Code 10, Oakland, CA SUPSHIP I Tech Lib, Newport News, VAPWC / Code 101, Great Lakes, IL TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY / Engrg Dept (Schrader), Tampa, FLPWC / Code 1011, Pearl Harbor, HI TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION / K Willinger, Washington, DCPWC / Code 102, Oakland, CA TENNESSEE TECH UNIV / T. Lundy, Cookeville, TNPWC / Code 110, Oakland, CA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY / W4-Cl 43, Knoxville, TNPWC / Code 30, Great Lakes, IL TEXAS A&I UNIV / Civil & Mech Engr Dept (Parate), Kingsville,PWC / Code 400, Great Lakes, IL TXPWC / Code 400, FPO San Francisco, TEXAS A&M UNIV / CE Dept (Herbich), College Station, TXPWC / Code 400, San Diego, CA TEXAS A&M UNIV / CE Dept (Machemehl), College Station, TXPWC / Code 400, Pearl Harbor, H I TEXAS A&M UNIV / Energy Tmg Div (Donaldson), Houston, TXPWC / Code 400, Oakland, CA TEXAS A&M UNIV / Ocean Engr Proj, College Station, TXPWC / Code 412, San Diego, CA TEXAS ENERGY ENGRS, INC/ JA Nickerson, Houston, TXPWC/ Code 420, Oakland. CA TEXTRON, INC / Rsch Cen Lib, Buffalo, NYPWC / Code 420B (Waid), FPO San Francisco, TIlE KLING-LINDQUIST, INC/ Radwan, Philadelphia, PAPWC / Code 421 (Kaya), Pearl Harbor, III TREMCO, INC / M. Raymond, Cleveland, OHPWC / Code 421 (Quin), San Diego, CA TRW INC / Dai, San Bernardino, CAPWC I Code 421 (Reynolds), San Diego, CA TRW INC / Rodgers, Redondo Beach, CAPWC / Code 422, San Diego, CA U S NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER / Code 512 Lee Williams,PWC/ Code 423, San Diego, CA FPO San Francisco,PWC / Code 423/KJF, Norfolk, VA '3 S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION I Bernard V. Jones, Denver, COPWC / Code 430 (Kyi), Pearl Harbor, II UCT / TWO, CO, Port Hueneme, CAPWC / Code 4450A (T. Ramon), Pensacola, UCT ONE / CO. Norfolk, VAPWC/ Code 50, Pensacola, FL UNITED TECHNOLOGIES / Lib, Windsor Locks, CTPWC / Code 500, Oakland, CA UNIV OF ALABAMA I Dir Fac Mgmt (Baker), Birmingham, ALPWC / Code 500, Great Lakes, IL UNIV OF CALIFORNIA / CE Dept (Foumey), Los Angeles, CAPWC / Code 505A, Oakland, CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA / CE Dept (Gerwick), Berkeley, CAPWC/ Code 590, San Diego, CA UNIV OF CALIFORNIA / CE Dept (Taylor), Davis. CAPWC I Code 600, Great Lakes, IL UNIV OF CALIFORNIA / Marine Rsrs Inst (Spiess), LaJolla, CAPWC I Code 610, San Diego, CA UNIV OF DELAWARE / Engrg Col (Dexter), Lewes, DEPWC/ Code 612, Pearl Harbor, II1 UNIV OF FLORIDA / Arch Dept (M,rg.... ,,v Fl.PWC / Code 614, San Diego, CA UNIV OF HARTFORD / CE Dept (Keshawarz), West Hartford, C71PWC / Code 615, FPO San Francisco, UNIV OF IAWAII / Manoa, Lib, Honolulu, IIIPWC/ Code 700. San Diego, CA UNIV OF HAWAII / Ocean Engrg Dept (Ertekin), Honolulu, IIIPWC / Code 700, Great Lakes, I1 UNIV OF ILLINOIS / Arch Scol (Kim), Champaign, ILPWC / Lib, FPO San Francisco, UNIV OF ILLINOIS / Lib, Urbana, ILPWC/ Util Dept (R Pascua), Pearl Harbor, III UNIV OF ILIJNOIS I Metz Rcf Rm. Urbana, IL

UNIV OF ILLINOIS / Prof. Brotherson, Champaign, ILUNIV OF NEBRASKA/Polar Ice Coring Office, Lincoln, NEUNIV OF NEW MEXICO / NMERI (Leigh), Albuquerque, NMUNIV OF RHODE ISLAND / CE Dept. Kingston, RIUNIV OF TEXAS / CE Dept (Thompson), Austin, TXUNIV OF TEXAS / Construction Industry Inst, Austin, TXUNIV OF TEXAS / ECJ 4.8 (Breen), Austin, TXUNIV OF TEXAS I ECJ 5.402 (Tucker), Austin, TXUNIV OF WASHINGTON / Applied Phy Lab Lib, Seattle, WAUNIV OF WASHINGTON / CE Dept (Mattock), Seattle, WAUNIV OF WEST INDIES I Mech Engrg Dept. St Augustine, TrinidadUNIV OF WISCONSIN / Great Lakes Studies Cen, Milwaukee, WUS DEPT OF INTERIOR / BLM, Engrg Div (730), Washington, DCUSACERL / David Bailey, Champaign, ILUSACRREL/ Korhonen, Hanover, NHUSACRREL / Marvin, Hanover, NHUSACRREL/ Wayne Tobiasson, Hanover, NHUSAF RGNHOSP/ SGPM, Fairchild AFB, WAUSAFESA / Housing, Buildings, and Grounds Division, Ft. Belvoir,

VAUSCINCPAC / Code J44, Camp HM Smith, HIUSDA / Ext Serv, T. Maher, Washington, DCUSDA / For Svc Reg 8, (Bowers), Atlanta, GAUSDA / For Svc, Reg Bridge Engr, Aloha, ORUSDA / Forest Prod Lab (Johnson), Madison, WIUSDA / Forest Svc, Wasnington, DCUSNA / Ch, Mech Engrg Dept (C Wu), Annapolis, MDUSNA I Mech Engrg Dept (Power), Annapolis, MDUSNA I Mech Engrg Dept. Annapolis, MDUSNA / PWO, Annapolis, MDUSNA / Sys Engrg, Annapolis, MDVAN ALLEN, B / Kingston, NYVENTURA COUNTY / Deputy PW Dir, Ventura, CAVENTURA COUNTY I PWA (Brownie), Ventura, CAVERNON KUEHN / Lakewood, COVULCAN IRON WORKS, INC / DC Warrington, Chattanooga, INWASHINGTON / DHHS, OFEPHS (Ishihara), Seattle, WAWESTERN ARCHEOLOGICAL CEN / Lib, Tucson, AZWESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP / Lib, Pittsburg, PAWISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER, & ASSOC / DW Pfeifer, Northbrook, ILWISWELL, INC. / Wiswell, Southport, CTWOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS / R. Cross, Oakland, CAWOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS / West Reg, Lib, Oakland,

CAWORCESTER POLYTECH INST / J.M. Sullivan, Worcester, MAYOUTSEY, DJ / Kansas City, KS

INSTRUCTIONS

The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has revised its primary distribution lists. The bottom of thelabel on the reverse side has several numbers listed. These numbers correspond to numbers assigned to

the list of Subject Categories. Numbers on the label corresponding to those on the list indicate the

subject category and type of documents you are presently r.ceiving. If you are satisfied, throw this card

away (or file it for later reference).

If you want to change what you are presently receiving:

" Delete - mark off number on bottom of label.

* Add - circle number on list.

" Remove my name from all your lists - check box on list.

" Change my address - line out incorrect line and write in correction (DO NOT REMOVE LABEL).

" Number of copies should be entered after the title of the subject categories you select.

Fold on line below and drop in the mail.

Note: Numbers on label but not listed on questionnaire are for NCEL use only, please Ignore them.

Fold on line and staple.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYIINaval Civil Engineering LaboratoryPort Hueneme, CA 93043-5003 NO POSTAGE

Official Business NECESSARYPenalty for Private Use. $300 IF MAILEDINl THE

UNITED STATES

BUSINESS REPLY CARDLIiTHFIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 69

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSE

Commanding OfficerCode L34Naval Civil Engiiieering LaboratoryPort Hueneme, California 93043-5003

DISTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIREThe Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Is revising Its Primary distribution lists.

