Coatings and Risk

Traditionally (and presently) the engineering and design of industrial protective coating systems is focused on COST – it should be focused almost solely on RISK MITIGATION.  Too often we (begrudgingly) apply paint to an engineered structure because we “have to”. This continued approach will always get us to a place just short of our expanding expectations. 

Protective coating systems have evolved to a high performance place over the past 20 years. Materials have been formulated and tested and quality controlled to wring out to last 5% of theoretical performance potential. In fact, the testing and research business that I’ve spent my life in has (almost) rendered itself obsolete in my opinion.  Don’t get me wrong – there will always be a long list of poor performing products on the market – and there will always be people willing to sell those products to you (at a slightly reduced price), and outrageous performance claims are part of the industry’s charm – but with a reasonably targeted screening program (e.g., testing or paying close attention to experience) picking a good, high performance paint is not that hard anymore.

The tricky part comes when actually looking at coatings applications from an engineering standpoint. Specifically when risk of coating failure, or risk of unintended negative consequences on the operation of the structure or facility is considered as the primary driver for material selection.  Whereas the vast majority of research and testing of coatings over the years has been pointed toward torture test performance in kind of a chili cookoff type approach, a more sophisticated coating selection protocol will often be required for more challenging applications. This selection criteria may to lean more heavily on factors such as cure to service time under a broad band of environmental conditions, fast return-to-service in turnaround scenarios, compatibility with adjacent materials and exposures, ability to be mixed and applied under very challenging conditions and access, and (the yet to be found Holy Grail) ability to perform well over less than ideal surface preparation.

These points are not really news to producers and sellers of high performance coatings, as their customers have been demanding in presenting for these challenges for many years, but for the specifiers, testers, and coatings qualifying crowd (my people), I think a wake up call is necessary.  Very few of our specifications and test protocols emphasize these ancillary (really PRIMARY) requirements. We tend to lean on old school accelerated torture tests, look at the worst possible coating breakdown scenario on simple, flat panels exposed in fairly simplistic tests and make our top 5 lists.  These testing efforts rarely do what they should, which is examine the risks of a particular application; construct a risk chart of probability and consequences of a particular coating failure might be, and proceed from the bottom up to find materials which (although possibly not the best ultimate performers) minimize those risky scenarios. That’s engineering. We have a long way to go, and basically, I blame the chemists.