MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION ONTARIO

BRIDGE OFFICE

STRUCTURAL STEEL COATING MANUAL

(SSCM)
2004 REVISED EDITION
April 2004

To all users of this publication:

The information contained herein has been carefully compiled and is believed to be
accurate at the date of publication. Freedom from error, however, cannot be guaranteed.
Enquires regarding the purchase and distribution of this manual should be directed to:
Publications Ontario
By telephone: 1-800-668-9938
By fax: (613) 566-2234
TTY: 1-800-268-7095
Online: www.publications.gov.on.ca

Enquires regarding amendments, suggestions, or comments should be directed to the

Ministry of Transportation at (905) 704-2065.

FOREWORD
(For the 1987 Edition - Reproduced)
The Structural Steel Coating Manual, SSCM, is to be used in coating contracts prepared
by the Ministry of Transportation (and Communications). It does not attempt to be an allencompassing treatise on corrosion protection but rather addresses topics related to the
needs of the Ministry. There are numerous publications that cover this subject more
thoroughly and the noted references are the ones that clarify the ministrys policies and
procedures.
Part 1 of the SSCM, Contract Preparation, was first issued in draft form in November
1985 and, subsequently, used in the preparation of Ministry coating contracts. After
undergoing extensive revisions it is now included as part 1 of SSCM.
The supplement to the SSCM, Special Provisions, was first issued in October 1985 and
revised in November 1986. It is now included, with minor changes, as part 2 of the
SSCM.
The idea for this manual was first conceived in 1984, by Engel VanBeilen, then, Head of
the Structural Offices Field Services Section. He identified the need for a reference book
on coatings for Ministry use. This manuscript is the response to that objective.
The assistance of people too numerous to list in various M.T.C. offices and the Ontario
painting Contractors Association who critically read and commented on the document is
gratefully acknowledged. