Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report

Steel Penstock Coating and
Lining Rehabilitation
A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report,
Volume 3
Technical Report
L
I
C
E
N
S
E D
M
A T
E
R
I
A
L
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with
Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright
protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the
document prior to publication.
EPRI Project Manager
M. A. Blanco, P. E.
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Steel Penstock-Coating and
Lining Rehabilitation
A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report, Volume 3
TR-113584-V3
Final Report, August 2000
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
HCI Publications
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2000 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
HCI Publications
410 Archibald Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Principal Investigator
M. A. Hosko
C. Vansant
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Steel Penstock-Coating and Lining Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report,
Volume 3, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2000. TR-113584-V3.

v
REPORT SUMMARY

Steel penstocks and the coating and lining systems that enhance their structural integrity and
serviceability are part of the infrastructure for a majority of the worlds hydroelectric projects.
This Hydropower Technology Roundup report aims to provide managers and technical staff
responsible for hydropower plants with up-to-date information to enable them to assess the need
for and implement the cost-effective rehabilitation of steel penstock coatings and linings.
Background
One million meters of penstock are in-service in North America, and at least 2.5 million meters
are in service through out the world. Coatings and linings are key to managing the structural
integrity and serviceability of penstocks, providing corrosion protection, water tightness, and
aesthetics. Yet, because of the latent nature of coating or lining problems, the continual
advancements in coating/lining technologies, and evolving OSHA and environmental protection
regulations, expertise in coating and lining management among hydropower project staff is
limited. While much information about coating and lining technologies exists, it is not organized
to provide guidance to help hydropower staff cost-effectively manage steel penstock coating and
lining rehabilitation. This report aims to fill this information gap.
Objective
To clarify the penstock coating and lining information needed by EPRI Hydro Target
members and other hydropower producers
To describe the state-of-the-art materials and best practices for the refurbishment of steel
penstock coatings and linings
To present recent case studies of penstock coating and lining applications
To develop and provide a generic specification that individual companies can adapt for their
own use when requesting bids for and managing coating and lining rehabilitation work.
Approach
The investigators assembled and reviewed pertinent and recent conference reports, publications,
and other literature on the maintenance, repair, and replacement of steel penstock coatings and
linings. They surveyed EPRI member organizations to help determine what information was
relevant and surface current issues and perspectives on coating and lining challenges. They
consulted individual industry experts to provide state-of-the-art information on penstock coating
and lining rehabilitation practices and collected product-specific information from product
manufacturers. This information, including a standardized specification template for use during
coating and lining rehabilitation, was peer reviewed at an EPRI Forum on Steel Penstock

vi
Coating and Lining Rehabilitation held during the fourth quarter of 1999. Finally, the
investigators contacted selected hydropower companies to provide case study material.
Results
This Hydro Tech Roundup report provides an understanding of the elements necessary for
undertaking rehabilitation work whether maintenance, repair, or replacement of coatings and
linings of in-service steel penstocks. It includes a standardized specification on diskette,
describes several case studies, and provides listings of useful information sources, contacts, and
websites. It also provides insights into ongoing research regarding steel penstock coating and
lining and future trends.
EPRI Perspective
Faced with competition, increasingly rigorous environmental standards, and on-going licensing
requirements, hydropower project owners need to know about the technology options available
and under development to make their facilities more compliant, protective of the environment,
and competitive. They need information about the benefits and costs of alternative technologies
and the successful practices and strategies used for their implementation. EPRIs Hydropower
Technology Roundup report series will provide a clearinghouse for worldwide information on
key topics and new and emerging technologies, including case studies and resources. This
volume presents an overview of the state-of-the-art of steel penstock coating and lining
rehabilitation, including inspection, condition assessment, and execution, and provides a
specification template on diskette to facilitate rehabilitation work. Technology Roundup reports
are published several times a year.
Keywords
Coatings
Linings
Rehabilitation
Steel Penstocks
Hydro
Hydropower

EPRI Licensed Material
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks and acknowledgment are made to those individuals and organizations whose
assistance and contributions have been helpful during the development of this report.
As consultants and contributors:
Thomas L. Kahl, Kleinschmidt Associates, Pittsfield, ME
Richard D. Stutsman, Jeffco Painting and Coating, Vallejo, CA
For hosting the Steel Penstock Forum:
Matthew Gass, Hetch Hetchy Water & Power, Moccasin, CA
The following contributors provided information and perspectives via personal communications:
Tom Bortak, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO
Niels Nielsen, BC Hydro/Powertech Labs, Burnaby, British Columbia
David L. Parry, BC Hydro, Vancouver, British Columbia
Yoga Yogendran, BC Hydro/Powertech Labs, Burnaby, British Columbia
ix
CONTENTS
1 UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION.................................................................................... 1-1
A Brief History of Steel Penstocks and Coatings/Linings...................................................... 1-1
Defining the Scope of the Coating and Lining Rehabilitation................................................ 1-3
Objectives......................................................................................................................... 1-3
Exterior Coating Alternatives............................................................................................ 1-3
Interior Lining Alternatives................................................................................................ 1-3
Report Organization.............................................................................................................. 1-4
2 INSPECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF STEEL PENSTOCKS ........................ 2-1
Steel Penstock Inspection..................................................................................................... 2-1
Coating and Lining Condition Assessment ........................................................................... 2-5
Common Defects and Failure Modes............................................................................... 2-5
Coating and Lining Inspection Instruments ...................................................................... 2-6
Coating and Lining Condition Description ........................................................................ 2-7
Overall Condition Assessment ......................................................................................... 2-9
Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 2-9
3 STATE-OF-THE-ARTSTEEL PENSTOCK COATING AND LINING
REHABILITATION..................................................................................................................... 3-1
Coating and Lining System Materials.................................................................................... 3-1
Exterior Coating Systems................................................................................................. 3-4
Zinc primer/acrylic topcoat........................................................................................... 3-5
Zinc primer/epoxy/urethane topcoat ............................................................................ 3-5
Moisture-cured zinc/urethane ...................................................................................... 3-5
Bitumastic coal tar ....................................................................................................... 3-5
Interior Lining Systems..................................................................................................... 3-6
Epoxy primer and topcoat............................................................................................ 3-6
Primer and 100% solids epoxy topcoat ....................................................................... 3-6
x
Single component elastomeric polyurethane............................................................... 3-7
Plural component100% solids polyurethane............................................................ 3-7
Plural component100% solids polyurea................................................................... 3-7
Water-tight Liner Considerations...................................................................................... 3-8
Water-tight liner strength ............................................................................................. 3-8
Single versus plural component materials for water-tight liners .................................. 3-8
Surface Preparation .............................................................................................................. 3-9
Application Techniques....................................................................................................... 3-12
Quality Assurance............................................................................................................... 3-14
4 GETTING THE JOB DONEGENERIC SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4-1
Development of a Generic Specification............................................................................... 4-1
Manufacturers and Material Selection................................................................................... 4-4
Job Structure and Manufacturers Representatives ......................................................... 4-4
Other Commercial Considerations........................................................................................ 4-8
Contractor Qualifications .................................................................................................. 4-8
Inspection Options............................................................................................................ 4-8
Value of Lost Project Benefits During Rehabilitation........................................................ 4-9
Additional Warranties ....................................................................................................... 4-9
Added Generation Benefits .............................................................................................. 4-9
Cost and Schedule Estimates .......................................................................................... 4-9
Ongoing Laboratory and Field Test Programs.................................................................... 4-11
Current Test Programs................................................................................................... 4-12
Coating rust ............................................................................................................... 4-12
Multiple overcoating assessment............................................................................... 4-13
Future Trends and Potential Areas for Coatings and Lining Improvement ......................... 4-13
Materials......................................................................................................................... 4-13
Surface Preparation ....................................................................................................... 4-14
Application...................................................................................................................... 4-14
5 CASE STUDIESSTEEL PENSTOCK COATING AND LINING REHABILITATION .......... 5-1
1 Inspection, Condition Assessment, and Alternative Action PlansMoccasin,
California .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Project Background ..................................................................................................... 5-1
Holm Project Penstock............................................................................................ 5-2
xi
Kirkwood Project Penstock ..................................................................................... 5-2
Moccasin Project Penstocks ................................................................................... 5-2
Inspection and Condition Assessment......................................................................... 5-3
Site Conditions............................................................................................................. 5-3
Recommendations and Action Plan for Hetch Hetchy Moccasin Penstocks ............... 5-3
Materials and Engineers Opinion of Budgetary Costs and Schedules ....................... 5-3
2 Penstock Coating MaintenanceBC Hydro, British Columbia ..................................... 5-4
BC Hydros Approach to Condition Assessment ......................................................... 5-5
Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 5-6
Site Conditions............................................................................................................. 5-6
Surface Preparation..................................................................................................... 5-6
Application ................................................................................................................... 5-7
Quality Assurance and Inspection ............................................................................... 5-7
Cost and Schedule ...................................................................................................... 5-7
3 Exterior CoatingMoisture Cured UrethaneBureau of Reclamation, Idaho.............. 5-7
Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 5-8
Site Conditions............................................................................................................. 5-8
Materials ...................................................................................................................... 5-8
Application ................................................................................................................... 5-9
Quality Assurance and Inspection ............................................................................... 5-9
4 Interior LiningKingston Mills, Ontario, Canada........................................................... 5-9
Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 5-9
Materials ...................................................................................................................... 5-9
Application ................................................................................................................. 5-10
Cost and schedule..................................................................................................... 5-10
xii
Added Benefits .......................................................................................................... 5-10
5 Interior Lining100% Solids PolyurethaneEl Dorado, California ............................ 5-10
Project Background ................................................................................................... 5-10
Inspection and Condition Assessment....................................................................... 5-10
Scope of Work ........................................................................................................... 5-11
Site ConditionsAccess and Weather...................................................................... 5-11
Materials .................................................................................................................... 5-11
Surface Preparation................................................................................................... 5-12
Application ................................................................................................................. 5-12
Quality Assurance and Inspection ............................................................................. 5-12
Cost and schedule..................................................................................................... 5-13
Added Benefits .......................................................................................................... 5-13
6 Interior Lining100% Solids PolyurethaneClarks Falls, Vermont .......................... 5-13
Scope of Work ........................................................................................................... 5-14
Site Conditions........................................................................................................... 5-14
Materials .................................................................................................................... 5-14
Application ................................................................................................................. 5-14
Cost and Schedule .................................................................................................... 5-15
7 Interior LiningHigh Solids Elastomeric PolyurethaneSalisbury, Vermont ............. 5-15
Scope of Work ........................................................................................................... 5-16
Materials .................................................................................................................... 5-16
Application ................................................................................................................. 5-17
Cost and Schedule .................................................................................................... 5-17
6 REFERENCES AND RESOURCES....................................................................................... 6-1
References............................................................................................................................ 6-1
Resources............................................................................................................................. 6-2
xiii
Manufacturers/Instrument Suppliers ..................................................................................... 6-3
A GENERIC STEEL PENSTOCK COATING AND LINING REHABILITATION
SPECIFICATION...................................................................................................................... A-1
Generic Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation Specification .............................A-1
Part 1GENERAL................................................................................................................A-1
Description of Work ..........................................................................................................A-1
Site Conditions .................................................................................................................A-2
Reference Standards and Codes .....................................................................................A-3
Other Requirements: Safety and Environmental ..............................................................A-4
Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)..............................................................A-4
Submittals.........................................................................................................................A-5
Part 2PRODUCTS.............................................................................................................A-5
Delivery, Handling and Storage........................................................................................A-5
Surface Preparation Products ..........................................................................................A-6
Exterior Coatings..............................................................................................................A-6
Interior Linings..................................................................................................................A-7
Touch-Up Materials ..........................................................................................................A-7
Part 3EXECUTION............................................................................................................A-7
Work Sequence................................................................................................................A-7
Penstock Access ..............................................................................................................A-8
Surface Preparation .........................................................................................................A-8
Repair of Steel Defects ....................................................................................................A-9
Application......................................................................................................................A-10
Inspection and Tests ......................................................................................................A-11
Repairs and Remedial Coating Work .............................................................................A-13
Final Acceptance............................................................................................................A-13
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Relative Cost Exterior and Interior Coating and Lining Rehabilitation.................... 4-11
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Principal Methods of Joining Steel Plates and Penstock Seams............................... 1-2
Table 2-1 Steel Penstock Inspection Information ...................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 Steel Penstock Physical Condition Inspection........................................................... 2-4
Table 2-3 Coating and Lining Inspection Techniques, Instruments, and Uses.......................... 2-6
Table 2-4 Adhesion Test, ASTM Test Method 3359 Cross Hatch Rating Scale........................ 2-7
Table 2-5 Description of Coating/Lining Condition..................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-6 Sample Coating and Lining Inspection Form........................................................... 2-10
Table 3-1 Selection of Coating/Lining Systems ......................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2 Generic Steel Penstock Exterior Coating and Interior Lining Specification
Options............................................................................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3 Comparison of Performance and Service Life Properties for Internal Water-
tight Penstock Liners.......................................................................................................... 3-9
Table 3-4 Surface Preparation Techniques ............................................................................. 3-10
Table 3-5 Application Techniques............................................................................................ 3-13
Table 3-6 Quality Assurance Techniques................................................................................ 3-15
Table 3-7 Sample QA/QC Inspection Report........................................................................... 3-16
Table 4-1 General Specification Contents ................................................................................. 4-2
Table 4-2 Generic Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Specification Contents ......................... 4-3
Table 4-3 Available Materials for Exterior Coating Systems...................................................... 4-5
Table 4-4 Available Materials for Interior Lining Systems.......................................................... 4-7
Table 4-5 Penstock ParametersImpacts on Rehabilitation .................................................. 4-10
1-1
1
UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
It is estimated that there are nearly 3 million feet of in-service penstock in North America,
perhaps at least 8 million feet worldwide. Many hydroelectric projects have steel penstocks that
have not been relined or re-coated for many years and which, at the very least, deserve
competent evaluation as to the condition of existing linings and coatings. Determinations need to
be made as to when relining/re-coating is required.
Where relining/re-coating is indicated, selecting appropriate materials and methods of
application deserves special attention. The state-of-the-art for relining/re-coating systems (both
materials and application methods) has evolved rapidly in recent years and, typically, simply
restoring existing systems is neither feasible nor desirable.
Failure to perform timely relining/re-coating can, however, be costly in terms of requirements to
perform excessive maintenance, or replacement on deteriorating systems. Also, energy
production losses can mount due to interior surface roughness. And the prospect, however
remote, of penstock failure due to wall thinning and corrosion is almost always worth avoiding.
Evaluation of an in-service penstock for structural strength and serviceability should be included
in any penstock rehabilitation project, and there are many sources for information. However,
while much literature and specification exists for coatings and linings in general, very little
guidance exists for the specific area of coating and lining rehabilitation. Assuming that the
penstock structural strength meets design criteria, or current operating conditions, how does one
address serviceability concernscorrosion protection, appearance, and water-tightness? The
objective of this Tech Roundup report is to answer this question and provide information on
rehabilitation.
A Brief History of Steel Penstocks and Coatings/Linings
The original design of in-service penstocks and the coating and lining systems used have direct
bearing on the type of rehabilitation to be performed. The following discussion should be
considered general background information on the history of in-service steel penstocks.[21]
While there has been considerable variation in the methods used for fabricating various
penstocks over the years, Table 1-1 is a general guide to fabrication technologies used for
constructing penstocks from steel plates.
Understanding the Situation
1-2
Table 1-1
Principal Methods of Joining Steel Plates and Penstock Seams
Longitudinal Seams
(Shop Construction)
Circumferential Seams
(Field Construction)
Steel Penstock
Vintage Riveted Forge-welded Welded
1
Riveted Welded
1
Mechanically
Coupled
Late 1800s1920 X X
19201925 X X
19251960 X X
1960present X X X
1
Gas or metal arc.
In general, exterior coatings systems were applied to steel penstocks as follows:
Coal tar based exterior coating materials were specified for penstocks up until the mid -
1970s, primarily because of their excellent corrosion protection on steel, good penetration
and adhesion to marginally cleaned surfaces, and ease of application.
Some of the common exterior coating systems found in steel penstock rehabilitation work
include:
Lead-based (>600 PPM) coatings, such as 1925 red-lead primer
Graphite paint (1925)
Cement mortar coatingscombinations of sprayed cement, sand, and water, with
excellent corrosion protection characteristics
Since the mid-1970s, exterior systems have been confined to two and three part organic
primer and topcoat(s).
Similarly, interior linings systems have changed over the years:
Linings used from the late 1800s to 1940 included molten coal tar with a 15- to 20-year life.
The use of these systems was discontinued due to embrittlement over time, which resulted in
cracks. Many of these penstocks are candidates for relining for life extensions.
From 1940 to 1960, coal tar enamels were used with a 20- to 30-year life. Because of the
identification of the presence of carcinogens in products with high volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), use of coal tar enamel products with a high VOC content was largely
discontinued. The emergence of environmental regulations controlling the use of materials
with VOCs also required additional compliance for application and removal.
1960 to 1980 saw the use of coal tar epoxies with a 15-year life. These products were only to
be applied in thin films (1216 mils) and were still a derivative of coal tar with
environmental restrictions.
1-3
1980 to present has seen the increased use of high performance 100% epoxies with an
expected 25- to 30-year life.
Defining the Scope of the Coating and Lining Rehabilitation
Given the wide range of installed steel penstocks that one encounters in practice, the
rehabilitation of a particular project can involve a broad scope of design, operational, and
maintenance/life extension considerations. The distinction between strength and serviceability of
an in-service steel penstock must be made. This document specifically expands techniques
associated with extending the serviceability of the structures with coatings and linings, assuming
that structural strength is not an issue. The reader is directed to other sources of information on
inspection, evaluation, and rehabilitation of steel penstocks for strength and integrity.[2,3,4]
Objectives
It is important to define the objective of the coating/lining rehabilitation project, that is, what
purpose the exterior coating or interior lining should achieve. The options are shown below.
Exterior Coatings: Corrosion Protection, and/or Appearance
Interior Linings: Corrosion Protection, and/or Water-tightness
Based on the inspection and condition assessment, the coating/lining system alternatives can then
be defined.
Exterior Coating Alternatives
The primary criteria for determining which exterior coating system to use are the standard
considerations of cost, service life, site conditions, and condition of the existing steel. The
biggest tradeoffs (cost and service life differences) for an existing penstock are in the surface
preparation. If a coating system has failed and the steel substrate is rusting, full or partial
removal will be warranted. If the primer is still good, or only touch-up is required, overcoating
can be done with minimal service preparation, to achieve increased service life at a lower cost
than complete removal and re-coating.
The best alternative for certain existing penstocks may be no coating. If the penstock is in a
relatively dry environment where rusting does not occur or occurs slowly, the rate of material
loss may be so slow that it may not be cost-effective to apply any protective coating.
Interior Lining Alternatives
An important step in choosing among interior lining options, is to determine whether the lining is
only for corrosion protection, or for both corrosion protection and water-tightness. Two common
examples where water-tightness can be a desired characteristic are:
1-4
A riveted penstock where the rivets are still structurally sound but there is seepage through
the seams. Continued seepage can induce rivet corrosion and loss of strength.
A shell that has too many pinholes to weld repair, and yet has enough strength to resist all the
loads. In this case, an internal lining can be particularly useful where the pipes exterior is
inaccessible, such as, where the pipe passes through a concrete thrust block or bridge
abutment.
As with the exterior coatings, benign neglect is also an alternative. Numerous penstocks, usually
buried, exist where the shells interior surface after the internal biological growth and tubercles
are removed is not rusted or cratered, and there has not been appreciable loss of material to the
critical penstock members (e.g., shell). An internal liner would probably not be necessary for
these penstocks.
Report Organization
Based on the clear need and interest in the topic of steel penstock coating and lining
rehabilitation, this document was designed around the following elements:
AudienceThe hydro project owner faced with an aging steel penstock, experiencing
serviceability concernsappearance, deterioration, pitting and/or corrosion, leaking, metal
loss, and perhaps hydraulic head loss.
ScopeThis document focuses on in-service steel penstocks, both exposed and buried or
encased penstocks.
TerminologyThroughout the document, coating refers to materials applied to exterior
surfaces, and lining refers to materials applied to interior surfaces.
Codes, Standards, and ReferencesThe industry has excellent resources related to steel
penstock rehabilitation. The application of these resources is referenced extensively within
the document.
PurposeAssuming structural strength is not an issue, when does a penstock need to be re-
coated or relined? The document discusses inspection and rating systems for exterior or
interior coating/linings that aid in making this decision.
FocusTo provide information on the state-of-the-art in products and techniques, as well as
a useful toola generic specification for application to rehabilitation projects.
This report is organized into five subsequent sections that describe how to successfully develop a
plan and execute a coating and lining rehabilitation project scope:
Section 2Inspection and Condition Assessment discusses:
How to inspect the condition of the aging penstock
How to analyze the condition and what is needed to rehabilitate the coating/lining system
for the operating conditions
1-5
Section 3State-of-the-art contains:
Information on materials to help select the right coating/lining system
How to prep the surface to match the system and condition
How to apply materials, and what equipment and techniques are and should be used
How to monitor, and assure a quality job- both during and after performance of the work
Section 4Getting the Job DoneDevelops a Generic Coating/Lining Specification, and other
considerations. It also discusses Ongoing Research and Future Trends.
Section 5Case Studies of Steel Penstock Coating and Linings presents several case studies and
lessons learned.
Section 6References and Resources provides information sources, contacts, and website
information.
Appendix A contains the Generic Specification developed specifically for this report.
2-1
2
INSPECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF
STEEL PENSTOCKS
Several key guidelines have been recently prepared by the hydroelectric industry to assess the
conditionstrength and structural integrityof in-service penstocks.[2,3,4] While the scope of
this document is steel penstock coating and lining rehabilitation, it is essential to understand
what affects the overall condition of the penstock, and the reader is directed to these documents
to gain a thorough background.
Steel Penstock Inspection
Coating and lining inspection is part of a comprehensive inspection program for steel penstocks.
The coating and lining inspection and evaluation is conducted to analyze the condition of the
penstock and determine what is needed to update the coating/lining system as appropriate for the
operating conditions.
The first step in a comprehensive inspection program is to gather information about the design
and operating history of the penstock as well as the physical environment, as outlined in
Guidelines for Evaluating Aging Penstocks.[2]
Necessary information includes:
Design and construction history
History during operation
Physical condition assessment
Table 2-1 expands on the informational needs in these areas.
The next step is a physical condition inspection, which is a key part of developing plans and
recommendations for rehabilitation. The referenced document, Guidelines for Inspection and
Monitoring of In-Service Penstocks is a useful guide for a comprehensive inspection program.[3]
This inspection program could include:
Exterior inspection
Interior inspection
Geotechnical inspection
Control structures and electrical/mechanical equipment inspection
Inspection and Condition Assessment of Steel Penstocks
2-2
Table 2-1
Steel Penstock Inspection Information
Topic Information Detailed Information
Design and
construction
history Design drawings Current as-builts
Design criteria Internal and external loads
Construction materials
Type of flow
Other design allowances
Foundation information (geology
and soils)
Drill logs
History of seismic activity
Design calculations Hydraulic, structural, geotechnical, and
operational
Supplier or fabricator information Specifications, drawings, testing
Construction information Field records and changes, as-built
drawings, photographs
History during
operation
Records and observations Safety
Leakage
Settlement
Horizontal and vertical movement
Slope stability observations
Geometric changes
Drainage and groundwater levels
Equipment changes
Thermal/weather conditions
Remedial actions taken
Operating characteristics Existing conduit and equipment valve and
gate closure times
Flow restrictions and operations
Steady state conditions Operating records
Reservoir rule curves
Headwater and tailwater rating curves
Generating (or pumping) utilization
Unsteady state or transient flow
conditions
Load acceptance and rejection
Valve openings and closings
Water column separation
Proposed changes to existing
operations
Any future expected modifications
2-3
Table 2-1
(Continued)
Physical condition
assessment
Dimensions and shape
Inside surfaces
Outside surfaces
Penstock support
Vibration
Geotechnical Ground movements
Water related effects
Surrounding slopes
Rock and soil tension
Tunnel portals
Foundation testing
Anchor/thrust blocks
Alignment
Dewatering/ liner drains
Tunnel liner grout ports
Standpipes/surge tanks
Operating equipment
Special appurtenances
Cold weather
assessment
Freeze-thaw effects
Seismic
assessment
Ground movement
Slope movement
Emergency Action
Plan/instrumentation
Corrosion condition
assessment
Exterior/interior Condition
Wall thickness
Cathodic protection
Thermal
assessment
Temperature differentials
Acoustical
assessment
Sound transmission
Sound reflection
Safety regulations
Water-tightness Freeze thaw damage, vegetation
growth, invertebrate development
Exterior loadings Buried penstocks-
soil/groundwater
Penstocks on supports
Water quality Sediment load, pH, chemistry
Reference: Guidelines for Evaluating Aging Penstocks, ASCE 1995.[2]
2-4
Table 2-2 summarizes the information gathered during a physical condition inspection.
Table 2-2
Steel Penstock Physical Condition Inspection
Inspection Components Inspection Techniques
Exterior inspection Configuration: distortion, settlement Visual observations, survey methods
Joints: welds and rivets Visual observation
Other features: anchor blocks, thrust
rings, rocker and slide supports,
saddles, and ring girders
Visual observation
Leakage Visual observation
Vibration Visual observation
Coatings Visual observation
Wall loss: corrosion Visual observation
Non-destructive testing (NDE)
Destructive testing (DT)
Interior inspection Configuration: distortion, settlement Visual observation, survey methods
Joints: welds and rivets Visual observation
Other features: drains, grout holes Visual observation
Leakage Visual observation
Linings Visual observation and testing
Wall loss: corrosion Visual observation
Non-destructive testing (NDE)
Destructive testing (DT)
Geotechnical
inspection
Geologic setting History and hazard review
Alignment Field reconnaissance
Foundation Field reconnaissance
Instrumentation Review records
Control structures
and electrical/
mechanical
equipment
inspection
Shut-off systems:
Intake gate
Penstock valve
Turbine shut-off valve/wicket gates
Automatic shut-off systems
Visual observation
Operational testing
Emergency operation testing
Hydraulic systems:
Turbines
Pumps
Visual observation
Operational testing
Other: valves, breakers, governors Visual observation
Operational testing
Reference: Guidelines for Inspection and Monitoring of In-Service Penstocks, ASCE 1998.[3]
2-5
Coating and Lining Condition Assessment
A comprehensive inspection program will undoubtedly turn up the need for coating and lining
rehabilitation and other essential rehab work. Once it has been determined that coating/lining
rehab work is necessary, the owner should more thoroughly assess the condition of the existing
coating and lining systems. A coating and lining survey can generally take the form of an
inspection, ideally by station or by selected periodical locations along the alignment. A sample
survey form has been included as a useful tool to document the condition of existing coatings
and lining, and to assess the scope of the rehab project. The following terminology could be used
when conducting a survey for purposes of consistency and comparisons over time.
Common Defects and Failure Modes
These terms, which are consistent with the definitions provided in recent publications, may be
used when conducting a coating/lining survey.[3]
BlisteringTrapped water or solvents reacting with the metal or contaminants in or under
the coating create pressure that is evidenced by blistering. Low profile blisters or open,
ruptured blisters are indicators of the state of the coating adhesion. Abrasion will open
blisters, exposing steel to more active corrosion.
AdhesionFlaking and lifting as well as blistering are indications of poor coating bonding,
usually as a result of insufficient or improper surface preparation. Adhesion testingby
making a series of parallel cuts to the substrate, applying and removing tapemay reveal
dirt, scale, or other foreign matter under the coating, which can cause breakdown.
DelaminationThis condition is the same as adhesion except that separation is between the
coating layers.
Voids, bubbles, pinholes, holidays, and cratersCaused when air is entrapped in the coating,
usually occurring during spraying. The bubble that develops may break later and create a
pinhole, which can cause corrosion. The coating system applied over a deep anchor profile
may not be thick enough to cover the profile and could result in pinhole corrosion, referred to
as holidays.
FadingUltraviolet light exposure may cause the top layer to fade.
CheckingSlight breaks in the film that do not penetrate to the substrate, but show the
undercoat.
CrackingDeep cracks extending to the substrate caused by coating shrinkage or excessive
thickness.
UndercuttingBlistering or peeling of the coating where exposed corroded steel is causing
adjacent coating to lift.
Abrasion damageDamage caused by mechanical motion of particles on mating parts.
Mud-cracking or alligatoringExtensive, wide cracks or breaks in the coating film that do
not penetrate the substrate.
2-6
Mildew growthOccurs in damp shaded areas of an exposed penstock; caused by fungal
growth.
Chalking erosionGradual thinning of the finish coat, exposing the undercoats.
BleedingSurface flotation of the undercoats to the topcoat.
Coating and Lining Inspection Instruments
Table 2-3 summarizes various inspection instruments and tests and their purposes. Non-
destructive examination (NDE) and destructive techniques (DT) are included.
Table 2-3
Coating and Lining Inspection Techniques, Instruments, and Uses
Technique NDE/DT
1
Description Uses
Visual (VT) NDE Visual observation Cracks, pinholes, defects
Knife/pick DT Hand held tool Check for defect depth
Rule NDE Hand held tool Check for defect depth
Pit Gage NDE Hand held tool Measures depth
Tape Adhesion Test
ASTM D-3359
DT Method A: X-cuts to substrate,
apply and pull-off tape
Method B: Parallel cuts to
substrate, apply and pull-off tape
Checks for coating
adhesion to substrate
Tensile Adhesion Test
ASTM D-4551
DT A test dolly is adhered to the
surface and force is applied until
either the test poundage is
reached or the dolly is detached
Checks tensile adhesion
strength
Dry Film Thickness
SSPC-PA-2
Measurement of Dry
Paint Thickness with
Magnetic Gages
NDE Magnetic pull-off (Type I)
Magnetic probe (Type II)
For instrument description see
Section 3
Measures the coating
dry-film thickness (DFT)
Dry Film Thickness
ASTM D-4138-94
DT Paint inspection gages (PIG)
Scratch or Tooke gages cut a
cross-section through the coating
for examination with a microscope
Determines dry film
thickness (DFT)
Advanced Techniques:
Liquid Penetrant (LT)
Magnetic Particle (MT)
Ultrasonic (UT)
Radiography (RT)
NDE Instruments and procedures used
for specific purposes
Cracks, steel thickness,
coating or lining
thickness, defect depths
1
NDENon-destructive evaluation; DTdestructive test.
Reference: Guidelines for Inspection and Monitoring of In-Service Penstocks, ASCE 1998.[3]
2-7
Adhesion tests, conducted by the destructive pull method, result in a determination that the
coating/lining has either an adhesion failure defined as a failure between two distinct paint
layers or between the substrate and the first layer of paint, or a cohesion failure defined as a
failure or break within one coat of paint (the coating/lining breaks within itself). This is
particularly useful when determining whether overcoating is warranted or a total removal and re-
coating is required.
Coating and Lining Condition Description
The general objective of a coating/lining inspection is to rate the condition of the coating and
lining.
Several rating schemes for evaluation of the coating/lining condition are used. One scheme is the
ASTM D-3359 Standard Test Method for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test, which includes two
methods. The adhesion test is a qualitative test, which can be used to rate the adhesion of a
coating/lining system.[14] The test consists of either Method A, an X-cut on the coating/lining
film or Method B, a series of parallel cuts both horizontal and vertical made in the coating all the
way down to the substrate. Tape is then applied and pulled off. The remaining coating in the area
around the cuts is evaluated as shown on Table 2-4.
Table 2-4
Adhesion Test, ASTM Test Method 3359 Cross Hatch Rating Scale
Classification
Method A ASTM Descriptions
Classification
Method B
ASTM Cross Hatch Rating Scalebased
on 6 parallel cuts
Class 5A No peeling or removal. Class 5B The edges of the cuts are completely
smooth; none of the squares of the lattice is
detached.
Class 4A Trace peeling or removal
along incisions or at their
intersections.
Class 4B Small flakes of the coating are detached at
intersections; less than 5% of the area is
affected.
Class 3A Jagged removal along
incisions up to 1/16 in.
(1.6mm) on either side.
Class 3B Small flakes of the coating are detached
along the edges and at intersections of the
cuts; The area affected is 5% to 15% of the
lattice.
Class 2A Jagged removal along
incisions up to 1/8 in. (3.2
mm) on either side.
Class 2B The coating has flaked along the edges and
on parts of the squares. The area affected is
15% to 35% of the lattice.
Class 1A Removal from most of the
area of the X under the
tape.
Class 1B The coating has flaked along the edges of
the cuts in large ribbons, and whole squares
have detached. The area affected is 35% to
65% of the lattice.
Class 0A Removal beyond the area of
the X.
Class 0B Flaking and detachment worse than Class 1.
2-8
Other coating/lining rating schemes include the one contained in the SSPC-VIS 2/ASTM
Standard D 610 and the 1998 ASCE guidelines.[17,3] A comparison of these is shown in Table
2-5. The SSPC-VIS 2, Standard Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel
Surfaces provides a pictorial standard to be used for comparative purposes representing various
amounts of visible rust on painted steel surfaces. The pictorial standard provides photographs
that compare the as-found condition (mill scale, mill scale and rust, 100% rust, and rust with
pits) to the degree of cleaning executed (Brush-off Blast SSPC-SP 7, Commercial Blast SSPC-
SP 6, Near-White Blast SSPC-SP 10, or White Metal Blast SSPC-SP 5). These verbal descriptors
can be widely interpreted by the inspector; however, the point is to apply a consistent measure of
the degree of corrosion found during the inspection.
Table 2-5
Description of Coating/Lining Condition
SSPC-VIS 2/ASTM D 610 Standard
Description of Rust Grades
ASCE Guideline
Coating/Lining Surface Rating Scheme
Rust
Grades Description
Grade/
Level Description
10 No rusting, or < 0.01% of
surface rusted.
9 Minute rusting, < 0.03% of
surface rusted.
G1/Excellent Non-deteriorated coating/lining
surface, 0 to 0.1% surface corrosion.
8 Few isolated rust spots, <0.1%
of surface rusted.
7 Less than 0.3% of surface
rusted.
6 Extensive spots but less than
1% of surface rusted.
G2/Good Slightly to moderately deteriorated, 0.1
to 1% corrosion. Blistering, loose paint
film, loose mill scale, chalking, staining
is less than 1% of coating surface.
5 Rusting to the extent that 3%
of surface is rusted.
4 Rusting to the extent that 10%
of the surface is rusted.
G3/Fair Deteriorated, 1 to 10 % surface
corrosion. Less than 10% of the
coating surface is covered with rust,
blisters, scaling, loose paint, and
delamination.
3 Approx. 1/6
th
of the surface is
rusted.
2 Approx. 1/3
rd
of the surface is
rusted.
G4/Poor Severely deteriorated surface, 10 to
50% of surface corrosion. <50% of the
coating surface is covered with rust,
undercutting, pitting (loss of material),
delamination, blistering, scaling, and
loss of coating.
1 Approx. 50% of the surface is
rusted.
0 Approximately 100% of the
surface is rusted.
G5/Bad Totally deteriorated surface, 50 to
100% surface corrosion. Near or total
coating/ lining failure, severe
corrosion, and measurable steel loss
is occurring.
References: [17,3]
2-9
Overall Condition Assessment
A suggested penstock inspection checklist was developed in the ASCE Guidelines. Items
included in the checklist for a complete penstock inspection are:[3]
Penstock shell
Couplings/expansion joints
Joint conditions
Penetrations
Anchor blocks
Exposed support systems
Coatings/linings
Buried/partially buried systems
Table 2-6 contains a sample coating and lining inspection form for use in completing a condition
assessment for each location along a penstock.
Development of Alternatives
Following an inspection of the condition of in-service penstocks, alternative actions for
rehabilitation can be developed, including options for ongoing inspection, evaluation,
monitoring, maintenance, and full rehabilitation.
Alternative action plan recommendations can be proposed based on some time schedule,
depending on the size and scope of the rehabilitation. For example, these may include
recommendations for:
Immediate action (within the next year),
Short-term action, such as a 1- to 3-year time frame, and
Long-term action, such as a 3- to 8-year period.
2-10
Table 2-6
Sample Coating and Lining Inspection Form
SAMPLE COATING AND LINING INSPECTION FORM
Page ___ of ___
Station: Project: Date:
Client Representative Inspector(s)
Penstock Description
Diameter Material Coating
Area/Access/Slope
Weather
Defects in Coating/Lining Location A B C D E
Tests Performed:
Overall Condition Assessment:
Blistering
Delamination/Fading
Voids/Craters/Pinhls
Checking/Cracking
Mildew/Aq Gwth
Lining
Adhesion
Test Grade
DFT Test INTERIOR EXTERIOR Steel Thickness
Coating
Adhesion
Test Grade
DFT Test Comments/Methods
NOTES
Station ( Orientation Looking Downstream)
Lining
For purposes of this report, we define the following alternative actions:
Spot InspectionPerform a cursory spot inspection of coating and lining at several locations
on the penstock during a one- or two-day period.
Coating/Lining InspectionPerform a detailed penstock coating and lining inspection,
documenting the full length of the penstock, to include observations of leakage at rivets,
seams, and welds.
Structural EvaluationPerform an engineering assessment of structural strength of the
existing penstock based on its actual documented condition.
Maintenance PatchingRequires wire brush or power tool removal of loose coating/lining
materials, collection of debris, application of primer and topcoat with either the same or a
compatible material.
2-11
Over-coatMay require high pressure water washing to remove loose coating materials,
collection of wash water, application of primer and topcoat of a material that will adhere to
existing coating material.
Re-coatMay require high pressure water washing to remove loose coating materials,
collection of wash water, performance of the appropriate level of SSPC standard abrasive
surface preparation for the selected material, prime and topcoat with the coating material.
RelineMay require high pressure water washing to remove loose lining materials,
collection of wash water, performance of the appropriate level of SSPC standard abrasive
surface preparation for the selected material, and application of the lining material.
Deciding on a plan of action includes considerations of schedule, budgetary costs, and materials.
Determination as to whether to over-coat or remove and re-coat is often a difficult decision. For
external coatings, the over-coat alternatives include both maintenance spot patching and a total
over-coat . When rusting and corrosion first appear, it is generally acceptable and cost effective
to extend the service life of the penstock by spot repair. This is essentially localized overcoating
as the loose material is removed by hand- or power-tools and a repair is made, usually of the
same material.
The decision to discontinue maintenance spot repair and install a totally new overcoat or remove
and re-coat is typically based on economics comparisons between the value of periodic
maintenance expenses and the cost of a new system. Almost always, the cost of overcoating is
less than the cost for total removal of the existing system and re-coating, and if correctly applied,
can provide service lives in excess of 20 years. However, it is important to ensure that an
existing system can be effectively over-coated by evaluating the extent of the corrosion on the
existing surface, the total thickness of the existing coating, and the adhesion of the existing
coating layers.
Generally, penstocks with 3% to 10% of the total exterior surface area rusted may be candidates
for overcoating. As discussed above, non-destructive testing can be performed to determine the
dry film thickness of the existing coating and the number of layers or coats. Generally, existing
coating systems less than 20 mils can be successfully over-coated. Finally, the critical parameters
for determining whether an existing system will support an additional layer of coating are the
adhesion criteria. As discussed, adhesion test can be conducted by either the pull-off tape method
(ASTM D-3359) or the adhesion dolly method (ASTM D-4551). Intra-coat, inter-coat, and
substrate adhesion results should show a 5 (A or B) for the tape test, and preferably pull off
stresses exceeding 300500 psi from the Elcometer test for the overcoat to be successful.
When evaluating over-coat materials, it is prudent to first apply some material test patches in
representative locations and monitor performance for a few seasons. Frequently, this can be done
as part of an interim spot maintenance repair program. It is important that the test patches have
the same level of surface preparation that would be used in a large scale overcoating program.
Discussions with the material manufacturers to determine the applicability of the materials to the
existing system also proves invaluable in selecting the appropriate course of action.
2-12
Where relining/re-coating is indicated, selecting appropriate materials and methods of
application deserves special attention. The following sections discuss these elements as well as
specification elements for various conditions.
3-1
3
STATE-OF-THE-ARTSTEEL PENSTOCK COATING
AND LINING REHABILITATION
Coating and Lining System Materials
This section outlines what coating/lining system to recommend and specify for the conditions
encountered, taking into consideration surface preparation, application techniques,
environmental and physical constraints, and ways to ensure a quality job.
The Society for Protective Coatings (formerly the Steel Structures Painting Council, SSPC) has
formulated descriptions of various industrial environmental exposures or zones. For purposes of
steel penstock applications, both exterior and interior, the coating/lining system is defined as
fresh water immersion. Additional factors involved in selecting an appropriate coating /lining
system include:
The existing condition of the surfacecorrosion (pitting), water-tightness (leaking), etc.
Type of surface to be coatedriveted joint construction or welded
Life or serviceability needs
Surface preparationcost associated with condition and accessibility
Service and application temperatures and conditions, both weather and steel temperature
Final appearance (gloss or color) for applications
Value of a quick cure time to reduce loss of generation during the job (for interior lining
projects)
These items are discussed below and are summarized on Table 3-1.
The overall purpose of the system servicecorrosion/appearance or water-tightnesshas been
discussed previously, and is the key to the family of coating/lining products to be considered.
State-of-the-ArtSteel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation
3-2
Table 3-1
Selection of Coating/Lining Systems
Basis Inspection System Purpose Considerations Conditions
System
Selection
Structural
condition
okay?
Perform
exterior
inspection
Exterior corrosion
protection/
appearance
Operating
environment
Temperate
High light
Humid
Standard epoxy
UV protection
Moisture-cured
Service life Short
Longer
Bitumastic
Other systems
Structural
condition
okay?
Perform
interior
inspection
Interior corrosion
protection or water-
tightness or both?
Corrosion protection-
(Thin mil lining)
Lost generation
Service life
Longer cure time
Shorter cure
time/longer life
Epoxy
100% epoxy
Water-tightness and
corrosion protection
(Thick mil lining)
Lost generation
Service life
Application
temperature
Longer cure time
Long life
Application
temperature
restrictions
Single
component
materials
Lost generation
Service life
Application
temperature
Shorter cure time
Long life
More flexible
temperature
conditions
Plural
component
materials
The construction joints and discontinuities on the exterior of penstocks pose special problems
that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As an example, penstocks that are supported on
steel or concrete saddles will experience corrosion between the shell and their contact to the
saddle. These areas need to be cleaned and painted as well as possible, which is difficult to
accomplish. The areas of contact should be caulked to prevent water from entering and causing
further corrosion. A pathway for drainage should be incorporated at a low point.
Welded or riveted connections should receive a strip coat to ensure adequate film build-up for
corrosion protection. Appurtenances, such as manholes or other extensions, should not be
painted closed.
3-3
The decision to proceed with a rehabilitation coating or lining project can also include
consideration of the service life of the new material. Generally, these may fall into the following
expectations are reasonable:
Exterior Coatings: 1015 years
Interior Linings: 2025 years
Generally, the range of service life is related to the surface preparation achieved, with shorter
lives being related to poorer quality adhesion. The ability to achieve good surface preparation is
influenced by access and site conditions, and surface preparation remains the single most costly
process for both interior and exterior applications.
The operating environment is also key to the selection of an appropriate coating/lining system.
There are a number of manufacturers of coatings and linings that can respond to varying
environmental and atmospheric conditions. Matching the system to the need involves
consideration of all these factors. In addition, the manufacturers recommended surface
preparation, temperature parameters, and final dry film thickness (DFT) are essential to a
successful application.
Interestingly enough, selection of color does come into play. For interior applications, light
colors tend to allow for easier illumination during subsequent inspections. Exterior color
selection can be influenced by ambient temperatures. For example, in northern regions, light
colors can promote ice formation. Extremes of hot ambient temperature on dark colored
penstocks may induce large thermal movements.
Finally, for interior applications, the value of lost generation during an outage could be an
element in the selection of a coating that allows for quick cure for immediate immersion service.
Table 3-2 outlines general recommendations for exterior coating and interior lining systems. For
completeness, the surface preparation requirements and final thickness ranges are included.
These parameters are discussed in subsequent sections. Specific manufacturer products are
discussed in Section 4 and further discussions with manufacturers representatives on the specific
application is always recommended.
3-4
Table 3-2
Generic Steel Penstock Exterior Coating and Interior Lining Specification Options
Service/Purpose
of Coating Coating Material Options Surface Preparation
1
Final Coating
Thickness
Corrosion protection
and /or appearance
Zinc primer/acrylic topcoat, or
Zinc primer/epoxy intermediate
coat/ urethane topcoat
Remove original coating
2
by
SSPC-SP 6 or 10
Thin mil coating
(49 mils)
Corrosion protection
and /or appearance
Moisture-cured urethane Over-coat marginally cleaned
steel or top-coat over tightly
adhered old coating
SSPC-SP 2, 3, or 6
Thin mil coating
(49 mils)
Corrosion protection Bitumastic coal tar Over-coat marginally cleaned
steel or top-coat over tightly
adhered old coating
SSPC-SP 2, 3, or 6
Remove loose rust and oil
grease etc.
(SSPC-SP 2, 3, or 10)
Thin mil coating
(49 mils)
Service/Purpose
of Lining Lining Material Options Surface Preparation
1
Final Lining
Thickness
Corrosion protection Primer and epoxy topcoat
Primer and 100% solids epoxy
Remove original lining
2
by
either SSPC-SP 5 and/or 10
Thin mil lining
(<20 mils)
Water-tightness and
Single component elastomeric
polyurethane
2
by
SSPC-SP 10
Thick mil lining
(7080 mils)
Water-tightness and
Plural component materials:
100% solids polyurethane
100 % solids polyurea
2
by
SSPC-SP 5
Thick mil lining
(7080 mils)
1
Recommended surface preparation standard varies with the selected manufacturers material. These references are
provided only as a guide.
2
Removal of original coating/lining may require hazardous material handling. The SSPC Guide 6, Guide for
Containing Debris Generated during Paint Removal Options, and Guide 7, Guide for the Disposal of Lead-
Contaminated Surface Preparation Debris, should be consulted.[18]
Exterior Coating Systems
As previously discussed, the objective of the rehabilitation of an exterior coating system is either
corrosion protection and/or appearance. As outlined in Table 3-2, four principal system options
are suggested for use in exterior application:
Zinc primer/acrylic topcoat
Zinc primer/epoxy/urethane topcoat
Moisture-cured zinc/urethane
Bitumastic coal tar
3-5
Zinc primer/acrylic topcoat
The zinc base coat provides corrosion protection and is applied after surface preparation as
recommended by the manufacturer.
The acrylic topcoat adds color but is short-lived and requires re-coating at 5- to 10- year
intervals. However, provided no breakdown of the coating system is noted, maintenance staff can
usually re-coat to restore appearance directly over the existing system.
Zinc primer/epoxy/urethane topcoat
This option provides significantly more corrosion protection than the primer/topcoat system. The
epoxy color may chalk over time and become dull; therefore, a topcoat of urethane is added to
prevent UV light deterioration. This three-part application process does require more material,
skill, and application time, but provides a slightly longer (>10 years) system life.
Two component epoxies are coatings activated by adding a curing agent (sometimes called
converter, activator, hardener or catalyst) to the resin base. There are several kinds of curing
agents, including polyamine, polyamide, and isocyanate.
Polyamine produces a film with excellent chemical and immersion resistance. Polyamine-
cured coatings tend to have short pot lives and care must be taken to apply the coating soon
after mixing. In addition, polyamine systems are sensitive to moisture and in combinations
with cool temperatures will blush and generate amine bloom which degrades adhesion of
successive coats of materials.
Polyamide produces a film with less tendency to blush than the polyamine and generally
has better wetting characteristics to the substrate. It also has better chemical resistance, but is
more toxic.
Isocyanate produces a film that cures at lower temperatures (below 50 degrees F).
Moisture-cured zinc/urethane
Moisture-cured systems systems that rely on moisture for curing have a great advantage
over other systems in cases where moist or humid environmental conditions cannot be avoided
during application. The material is a little more expensive, but this can be balanced out with
savings in application cost and long-term durability.
Bitumastic coal tar
This coating has traditionally been the common material for exterior application. It has the
advantage of increasing corrosion protection with marginal surface preparation. It is now seeing
less application than in the past because of its relatively high VOC content and exposure of
workers to carcinogenic compounds. However, it still could be applied in spot repair over an
existing system. Several different formulations have been used over the years, including:
3-6
Coal tarwith a high VOC content
Coal tar epoxieswhich may contain a high VOC
Coal tar enamelswhich are formulated with low or no VOC content
Interior Lining Systems
As outlined in Table 3-1, five principal system options are suggested for use in interior lining
applications for either corrosion protection and/or water-tightness:
Epoxy primer and topcoat
Primer and 100% solids epoxy topcoat
Single component elastomeric polyurethane
Plural component100% solids polyurethane
Plural component100% solids polyurea
All of the interior lining options provide corrosion protection. The 100% solids polyurethane and
