University of the Ryukyus Repository >
Faculty of Engineering >
Bulletin of the Faculty of Engineering, University of the Ryukyus >
No. 39 (1990/03) >
|Title alternative ||:||Corrosion Resistance of Some Protective Paints Coated on Rusty Stcel(1 sf Report.) Results of three and six month exposure|
|Authors ||:||糸村, 昌祐|
|Authors alternative ||:||Itomura, Shosuke|
|Issue Date ||:||Mar-1990 |
|Abstract ||:||Five corrosion protective painls, including three used as on-rust ones, were tested for their anticorrosive effects at the outdoor exposure test yard of University of the Ryukyus, beginning on September 1, 1988. First, clean JIS SS41 mild steel plates of 15 x 15 cm x 3.2 mm each were exposed outdoor for 3 months,then they were removed of the resulting rust by means of a wire brush to retain slight rust. These specimens together with new plate specimens which were cleaned by grit blasting to retain no rust, were coated with the same protective paints. In addition, three kinds of uncoated steel sheets (JIS SS41 mild steel, JIS SPCD cold rolled carbon steel and JIS SPA - H weathering steel), and two kinds of zinc coated steel plates (JIS SGCC hot dip zinc coated steel and zinc hot dip galvanized mild steel) were used as the specimens to obtain the atmospheric corrosion data. The results obtained by this outdoor exposure test are as follows.
1) After 6 month exposure, the three kinds of uncoated steel sheets showed equal corrosion rates of about 10 mg/dm^2/day. Their corroded conditions were also equal to each other. The two kinds of zinc coated steel plates were increased in weight slightly due to oxidation of zinc.
2) Both the specimens coated with protective paints on their surfaces with slight rust and with no rust, respectively, showed no fault and no difference in their appearance. All paints coated on the surfaces with no rust showed good adhesive strength, and onc on-rust paints showed poor adhesive strength.
3) The results of cross cut test were nearly the same as those of pull off test, except when the overcoatability between the undercoat and the top coat was poor.
4) The impact strength of the coated paints in the initial stage was poorer than that after exposure. The longer the exposure period, the more improved this strength.|
|Type Local ||:||紀要論文|
|Citation ||:||琉球大学工学部紀要 no.39 p.39 -54|
|Appears in Collections||:||No. 39 (1990/03)|
Files in This Item: