Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 2017
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Abstract .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Abstract
What are the effect of different curing time, curing temperature and effect of water on
mechanical properties of coating material?
1.3 Objectives
The experiment is designed to improve understanding on the concept of coating adhesion. The
objectives of the experiment are:
1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Coatings
In general, coating is a protective layer that is applied to the surface of an object which may be
for decorative or protective purposes (Tator, 2015). The coating itself may be an all-over
coating, completely covering the substrate, or it may only cover parts of the substrate. Tator
(2015) mentioned that coatings also provide light reflectivity, camouflage surfaces, reflect and
absorb heat. Examples of coatings include product label on many drink bottles, non-stick
PTFE-coated cooking pans and epoxy-coated pipelines.
The bond performance of coating to substrate is related to adhesive strength and cohesive
strength. Savage (2005) defined adhesive strength as the force required to pull substrates apart
from each other that is held by adhesive while cohesive strength which is developed during
curing process refers to the forces of attraction that hold the particles together in an adhesive
structure (Adhesion/Cohesion Theory, n.d.). Adhesion usually determines the lifespan of the
paint system. Low adhesion at the coating substrate interface can results in blisters forming at
the interface or even lifting of the paint film (Tator, 2015).
According to Tator (2015), coating deterioration usually happens due to few possible reasons
as follow:
2
if the bond failure was adhesive or cohesive after the test (Defelsko, n.d.). The respective
standard procedure manual for each test is listed in Table 2.1 (Defelsko, n.d.).
Table 2.1 Standard Procedure Manual for each Adhesion Testing Method
In this experiment, pull-off adhesion test was used to determine the adhesive strength of the
coating. Pull-off adhesion test is a more quantitative test in which a loading fixture, commonly
called a dolly or stub, is bonded by an adhesive to a coating (Defelsko, n.d.). With the use of a
portable pull-off adhesion tester, the applied load is increased until the dolly is pulled off. The
force required to pull the dolly off is a measurement of tensile strength in pounds per square
inch (psi) or mega Pascals (MPa). Failure will occur along the weakest area within the system
that includes dolly, adhesive, coating system, and substrate. A pull-off adhesion tester model
is shown in Figure 2.1.
3
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
1. The surface of the dollies and the test areas were cleaned to keep them free from oil,
moisture and dust before starting the experiment to ensure a good bond between the dolly
face and the coating.
2. Regular Araldite, a two-components epoxy paste were mixed in roughly equal portions.
Three dollies were cured for 2 hours at room temperature. Then, the strength of
adhesiveness of two dollies were measured.
Three dollies were cured in the oven at 120C for 2 hours. Then, the strength of
adhesiveness of two dollies were measured.
The third dollies from both curing conditions were immersed in water bath for 5 days.
Then, the strength of adhesiveness was measured.
4. As the dollies cured for 2 hours at room temperature were not sufficiently cured as one of
the dollies failed the adhesion test, the curing time for the remaining two dollies was
extended to 24 hours.
5. The results were recorded in accordance with validity of the test result as follow:
4
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Results
4.2 Discussions
2. Discuss the results and explain the difference between the cases.
5
probably due to the broken cap of the curing agent which causes oxidation of the curing agent.
Therefore, another sample was left to cure for 24 h to allow the sample to be cured sufficiently.
Case 2 and Case 3: One sample cured at Room Temperature for 24 h and another sample
cured at 80 C for 2 h
As curing temperature increases, the molecules are highly mobilized due to increased kinetic
energy, thus crosslinking density increases. The increase in crosslinking density will reduce
the free volume of the cured resin (Abdelkader & White, 2005). Besides, the increased degree
of crosslinks will strengthen the bonding between coating and substrate which enhances the
adhesion strength of the coating. Therefore, the sample cured at higher temperature will require
to larger force required to remove the coating away from the substrate.
Case 3 and Case 4: One sample cured cured at 80 C for 2 h and another sample cured at
80 C for 2 h and immersed in water bath for 5 days
As epoxy coating suffers inherent porosity due to hydrolytic degradation, water could penetrate
through the holes in epoxy coating and reach the coating substrate interface and corrodes the
metal (Ramezanzadeh & Attar, 2011). Presence of water could speed up the formation of rust
on the metal surface and that will lift the coating and greatly reduce the bonding between
coating and substrate (Tator, 2015). That is why the sample immersed in water bath has a lower
adhesive strength as compared to the sample without immersed in water bath.
Case 4 and Case 5: One sample cured at room temperature for 24 h and another sample
cured at 80 C for 2 h and both samples were immersed in water bath for 5 days
Sample cured at lower temperature (room temperature) has lower degree of crosslinking as
compared to sample cured at higher temperature (80 C). Therefore, water absorption of the
former sample will be much higher as water has more access in the former sample due to less
hindrance or more free volume in the epoxy matrix. Therefore, there will be more formation of
rust in the former sample that will cause more reduction in adhesive strength of the coating as
compared to the sample cured at higher temperature. The experimental result is in accordance
with this theory.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
7
REFERENCES
Abdelkader, A., & White, J. (2005). Water absorption in epoxy resins: The effects of the
crosslinking agent and curing temperature. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 98(2005),
2544-2549.
Defelsko. (n.d.). Adhesion Testing Methods. Retrieved July 11, 2017 from
http://www.defelsko.com/technotes/adhesion_methods.htm
Ramezanzadeh, B., & Attar, M. M. (2011). Studying the corrosion resistance and hydrolytic
degradation of an epoxy coating containing ZnO nanoparticles. Materials Chemistry and
Physics, 130(3), 1208-1219. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2011.08.065
Savage, G. (2005). Practical Aspects of Failure Prevention in Bonded Joints on Primary Load
Bearing Structures. Anales de Mecnica de la Fractura, 22, 273-282.
Wan, H., Song, D., Li, X., Zhang, D., Gao, J., & Du, C. (2017). Failure Mechanisms of the
Coating/Metal Interface in Waterborne Coatings: The Effect of Bonding. Materials,
10(4). doi:10.3390/ma10040397