polyurea options also provide water-tightness.
Epoxy primer and topcoat
This is the lining system most commonly used for standard applications. Because these materials
are typically 50% to 70% solids materials (the remainder is solvent), they generally take 34
coats in order to achieve the required film thickness (primer and 23 coats of the topcoat
material). Because these are solvent-based materials, cure times are slow, particularly when
temperatures are low. If the solvent is not allowed to fully evaporate between coats, inner coat
adhesion problems can occur. They can be applied with standard conventional and airless spray
equipment.
Primer and 100% solids epoxy topcoat
Usually the primer is the same material as the topcoat. Because these materials are composed of
100% solids, they can be applied in two coats to achieve the required film thickness. Since these
materials do not have solvents in them, they cure more quickly than other materials, but may
cure slowly at lower temperatures. These materials usually require special spray equipment
(plural component), and can be installed faster and at a broader range of temperatures than other
systems.
The 100% solids epoxy provides significantly more corrosion protection than standard epoxy,
but requires a bit more skill to apply. A 100% solids epoxy eliminates the potential for solvent
entrapment associated with high build-up and multiple coats.
3-7
Single component elastomeric polyurethane
This is a high solids single component modified polyurethane that when applied in 50 to 100 mil
DFT thickness provides an elastic waterproof membrane. Its advantages are that it only requires
conventional single component spray equipment, the material cost is less than plural component
materials, and it has good properties such as low permeability, high adhesion, and flexibility.
The material disadvantages include a minimum material temperature of 60 degrees F, and a short
pot life, varying from 45 minutes at 60 degrees F to 10 minutes at 90 degrees F. These materials
also have a tendency to run and sag on vertical surfacesonly approximately 40 mils DFT can
be applied in a single coat, thus requiring two coats to achieve water-tightness. The single
component polyurethanes have longer curing times (48 hours at 70 degrees F) prior to
immersion.
Plural component100% solids polyurethane
These materials are usually primerless and can be applied in 1 or 2 coats. They require special
plural-component spray equipment (discussed in subsequent sections) for application, and each
component must be heated to decrease viscosity. They cure very quickly (to touch in about 5
minutes), and are temperature insensitive for curing. This advantage allows the system to be
returned to service in about 24 hours.
Plural component100% solids polyurea
A 100% solids plural component polyurea applied in 50 to 100 mil DFT provides an elastic
waterproof membrane. Its advantages are that it can be applied in temperatures ranging from 20
degrees F to 400 degrees F. Thickness up to 250 mil DFT can be applied in a single coat, and it
has fast cure time, no volatile organic compounds (VOC), and has excellent material
characteristics such as low permeability, chemical resistance, elongation, corrosion protection
and high adhesion. Material disadvantages are that it requires specialty plural component spray
equipment, and should be applied only by a manufacturers certified contractor, and relatively
high material cost.
3-8
Water-tight Liner Considerations
Water-tight liner strength
The most important thing when looking at an aging penstock and considering the lining is to
determine if the existing shell is strong enough for the loads. None of the water-tight liners
(including fiberglass) add structural strength to the penstock because the materials have such a
low modulus of elasticity and tensile strength. Thus the steel still must carry the internal
pressures of the system. An analogy would be a balloon inside a pipe, where the balloons very
low stiffness and tensile strength causes it to just be a force against the pipes interior diameter.
But an internal water-tight liner can provide enough local strength to bridge small pinhole leaks.
This can be improved by embedding fiberglass or plastic mesh in the coating.
Single versus plural component materials for water-tight liners
The differences between plural and single component materials is significant. Plural components
have the advantage of no odor, no limiting pot life, no solvent, and instantaneous set up with
essentially no cure time. The polyurea plural components also can be applied in conditions of 0
degrees F, thereby eliminating the need for costly penstock heating. The disadvantage of plural
component materials is that they require special equipment and personnel, meaning there are less
approved contractors available, and therefore are more costly. The single component
disadvantages/advantages are; fumes as the material cures, requires multiple (at least two) coats
to reach 80 mils, and less chemical resistance than plural components. The comparative
advantages are lower cost and easier installation.
Table 3-3 shows a comparison of liner strength and service life for these materials. This table
was developed from manufacturers product data sheets and contains material technical
performance information that is the quantitative results of specific material testing. The relative
importance of various technical properties will vary with the site conditions and the purpose of
the coating system. Some examples are:
Abrasion resistance would be more important for a penstock on a water system with a higher
sediment load and suspended solids
A higher material tensile strength would improve the ability of a water-tight lining material
to bridge pinholes and minimize leakage
A higher adhesion strength would help prevent lining delamination from a penstock exposed
to large thermal growth and contraction cycling
3-9
Table 3-3
Comparison of Performance and Service Life Properties for Internal Water-tight Penstock
Liners
Property
Elastomeric
Polyurethane
Note 1
100% Solids
Polyurethane
Note 2
100% Solids
Polyurea
Note 3
Tensile Strength (psi) 565 TO 650 Note 4 3,000 Note 10 2,125 Note 10
Elongation 345425% Note 4 65% Note 10 250% Note 10
Adhesion to Steel (psi) 1,000 Note 5 >1,500 Note 15 1,2502,000 Note 13
Abrasion (mg) 3 Note 6 56 Note 6 250 Note 12
Hardness >60 Note 7 6570 Note 11 50 Note 11
Moisture Vapor Trans.
Rate (Perms) Note 8
0.05 Note 16 0.1 (at 10 mils) 0.025 Note 9
Salt Spray Corrosion
(Hours)
2,000 Note 14 NA NA 1,000 Note 14
Notes:
1 TNEMEC 262 Elasto-shield (single component product)
2 POLYBRID 705 (plural component product)
3 VERSAFLEX FSS/50DM (plural component product)
4 ASTM D-412
5 ASTM 4541, Cured 14 days at 75 degrees F and 50% relative humidity
6 ASTM D-4060 (CS-17 wheel, 1,000 grams load), 1,000 cycles
7 ASTM D-2240 (Shore A)
8 A perm equals 1 grain of H
2
O/hour/ft
2
per 1-inch difference in Hg pressure across the membrane
9 ASTM E-96
10 ASTM D-638
11 ASTM D-2240 (Shore D)
12 ASTM D4060 (1,000 grams, 1,000 rev., H-18)
13 Epoxy Primer = 1,250 psi, bare steel > 2,000 psi
14 ASTM B-117 Salt Fog Corrosion Resistance
15 Elcometer pull
16 ASTM D-1653
Surface Preparation
It is generally believed that fully 60 to 80% of all premature coating failures are attributable to
inadequate or improper surface preparation.[14] Therefore, this step in the overall coating/lining
process is vital.
The basic procedure could include:
Pre-inspectionTo inspect and mark any particular areas for different or special cleaning or
methods
Pre-cleaningTo remove any contaminants such as oil or grease, which could involve
solvent cleaning
3-10
Cleaning operationsTo the appropriate standard as required by the coating/lining system
material
The primary specifications for surface preparation are contained in the SSPC/NACE standards as
outlined in Table 3-4. These methods are universally recognized and match the coating/lining
system with the surface preparation.
Table 3-4
Surface Preparation Techniques
Specification Title Description
Application/
Commentary
SSPC-SP 1 Solvent Cleaning Removal of oil, grease, dirt, soil, salts,
and contaminants by cleaning with
solvent, vapor, alkali, emulsion of
steam.
Used to pre-
clean any areas
of grease or oil
SSPC-SP 2 Hand Tool Cleaning Removal of loose rust, mill scale, and
paint to degree specified, by hand
chipping, scraping, sanding, and wire
brushing.
SSPC-SP 3 Power Tool Cleaning Removal of loose rust, mill scale, and
paint to degree specified, by power tool
chipping, scraping, sanding, and
grinding.
SSPC-SP 5 / NACE 1 White Metal Blast
Cleaning
Removal of all (100%) visible rust, mill
scale, paint, and foreign matter by blast
cleaning by wheel or nozzle (dry or wet)
using sand, grit, or shot.
Highest cost
SSPC-SP 6 / NACE 3 Commercial Blast
Cleaning
Blast cleaning until two-thirds (66%) of
the surface area is free of all visible
residues.
SSPC-SP 7 / NACE 4 Brush-Off Blast
Cleaning
Blast cleaning of all except tightly
adhering residues of mill scale, rust,
and coatings, exposing numerous
evenly distributed flecks of underlying
metal.
SSPC-SP 10/ NACE 2 Near-White Blast
Cleaning
Blast cleaning nearly to White Metal
cleanliness, until at least 95% of the
surface area is free of all visible
residues.
SSPC-SP 11 Power Tool Cleaning to
Bare Metal
Abrasives not used.
SSPC-SP 12 / NACE 5 Surface Prep and
Cleaning of Steel by
High and Ultra-High
Pressure Water Jetting
Water only
Reference: [17]
3-11
For penstock coating and lining rehabilitation, surface preparation is usually performed utilizing
a combination of techniques. Generally, preparation begins with removing oil, grease, and dirt
from the substrate, using a solvent (SSPC-SP 1). Hand and Power Tool Cleaning (SSPC-SP 3
and SP 4) can be performed in limited areas; however, most surface preparation is either done by
water jetting (SSPC-SP 12) or by one of the abrasive blasting techniques.
The key to successful surface preparation is generating a surface or anchor profile. Anchor
pattern profile is generally defined as the peak to valley depth (or height) caused by the impact of
an abrasive onto the substrate. The surface profile increases the surface area, providing a
mechanical anchor to which coatings and linings can adhere.
While water jetting does not create a surface profile, as does abrasive blasting, it can be very cost
effective for removing old material and corrosion byproducts. Water jetting may be more
effective than abrasive blasting at removing coal tar enamels and materials in deep pits. This is
particularly true if the existing coal tar is very thick. Abrasive blasting alone often generates so
much heat that the thick coal tar softens and becomes very sticky and difficult to remove. Water
jetting followed by abrasive blasting mitigates this problem.
Water jetting equipment includes a power source (generator), water jetting unit, high-pressure
hoses, water, and personal protective equipment. The equipment is simpler than that required for
abrasive blasting. Water jetting cleans but does not impart a profile into the steel. The SSPC
standard for water jetting is contained in SSPC-SP 12. Included in that standard are various
surface preparation and cleanliness conditions.
Water jetting is the only process that will remove salts or chlorides. Many project owners use
abrasive cleaning only to find out later that the coating/lining fails because chlorides were left on
the surface. If salts or chloride contamination from ambient air is a consideration, water jet
surface preparation may be indicated, as a secondary step prior to application.
Abrasive blasting techniques are contained in the standards SPPC-SP 5, 6, and 10. Abrasive
blasting requires a generator, compressor, blast pot, abrasive (expendable or recyclable), hoses,
recycling equipment (if required), and personal protective equipment. Abrasive blasting imparts
a profile or surface roughness into the steel as it cleans. There are different blast cleaning
standards by SSPC/NACE for the specified steel cleanliness as shown on Table 3-4. The air
compressor air should be checked for oil contamination at least every 4 hours.
Both water jetting and abrasive blasting can be performed by hand methods and automated spin
blasting. Abrasive blasting is a much more costly and labor intensive process.
Removal of existing coatings and linings, particularly those with lead or hazardous materials,
may require containment and disposal procedures. These are comprehensively discussed in the
SSPC guides on environmental protection. Guide 6 describes procedures for containing debris
generated during paint removal operations, Guide 7 contains guidelines for disposing of lead-
contaminated surface preparation debris, and Guide 10 outlines specifications and testing of
coatings for VOC compliance.[18]
3-12
Once the surface preparation has been completed, several standards are used to evaluate the
readiness. These include:
NACE RP0 287-95 Field Measurement of Surface Profile of Abrasive Steel Using a Replica
Tape, which is a test method that measures the anchor pattern profile depth. Testex Press-O-Film
Replica Tape, is used, which is a fast, simple pull-off tape that can measure surface profile and
provide a record of the test.
Several alternate comparative tests can be used, such as:
The Keane-Tator Surface Profile Comparator, which are durable reference discs designed to
visually determine the surface profile of various sand, shot, or grit/slag abrasive cleaned
surfaces.
Clemtex anchor profile chips, a comparative method that uses samples of patterns.
Other photographic standards can also be used to compare readiness:
SSPC-VIS 1-89Visual Standard for Abrasive Blast Cleaned Steel (Standard Reference
Photographs). This is a photographic standard depicting the appearance of previously unpainted
steel prior to and after abrasive blast cleaning. The photographs supplement the written SSPC
Surface Preparation Standards.
SSPC-VIS 3Visual Standard for Power- and Hand-Tool Cleaned Steel (Standard Reference
Photographs). This is a photographic standard depicting the appearance of unpainted, painted,
and welded steel prior to and after power and hand tool cleaning. The photographs supplement
the written SSPC Surface Preparation Standards.
SSPC-VIS 4(I)/NACE No.7Interim Guide and Visual Reference Photographs for Steel
Cleaned by Water. This new publication features reference photographs that illustrate the
appearance of unpainted rusted steel surfaces before and after water jetting, with additional
photographs that depict the occurrence of light, moderate, and heavy flash rusting after water
jetting. It is intended for use as a supplement to SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 5 standard.
An international standard, ISO 8501-1 (also referred to as the Swedish Standards) is also
available to compare hand, power tool, and blast cleanliness.
Application Techniques
There are several different application techniques used for coating and lining application. Table
3-5 discusses the techniques and their advantages and disadvantages.
3-13
Table 3-5
Application Techniques
Technique Uses Advantages Disadvantages
Brush Used on smaller jobs:
strip coating welds,
edges, welds, rivets,
bolts, nuts
Coating of hard to reach
areas, including crevices
and corners
Good coverage Slow production rate
Roller Coating of areas where
spray equipment cannot
be used
Faster than brush
Good for flat surfaces
Slower than spray and
not as uniform a
coating
Conventional
air spray
General spray
application
Spray pattern is easily adjusted for fan
width
High-quality finishes
High loss due to
overspray problems
Thinning required for
atomization
Airless spray
and spin
sprayer
General spray
application
Reduced overspray
Compressed air not required
Pressure pot not required
Powered by air, electricity, or hydraulics
Faster production rate than conventional
Fixed tip; fan not
adjustable
Little control of quality
of spray
Difficult to spray small
items
Plural
component
spray
100% solids materials Ease of applying high solids materials
Drying times shorter
Coatings applied at low temperatures
Lower VOC emissions
More expensive and
complicated
equipment
Poor mixing ratios can
cause problems
High Volume-
Low Pressure
General spray
application
More control over spray pattern
Reduced bounce-back and overspray
Reduced VOC emissions
Savings of materials and less hazardous
waste
Lower production
rates
More expensive
equipment
Air-assisted
airless
General spray
application
High-quality finishes
Lower overspray
Lower production
rates
A number of various spray processes are commonly used. Some of the more popular systems
include:
Conventional sprayLow productivity, more over-spray, but controllable for fine and tight
areas
Airless sprayHigh productivity, low over-spray, but no control over fineness of spray
3-14
High VolumeLow Pressure (HVLP)Low productivity, high transfer efficiency
Plural component sprayUsed for most 100% solids materials, and polyurethanes
For penstocks, conventional and plural component spraying are the primary processes used.
Conventional systems may be used for painting of ring girder components. For the interior of
penstocks, a spin sprayer, which is classified as an airless system, may be employed. For this
process, to ensure adequate coverage and to minimize the potential for holidays (discontinuities),
each successive coat would be applied with the spin sprayer rotating in opposite directions.
One very important element of the spray process is thinning. Many times the coating material
must be thinned in order to spray the material because of low temperatures. It is important that
the thinner used is as specified by the manufacturer and added in an accurately measured
quantity (percentage). Many times painters will use hand and cleaning products to thin because
they have these materials available. These products should not be used to thin unless they are
specified as acceptable. In addition, coating and lining materials should not be applied any
thicker per coat than as specified by the manufacturer.
Quality Assurance
Table 3-6 outlines some quality assurance techniques that are commonly used in during
application of coating and linings.
The thickness of the wet coating can be measured in the field by the use of a wet film thickness
gage. These gages resemble notched combs. They are placed directly on a freshly painted
surface, then withdrawn, and the wet-coating thickness is read directly from the wetted gage
face.
The corresponding dry film thickness can be estimated by the percent solids of the material, and
the percent thinning.
The final dry film thickness (DFT) can be measured by either of two types of gages according to
the SSPC Paint Application PA 2Measurement of DFT with Magnetic Gages.[17]
Magnetic pull-off (Type I) gages measure DFT by applying a magnetic probe to the coated
surface and removing, while a spring tension is measured as the magnet pops.
Type II, constant pressure probes, measure DFT thickness by applying current to the coating
and substrate. Manufacturers such as Elcometer, Quanix, and Positector provide instruments
with direct readouts, in mils or microns.
A final step in the application process is the verification of the integrity of the coating/lining for
pinholes. This is accomplished by the NACE RPO 188 Discontinuity (or Holiday) Test. The
testing equipment detects voids or pinholes in non-conductive coatings/linings applied to
conductive substrates. Thin mil coatings (<20 mils) are measured with a low voltage holiday
detector with a sponge-type wetted probe. The instrument clicks slowly when passed over
continuous coatings, and rapidly on discontinuous surfaces. Thick mil coatings are tested using a
high voltage holiday detector (100125 volts per mil) and an appropriate probe, often called a
3-15
spark test. As the probe is passed over the coated surface, the flaw is indicated by a spark, and
audible/visual alarms on the detector. These instruments are available for a variety of coating and
lining application systems.
Table 3-6
Quality Assurance Techniques
Inspection
Process Guideline or Standards Purpose
Coating/lining
system
Manufacturers product information sheet Checks for compliance with manufacturers
recommendations and record of product
batch number and mixing
Weather conditions ASTM E337 Test Methods for Relative
Humidity by Wet- and Dry-bulb
Psychrometer
Measures humidity at time of application
Surface preparation-
compressors
ASTM D428 Test Methods for Indicating
Oil or Water in Compressed Air
Used to check compressed air every 4
hours during surface preparation
Surface preparation NACE RP0 287-95 Field Measurement of
Surface Profile of Abrasive Steel Using a
Replica Tape
Used to check surface preparation profile
Surface preparation SSPC-VIS 1 Visual Standard for Abrasive
Blast Cleaned Steel
Used to check surface preparation
compared to specification
Surface preparation SSPC-VIS 3 Visual Standard for Power-
and Hand- Tool Cleaned Steel
Used to check surface preparation
compared to specification
Application Wet film thickness gage Measures the wet film thickness using a
notched-comb type instrument
Application SSPC-PA 2 Measurement of Dry Film
Thickness with Magnetic Gages
Measures the dry film thickness using a
Mikrotest FIM gauge or equivalent
Holiday testing NACE RPO 188-99 Discontinuity (Holiday )
Testing of Protective Coatings
Checks for holidays or pinholes in dry
coating/lining.
Low voltage detector with wetted sponge
probe for thin mil coatings (up to 20 mils)
High voltage spark detector for thick mil
coatings
Table 3-7 is a sample QA/QC Inspection Report, which includes areas for inspection of all
phases of the job, including existing conditions and specified materials, weather, surface
preparation, application and holiday testing.
3-16
Table 3-7
Sample QA/QC Inspection Report
SAMPLE QA/QC INSPECTION REPORT
Project:
DATE: / / REPORTED BY:
Client Representative 3rd Party Inspector
SPECIFICATION Paint System: Surface Prep: SSPC-SP Blast: Anchor Pattern Range
Product No. Color No. Thinner No. DFT Range mils
Coat #1
Coat #2
Coat #3
Paint System Specified Total Minimum Dry Mil Thickness Requirement: mils (min) mils (max)
WEATHER Reading Time
1. Dry Bulb (F)
2. Wet Bulb (F)
3. Steel Temp. (F)
4. Rel. Humidity (%)
5. Dew Point (F)
6. Difference: Steel-Dew Point Temp.
7. Wind Speed (MPH)
8. Wind Direction (from)
Weather Comments:
SURFACE Compressor CFM Type No. Air Cleanliness Test: passed not passed
PREPARATION Dehumidification Equip. Used No Yes: Size of Unit
SP1: Solvent SP2 Hand Tool SP3 Pwr Tool SP5 White Metal
Apply SP6 Cmcl SP7 Brush Off SP10 Near White SP11 Pwr Tool SP12 Water Blast
Pres-o-Test Surface Preparation Inspection Notes:
Film Here Blast Profile Test Results mils Does Blast meet Spec? Yes No
Method of Retrieval/Recycling of Steel Grit: Cleanliness Tested Yes No
Abrasives: Steel: New Recycled Mfg: Non-Steel: Type: Grade: Mfg:
EXISTING N/A Welding Defects:
STRUCTURES N/A Defects in Primer/Coating:
NOTATION N/A Existing Coating Thickness: Non-Lead Lead
COATING Application method: Airless Conven. Brush/Roller Stripe Coat Other
APPLICATION Coating Application: Coat #1 Coat #2 Coat #3
Wet Film Thick Checks: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Paint/Thinner Mf g and Number Batch No. Exp. Date Gallons Coat # Color # Thinner # Gal/oz/% Pwr Mix Time Sweat-in Time
Avergage Dry Film Thickness: 1st Coat: 2nd Coat: 3rd Coat: Other:
HOLIDAY TEST Continuity Test: Method Used Sponge Tester High Voltage Tester: set at volts
Number of Holidays Detected: Marked Repaired: Yes No Notes:
General Coating Quality: Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
DESCRIPTION OF WORK & LOCATION:
Intermediate Inspection Final Inspection
The Undersigned certifies that the statements made here are true and factual to the best of my knowledge.
QA/QC Inspector: Owners Rep.
Signat ure Dat e Signat ure Dat e
Material Mfr
4-1
4
GETTING THE JOB DONEGENERIC
SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Development of a Generic Specification
The development of a generic specification for steel penstock coating and lining began with the
review of available job-specific specifications for both exterior and interior penstock
rehabilitation projects. While no generic specification can be developed which accounts for all
site specific conditions encountered, the following outlines the considerations involved in
developing a penstock coating and lining application specification. A source for the development
of the generic specification and considerations for a rehabilitation project were provided by the
document, The Coating Specification by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE).[14]
With the advent of the Construction Specifications Institute, Inc. (CSI) Format for Construction
Specifications and the Uniform Construction Index (available through Resource 6), a complete
specification might include several major divisions to account for the totality of a penstock repair
job. Table 4-1 contains a possible layout. For singular jobs, most penstock coating and lining
specifications could be categorized in the Division 9 Finishes as either Section 09800 Special
Coatings or Section 09900 Painting. All site, field, and environmental conditions could be
included in this format.
The choice must be made by the owner or specifier. For purposes of this document, we organized
the generic specification as a singular Section: 09870 Penstock Coating and Linings, subdivided
into 3 Parts: General, Products, and Execution. Table 4-2 provides an outline of the Generic
Specification, which is contained in its entirety in Appendix A.
The generic Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation Specification, follows the basic format
of the preceding sections and allows for tailoring to the specific needs of the project. The generic
specification also includes text denoted as <<Optional>>. Optional items that are included for
use at the discretion of the Specifier, covering other conditions that may be encountered, such as
extreme steep slopes, handling of hazardous materials during surface preparation, and contractor
installation of manholes to improve access.
Getting the Job DoneGeneric Specifications and Other Considerations
4-2
Table 4-1
General Specification Contents
Special Considerations for Commercial Terms
Generic Specification for Turnkey Construction: Supply labor, material, equipment
Division 1General Requirements
01500 Construction Facilities and Temporary Controls
Division 2Site Work
Division 5Metals
Division 7-Thermal and Moisture Protections
Division 9Finishes
09800 Special Coatings
09900 Painting
Division 13 Special Construction
13510 Restoration of Underground Pipelines
Division 15Mechanical
15061 Steel Pipe
Reference: CSI website
4-3
Table 4-2
Generic Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Specification Contents
Part 1General
1.1 Description of Work
1.2 Site Conditions
1.3 Reference Standards and Codes
1.4 Other Requirements: Safety and Environmental
1.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
1.6 Submittals
Part 2Products
2.1 Delivery, Handling, and Storage
2.2 Surface Preparation Products
2.3 Exterior Coatings
2.4 Interior Linings
2.5 Touch-Up Materials
Part 3Execution
3.1 Work Sequence
3.2 Penstock Access
3.3 Surface Preparation
3.4 Repair of Steel Defects
3.5 Application
3.6 Inspection and Tests
3.7 Repairs and Remedial Coating Work
3.8 Final Acceptance
End of Section
4-4
Manufacturers and Material Selection
Based on the project conditions, the Specifier has the option to define various penstock coating
and lining systems. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 contain some of the available manufacturers product
options for both exterior and interior material selections, consistent with the products discussion
contained in Section 3 of this report. While these tables contain specific products, they are in no
way an endorsement of particular manufacturers, and the specifier would include the appropriate
products, or approved alternatives, depending on the purpose of the coating/lining rehabilitation
project.
The particular material manufacturers requirements should be followed in terms of surface
preparation and application parameters. Manufacturers material or product data sheets provide
valuable information for comparison of products and criteria. The data sheets include required
surface preparation, minimum coating mil thicknesses, and other application information such as
solvent use, ratio of mixing components, and pot life (i.e. the time within which the activated
resin needs to be applied). Other technical performance criteria, such as abrasion resistance,
tensile strength, and adhesion strength, should be used to compare the performance of various
systems. These criteria will guide the specifier in deciding on what material to use given the
conditions, or whether a substitute material meets the specification.
If required, the specification can also cover the need for interior lining materials to conform to
ANSI/NSF Std. No. 61specifications for potable water systems. The National Sanitary
Foundation (NSF) is an independent organization that develops standards, product testing, and
certification services in the areas of public health safety and protection of the environment. One
of the NSFs functions is to certify materials that are safe for contact with potable water. At the
present time, 29 states have enacted regulations, and 12 require compliance of products in
contact with drinking water to meet the requirements of ANSI/NSF 61-1999a Drinking Water
System Components. When specifying a system, the product data sheets should be reviewed for
compliance with these criteria. Table 4-4 includes a footnote designating those materials that are
known to be suitable in accordance with ANSI/NSF Std. No. 61. However, this is not a
comprehensive list. Other products may be available from the manufacturers that are in
compliance. It is recommended that this requirement be discussed with the manufacturer
representatives if a lining is required for potable water system use.
Job Structure and Manufacturers Representatives
As with any project, an owner could choose to procure the materials directly (supply) and have a
contractor apply the materials (install). However, it is generally considered that an overall
contract, requiring the contractor to both supply and install the coating/lining system, results in a
better project. Prior to contract bidding, however, interaction of the owner and material
manufacturers representatives is encouraged to help all parties fully understand the nature of the
materials being specified and their unique surface preparation, application, and curing
characteristics.
E
P
R
I

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
G
e
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

J
o
b

D
o
n
e
G
e
n
e
r
i
c

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
-
5
T
a
b
l
e

4
-
3
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

f
o
r

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

C
o
a
t
i
n
g

S
y
s
t
e
m
s
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
:

Z
i
n
c
/
A
c
r
y
l
i
c

O
p
t
i
o
n
Z
i
n
c

P
r
i
m
e
r
A
c
r
y
l
i
c

T
o
p
c
o
a
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
A
m
e
r
o
n
D
9
H
S
S
P
1
0
2
4
A
m
e
r
c
o
a
t

2
2
0
N
/
A
2
4
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e
/
P
l
a
c
i
t
e
C
Z
1
1
H
S
S
P
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e

3
3
5
0
N
/
A
2
3
I
C
I

D
e
v
o
e
C
a
r
h
a

C
o
a
t

3
0
4
V
S
P
1
0
2
4
D
e
v
f
l
e
x

4
2
0
8
N
/
A
2
3
S
i
g
m
a
S
i
l
g
u
a
r
d

M
C

7
5
5
1
S
P
1
0
3
5
M
e
t
a
l

G
u
a
r
d

5
2
6
4
N
/
A
3
4
S
h
e
r
w
i
n

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
Z
i
n
c

C
l
a
d

I
I

H
S
S
P
6
3
5
D
T
M

A
c
r
y
l
i
c
N
/
A
2
4
T
n
e
m
e
c
T
n
e
m
e
-
Z
i
n
c

9
0
9
7
S
P
6
2
4
S
e
r
i
e
s

2
6

&
N
/
A
2
3
S
p
r
a
-
S
a
f

E
N

S
e
r
i
e
s

3
0
N
/
A
2
.
5
/
3
.
5
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
:

Z
i
n
c
/
E
p
o
x
y
/
U
r
e
t
h
a
n
e

O
p
t
i
o
n
Z
i
n
c

P
r
i
m
e
r
E
p
o
x
y

I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

C
o
a
t
U
r
e
t
h
a
n
e

T
o
p

C
o
a
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
A
m
e
r
o
n
D
9
H
S
S
P
1
0
2
4
A
m
e
r
c
o
a
t

3
8
5
N
/
A
/
4
5
A
m
e
r
c
o
a
t

4
5
0
H
S
N
/
A
2
4
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e
/
P
l
a
c
i
t
e
C
Z
1
1
H
S
S
P
6
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e

8
8
8
N
/
A
2
3
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e

1
3
3
H
B
N
/
A
2
4
I
C
I

D
e
v
o
e
C
a
r
h
a

C
o
a
t

3
0
4
V
S
P
1
0
2
4
B
a
r

R
u
s
t

2
3
5
N
/
A
4
8
D
e
v
t
h
a
n
e

3
8
9
N
/
A
2
3
S
i
g
m
a
S
i
l
g
u
a
r
d

M
C

7
5
5
1
S
P
1
0
3
5
U
n
i
c
o
a
t

5
4
8
3
N
/
A
3
5
S
i
g
m
a
d
u
r

H
S

5
5
2
9
N
/
A
2
4
S
h
e
r
w
i
n

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
Z
i
n
c

C
l
a
d

I
I

H
S
S
P
6
3
5
D
u
r
a
p
l
a
t
e

2
3
5
N
/
A
4
5
C
o
r
o
t
h
a
n
e

I
I
N
/
A
2
4
T
n
e
m
e
c
T
n
e
m
e
-
Z
i
n
c

9
0
9
7
S
P
6
2
4
E
p
o
x
o
l
i
n
e

I
I

S
e
r
i
e
s

6
9
N
/
A
3
5
E
n
d
u
r
a
-
S
h
i
e
l
d

7
5
N
/
A
2
4
E
P
R
I

L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
G
e
t
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

J
o
b

D
o
n
e
G
e
n
e
r
i
c

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
-
6
T
a
b
l
e

4
-
3
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
:

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
u
r
e
d

U
r
e
t
h
a
n
e

S
y
s
t
e
m

O
p
t
i
o
n
P
r
i
m
e
r
T
o
p
c
o
a
t
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
W
a
s
s
e
r
M
C
Z
i
n
c
S
P
6
2
.
5
3
.
5
M
C

T
a
r
N
/
A
5
7
S
h
e
r
w
i
n

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
C
o
r
t
h
a
n
e

I
M
i
o
-
A
l
u
m
S
P
6
3
4
C
o
r
t
h
a
n
e

I
I
r
o
n

O
x
N
/
A
3
4
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
:

B
i
t
u
m
a
s
t
i
c

C
o
a
l

T
a
r

O
p
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

N
a
m
e
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
P
r
e
p
.
D
F
T
R
a
n
g
e
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e
C
a
r
b
o
l
i
n
e

