-
KTA-Tator, Inc.
Results of Physical Testing Final Report
KTA Project No. 300027R3
Presented to:
Messer’s Mark and Jeff Buratto Lifelast, Inc.
1301 NE 144th Street, Suite 125 Vancouver, WA 98685
[email protected], [email protected] – email
Prepared by:
KTA-TATOR, INC. 115 Technology Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15275
412.788.1300 – phone
412.788.1306 – fax [email protected] – email
www.kta.com
Chrissy M. Stewart
Chemist
June 22, 2011
CMS/CLO:kdw JN300027-Final Report-R3 (300027 Lifelast Final
Report – R3.doc)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
..........................................................................................................................
1
SAMPLES.......................................................................................................................................
1
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
.............................................................................................
2
Water Absorption
.........................................................................................................................2
Water Vapor Permeability
...........................................................................................................3
Cathodic
Disbondment.................................................................................................................3
Adhesion to Steel (Dry)
...............................................................................................................4
Adhesion to Steel (Wet)
...............................................................................................................5
Impact Resistance
........................................................................................................................7
Abrasion Resistance
.....................................................................................................................8
Tensile Strength
...........................................................................................................................9
Flexibility
.....................................................................................................................................9
Appendices
A1 .......Photographic Appendix A2 .......Water Absorption Data
A3 .......Wet Cup Permeability Form
R3 – A revision was issued at the client’s request to replace
the original results for cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to
steel and wet adhesion to steel with the retest values obtained in
July 2010. NOTICE: This report represents the opinion of KTA-TATOR,
INC. This report is issued in conformance with generally acceptable
industry practices. While customary precautions were taken to
insure that the information gathered and presented is accurate,
complete and technically correct, it is based on the information,
data, time, materials, and/or samples afforded. This report should
not be reproduced except in full.
i
-
INTRODUCTION In accordance with KTA-Tator, Inc. (KTA) Proposal
No. PN100024 and subsequent signed Authorization to Proceed dated
January 12, 2010, KTA has performed various physical tests on the
coating membrane Durashield 210 provided by Lifelast, Inc. The
results of the testing are contained in this report.
SAMPLES
The samples listed in Table 1, “Samples” were received from
Lifelast, Inc. on January 11, 2010. It should be noted that at no
time did KTA personnel witness the preparation of the samples.
Table 1 – Samples
Sample ID Sample Description
Free Film Sample Four (4) free film sheets measuring 12 x 12 .
Designated for water absorption, permeance and tensile strength.
Samples
1FL, 2FL, 3FL Three (3) steel panels measuring 16 x 1 ½ coated
on one side. Designated for flexibility.
Samples 1WAD through 6WAD
Six (6) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on both sides.
Designated for wet adhesion to steel.
Samples 1AD, 2AD, 3AD
Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side.
Designated for dry adhesion to steel.
Samples 1CD, 2CD, 3CD
Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side.
Designated for cathodic disbondment.
Samples 1IR through 7IR
Seven (7) steel pipe sections measuring 16 long with a 2
diameter, coated on the outside. Designated for impact
resistance.
Samples 1T, 2T, 3T
Three (3) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side with a
¼ diameter hole through the middle. Designated for Taber
abrasion.
Samples 1S, 2S
Two (2) steel panels measuring 4 x 4 coated on one side. For use
as spare panels.
The samples listed in Table 2, “Samples” were received from
Lifelast, Inc. on July 23,
2010. It should be noted that at no time did KTA personnel
witness the preparation of the samples.
Table 2 – Results of Dry Adhesion Testing – 14 mm Dollies
Sample ID Description Label KTA-1 4" x 4" panel coated white on
one side 1-DA KTA-2 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 2-DA
KTA-3 4" x 4" panel coated white on one side 6-DA KTA-4 4" x 6"
panel coated white on one side 15-CD KTA-5 4" x 6" panel coated
white on one side 16-CD KTA-6 4" x 6" panel coated white on one
side 18CD KTA-7 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA
KTA-8 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA
Lifelast, Inc. 1 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Sample ID Description Label KTA-9 4" x 6" panel coated white on
both sides 13-WA
KTA-10 4" x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-11 4"
x 6" panel coated white on both sides 13-WA KTA-12 4" x 6" panel
coated white on both sides 13-WA
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The laboratory investigation consisted of performing various
physical tests on the coating membrane Durashield 210 in accordance
with the specification received from Lifelast, Inc. The
specification outlined testing parameters for the following tests:
water absorption, permeance, cathodic disbondment (attached cell
method), adhesion to steel (dry), wet adhesion to steel, impact
resistance, abrasion resistance, tensile strength and flexibility.
Retesting of cathodic disbondment, dry adhesion to steel and wet
adhesion to steel was performed in July 2010. The test descriptions
and the results of the testing are provided below. Photographs of
the test apparatus and final panel condition are included in this
report (see Appendix 1). Water Absorption The water absorption of
the Free Film Sample was measured according to ASTM D 570,
“Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics.” Three (3)
bars measuring 3 x 1 were cut from the free film and the thickness
of each bar was measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. The
samples were conditioned in an oven maintained at 50°F for
twenty-four (24) hours. After conditioning, the samples were
immediately weighed. The samples were then submerged in individual
containers of deionized water maintained at laboratory conditions
of 23.0°C ± 3°C. The samples were removed from the water following
twenty-four (24) hours, one week and every two (2) weeks
thereafter. The samples were wiped dry of any excess water, weighed
and immediately replaced in the water. The percent increase in
weight was determined using the following equation: Increase in
weight (%) = (wet weight – conditioned weight)/ conditioned
weight*100 The percent increase in weight is reported in Table 3,
“Water Absorption Data.”
Table 3 – Water Absorption Data
Replicate Avg.
Thickness (mm)
Increase in Weight
(%) 24 hours
Increase in
Weight (%)
Week 1
Increase in
Weight (%)
Week 3
Increase in
Weight (%)
Week 5
Increase in
Weight (%)
Week 7
Increase in
Weight (%)
Week 9 1 0.98 0.376 0.425 0.564 0.658 0.752 0.860 2 0.88 0.390
0.479 0.656 0.750 0.833 0.979 3 0.85 0.365 0.429 0.561 0.694 0.784
0.906
Lifelast, Inc. 2 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Water Vapor Permeability Four (4) discs of the coating (one [1]
designated as the control disc) were cut from the Free Film Sample
and tested for water vapor permeability using the inverted water
method (Method BW) of ASTM E 96, “Standard Test Methods for Water
Vapor Transmission of Materials.” The thickness of each disk was
measured in five (5) spots using Mitutoyo Digimatic Calipers. Each
disc was sealed to a 4 diameter glass dish filled ¾ of the way with
deionized water. The discs were sealed to the dishes using wax. The
dishes were then weighed, inverted and placed into a
temperature/humidity chamber maintained at approximately 23.0 C and
50% relative humidity for a period of seventeen (17) days. The
dishes were weighed separately at various recorded intervals, and
the results plotted on the graph, as well as thickness and area of
the discs. The permeance in English (inch-pounds) units is reported
in Table 4, “Permeability Results.” A table containing daily
weights of the samples and other pertinent data is appended.
Table 4 – Permeability Results
Replicate Avg. Coating Thickness (mils) Permeance
(inch-pounds) Avg. Permeance (inch-pounds)
2 36.0 0.040 0.049 3 32.0 0.068
4 31.5 0.039 Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic disbondment was
tested in accordance with ASTM G 95, “Standard Test Method for
Cathodic Disbondment Test of Pipeline Coatings (Attached Cell
Method)” at ambient laboratory conditions (25°C). The panels were
inspected for holidays using a high voltage holiday detector.