SUBJECT CATEGORIES 28 ENERGY/POWER GENERATION29 Thermal conservation (thermal engineering of buildings. HVAC

I SHORE FACILITIES systems, energy loss measurement, power generation)2 Construction methods and materials (including corrosion 30 Controls and electrical conservation (electrical systems.

control, coatings) energy monitoring and control systems)3 Waterfront structures (maintenance/deterioration control) 31 Fuel flexibility (liquid fuels, coal utilization, energy4 Utilities (including power conditioning) from solid waste)5 Explosives safety 32 Alternate energy source (geothermal power, photovoltaic6 Aviation Engineering Test Facilities power systems, solar systems, wind systems, energy storage7 Fire prevention and control systems)8 Antenna technology 33 Site data and systems integration (energy resource data,9 Structural analysis and design (including humerical and energy consumption data. integrating energy systems)

computer techniques) 34 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION10 Protective construction (including hardened shelters, 35 Solid waste management

shock and vibration studies) 36 Hazardous/toxic materials management11 Soil/rock mechanics 37 Waste water management and sanitary engineering14 Airfields and pavements 38 Oil pollution removal and recovery

39 Air pollution15 ADVANCED BASE AND AMPHIBIOUS FACILITIES16 Base facilities (including shelters, power generation, water 44 OCEAN ENGINEERING

supplies) 45 Seafloor soils and foundations17 Expedient roads/airfields/bridges 46 Seafloor construction systems and operations (including18 Amphibious operations (including breakwaters, wave forces) diver and manipulator tools)19 Over-the-Beach operations (including containerization, 47 Undersea structures and materials

materiel transfer, lighterage and cranes) 48 Anchors and moorings20 POL storage, transfer and distribution 49 Undersea power systems. electromechanical cables.

and connectors50 Pressure vessel facilities51 Physical environment (including site surveying)52 Ocean-based concrete structures54 Undersea cable dynamics

TYPES OF DOCUMENTS85 Techdata Sheets 86 Technical Reports and Technical Notes 82 NCEL Guides& Abstracts l None-83 Table of Contents & Index to TDS 91 Physical Security remove my name

NCEL DOCUMENT EVALUATION

You are number one with us; how do we rate with you?

We at NCEL want to provide you our customer the best possible reports but we need your help. Therefore, I ask youto please take the time from your busy schedule to fill out this questionnaire. Your response will assist us in providingthe best reports possible for our users. I wish to thank you in advance for your assistance. I assure you that theinformation you provide will help us to be more responsive to your future needs.

R. N. STORER, Ph.D, P.E.Technical Director

DOCUMENT NO. TITLE OF DOCUMENT:

Date: Respondent Organization:

Name: Activity Code:Phone: Grade/Rank.

Category (please check):

Sponsor - User Proponent _ Other (Specify)

Please answer on your behalf only; not on your organization's. Please check (use an X) only the block that most closelydescribes your attitude or feeling toward that statement:

SA Strongly Agree A Agree 0 Neutral D Disagree SD Strongly Disagree

SA A N D SD SA A N D SD

1. The technical quality of the report () () () () () 6. The conclusions and reconunenda- () () ( ) (is comparable to most of my other tions are clear and directly sup-sources of technical information, ported by the contents of the

report.2. The report will make significant ( ) ( ) ( ) () ()

improvements in the cost and or 7. The graphics, tables, and photo- ( ) ( ) ( ) (performance of my operation. graphs are well done.

3. The report acknowledges relatedwork accomplished by others. Do you wish to continue getting i-i m

4. The report is well formatted. () () () NCEL reports? YES NO

Please add any comments (e.g., in what ways can we5. The report is clearly written. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) improve the quality of our reports?) on the back of this

form.

Comments:

Plee fold on line and stale

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNaval CI Engineering LaboratoryPort Hueneme. CA 93043-5003

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Uso $300

Code L038NAVAL CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORYPORT HUENEME, CA 93043-5003