3
0
0
M
S
P
1
0
N
/
A
T
n
e
m
e
c
4
6
H
-
4
1
3

H
i
-
B
u
i
l
d
T
n
e
m
e
c
-
T
a
r

E
p
o
x
y
S
P
1
0
N
/
A
4-7
Table 4-4
Available Materials for Interior Lining Systems
INTERIOR: Primer and Epoxy Option
Primer Topcoat
Manufacturer
1
Product Name
Surface
Prep.
DFT
Range Product Name
Surface
Prep.
DFT
Range
Ameron Amerlock 400
2
SP10 57 Amerlock 400
2
N/A 57
Carboline Carboline 891
2
SP10 46 Carboline 891
2
N/A 46
ICI Devoe Bar Rust 235 N/A 48 Bar Rust 235 N/A 48
Sigma TCP 7476 SP10 46 TCP 7476 N/A 46
Sherwin Williams Duraplate 235 SP10 48 Duraplate 235 N/A 48
Tnemec Epoxoline II Series 69 N/A 35 Epoxoline II Series 69 N/A 35
INTERIOR: 100% Solids Epoxy Option
Primer Topcoat
Manufacturer
1
Product Name
Surface
Prep.
DFT
Range Product Name
Surface
Prep.
DFT
Range
Ameron Amercoat 351 SP10 810 Amercoat 351 SP10 810
Carboline Carboline 991 SP10 67 Carboline 991 N/A 67
Devoe Devran 133 SP10 56 Devran 133 N/A 56
Sigma Sigmaguard BT 7404 SP10 46 Sigmaguard BT 7451 N/A 1214
Sherwin Williams Duraplate UHS SP10 46 Duraplate 235 N/A 1012
INTERIOR: Single Component Elastomeric Polyurethane
Topcoat
Manufacturer
1
Product Name Surface Preparation DFT Range
Tnemec Tnemec 262 SP10 7080
INTERIOR: Plural Component 100% Solids Polyurethane
Topcoat
Manufacturer
1
Polybrid/Carboline Polibrid 705
2
SP 5 4060
Futura Futura-thane 527/528
2
SP10 4060
Global Eco Technologies Endura Flex 1988
2
SP 5 4060
INTERIOR: Plural Component 100% Solids Polyurea
Topcoat
Manufacturer
1
Versaflex FSS/45 DC SP5 7080
1
All manufacturers may offer products suitable for use in potable water systems in accordance with
ANSI/NSF Standard 61.
2
Products known to be suitable in accordance with ANSI/NSF Standard 61.
4-8
Other Commercial Considerations
Contractor Qualifications
As detailed in a recent presentation, no matter what coating/lining system is specified, it is
recommended that the contractors are pre-qualified based on project experience in the particular
products, methods, and application procedures.[22] The level of qualification necessary for the
job will depend on the complexity of the project and the duration.
Certification and accreditation programs for field application contractors have been outlined by
the Society for Protective Coatings, (formerly SSPC) by the QP1 Certification Program.[17]
SSPC-QP 1, Standard Procedure for Evaluating Contractors (Field Application to Complex
Industrial Structures) includes a method for evaluating industrial field painting contractors and
defines a minimum standard for qualification. It includes sections on the personnel, organization,
qualifications, procedures, knowledge, and capability to perform surface preparation and
coating/lining application of the required quality under the conditions and restrictions expected.
Additionally, should removal of existing hazardous coatings/ linings be required, SSPC-QP 2,
Standard Procedure for Evaluating the Qualifications of Painting Contractors to remove
Hazardous Paint (e.g., containing lead or other hazardous metals) is a sound reference for the
specific project, establishing categories based on the type and level of containment required. The
procedure also establishes minimum requirements for worker health and safety programs and
environmental protection programs utilized by the contractor during hazardous paint removal
operations.
In addition, certain complex coating/lining material products, particularly those with plural
components require certification of applicators by the manufacturers. The capability to apply
these specialty linings is unique to different products.
While these types of programs do not guarantee performance, pre-qualification and standard
checking of a contractors references, perhaps through the manufacturers representatives, may
be also warranted.
Inspection Options
It is postulated that the quality of a completed project often has a direct correlation to the quality
of the inspection. The generic specification presented in Appendix A outlines some inspection
and quality assurance and control options. While it is at the owners discretion, the level and type
of inspection is important to the quality of the job. The owner has the option to select a program
that is either contractor controlled, or provide an owner representative or engineer on-site.
Another option is to provide a third-party inspector. For large and long duration projects, the
added costs of a third party inspector are far outweighed by the benefits in terms of cost savings
and life extension. A competent qualified inspector, either employed or contracted by the
owner, who works with the contractor, will result in a win-win situation for the owner.
4-9
Value of Lost Project Benefits During Rehabilitation
While the coating of an exposed penstock can generally be accomplished without dewatering of
the penstock, the value of lost project benefits can be a significant element in scheduling interior
lining projects. The value of the dewatering time, lost unit run time, (i.e., lost generation), loss of
other project benefits such as flood control or downstream recreation, and any mitigation or
installation of temporary systems can also be a factor. This information should be included in the
specification at Section 1 or 3 (Work Sequence) and should be carefully crafted.
A consideration is the inclusion of an average daily value of these lost project values, which
could be used to calculate the cost of the impact of the contractors schedule. This allows the
contractors to rationally evaluate the economic impact of accelerating the work (i.e., adding a
second shift) versus the bid price. This also could be used in an instance where a liquidated
damage penalty or even an incentive could be applied for proposed schedule deviations.
Additional Warranties
Records of inspection and repair/trouble areas should be maintained throughout the execution of
the job, and reviewed during the final acceptance walk through. This documentation can then be
used in subsequent inspections to verify the performance of the coating/lining system for
warranty purposes. The standard contractor warranties usually include a one-year warranty for
small repairs. Optional warranties (at cost) may be obtained to extend to 5 or 10 years for
replacement.
Added Generation Benefits
Of particular interest in some of the relining case studies presented in the following section is the
improvement in capacity, as a result of reductions in headloss and leakage. While anecdotal in
nature, these cases provide some incentive to invest in a rehabilitation project. Generally,
measurable improvements in capacity and reduction in headloss can be seen in projects with
higher water velocities and longer penstocks.
Cost and Schedule Estimates
While it is difficult to generalize cost and schedule estimates without specific project parameters,
the following can be considered general guidance in this area.
Table 4-5 presents some penstock parameters and possible impacts on cost and schedule. The
nominal case represents most likely cost conditions; deviations to either end of the range may
have cost and schedule implications.
4-10
Table 4-5
Penstock ParametersImpacts on Rehabilitation
Parameter Nominal Case Project Considerations
Diameter 30 inches to 6
or 7 feet
Below 30 inches in diameter, use of standard surface preparation
and application equipment becomes difficult.
Above 6 or 7 feet, the use of scaffolding is required for access.
Age Before 1950
(arbitrary)
Penstocks at the 4050 year service life normally are seeing
deterioration. Penstocks of this vintage may require extensive
base metal repair, and may involve hazardous material handling
to remove the original coating/lining system.
Length/location
of manholes
Average 250
1000 feet,
center to center
Practically speaking, length between access points affects
considerations for confined space work and length of equipment
hoses. The addition of contractor installed manholes may be a
cost effective solution.
Head Varies Internal pressure design capabilities are not affected.
Velocity 115 fps Velocities of 6 to 8 fps are common in the East, 1215 fps in the
West.
Slope 3% to 35% At minimum slopes, invert corrosion may be a problem.
At maximum slopes, rigging and access can increase costs.
Connections Rivets
Gaskets
Welds
During rehabilitation, workers should be careful to avoid painting
gasket material.
Surface preparation profiles should maintain the integrity of the
welds/rivets base profile.
Some difficulties may result with spray application at these areas.
Water quality Unique water
chemistry
Drinking water
standards
The particular water chemistry may affect the product selected
for use. Extremes of pH, mineral content, or sediment load may
indicate particular products.
For drinking water, lining materials should be compatible with
ANSI/NSF Std. No.61.
Environmental
conditions
Substrate
temperature
Humidity
Ambient air
temperature
Maintaining the appropriate temperatures during application is
key to a successful project. Contractor methods to provide for
these conditions, such as heating, ventilation, and moisture
protection, will add to the cost of the project.
The following presents a general range of expected costs per sq. ft. for interior lining and exterior
coating costs.[22] Figure 4-1 depicts a general expectation for total costs of the work by
component. These costs can vary widely depending on the nature of the specific project, and are
presented here only for general guidance.
4-11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ext erior I nt erior- Thin Mil I nt erior- Thick Mil
$
/
S
F
QA/ QC
Applicat ion
Surface preparat ion
Mat erials
Access/ Sit e Condit ions
Figure 4-1
Relative Cost Exterior and Interior Coating and Lining Rehabilitation
Field Application of Exterior Coatings: $5.00 to $ 7.50 ($US/ sq. ft.)
Field Application of Interior Linings:
Thin mil $3.50 to $10.00 ($US/ sq. ft.)
Thick mil $12.00 to $30.00 ($US/ sq. ft.)
Ongoing Laboratory and Field Test Programs
In conjunction with Powertech Labs, BC Hydro has an ongoing laboratory and field test program
for penstock coating maintenance.[15]
Four coating systems are commonly used throughout the BC Hydro infrastructure:
Red lead in linseed oil primer with a black graphite in linseed oil/alkyd type topcoat.
Coal tar epoxy
4-12
Hi build vinyl
Alkyd primer containing red lead and/or zinc chromate pigments with an alkyd topcoat
The first three have been used extensively on penstocks. The alkyd system has been used on a
variety of steel structures and equipment.
BC Hydros test programs have evaluated the performance of environmentally acceptable
systems when used to over-coat the above coatings. Initially, panels were prepared with the four
systems, and then aged to simulate their condition as found in the field. New coatings were then
applied to the prepared aged systems.
The types of coatings used to over-coat the aged systems have included:
Several surface tolerant epoxy systems, some with urethane topcoats
100% solids epoxy sealers with epoxy/urethane systems
Waterborne acrylics
Vinyl/alkyd primer with silicone/alkyd topcoat
Polysiloxane
Calcium sulphonate modified alkyd
Waterborne vinyl
Synthetic resin coatings
Single component mastic
Field trials have also been carried out using the systems which performed the best in the
laboratory tests.
Current Test Programs
Coating rust
The point at which it is necessary to strip and re-coat a structure, as opposed to overcoating, is
not always easily defined. One of the factors affecting a decision is the amount of rust present in
the existing coating. Assuming that the overall adhesion of the existing coating to the substrate is
good, BC Hydro generally recommends overcoating if there is less than 3% rust showing. For
structures with 3% or greater rust, BC Hydro recommends stripping and re-coating. BC Hydro is
presently running a test program to ascertain the effect of varying amounts of rust in the aged
coating. All previous tests were performed using aged systems in a perfect (no rust) condition. In
this test program, aged panels have been prepared with 1%, 3%, and 10% of the surface area
showing rust breakthrough. Following cleaning, using methods which would be appropriate in
the field, they have been over-coated with systems approved in previous tests on aged coatings in
perfect condition. It is anticipated that the test will define more clearly the maximum amount of
rust that overcoating systems can tolerate.
4-13
Multiple overcoating assessment
The issue of how many times overcoating can be performed raises many unknowns. A second
test program is underway in which three different approved systems will be reapplied and aged
up to a maximum of four applications. The overcoating systems are:
Surface tolerant epoxy/urethane
Calcium sulphonate modified alkyd
Waterborne elastomeric acrylic
BC Hydro hopes that this test program will indicate any problems that may arise with multiple
overcoat systems.
Future Trends and Potential Areas for Coatings and Lining Improvement
Materials
Two key parameters for improving materials for steel penstock linings are water-tightness and
abrasion resistance.
It would seem advantageous to develop and include on product data sheets an analytical
technique to test and comparably rate or predict the performance of internal water-tight liners.
For example, one material characteristic for internal water-tight liners is the material thickness
necessary to seal varying sizes of pinhole leaks. This is obviously dependent on a variety of
factors including the pipe pressure, hole size, material thickness, and tensile strength.
In a May 1993 Hydro Review article, Innovations in Penstock Lining, the author described
PG&E leakage testing of Polibrid 100% Solids Polyurethane.[21] It would be useful to have an
established, accurate analytical procedure and formula, calibrated with additional testing on a
variety of products, to predict performance of a given material in sealing a given size hole. This
information would help a user select a liner material type and thickness that would optimize
protection without adding excessive cost.
Another important area of liner service life evaluation is abrasion, where relating parameters
such as river borne sediment and penstock velocity to the results of performance testing could be
used to determine a rational method of predicting the linings effective service life. This
information would then be used to determine the life cycle costs for a proposed penstock relining
project.
Another promising area of investigation is the potential to produce interior lining systems with
even lower Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ratings, and coatings that give high edge build
retention for appurtenances. Both of these developments are being considered by manufacturers
of the products.
4-14
Surface Preparation
The single largest cost of a steel penstock lining is the surface preparation of the existing surface.
Therefore, it would seem that another potential area of improvement would be to devise either
improved methods of cleaning and/or different coating materials that would decrease the cost of
cleaning the penstock surface. A future trend in this area might be an improved method of
cleaning using water-washing or water jetting in conjunction with rust inhibitors.
Application
A trend in coating and lining materials seems to be that materials are being developed that are
less sensitive to application restrictions such as temperature and humidity. While the base cost of
the material may be slightly higher, the improvements in materials application tend to make the
overall project less costly. A key to a cost-effective coating and lining rehabilitation then is to
specify a good match of the correct material for the needs of a specific application. This means
paying only for higher cost material characteristics if these parameters are needed for a particular
application.
In the related area of concrete penstocks, one material that is being used to reinforce concrete
pipes is carbon fiber. This material is brought into the pipe interior in sheets and pasted on the
shell interiorsimilar to installing wallpaper. The carbon fiber adds tensile strength, and some
waterproofing. Applications have been generally limited for a structural reinforcing of masonry
walls; however, carbon fiber reinforcement may become a possibility for concrete penstock
lining, although it is fairly expensive material.
5-1
5
CASE STUDIESSTEEL PENSTOCK COATING AND
LINING REHABILITATION
The following case studies outline some of the techniques identified above. They are included
here to educate the reader about the unique parameters facing each penstock rehabilitation job.
Several case studies are presented for condition assessments, exterior coating and interior lining
projects. Each of the case studies is presented in a similar format:
Project Background
Inspection and Condition Assessment
Scope of Work
Site Conditions
Materials
Surface Preparation
Application
Cost and Schedule
1 Inspection, Condition Assessment, and Alternative Action PlansMoccasin,
California
This information and case study was provided through personal communication with Hetch
Hetchy staff and contractors in November 1999.[7,12,23]
Project Background
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power needed inspection and condition assessment of in-service
penstocks at three projects. Information from these inspections is needed as key inputs for
developing budget projections for the organizations ongoing capital and maintenance program.
With these needs in view, preliminary inspections and condition assessments were conducted to
suggest alternatives and recommendations regarding rehabilitation of coatings and linings of
Hetch Hetchys penstocks.
Case StudiesSteel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation
5-2
Holm Project Penstock
The 169 MW two-unit Holm Powerhouse of the Cherry Hydroelectric Project was completed in
1960 and consists of a reservoir, intake structure, tunnel, penstock, and powerhouse. At the
tunnel portal, a valvehouse near elevation 4305 at station 0+00 begins the single 6,800-foot long
penstock. The average slope is approximately 30% and the gross head on the project is 2,481
feet.
The penstock is of 1958 welded construction, ASTM A 212 Grade B, firebox quality with
Dresser mechanical couplings. Diameter varies from 94 inches to 80 inches. The penstock is
lined with spun coal tar and has a painted two-coat primer and enamel coating, which has been
patch repaired over the years.
Kirkwood Project Penstock
The 124 MW three-unit Canyon Hydroelectric Project was originally completed in 1965 and
consists of an intake structure, tunnel, penstock, and Kirkwood powerhouse. The last unit of 46.6
MVA capacity was added in 1987. At the tunnel portal, a valvehouse near elevation 3355 at
station 4+00 begins the penstock. The upper 1,800 feet of the penstock is laid on concrete slab,
which is anchored to the foundation by stressed tendons, and protected from rock slides by
concrete walls. The lower 660 feet is buried with the last 150 feet encased in concrete. The
average slope is 56% and the gross head at the project is 1,400 feet.
The penstock is 1965 welded construction, ASTM A 212 Grade B, firebox quality with
mechanical couplings. The interior lining is spun coal tar enamel, and the exterior coating is a
three coat primer and aluminum paint system. Diameter varies from 92 to 84 inches.
Moccasin Project Penstocks
The original four-unit 90 MW Moccasin Powerhouse Project was completed in 1925 and
consists of an forebay, intake structure, tunnel, penstock, and powerhouse. At the tunnel outlet
portal, a valvehouse near elevation 2072 starts the 5,200-foot penstock system. 3 penstocks exist,
but only 2 are in operation. A third penstock to extend the unused stub-out is under design.
Rehabilitation of the project took place in 196769, when a new powerhouse was built with two
units capable of an output of 57.5 MVA each. Also approximately 1,100 feet of the lower
penstock was replaced near the powerhouse. The average slope is 21% and the gross head at the
project is 1,300 feet.
Penstocksthree separate sections:
Section IRiveted steel, circa 1925, coated and lined with Biturine enamel
Section IIHammer forge-welded pipe, circa 1925, coated and lined with Biturine enamel
Section IIIWelded steel with Dresser type couplings, circa 1969, lined with spun coal tar
enamel and coated with same
5-3
The inspection was conducted Monday through Wednesday, November 13, 1999 at Hetch
Hetchy Water & Power in northern California, near San Francisco.
The Holm exterior coating was inspected at three locations and found to be in good overall
condition. The interior was not inspected at this time.
The Kirkwood penstock exterior coating was inspected in one location and found to be in good
to fair overall condition. Numerous areas of rock hits and surface damage were noted. The thin
mil thickness suggested minimal surface corrosion protection. The interior was not inspected at
this time.
The Moccasin penstock was dewatered and the interior and exterior inspected at five locations.
The inspection of the three sections of the Moccasin penstocks revealed significant concerns
with the condition of Section I, particularly on the interior. While the exterior coating of Section
I and II is considered in fair to good overall condition, further deterioration can be expected.
Section III, though of more recent vintage, is also experiencing initial loss of both coating and
lining at this time.
Site Conditions
All three project penstocks are located on generally steep to very steep slopes. The slope will be
a factor in the necessary rigging for access for any rehabilitation work.
Recommendations and Action Plan for Hetch Hetchy Moccasin Penstocks
Based on the condition of the coating and linings observed in the inspection, an action plan and
recommendations can be proposed for consideration by Hetch Hetchy. These include:
Immediate (within the next year) further inspections, documentation, and evaluation efforts
at all projects
Short-term, 1- to 3-year alternatives, including exterior coating and maintenance patching
and repair at Holm and Moccasin, over-coat exterior application at Kirkwood, and Section I
interior reline at Moccasin
Long-term, 3- to 8-year objectives, to include re-coating and relining of all penstocks at the
three projects
Materials and Engineers Opinion of Budgetary Costs and Schedules
Based on the condition assessment, several recommendations for materials, surface preparation,
and application were suggested.
5-4
At Holm, re-coating could be accomplished following removal of the existing system, with a
zinc primer and epoxy/urethane system or a zinc primer with an acrylic or alkyd topcoat.
Budgetary estimates range from $4.50 to $6.00 per sq. ft. with an 8-week project duration.
Because of the existing thin mil corrosion protection at Kirkwood, an over-coat with an acrylic
or alykyd system is indicated, following a high-pressure wash, as surface preparation. Budgetary
estimates range from $4.50 to $6.00 per sq. ft. foot, with a 4-week duration.
At Moccasin, due to the thick mil, old biturine enamel in Sections I and II, high pressure water
jetting is recommended prior to surface prep and re-coating. Budgetary estimates range from
$4.50 to $7.50 per sq. ft., with an 8-week project duration.
A 100% solids polyurethane or polyurea is recommended for Section I following a more detailed
structural evaluation of the condition of the penstock. Budgetary estimates range from $16 to
$18.00 per sq. ft., with a 4-week project outage duration, with 2 shifts.
Interior lining options for Sections II and III include either a thin mil epoxy system or a 100%
solids product, depending on an economic evaluation of cost, outage duration, and cure time.
2 Penstock Coating MaintenanceBC Hydro, British Columbia
This information and case study was provided through personal communication with BC Hydro
staff.[15]
Project Background
B.C. Hydro has two types of penstocks, one type constructed of wooden staves held together
with metal bands, the other made of steel, welded or riveted together with Dresser-type
couplings. Of the two, the steel penstocks make up the majority. In the past the wooden
penstocks were protected from drying out and elemental damage by the use of tar and/or creosote
type barrier coatings. These types of protective coatings are no longer acceptable because of
environmental and health concerns. New systems are needed to over-coat the existing coatings
and to continue to protect the wooden staves from deterioration by the elements, or by insect and
fungal attack.
Steel penstocks currently in use by BC Hydro fall into two categories, older penstocks and newer
penstocks.
The older penstocks were originally coated without the use of abrasive blast cleaning. The mill
scale remains on the steel and the coatings were applied to the mill scale. The coatings used on
these older structures were generally very slow drying and loaded with inhibitors, i.e. red lead
primer and a variety of topcoats. The other coating often used consisted of an asphaltic type
primer and finish coat. Both types of coatings contain hazardous materials, the red lead primer
containing very high levels of lead and chromium, and the asphaltic type usually containing high
levels of asbestos.
5-5
The newer steel penstocks, those where abrasive blasting was used, were often coated with high
build vinyls or epoxy systems. Since these materials, for the most part, do not contain as many
hazardous ingredients, their removal is less dangerous and costly.
BC Hydros Approach to Condition Assessment
When the time to re-coat a penstock arises, determining the most cost-effective method of
protecting the substrate is critical. This is a two-step process.
Step 1An initial assessment of the following factors:
Condition of substrate and type of substrate
Presence of dangerous or hazardous materials in old coating system
Proximity of sensitive environmental areas i.e. water ways
Deterioration of the old coating system, i.e. > 3% rust
Type of coating failure, and whether it is random or confined to certain areas
Number of overcoats already present
Adhesion of old coating system
Life expectancy of both existing and new replacement systems
Availability of funds
Step 2A choice of action based on the above findings:
Do nothing at the time
Touch-up the existing system
Over-coat the existing coating
Remove the old system and replace it with a newer one
BC Hydro has embarked on an inventory of structures to help with decisions on how best to
maximize coating dollars. The structures undergo a condition assessment to evaluate the state of
the coating system and to provide a ranking of the structures.
The high cost of coating removal and re-application (strip and re-coat) has shifted thinking to
include overcoating where long-term savings are possible. Overcoating an existing system can be
a very cost-effective method of extending coating life, provided it is done correctly. The
downside is that it is more riskypremature failure of the overcoat system could negate savings,
and hence an accurate preliminary condition survey is critical. Identifying suitable overcoat
systems is also of paramount importance. Field and lab tests are essential to reducing the chance
of premature overcoating failures. The following describes a recent project undertaken by BC
Hydro under this program.
5-6
Project Background
The BC Hydro Clowhom generating facility was constructed in 1958. The project features a 33
MW powerhouse in a remote location with approximately 1,600 feet of a 14.5-foot diameter
penstock. The maximum static head is 170 feet.
The existing exposed coating on the penstock is a primer containing an oil alkyd with iron oxide
and some red lead with a topcoat containing graphite.
A 1997 inspection revealed that the topcoat was experiencing deterioration. The primer was
showing in some locations and there was corrosion on the underside of the penstock. Exterior
corrosion protection was the only serviceability concern. Interior roughness/efficiency concerns
and water-tightness were not issues. Three alternatives were considered:
Strip and re-coat by sandblasting in the near future.
Over-coat now using high pressure water washing to prepare the surface
Do nothing, i.e. monitor and repair in future
Interior lining conditions were poor but corrosion appeared to be progressing slowly.
External coating conditions were such that overcoating was considered a low risk option.
Present value 30 year costs indicated overcoating to be the best alternative.
Scope of Work
BC Hydro decided to over-coat all external surfaces. The work was carried out in 1998.
Site Conditions
The project is located in a remote area. The penstock has a slight incline for 800 feet to the surge
chamber. Downstream of the surge chamber the penstock slopes at about 45 degrees for
approximately 100 feet to the powerhouse. Normal ambient conditions are typical of the west