Coating thickness measurements were obtained on each sample using a
PosiTector 600-F3 non-destructive dry film thickness gage. A
diameter holiday was drilled into the center of panels KTA-4, KTA-5
and KTA-6 (15-CD, 16-CD and 18CD, respectively). A 4 diameter
plastic pipe section was adhered to each panel with silicone
adhesive, and the “cell” was filled with approximately 1000 mL of
an electrolyte solution consisting of 3% by mass sodium chloride
and deionized water. A -3.0 V potential was impressed upon each of
the samples for twenty-eight (28) days. The samples were removed
and evaluated for disbondment after twenty-eight (28) days.
Adhesion was assessed at the immersed holiday site and at one (1)
non-immersed site by cutting 45° radial cuts in the shape of an “X”
through the coating to the substrate at the sites and manually
peeling back the coating with a utility knife blade to determine
the extent of coating adhesion loss. The amount of coating
disbondment was measured from the original holiday to the furthest
point of exposed substrate. A holiday was also drilled in a
non-immersed area of each panel and two (2) additional radial cuts
were made at the sites. Coating adhesion was assessed in the same
manner. Coating thickness measurements and disbondment data are
provided in Table 5, “Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing.” A
portion of the steel was stained around the holiday. Measurements
of the stained area were obtained and reported in Table 6, “Radial
Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing.”
Lifelast, Inc. 3 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Table 5 – Results of Cathodic Disbondment Testing
Panel ID Average Thickness (mils)
Average Radial Disbondment – Reference
(mm)
Average Radial Disbondment – Test Area
(mm) KTA-4 48.1 0 7.3
KTA-5* 46.3 13 42 KTA-6 47.4 6.5 28.5
* Panel No. KTA-5 exhibited poor adhesion as evidenced by the
disbondment displayed by the reference holiday. The disbonding
would have continued to complete failure if assessment was
continued.
Table 6* – Radial Staining of Cathodic Disbondment Testing
Panel ID Average Radial Staining (mm) KTA-4 2.75 KTA-5 3.75
KTA-6 2.5
* Table provided per client request. The radial staining is not
typically reported when disbondment data is obtainable. Adhesion to
Steel (Dry) Tensile adhesion (pull-off strength) was measured in
accordance with ASTM D 4541, “Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using
Portable Adhesion Testers,” Annex A5, “Self-Aligning Adhesion
Tester Type V.” Coating thickness measurements were obtained on
five (5) spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000
non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The testing
surfaces of panels KTA-1 through KTA-3 (1-DA, 2-DA and 6-DA,
respectively) were wiped clean and abraded gently using fine
sandpaper. The coating was scored to the metal and pull stubs with
an abraded test surface of 14 mm diameter were attached to the
coating. A two-component epoxy adhesive (Araldite 2011) was used,
which was allowed to cure for twenty-four (24) hours at ambient
laboratory conditions. The pull stubs were then detached using a
DeFelsko PosiTest Automatic Adhesion Tester. The force (in psi)
required to remove each pull stub was recorded along with the
location of break and approximate percentage of each. The location
of break is defined as adhesive (a split between layers), cohesive
(within a layer) or glue failure (coating strength exceeds glue
strength). Results exhibiting 50% or greater glue failure were not
reported in accordance with the method. The average pull-off
strength of Durashield 210 is 3460 psi (average of five [5]
reported trials). The results of the testing can be found in Table
7, “Results of Dry Tensile Adhesion Testing.”
Table 7 – Results of Dry Adhesion Testing – 14 mm Dollies
Sample ID
Avg. Thickness
(mils)
Pull Stub
Pull-Off Strength
(psi) Location of Break
Avg. Pull-Off Strength
(psi)
Overall Average
KTA-1 (1-DA) 29.0
A 3952 100% adhesive to substrate
3703 3460 B 4060 70% adhesive to substrate; 30% glue failure C
3098 100% adhesive to substrate
Lifelast, Inc. 4 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Sample ID
Avg. Thickness
(mils)
Pull Stub
Pull-Off Strength
(psi)
Avg. Pull- Overall Location of Break Off Strength
Average(psi)
KTA-2 (2-DA) 29.0
D 2876 100% adhesive to substrate
3246*
3460
E 3616 100% glue failure
F 2988 95% adhesive to substrate; 5% glue failure
KTA-3 (6-DA) 30.4
G 3284 100% glue failure
3309* H 2676 15% adhesive to substrate; 85% glue failure I 3334
100% glue failure
* Averages were calculated per client request including all
trials, even those that exhibited 50% or more glue failure.
Adhesion to Steel (Wet) Wet adhesion to steel was conducted in
accordance with ASTM D 870, “Testing Water Resistance of Coatings
Using Water Immersion” in congruence with ASTM D 4541, “Pull-Off
Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers,” Annex A5,
“Self-Aligning Adhesion Tester Type V.” Panels KTA-7 through KTA-12
(13-WA, 14-WA, 17-WA, 19-WA, 22-WA and 23-WA, respectively) were
immersed up to ¾ length of the panel in water maintained at 38oC ±
2oC. Panels KTA-7, KTA-8 and KTA-9 were removed on Friday,
September 3, 2010, for a total of thirty (30) days immersion and
panels KTA-10, KTA-11 and KTA-12 were removed on Tuesday, October
5, 2010, for a total of sixty (60) day immersion. Upon removal from
the water, the panels were scored to the metal, a 20 mm diameter
pull stub attached, and removed twenty-four (24) hours later. Three
(3) pull-stubs were attached above the immersion line and three (3)
were attached below the immersion line. The data obtained can be
found in Tables 8, 9 and 10, below.
Table 8 – Results of Wet Tensile Adhesion Testing
Panel ID
Pull Stub ID
Exposure Area Location of Break
Burst Pressure
(psi)
Average Burst
Pressure (psi)
KTA-7 (13-WA) 30 Days
A Dry 85% adhesive to substrate; 15% glue 2291 1734* B Dry 5%
adhesive to substrate; 95% glue 1673
C Dry 90% adhesive to substrate; 10% glue 1176 D Wet 100%
adhesive to substrate 561
825.7* E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1143 F Wet 100% adhesive
to substrate 773
KTA-8 (14-WA) 30 Days
G Dry 10% cohesive in white; 90% glue 2459 ** H Dry 20% cohesive
in white; 80% glue 3000
I Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 298 J Wet 100% adhesive to
substrate 1039
861.5* K Wet 5% cohesive in white; 95% glue 1548 L Wet 100%
adhesive to substrate 684
Lifelast, Inc. 5 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Average Pull Burst Panel Exposure Burst ID Stub Location of
Break Pressure Area Pressure (psi)ID (psi)
KTA-9 (17-WA) 30 Days
M Dry N/A – did not pull > 3000 1798* N Dry 100% adhesive to
substrate 2190
O Dry 100% adhesive to substrate 205 P Wet 100% adhesive to
substrate 1605
1115* Q Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 537 R Wet 100% adhesive
to substrate 1202
KTA-10 (19-WA) 60 Days
A Dry 100% glue 2605 ** B Dry 5% cohesive; 95% glue 1162
C Dry 100% glue 1672 D Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1028
1508* E Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1987 F Wet 100% glue
880
KTA-11 (22-WA) 60 Days
G Dry 80% adhesive to substrate; 20% glue 2329 ** H Dry 100%
glue 1776
I Dry 100% glue 1933 J Wet 100% glue 1406
512* K Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 434 L Wet 100% adhesive to
substrate 590
KTA-12 (23-WA) 60 Days
M Dry N/A – did not pull > 3000 ** N Dry 100% glue 1595
O Dry 100% glue 2903 P Wet 100% adhesive to substrate 1612
** Q Wet 100% glue 1698 R Wet 100% glue 1386
* Averages were calculated excluding trials that exhibited 50%
or more glue failure. These averages were calculated in accordance
with ASTM D 4541, Section 8.5.
** No average value could be obtained because trials had >
50% glue failure.
Table 9 – Thickness Measurements of 30-Day Exposure Panels
Panel ID
Pre Exposure Post Exposure
Thickness (mils)
Average Thickness
(mils)
Thickness (mils)
Average Thickness
(mils) KTA-7
(13-WA) 34.5, 41.7, 39.1, 35.0, 42.3 38.5 38.0, 44.0, 42.3,
45.5, 43.8 42.7
KTA-8 (14-WA) 40.1, 44.3, 39.3, 40.6, 42.2 41.3 41.9, 42.0,
41.2, 48.3, 40.0 42.7
KTA-9 (17-WA) 39.8, 44.3, 43.3, 41.4, 41.5 42.1 40.9, 43.2,
43.1, 44.6, 41.0 42.6
Lifelast, Inc. 6 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Table 10 – Thickness Measurements of 60-Day Exposure Panels
Panel ID
Pre Exposure Post Exposure
Thickness (mils)
Average Thickness
(mils)
Thickness (mils)
Average Thickness
(mils) KTA-10 (19-WA) 38.3, 40.6, 41.2, 39.0, 41.9 40.2 38.8,
42.8, 42.9, 44.4, 37.7 41.3
KTA-11 (22-WA) 41.0, 40.2, 38.2, 41.4, 39.1 40.0 39.9, 42.2,
41.4, 41.3, 40.7 41.1
KTA-12 (23-WA) 37.4, 44.1, 42.0, 41.8, 41.6 41.4 44.5, 39.6,
41.4, 45.5, 42.4 42.7
Impact Resistance
The impact resistance of the coating material was determined in
accordance with ASTM G 14, “Test Method for Impact Resistance of
Pipeline Coatings (Falling Weight Test).” Four (4) 16 long pipe
sections labeled, Samples 1IR through 4IR were used for this
testing. Coating thickness measurements were obtained on five (5)
spots on each sample using a DeFelsko PosiTector 6000
non-destructive electronic coating thickness gage. The pipe was
secured in the apparatus outlined in the method. The 3.2 pound
weight was dropped from various heights and the locations and the
impacted areas inspected for crack or holidays in the coating film
using a low voltage wet sponge holiday detector. Sample 1IR was
used to determine an appropriate range of impact height. Twenty
(20) impact locations were observed on the samples and the impact
strength calculated by employing height, weight, and frequency of
coating failure data. The results of the testing can be found in
Table 11, “Results of Impact Resistance Testing.” The impact
strength was determined to be 140 inch-pounds. The calculation
employed to determine the impact strength is outlined below.
m = [ho + d(A/N ± ½)] x W Where: m = impact strength
(inch-pounds) ho = minimum height at which the less frequent event
occurs (inches) d = increment in height of drop (inches) A = sum of
the frequency of occurrence at each height increment times the
number of increments above the ho value for each observation in the
N total N = total number of the less frequent event (coating
failures or non-failures) W = tup weight (pounds)
Note: The (-) sign is used when the mean is based on coating
failures; the (+) sign is used when it is based on non-failures
Lifelast, Inc. 7 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Table 11 – Results of Impact Resistance Testing
Sample Avg.
Thickness (mils)
Replicate No. Height of Drop (inches) Observations
2IR 39.0 1 42.0 Non-failure 2 45.0 Non-failure 3 46.5
Failure
3IR 49.7
4 46.5 Failure 5 46.0 Non-failure 6 46.0 Failure 7 45.5 Failure
8 45 Non-failure 9 45 Failure
10 45 Failure 11 44.5 Failure
4IR 40.5
12 44.5 Failure 13 44.5 Failure 14 44 Failure 15 44 Failure 16
43 Non-failure 17 43 Failure 18 42 Non-failure 19 42 Failure 20 42
Non-failure
Abrasion Resistance Taber abrasion resistance was determined in
accordance with ASTM D 4060, “Test Method for Abrasion Resistance
of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser.” Coating thickness
measurements were obtained on five (5) spots on each sample using a
DeFelsko PosiTector 6000 non-destructive electronic coating
thickness gage. Triplicate 4 x 4 panels were weighed then subjected
to 1000 cycles using a 1000g load and CS-17 abrasion wheels. Post
weights were acquired for the samples, and the weight loss (in mg)
reported. The results of the testing are contained in Table 12,
“Taber Abrasion Resistance Results.”
Table 12 – Taber Abrasion Resistance Results
Sample Avg. Thickness Initial (mils) Avg. Thickness
Final (mils) Weight Loss
(mg) Avg. Weight Loss
(mg) 1T 16.1 15.4 15.0
17.5 2T 18.3 17.6 19.7 3T 18.0 17.5 17.8
Lifelast, Inc. 8 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
-
Lifelast, Inc. 9 of 9 June 22, 2011 Final Report JN300027R3
Tensile Strength
The tensile strength of the coating material was determined in
accordance with ASTM D 412, “Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and
Thermoplastic Rubbers and Thermoplastic Elastomers-Tension,” Method
A. Eight (8) specimens were cut into a dumbbell shape from the free
film using Die C. The specimens were pulled with a Tinius Olsen
Universal Testing Machine at a rate of 0.2 inches per minute. The
tensile strength was calculated using the force required to break
the specimens along with the width and thickness of each. The
dimensions of the sample were measured using Mitutoyo Digimatic
Calipers. The individual results of three (3) replicates are
reported along with the average in Table 13, “Results of Tensile
Strength Testing.”
Table 13 – Results of Tensile Strength Testing
Replicate Cross-Sectional Area (in2) Force to
Rupture (lbf) Tensile Strength
(psi) Avg. Tensile
Strength (psi) C 0.008680 29 3341
3245 F 0.008582 28 3263 G 0.007662 24 3132
Flexibility Flexibility testing was performed on Samples 1FL,
2FL and 3FL in accordance with ASTM D 522, “Mandrel Bend Test of
Attached Organic Coatings,” Method B. Each panel was bent 180 over
a 3 mandrel then examined visually with a 5X illuminated lens for
cracking along the axis of curvature. No cracking was observed on
the samples.
-
APPENDIX 1
-
PHOTOGRAPHIC APPENDIX
Water Absorption Apparatus
Water Absorption Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 1 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Permeance Apparatus
Permeance Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 2 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Cathodic Disbondment Apparatus
Cathodic Disbondment Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 3 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Dry Adhesion Apparatus
Dry Adhesion Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 4 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Wet Adhesion Apparatus
Wet Adhesion Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 5 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Impact Apparatus
Impact Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 6 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Taber Abrasion Apparatus
Taber Abrasion Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 7 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Tensile Strength Apparatus
Tensile Strength Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 8 of 9
JN300027R3
-
Flexibility Apparatus
Flexibility Samples
Lifelast, Inc. A1 June 22, 2011 Photographic Appendix 9 of 9
JN300027R3
-
APPENDIX 2
-
00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01
0.0120.0140.0160.0180.02
0 20 40 60
quar
e R
oot o
f Im
mer
sion
Tim
e
Increase in Weight (g)
Lifelast 290675 Water Absorption
Replicate 1
Replicate 2
Replicate 3
Lifelast, Inc.Water Absorption Data
A21 of 1
June 22, 2011JN300027R3
Lifelast, Inc.Water Absorption Data
A21 of 1
June 22, 2011JN300027R3
Initial Weights: 2.0221 1.921 1.8881 (Immersion Time) Increase
in Weight 1 Increase in Weight 2 Increase in Weight 3
0 0 0 04.898979486 0.0076 0.0075 0.006912.9614814 0.0086 0.0092
0.0081
22.59424706 0.0114 0.0126 0.010629.09896905 0.0133 0.0144
0.013134.2928564 0.0152 0.016 0.0148
38.88444419 0.0174 0.0188 0.0171
0 20 40 60
Squ
are
Increase in Weight (g)
-
APPENDIX 3
-
y = -1E-05x + 113.75
110.86
115.90
Wei
ght (
gram
s)
1
344.54
350.48t (g
349.00
350.00
351.00
352.00
353.00
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0
Wei
ght(g
ram
s)
Time (hours)
Lifelast 300027 Inverted Wet Cup
Date Hours Cup #1 (g) Cup #1(grain) Cup #2 (g) Cup #2(grain) Cup
#3(g) Cup #3(grain) Cup #4(g) Cup #4(grain)03/22/10 0.0 113.75
1755.19 351.32 5420.87 352.04 5431.98 326.08 5031.4803/23/10 24.0
113.75 1755.15 351.31 5420.71 352.01 5431.51 326.03 5030.6103/24/10
48.0 113.75 1755.12 351.30 5420.56 351.96 5430.80 325.93
5029.1503/25/10 72.0 113.75 1755.13 351.29 5420.40 351.94 5430.45
325.86 5028.0403/26/10 96.0 113.75 1755.13 351.08 5417.16 351.91
5430.02 325.77 5026.6003/29/10 168.0 113.75 1755.12 351.82 5428.54
325.51 5022.5703/30/10 192.0 113.75 1755.10 350.17 5403.12 351.78
5427.90 325.40 5020.9403/31/10 216.0 113.75 1755.13 351.74 5427.33
325.30 5019.3304/01/10 240 113.75 1755.15 350.12 5402.35 351.72
5426.96 325.20 5017.8104/02/10 264 113.75 1755.10 350.10 5402.04
351.68 5426.47 325.10 5016.2604/05/10 336 113.75 1755.09 350.06
5401.43 349.68 5395.53 324.76 5011.0904/06/10 360 113.75 1755.10
350.05 5401.27 349.29 5389.47 324.66 5009.4304/07/10 384 113.745
1755.085 350.030 5400.963 349.174 5387.755 324.55 5007.81
1 2 3 4 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0Thickness(in) 0.0380 0.0360 0.0320
0.0315
Radius (in) 2.2500 2.2500 2.2500 2.2500Radius (m) 0.0572 0.0572
0.0572 0.0572 Time (hours)Area (sq.m) 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103
0.0103
Slope (grams/hr) 0.00001 0.0041 0.007 0.004 y = -0.0041x +
351.37Area (sq.ft.) 0.1104 0.1104 0.1104 0.1104 2WVT(grams/hr/sq.m)
0.001 0.400 0.682 0.390
Permeance(WVP metric perms) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001Permeability
(perm cm) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
356.42Slope (grains/hr) 0.00014 0.06326 0.10801 0.06172
WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft.) 0.001 0.573 0.978 0.559
ram
s)
Permeance (WVP English) 0.000 0.040 0.068 0.039Permeability
(perm in.) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.001
Temperature 70.00000 h
Vapor Pressure 732.00000 mm Hg g
28.82000 in Hg ei
Humidity change (as a decimal) 0.50000 (100% to 50%) W
METRIC AVERAGES: 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0WVT (grams/hr/sq.m)
0.491Permeance (metric perms) 0.001
Permeability (perm cm) 0.000 Time (hours)( )
ENGLISH AVERAGES:WVT(grains/hr/sq.ft) 0.703 y = -0.007x +
352.593
Permeance (WVP - inch pounds) 0.049Permeability (perm in.)
0.002
y = -0.004x + 326.14
324.40324.60324.80325.00325.20325.40325.60325.80326.00326.20326.40
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
Wei
ght (
gram
s)
Time (hours)
4
Lifelast, Inc.Wet Cup Permeability Form
A31 of 1
June 22, 2011JN300027R3
INTRODUCTIONSAMPLESLABORATORY INVESTIGATIONWater AbsorptionWater
Vapor PermeabilityReplicate
Cathodic DisbondmentAdhesion to Steel (Dry)Adhesion to Steel
(Wet)Impact ResistanceAbrasion ResistanceTensile
StrengthFlexibility
300027 Final Report - R3 Appendix 2 - Water Absorption
Data.pdfSheet1
300027 Final Report - R3 Appendix 3 - Wet Cup Permeability
Form.pdfSheet1