coast, generally mild with some winter frost and snow. The site is on the banks of a salt-water
inlet.
Surface Preparation
Surface preparation included:
Water-wash at 10,000 psi to remove most of the existing topcoat and loose primer. All wash
water was filtered using geo-fabric to remove paint chips.
No specification for surface profile because the existing primer was reused.
5-7
Application
The new coating was spray applied. The selected material is a calcium sultanate coating which is
slow to dry and cures soft. The material is not suitable for trafficked areas and there were some
problems with dust during the initial cure time. However, it provides good adhesion even over
residual graphite topcoat, remains flexible, and is relatively simple to maintain.
Quality Assurance and Inspection
Inspection was provided by BC Hydro staff and required confirmation of the surface preparation
standards. No serious concerns during implementation were experienced.
Cost and Schedule
The total project took approximately 6 weeks at a contractor cost of approximately $C 5.3 per
sq. ft.
3 Exterior CoatingMoisture Cured UrethaneBureau of Reclamation, Idaho
This case study was provided through personal communication with Bureau of Reclamation
staff.[6]
Project Background
Anderson Ranch Dam was constructed between 1941 and 1950 and is located on the South Fork
of the Boise River about 20 miles northeast of Mountain Home, Idaho. The dam provides
irrigation, power, flood control, and silt control. The powerhouse has two turbine units with a
rated capacity of 20 MW per unit. The maximum static head is 332 feet.
The outlet works consists of a 20-foot diameter reinforced concrete lined tunnel through the left
abutment, controlled at the upstream end by a fixed wheel gate. The tunnel transitions into a 15-
foot diameter steel penstock about 700 feet downstream from the fixed wheeled gate. The steel
penstock is encased in concrete for the first 90 feet, then is enclosed within a 20-foot diameter
tunnel section for 762 feet. Within this tunnel section, the exposed existing coating on the
penstock is a specified Bureau of Reclamation cold-applied CA-50 coal tar paint. The original
specifications did not specify a dry film thickness.
A Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) report Review of Operation and Maintenance (No. 92-
2-H, 1992) recommended cleaning and re-coating the exposed surfaces of the steel penstock,
pipe support columns and rings, and appurtenant metalwork due to water seepage with calcium
carbonate from the tunnel roof. Calcium carbonate stalactites had formed on the tunnel roof and
in some areas formed stalagmites on the penstock.
5-8
A December 1997 Reclamation report noted that the mineral deposits adhering to the coating
were softening and swelling the CA-50 coal tar paint. Dry film thickness ranged from about 7 to
30 mils. Removal of the mineral deposits and coating revealed a rust-like material, but this
material proved to be mineral stained deposits and was easily wiped clean. Where the CA-50
coating was dry, there was no apparent deteriorated coating and the material was in fair to good
condition. There was no significant corrosion to the penstock. The report recommended spot
removal and spot repairs. Essentially, the same findings and recommendations were made by an
independent NACE Coating Inspector report dated June 1998.
Scope of Work
Three alternative bid schedules were considered:
Clean and re-coat damaged penstock and appurtenant metalwork areas, about 4,200 sq. ft.
Clean and re-coat two large sections of penstock and appurtenant metalwork areas, about
31,000 sq. ft.
Clean and re-coat entire penstock and appurtenant metalwork areas, about 41,000 sq. ft.
After evaluation of bid proposals, Reclamation selected alternative No. 1. The selected bid was
$105,000. The Contractor mobilized in November 1999.
Site Conditions
The 15-foot diameter penstock is located within the 20-foot diameter tunnel. One access portal
was available with a maximum clearance of 2.5-feet for working room. Environmental
conditions include nearly 100% humidity at the concrete plug end of tunnel, and a penstock
water temperature of 50 degrees F. The substrate penstock metal surface temperature was 48
degrees F.
Materials
A single component, moisture-cured urethane manufactured by Wasser High-Tech was selected
for application. A corresponding primer and topcoat was specified (MC-Miozinc and MC-Tar).
Surface Preparation
Surface preparation included:
Removal of mineral deposits
Solvent clean to SSPC-SP 1
Prepare surface to bare metal: SSPC-SP 6 or SP 11
Feather edgesat the Contractors option SSPC-SP 7, SP 3, or SP 2.
5-9
Application
Application techniques were at the Contractors optionspray, brush, or roller. Application
included on bare metal one coat at 1.5 to 2 mils DFT of MC-Miozinc. Stripe coat at feathered
edges and topcoat with MC-Tar (three coats at 5 to 7 mils per coat) for a total DFT to bare metal
of 18-mils, minimum.
Inspection was provided by Reclamation with a 5-year warranty by specification requirements.
4 Interior LiningKingston Mills, Ontario, Canada
This case study is abstracted from an article published in Hydro Review.[13]
Project Background
The project is located in Ontario, Canada and owned by Gananoque Light & Power (GLP).
Project features include a 1.8 MW powerhouse and 220-foot long penstocks of circa 1914, 1926,
and 1975 vintage, of 6-foot diameter. The maximum static head is 40 feet.
An early 1990s inspection revealed wall thickness significantly diminished, and zebra mussel
infestation was a concern.
Scope of Work
The 1994 scope included the relining of one of the 6-foot diameter penstocks. A second 8-foot
diameter penstock was relined in 1995.
Materials
The project specification outlined the use of a latex-based primer and topcoat (Wearlon, by
Decora) to a coating thickness of 810 mils.
The second relining project utilized an epoxy primer (Devoe 236) with added solids to fill any
small irregularities caused by years of corrosion.
Surface Preparation
High-pressure water spray at 10,000 psi did not completely clean the surface of the first
penstock, which included areas of 3/8-inch thick rust. A second high pressure soda blasting was
5-10
used, which did clean the steel to an appropriate level. This work took approximately 3 weeks.
To execute the subsequent (1995) project, the Contractor increased the water pressure to 20,000
psi, which reduced the surface preparation time to 1 week.
Application
The Contractor applied the primer and topcoat using a high-pressure spray system. Temperature
and humidity were monitored to ensure conditions remained above the dew point. The coating
DFT of between 8 and 10 mils.
The second penstock was relined during mid summer, which reduced the curing time of the
primer coat to half a day, thus permitting application of the topcoats sooner.
Cost and schedule
No particular details are available. However, improvements in surface preparation and time of
application reduced the schedule for the second reline project.
Added Benefits
Following completion of the first relining, the unit was tested and the output increased from 600
kW to 670 kW, an increase of 11.6%. GLP attributed 8% of the increase to the new coating
properties, and the balance to other unit modifications. Testing of the second penstock after
rehabilitation revealed only 12% increases in output, likely due to the fact that the second
penstock was oversized when built in 1926.
5 Interior Lining100% Solids PolyurethaneEl Dorado, California
This case study is abstracted from a presentation at Waterpower 97 and personal
communications.[20,23]
Project Background
The project is located in northern California and owned by El Dorado Irrigation District (EID).
Project features include a 21 MW powerhouse and over 23 miles of water conveyance structures.
The penstocks of interest include approximately 4,020 feet of circa 1923 forge-welded bell and
spigot joint pipeline ranging in diameter from 54 to 30 inches. This high-pressure steel penstock
has a maximum static head of 1,900 feet, with an average slope of approximately 25%, with
manholes at approximate 500-foot spacings.
The previous owner, PG&E, had assessed the condition of the penstock in 1991 and had
determined that the penstock exhibited:
5-11
An average of 24% wall thinning along the forge-welded joints
An average 11% wall thinning on the base metal shell
Susceptibility of the forge metal joints to brittle failure
As a result of this wall thickness reduction, the penstock operating pressure needed to be reduced
from 134% of the static head to 105%, and a penstock relining project implemented to arrest
further wall thinning. EID subsequently purchased the project and initiated the steel penstock
rehabilitation project.
Scope of Work
The scope included the abrasive blasting and relining of 4,020 feet of existing pipe (54 to 30 inch
diameters) or approximately 42,000 sq. ft. of penstock, with 100% solids polyurethane lining. In
1995, the relining contract was awarded to Jeffco Painting & Coating, Inc. of Vallejo, California.
Work was to begin about September 1995.
Site ConditionsAccess and Weather
This particular project had some unique access requirements for both personnel and equipment.
Access by vehicle was only possible at the top of the penstock and at the powerhouse. The mid-
section could be reached by electric tram hoist with a capacity of 5,000 pounds. The lower 1,000
feet was reachable by footpath.
The penstock length and slope, and use of the tram for access to the mid-sections of the
penstock, required an allowance of up to one hour for crews to travel to get to the work location
after arrival on site. The slope also restricted access for multiple crews and equipment.
The penstock diameter54 to 30 inches posed some restrictions on the confined space
program, necessitating rigging through the manholes, hoists for the blast and spray equipment, as
well as an emergency cart for personnel safety, and maintaining a clear invert for the work.
Power at each of the 18-inch manholes (approximately 15 total at a 500-foot spacing) was
required for heat tracing of the coating lines (single-phase) and electric winches/lighting (three-
phase). The power supply had to be established at both ends of the penstock.
Weather conditions during the initial phase of the project (September through December) were
as expected. However, delays forced the work into winter conditions and a 24 month shutdown
until spring.
Materials
The project specification outlined use of 100% solids polyurethane applied at a 50 mil DFT. Two
products were permitted: Polybrid 705 and Endura-Flex EF-1998. The Contractor selected the
EF-1998 for use.
5-12
Surface Preparation
The appropriate surface preparation for this material was SPPC-SP 10, Near-White Blast
Cleaning. Minor amounts of the original coal tar were allowed to remain in the deeper pits.
The blasting was originally planned to be accomplished using an automated spin blaster to
minimize the number of personnel in the penstock. This decision was based on a 1991 photo
taken through a manhole. This sample photo did not reveal the real condition of the interior
penstock surface which actually was heavily corroded with laminated rust and scale. Because of
the heavy rust scale and deep pits, the spin blaster did not achieve its expected performance.
After the discovery of these conditions, the work was accomplished by hand blast cleaning.
Initially, two blasters were used in the penstock, with an open manhole between each team
(approximately 1,000 feet of separation). This resulted in an excellent production rate (200 linear
feet per day) and provided a separation between the workers to prevent interference from dust
and protection from loose debris and falling tools. At approximately halfway down the length of
the penstock, the number of blasters was reduced to one, due to the economics of providing two
lines and power for air and dehumidification.
The initial blasting started with a combination of steel grit and shot. However, once the work
progressed approximately 50% (2,000 feet) the abrasive was changed to copper slag, which
allowed for easier vacuuming, but a reduction in production rate and added dust.
Application
The material was applied in two coats to a total DFT of between 50 and 80 mils. Application of
the polyurethane was accomplished with a spin spray mechanism outfitted with a plural pump
mechanism located up to 1,500 feet from the spin sprayer. As it turned out this was really the
practical limit of this configuration, since it was difficult to maintain the proper coating
temperature at the nozzle in colder weather, even with the use of heat tracing.
To help minimize holidays, one coat was applied in a clockwise rotation and the second coat in a
counterclockwise manner. Manpower during application was high due to the difficult project
conditions, typically utilizing up to 14 persons. The average production rate was 500 to 600 feet
per day (approximately 5,000 square feet) using two 12-hour shifts.
After completion of the two coats, the surface of the entire section was spark tested (4 men, 12
hours) and the touched-up (6 men, two or three 12-hour shifts). Almost all of the repair areas
were at the bell and spigot joints, where the spin sprayers have difficulty applying complete
coverage over irregular shapes.
5-13
Cost and schedule
The original project budget for this project was $1.3 million. However, due to various conditions
principally dictated by out of scope work and differing site conditions; the final project cost was
just under $1.6 million, or approximately $38 per sq. ft. Based on the difficulty of this project,
this represents the high end of a total penstock relining project.
Added Benefits
This relining project was part of an overall rehabilitation project. This other work included
replacement of a wood stave pipe section with a new steel section, and installation of new needle
body units and governors.
In 1986 the project was index-tested to estimate baseline turbine efficiency. Following
completion of the powerhouse rehabilitation and penstock relining, the project was again index-
tested in 1996. A significant headloss reductionnearly 39 % (50 feet) was noted due to the
relining. This represents a power increase of about 3.3% per year. Thus the project has about a
12-year simple payback for a life extension estimate of 30 years.
6 Interior Lining100% Solids PolyurethaneClarks Falls, Vermont
This case study is abstracted from personal communications with the contracted Engineer.[12]
Project Background
The Clarks Falls station is owned by Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS),
Rutland, Vermont. The project was built in 1937 on the Lamoille River in northwestern
Vermont, about 20 miles northeast of Burlington Vermont. The penstock has a gross head of
approximately 35 feet and the single 5 MW vertical Kaplan unit is supplied water through a 12-
foot diameter, approximately 392-foot long, steel penstock. The units maximum 1,000-cfs
hydraulic capacity results in an average penstock velocity of 8.8 ft/sec.
The 1937 steel penstock was fabricated of 3/8 inch mild carbon steel plate, with lapped seams of
7/8 inch diameter rivets. The circumferential joints have a single rivet row and the longitudinal
joints are double rows of rivets. The original 1937 penstock specification stated that the interior
and exterior surfaces were to have a shop prime and then a final coat after field assembly of
Inertol. The exterior shell surface had been repainted with a low-grade bitumastic coating
(Trimflex). The penstock is elevated above ground and supported on concrete saddles spaced at
approximately 17 feet on center.
In the early 1990s the penstock began developing occasional pinhole leaks, particularly at the
concrete saddle to steel shell interfaces. An inspection of the penstock showed that the exterior
bitumastic coating was preventing exterior shell rusting. There was no visual evidence of any
5-14
remaining interior shell coating, and the interior shell surface was moderately rusted with
cratering and pits generally no deeper than 1/16 inch. Ultrasonic thickness testing of the base
material and visual inspection of the rivets revealed that the steel shell had an average thickness
above 5/16 inch, and the rivets appeared sound and with only limited head corrosion. The
pinholes generally occurred at the concrete saddle to steel shell interfaces, and did not jeopardize
the structural integrity of the penstock.
Scope of Work
Based on the generally good condition of the penstocks exterior surface, and the fact that the
steel shell had sufficient structural strength, CVPS decided to extend the penstocks service life
by installing an internal water-tight liner to prevent further interior corrosion and leakage.
Site Conditions
No particular information is available on site conditions. The Contractor decided to install an
additional manhole near the intake to facilitate access.
Materials
In late May of 1996 CVPS solicited bids from contractors to install an internal water-tight liner
of either fiberglass or 100% solids polyurethane. The fiberglass alternative was solicited because
CVPS had successfully installed fiberglass penstock liners at similar aging penstocks in 1987
and 1991. A 100% polyurethane liner using the Polybrid 705 material was selected as an
alternative because this lining material had been successfully used to coat several penstocks in
California (PG&E) and the Midwest.
Based on the lower cost and equivalent performance and service life, the 80 mil thick 100%
solids polyurethane (Polybrid 705) material alternative was selected, and the lining contract was
awarded to W.S.Bunch Co. of Omaha Nebraska. The contract was awarded in June 1996, and the
Contractor began mobilizing on site in July.
Surface Preparation
The blasting and initial priming of the penstock began on July 13, and by a three-person crew
working about ten hour day shifts. The penstock interior surface was inspected as the interior
surface preparation progressed to confirm the proper 3-mil anchor profile and surface
cleanliness. Steel patches were welded within a day at a few locations along the pipe invert on a
time and material basis.
Application
The Contractor applied the polyurethane to a DFT of 80 mils.
5-15
Application began July 16, 1996 and continued until August 2, when the station returned to
service.
The completed lining thickness was verified by CVPS utilizing a magnetic dry mil thickness
tester. Coating holidays were inspected with a high voltage detector (i.e. spark test), and a final
visual inspection for evidence of blisters, poor adhesion, or improper cure completed the coating
inspection. No particular problems were encountered during the project. The most significant
repair was approximately 9 sq. ft. of lining that had peeled away where the coating had been
sprayed over the intake concrete upstream of the penstocks steel shell. This area was repaired
and as of the last inspection, in the summer of 1998, there was no evidence of any lining
deterioration. To date there have not been any additional pinhole leaks.
Cost and Schedule
Bids were received in June 1996, and total lump sum installed costs between $18.23 per sq. ft. to
$12.95 per sq. ft. for the polyurethane coating and $21 per sq. ft. for the fiberglass lining were
received. The competitive bids were evaluated on a total cost basis that included the value of lost
energy production incurred by the contractors schedule to install the lining. The average
monthly daily values of the energy production were included in the bidding documents so that
the contractors could rationally evaluate the potential benefit of additional costs to accelerate the
schedule versus the value of the decreased generation loss due to a shortened penstock
dewatering schedule.
Surface preparation took approximately 2 weeks. Application, which began one week after the
start of surface preparation also took 2 weeks. The total outage duration was approximately 3
weeks.
7 Interior LiningHigh Solids Elastomeric PolyurethaneSalisbury, Vermont
This case study is abstracted from personal communications with the contracted Engineer.[12]
Project Background
The 1.3 MW Salisbury hydroelectric station is owned by Central Vermont Public Service
Corporation (CVPS), Rutland, Vermont. It is located on the Leicester River that drains Lake
Dunmore near Middlebury, Vermont. The station was originally built in 1917, and consists of an
intake that feeds a 1,580-foot long 62-inch diameter buried upper penstock extending to a surge
tank. The penstock was constructed of 5/16 inch thick steel, circa 1936.
The 1937 surge tank is a 16-foot diameter by 60-foot high, welded-steel, flat bottom, open top
unpressurized tank. The inlet and outlet pipes are connected to opposite sides near the tanks
bottom. A 52-inch diameter, by 5/16 inch thick, 1937 vintage steel penstock extends
approximately 1,244 feet from the surge tank to the powerhouse. This lower section of the
5-16
penstock is mostly supported above ground on concrete saddles, except for about 200 linear feet
that passes half buried through a swamp. This lower section also extends about 30 feet
underneath the concrete abutment of a local town road, and is buried for approximately 70 linear
feet immediately upstream of the powerhouse.
Both the lower and upper sections of penstock have full penetration butt welded shop
circumferential and longitudinal seams. The circumferential field joints on about 40 foot centers
are lapped and filet welded.
The penstock has a maximum static head of 180 feet (78 psi). The horizontal Francis turbine has
a maximum hydraulic capacity of 149 cfs, which at the minimum possible (emergency condition)
wicket gate closure time of 8 seconds produces a maximum waterhammer head of 224 feet (97
psi), and a minimum head of 107 feet (46 psi) that does not induce any penstock vacuum
pressures.
The penstocks interior and exterior were inspected in September, 1997. In general, the penstock
was found to be in reasonable condition, with the most significant shell corrosion being where
the pipe extended through the town bridge abutment. The penstocks interior surface was highly
corroded and pitted (thinned to a thickness as low as 0.15 inch) under this abutment, particularly
near the up and downstream faces of the abutment. The calculated internal pressure stresses,
based on the minimum recorded thickness, were found to be only slightly within allowable
values for the base material. Therefore, while the penstock could still safely operate, it could not
sustain much additional material corrosion without jeopardizing the penstocks internal pressure
strength.
Scope of Work
Based on the severe interior pitting and inaccessibility of the penstock exterior where the
penstock penetrates the bridge abutment, CVPS decided to install a waterproof internal liner
under this section of the penstock.
Because the portion of the lower penstock immediately upstream of the powerhouse was also
heavily pitted, the length of the water-tight liner was extended for approximately 400 linear feet
from upstream of the town bridge to the powerhouse.
The lining was competitively bid to a selected list of pre-qualified contractors in April 1999, and
a local contractor, Vermont Protective Coatings of Brandon, Vermont, who had the lowest total
installed cost of $6.80 per sq. ft. was selected as the Contractor.
Materials
80-mil thick high-solids single component elastomeric polyurethane was the material selected for
the lining material. This material was selected because it had been successfully used on lining
previous fresh water steel vessels, would prevent pinhole leaking under the bridge abutment and
5-17
did not require any special installation costs. Since it would be applied during the summer, the
material did not require any heating. This option also presented a lower material cost than
comparable water-tight lining options, such as the plural component 100% solids polyurethane or
polyurea linings.
Surface Preparation
Surface preparation began on July 19, 1999, to coincide with a station shutdown scheduled for
some intake repairs. The Contractor using a two-person crew working 10-hour days completed
the initial blasting and painting on August 10, 1999. Near the end of each shift the Contractor
would vacuum clean and prime the portion of the pipe blasted that day. CVPS personnel would
periodically inspect the pipe to confirm the adequacy of the surface blasting and condition of the
existing pipe.
Application
The Contractor applied polyurethane to achieve a coating DFT of 80 mils.
CVPS personnel would periodically inspect the pipe to confirm the adequacy of the surface
blasting and condition of the existing pipe. Based on the detailed field inspection, after the initial
cleaning several areas under the bridge abutment, where heavy internal pitting was observed,
were covered with internal welded patches.
Cost and Schedule
The work was completed by August 28, and the penstock was restored to service on September
7, after other scheduled intake repairs were completed. Because this station is feed from a
storage reservoir that was able to absorb the limited summer inflow without discharge there was
no lost generation during the construction project. The total project cost was approximately $6.8
per sq. ft. and the project was completed in approximately 3 weeks, during July and August
1999.
6-1
6
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
References
1. American Iron and Steel Institute, AISI, Buried Steel Penstocks, First Edition, 1992.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers, Guidelines for Evaluating Aging Penstocks, Vienna,
VA, 1995.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers, Guidelines for Inspection and Monitoring of In-Service
Penstocks, Vienna, VA, 1998.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers, Steel Penstocks, Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice No. 79, Vienna, VA, 1993.
5. American Water Works Association, Steel PipeA Guide for Design and Installation
Manual M-11, 3
rd
Ed. 1989.
6. T. Bortak, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO, personal communication, November 1999.
7. M. Gass, Hetch Hetchy Water & Power, Moccasin CA, personal communications
September-November 1999.
8. J. D. Graham and T.L. Kahl, Pittsford Penstock Rehabilitation, Hydro Review, HCI
Publications, April 1989.
9. T.L. Kahl, Balancing Penstock Safety with Project Economics, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1999.
10. T.L. Kahl, Penstock Rehabilitation: Developing the Right Strategy, Hydro Review, HCI
Publications, April 1997.
11. T. L. Kahl, Restoring Aging Penstocks, Hydro Review, HCI Publications, December 1992.
12. T. L. Kahl, Kleinschmidt Associates, Pittsfield, ME, personal communication, September
1999.
13. A. Ling, Utility Finds Penstock Coating Provides Multiple Benefits, Hydro Review, HCI
Publications, September 1997.
References and Resources
6-2
14. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, (NACE) NICITCP Session-Student Manual,
Houston, TX, 1997.
15. N. Nielsen and D. L. Parry, BC Hydro, Vancouver, BC, personal communications,
NovemberDecember 1999.
16. D. R. Siminski, Dealing with a Penstock Rupture: A Success Story, Hydro Review, HCI
Publications, August 1993.
17. Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC), Systems and Specifications, Volume 2, 1995, as
updated.
18. Society for Protective Coatings, Guides on Environmental Protection: Guide for Containing
Debris Generated During Paint Removal Operations (SSPC-Guide 6), Guide for Disposing of
Lead-Contaminated Surface Preparation Debris (SSPC-Guide 7), Guide to Specifying and
Testing Coatings (SSPC-Guide 10), 1998.
19. R. D. Stutsman, Developing a Cost-Effective Penstock Safety Program, Hydro Review,
HCI Publications, May 1996.
20. R. D. Stutsman, S. Jeffress, El Dorado Hydroelectric ProjectPenstock Relining Case
Study, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1997. Vol. 1. Pg. 103.
21. R. D. Stutsman, Innovations in Penstock Linings, Hydro Review, HCI Publications, May
1993.
22. R. D. Stutsman, Penstock Life Extensions, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1999.
23. R. D. Stutsman, Jeffco Painting and Coating, Vallejo, CA, personal communication,
September 1999.
Resources
1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, IL. Website: www.aisc.org
2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), New York, NY. Website: www.ansi.org
3. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), W. Conshohocken, PA. Website:
www.astm.org
4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Vienna, VA. Website: www.asce.org
5. American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, CO. Website: www.awwa.org
6. Construction Specification Institute, Inc. (CSI), Washington, DC. Website: www.csi.com
References and Resources
6-3
7. National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), Houston, TX. Website: www.nace.org
8. NSF International (NSF), Ann Arbor, MI. Website: www.nsf.org
9. Society for Protective Coatings (formerly the Steel Structures Painting Council) (SSPC)
Pittsburgh, PA. Website: www.sspc.org
Manufacturers/Instrument Suppliers
1. Ameron International, Brea, CA. Website: www.ameron.com
2. Carboline Company, St. Louis, MO. Website: www.carboline.com
3. Futura Coatings, Inc., St. Louis, MO. Website: www.futuracoatings.com
4. Global EcoTechnologies, Pittsburg, CA. 925-473-9250
5. ICI Devoe, Cleveland, OH. Website: www.devoecoatings.com
6. KTA-Tator, Inc,. Pittsburgh, PA. Website: www.kta.com
7. Sherwin Williams Inc., Cleveland, OH. Website: www.sherwin-williams.com
8. Sigma Coatings, USA, Harvey, LA. 504-347-4321
9. Tnemec Company Inc., Kansas City, MO. Website: www.tnemec.com
10. VersaFlex Inc., Kansas City, MO. 800-870-8842
11. Wasser High Tech Coating, Inc., Kent, WA. Website: www.wassercoatings.com
A-1
A
GENERIC STEEL PENSTOCK COATING AND LINING
REHABILITATION SPECIFICATION
Generic Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation Specification
NOTE:
This generic specification is provided to assist an Owner in developing a specification for a site-
specific project.
It is not a substitute for a detailed and comprehensive specification, engineering services, and
technical consultation with Manufacturers representatives on the particular site conditions and
applicability of material systems. Nor does it embody all the appropriate surface preparation and
application criteria that may need to be incorporated into a specification for a project. It should
be used as a guideline only.
This generic specification is also provided in electronic format for use under the Single User
License Agreement covering Hydro Tech Round-Up Reports.
Division 9 Finishes
SECTION 09870
Steel Penstock Coating and Lining
Part 1GENERAL
Description of Work
1. The Work described in this Section shall include all labor, equipment and materials necessary
for the completion of the Work at the Project to include:
Surface preparation and application of exterior steel penstock coating,
Surface preparation and application of interior steel penstock lining,
Inspections and Quality Assurance.
2. The following are defined terms:
Owner: Owner of the facility or designated representative.
Engineer: As engaged by the Owner.
A-2
Contractor: Bidder selected to provide the Work, represented on site by the Foreman.
Inspector: Can be the Owner, authorized representative, Engineer or authorized third
party Inspector.
Manufacturer(s): Company (ies) supplying the coating, lining and other material(s) to the
Contractor.
Site Conditions
<< Obviously specific to the Project, but to include the following: >>
1. The Site is located
2. The penstock configuration including all lengths, bends, and slopes is shown on the
Reference Drawings.
3. The penstock experiences a maximum static pressure of X ft, a normal total waterhammer
pressure of Y ft., and a maximum emergency closure total water hammer pressure of Z ft.
(Note that for higher head penstocks different pressures may dictate at appurtenance
structures (e.g. extra access manhole, vents, etc.) See ASCE Manual 79 for design).
4. The project penstock was constructed in 19XX and has longitudinal (welds or rivets) and
circumferential (welded or riveted) seams. Project stationing begins at the intake at Station
0+00 and extends downstream to the powerhouse. The penstock conveys X cfs at an average
penstock velocity of Y feet per sec.
5. The penstock is (buried/above ground) (and if above ground supported on saddles and/or ring
girders).
6. The Owner shall arrange for penstock dewatering during the course of the Work. Note that
because some minor leakage (up to X gpm) is expected through the headgate the Contractor
will be expected to install and maintain a system at the headworks to keep the invert 100%
dry. The Contractor should submit a plan for keeping the invert dry for approval by the
Engineer.
7. Existing penstock access manholes and vents are located as shown on Reference Drawing
ABC.
<< OPTIONAL >>
Should the Contractor require additional access points, installation of addition manholes can
be installed, in accordance with the Specification, at the Contractors expense if approved by
the Owner. These shall be designed for the maximum penstock pressures at the proposed
location per the Specification.
A-3
8. Electrical Power (specify voltage, phase and maximum amperage) is available/unavailable at
both ends of the penstock, and also available/unavailable along the length. The
Owner/Contractor shall separately meter and supply all power requirements for the duration
of the Work.
<< NOTE: Power usage and who supplies transformers, power panels and equipment can
significantly affect the Contractors work practices and bid and should be defined in the
Specification. >>
9. A non-potable water source with the following parameters is available/unavailable at both
ends of the penstock.
<< NOTE: Surface preparation may require water blast cleaning SSPC-SP 12 to remove
aquatic growth on the inside, as a precursor to substrate preparation. >>
10. The average ambient temperatures in degrees F and precipitation for the area:
Month Month Month Month
Min
Max
Average temp
Average precipitation
The extremes of record are X degrees F and Y degrees F.
Reference Standards and Codes
1. Work shall conform to the most recent version of the applicable requirements of the
following standards.
American Society of Civil Engineers
Manual of Practice No. 79Steel Penstocks
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
ASTM D428 Standard Test Method for Indicating Oil or Water in
Compressed Air
ASTM E337 Test Methods for Relative Humidity by Wet- and Dry-
bulb Psychrometer
The Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC) (formerly Steel Structures Painting Council)
SSPC-SP 1 Solvent Cleaning
SSPC-SP 2 Hand Tool Cleaning
SSPC-SP 3 Power Tool Cleaning
A-4
SSPC-SP 5/NACE 1 White Metal Blast Cleaning
SSPC-SP 6/NACE 3 Commercial Blast Cleaning
SSPC-SP 7/NACE 4 Brush-Off Blasting
SSPC-SP 10/NACE 2 Near-White Blast Cleaning
SSPC-SP 12/NACE 5 Surface Preparation and Cleaning of Steel by High and
Ultra-High Pressure Water Jetting
SSPC-VIS 1 Visual Standard for Abrasive Blast Cleaned Steel
SSPC-VIS 3 Visual Standard for Power- and Hand-Tool Cleaned Steel
SSPC-PA 2 Measurement of Dry Paint Thickness with Magnetic
Gauges
SSPC Guide 7 Guide for the Disposal of Lead-Contaminated Surface
Preparation Debris
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
NACE RPO 188 Standard Recommended Practice for Discontinuity
Testing of Protective Coatings
NACE RPO 287 Field Measurement of Surface Profile of Abrasive Blasted
Steel Using Replica Tape
2. Conflicts, if any, between the Specification and the standards, or the Specification and the
coating/lining Manufacturers recommendations, shall be brought to the attention of the
Engineer for resolution.
Other Requirements: Safety and Environmental
1. The Work shall be done in a safe manner in accordance with applicable Owner, federal, state,
and local safety codes.
2. The Contractor shall be responsible for implementing its own site safety program, in
accordance with OSHA regulations, to include, but not be limited to, use of Personal
Protection Devices, lead abatement, and a Confined Space Entry Program. The plans should
be submitted for approval.
3. The Contractor shall properly dispose off-site, all used and contaminated materials such as
blasting grit and empty material containers.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
1. The Contractor shall be responsible for continuing quality assurance and control of the Work
in accordance with all procedures and inspection requirements contained in this
Specification. Qualifications of inspectors shall be subject to the approval of the Owner.
2. The Contractor shall submit for approval by the Engineer, a written Contractors Quality
Control and Inspection Program to ensure the quality of the Work. This Program shall
include the type and frequency of inspections, forms, checklists and the qualifications of
individuals to implement the Contractors QA/QC Program.
A-5
3. At the Owners discretion, an Inspector will be designated to perform QA/QC of the Work in
accordance with the Specification. Records and equipment of the Contractor shall be made
available to the Inspector at all times. In the event of a non-conformance the Inspector shall
have the authority to:
<< Note: specify either: stop the work or notify the Contractor and document the
situation. >>
4. The Contractor shall have a Manufacturers technical representative available for inquiries
regarding application procedures and materials.
Submittals
1. As specified in this Section, the Contractor shall submit the following items to the Engineer
for review and approval at least 15 days prior to performing the Work.
2. A Work Sequence schedule as required in Section 3.1. Clearly show the dates when the
penstock is required to be dewatered.
3. A list and catalogue cuts of coating, lining, and other materials to be used in this work
identifying the specific products to be used by Manufacturer and catalogue number. Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall also be supplied for each product.
4. Written procedures for storage, handling, surface preparation equipment and products,
environmental control, application equipment, touch-up and repair, curing and inspection of
the coating/lining system.
5. For materials requiring certified QP applicators, copies of the certifications for the proposed
applicators on each shift.
6. A written Contractors Quality Control and Inspection Program and QP Certificates.
7. A written Contractors Confined Space Entry Program and copies of training certifications
for all workers.
Part 2PRODUCTS
Delivery, Handling and Storage
1. Coating/Lining materials shall be delivered to the site in the Manufacturers unopened,
original containers bearing a legible product designation, batch number, shelf life and date of
manufacture. Packing slips containing this information should be retained as documentation.
Containers that are damaged shall not be used.
2. Materials shall be handled and stored in accordance with the Manufacturers published
instructions, and protected from damage, moisture, direct sunlight, and temperatures below
A-6
40 degrees F or above 100 degrees F. Contractor shall provide the necessary on-site storage
of Materials to these criteria.
3. Materials shall be used within 12 months of their manufacture. The date of use shall in no
case exceed the Manufacturers recommended expiration date.
Surface Preparation Products
1. Thinners, solvents and cleaners for use in pre-cleaning shall be as recommended by the
coating/lining Manufacturer and shall be identified by the product number or generic
formulation.
2. Abrasives for blast cleaning shall be new, clean, dry, and free of oil or other contaminants.
The particle size shall be capable of producing the specified surface profile.
Abrasives suitable to recycling, such as steel grit, may be used, provided that a cleaning
system is used in the recycling process to remove cuttings. Recycled abrasives shall be
free of oils and moisture.
3. If water blast is used, rust inhibitors shall be incorporated.
Exterior Coatings
1. The exterior coating system shall be specified by the Owner/Engineer for corrosion
protection and/or appearance.
2. The material shall be provided from the list of products or approved equivalents for the type
of service selected.
<< Insert a table of approved products for the exterior system application selected. >>
3. The Dry Film Thickness (DFT) of the coating system shall be X-Y mils for each coat OR
shall be as follows:
<< Insert a table of applicable DFT for each coat for the exterior system application selected. >>
4. All exposed exterior surfaces of the penstock, structural steel, mechanical coupling surfaces
not in contact with gasket material, and appurtenances shall be coated with the recommended
coating of the selected material.
5. Finish color shall be as specified by the Owner.
<< NOTE: Darker colors are preferred in colder climates to help prevent interior ice
formation. Lighter colors are preferred in warmer (non-freezing) climates to minimize
thermal expansions. >>
A-7
Interior Linings
1. The interior lining system shall be specified by the Owner/Engineer for corrosion protection
and/or water-tightness or both.
2. The material shall be provided from the list of products or approved equivalent for the type
of service selected.
<< Insert a table of approved products for the interior system application selected. >>
3. The Dry Film Thickness (DFT) of the coating system shall be X-Y mils for each coat OR
shall be as follows:
<< Insert a table of applicable DFT for each coat for the interior system application selected. >>
4. Finish color shall be as specified by the Owner.
< NOTE: For O&M considerations: Light colors generally preferred for visibility during
subsequent inspections. >>
Touch-Up Materials
1. Touch-up materials for repaired areas and defects shall be the same as originally applied, and
shall be thinned and applied according to recommendations of the Manufacturer.
Part 3EXECUTION
Work Sequence
1. The Contractor shall submit for approval by the Engineer, a detailed Work Sequence
Schedule, both interior lining and exterior coating, by Project segments. The schedule shall
clearly show the number of days that the penstock will be required to be dewatered to
complete this work. Also include in the schedule the following detail:
Pre-job Conference
Initial Surface Preparation/Cleaning
Contractor Repair of Steel Defects, if required
Surface Preparation
Application
Coating/Lining Inspection
Repair and Remedial Work
Final Acceptance
A-8
2. A Pre-job Conference shall be scheduled to discuss the Specification, Work, Submittals and
Work Sequence. Representatives from the Owner, Engineer, Contractor, Manufacturers
Material Supplier(s), and Inspector (if third party is used) shall attend. Subsequent Work
Progress meetings may be scheduled at the discretion of the Owner.
3. The Work Sequence shall be updated regularly by the Contractor, as required by the
Engineer to show actual Work Status compared to schedule.
4. Periodic Job Meetings shall be scheduled to review the Work Progress.
5. The total period of dewatered access to the penstock shall as be specified in the commercial
terms.
Penstock Access
1. Should the Contractor desire to install additional manhole access points or other penetration,
the design shall be submitted to the Engineer for approval and meet the penstock site
conditions criteria in Section 1.2. Any manhole or penetration shall be designed in
accordance with ASCE Manual of Practice No. 79 Steel Penstocks.
2. The Contractor shall provide adequate explosion proof lighting, ventilation, and safety lines,
electrical and air compressor lines, and communications in accordance with an established
Confined Space Entry Program.
3. The Contractor shall provide rigging and/or scaffolding, if required, to permit ease of
operation of the equipment for surface preparation and application.
<< OPTIONAL, For unsafe slopes. >>
4. The Contractor shall provide rigging and safety harness equipment for access to the exterior
and interior of the penstock on steep slopes, in accordance with OSHA requirements.
Surface Preparation
1. Initial Surface Preparation
All oil, grease and other contamination on surfaces shall be removed in accordance with
SSPC-SP 1.
Surfaces contaminated with biological growth shall be cleaned using SSPC-SP 12,
Pressure Water Jetting, or in limited areas SSPC-SP 2 Hand or SSPC-SP 3 Power Tool
cleaning.
Following initial surface preparation any steel repair should be accomplished in
accordance with the Specification.
A-9
2. Surface Preparation
The surface profile shall be prepared in accordance with the specified material
Manufacturers recommended surface preparation standard.
The Contractor shall monitor the quality of compressed air at 4-hour intervals during all
phases of the surface preparation.
The temperature of the substrate shall be a minimum of 5 degrees F above the dew point
during surface preparation.
Abrasive blast cleaning shall not be performed in the immediate area where the coating or
curing of coated surfaces is in progress. All surfaces that are not to be coated shall be
protected from abrasive blast cleaning.
Burrs, slivers, scabs, and weld spatter that become visible after blasting shall be removed
as approved by the Engineer. The surface profile of repaired areas shall be suitably
restored.
If rusting occurs or if the cleaned surfaces become wet or otherwise contaminated before
coating, they shall be re-cleaned to the Specification standards.
After blast cleaning and immediately before coating, dust shall be removed with
compressed air; surfaces shall be free of oil and moisture. Vacuuming shall be used if the
surface is not dust free, as required for application.
Surfaces shall be primed as soon as practicable, and at a minimum the same day they are
prepared, unless dehumidification is provided.
<< OPTIONAL, For overcoating exteriors only. >>
If existing coating is not to be removed, the surface preparation shall be in accordance
with the selected coating Manufacturers recommendations for blasting, water washing or
priming.
3. Contractor shall safely dispose of all accumulated debris such as blasting grit, paint, and rust
in a proper off-site disposal site.
<< OPTIONAL, For hazardous material removal. >>
In the case of removal of the existing coating/lining considered to be hazardous materials, the
Contractor shall prepare a plan in accordance with SSPC Guide 7 for the removal of
hazardous surface preparation materials.
Repair of Steel Defects
<< OPTIONAL, If required. >>
1. Steel repair of significantly damaged areas as identified on the Reference drawings or as
found by the Inspector during or after the initial surface preparation shall be repaired. This
includes items such as cracks, loose seams, and areas of severe pitting.
A-10
2. Repair methods typically include either spot welding or patching with an approved thickness
steel plate fillet welded around the perimeter. All welding and materials shall conform to the
ASCE Manual of Practice Manual 79 and shall be performed by an Owner-approved certified
welder, as defined in the Manual.
3. The repaired area should then be prepared in accordance with the surface preparation
Specification.
Application
1. Controlled Environment
To prevent delays or unsatisfactory results in the applications of exterior coatings due to
inclement weather, the Contractor shall be equipped and prepared to provide temporary
exterior protection enclosures for the surface preparation, application and curing periods.
To prevent delays or unsatisfactory results in the application of interior linings due to
inclement weather or other adverse conditions producing moisture or condensation above
the recommended parameters for the application, the Contractor shall be equipped and
prepared to provide a suitable dehumidification system, equipped with explosion-proof
heaters. Heating alone shall not be a substitute for dehumidification.
<< NOTE: These paragraphs should be modified if a moisture-cured system is utilized. >>
2. Coating/Lining Application
Coatings shall be mixed, applied, and cured in accordance with the Manufacturers
published instructions, to achieve the required DFT.
Equipment shall be as recommended by the Manufacturer and shall be suitably sized to
the configuration of the Work.
The minimum and maximum temperature parameters shall be maintained as required by
the specific material Manufacturer requirements for ambient temperature, substrate and
materials. No lining application can take place at less than 50 degrees F, unless pre-
approved for a specific lining (i.e. polyurethane).
The maximum relative humidity shall be as required by the material Manufacturer.
Relative humidity shall be a maximum of 85%, unless otherwise specified by the material
Manufacturer.
Plural component linings equipment and applicator shall be as recommended by the
Manufacturer and shall be suitably sized to the configuration of the Work.
The Contractor shall monitor the quality of compressed air at 4-hour intervals during all
phases of the coating/lining application.
A single coat of lining material shall be applied in an application which may consist of
several increments, accomplished by one or more passes of the spray gun, all applied
within the recommended period to a specific area.
A-11
Underlying substrate topography shall be maintained for such items as tapering sections
and transitions. High profile areas such as rough weld beads, bolts, rivet heads; etc. shall
be strip-coated to ensure surfaces receive the specified film thickness.
The minimum cure times for light traffic or inspection shall be in accordance with the
material Manufacturers recommendations.
<< OPTIONAL, At incremental cost. >>
Apply a slip-resistant non-skid material, consisting of grit mixed with the lining material
to the bottom two feet of penstock invert.
<< OPTIONAL, This section only applies to 100% solid polyurethane linings. >>
As noted on the Reference drawings, through-the-wall penetrations shall receive a base
coating of X-Y mils. While the base coat is still in a semi-fluid and trowelable condition,
a fiberglass or nylon screen reinforcement shall be embedded into it and made to adhere
evenly. Immediately after the screen is installed, the remaining topcoat material shall be
applied directly over the screen to the specified lining thickness.
Coat the inside of any appurtenances such as drainholes and manholes. If complete
coverage is limited by accessibility any interior liner shall be continuous around the shell
to appurtenance corner and extend into the appurtenance at least several inches.
Any lining shall only be sprayed over previously applied materials within the
Manufacturers designated curing time, and any later overcoating shall be performed only
after the in-place coating is prepared in accordance with the material Manufacturers
recommendations.
Inspection and Tests
1. The Owner, Engineer, or the Owners third party Inspector shall perform the following
inspections. The inspection points shall be established at a minimum as follows.
Immediately before surface preparation.
Immediately following surface preparation.
Immediately prior to priming, coating/lining application.
Following application and drying of each coat.
After coating/lining repairs are completed.
For Final Walkdown and Acceptance.
2. All necessary testing and inspection instruments shall be properly calibrated and maintained
and available for use by the Inspector in conducting surveillance of the work.
A-12
3. Prior to using compressed air for surface preparation or application, the quality of the air
downstream of the separator shall be tested.
The test shall be conducted as close to the compressor as possible, but downstream of oil
and moisture traps, by blowing the air into a clean white blotter, minimum size 9 inches x
11 inches, for 2 minutes to check for any contamination, oil, or moisture. The blotter test
shall be performed on the hoses as well, at the beginning of each shift, at not less than 4-
hour intervals and after any interruption of the air compressor operation, or as required by
the Engineer.
The air shall be used only if the blotter test indicates no visible contamination, oil or
moisture. If contaminants are evident, the equipment deficiencies shall be corrected and
the air stream re-tested. Separators shall be bled continuously. All lines shall be
individually tested prior to use.
Surfaces that are determined to have been blasted with contaminated air shall be cleaned
and re-blasted with clean air and abrasive. Any coatings/linings that have been
determined to have been applied with contaminated air shall be removed and reapplied
using clean air.
4. Surface Preparation Inspection
During material application, the Contractor shall continuously monitor materials, ambient
and substrate (surface steel) temperatures, relative humidity and dew point in the
immediate work area, and shall be kept within application parameters. The Work shall be
suspended if conditions are not within recommended limits. The Work shall not proceed
if the substrate temperature falls below 5 degrees F above the dew point.
The temperature, dew point, and relative humidity shall be determined in accordance with
ASTM E337. Readings are required at the start of work and every 4 hours or at time
intervals designated by the Engineer. Alternatively, continuous monitoring shall be
performed using established and accepted systems.
Blast-cleaned surfaces shall be compared with SSPC-VIS-1 or other acceptable standards
to determine conformance with the required material surface preparation.
The anchor pattern profile depth shall be verified in accordance with NACE RPO 287
with a Keane-Tator Profile Comparator, Clemtex anchor profile chips, or Testex Press-O-
Film or an acceptable equivalent appropriate to the abrasive material being used.
The Inspector shall use a grease-free chalk as approved to mark local areas that do not
meet the specified standards and require additional surface preparation.
5. Coating/Lining Inspection
Each coat shall be applied in a manner that will produce an even film, which resembles
the topography of the underlying substrate. Re-coat times, if applicable, shall be in
accordance with the Manufacturers recommendations.
A-13
During application, wet mil gauges shall be used to verify topcoat film thickness. The
dry-film thickness (DFT) shall be measured after materials have set up dry to the touch,
in accordance with SSPC-PA-2. The DFT shall be measured by the Inspector with a Type
I or Type II gage. Exterior coatings and interior linings must have a minimum DFT as
defined in the Products section.
After the lining material has cured, it shall be holiday tested in accordance with NACE
RPO 188.
All detected holidays shall be marked with a grease free chalk, repaired and re-tested
according to the Manufacturers recommendations.
6. Final Inspection
After the final application of all coats the surfaces shall be visually checked by the
Inspector for evidence of blister, uneven coloring, poor adhesion, or improper cure.
Deficiencies in the coating/lining system shall be marked by station number, location,
(invert, springline, crown), type (blister, holiday, pinhole), and size, repaired in strict
accordance with the Manufacturers recommendations and reinspected.
Records of repair areas by station number, location, (invert, springline, crown), type,
(blister, holiday, pinhole) and size should be maintained for future inspection.
Repairs and Remedial Coating Work
1. Defects or damaged areas detected during inspection shall be repaired in accordance with the
following procedures.
The surface shall be prepared by SSPC-SP-1, -2, or -3, unless the repair area is large, in
which case the profile shall be restored per the Specification.
The periphery of the damaged area shall be feathered to blend in with the substrate within
9 inches of the defect. Precautions shall be taken to protect adjacent areas from damage
caused by abrasive cleaning.
Coatings/Linings shall be re-applied in accordance with the Specification and
Manufacturers recommendations for repair.
Remediated areas shall be re-inspected in accordance with the Specification.
Final Acceptance
1. A final walkdown of completed sections of the Work shall be conducted by the Owner,
Engineer, and/or Inspector in conjunction with the Contractor for final acceptance.
Documentation of condition of both any new exterior coatings and any new interior linings
shall be verified at this time.
A-14
2. Any defects noted shall be repaired immediately in accordance with the Specification.
<< OPTIONAL >>
3. In accordance with the warranty, the penstock exterior/interior surfaces will be re-inspected
within the warranty period. Any defects discovered within this period shall be corrected by
the Contractor at no expense to the Owner.
END OF SECTION
2000 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights
reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
TR-113584-V3
Target:
Hydropower Operations and Asset Management
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S.
electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energy-
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Powering Progress
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S. EPRI
member utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this
package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified
above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign
government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.

Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Steel Penstock Coating and Lining Rehabilitation: A Hydropower Technology Roundup Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Steel Penstock Coating and

Anda mungkin juga menyukai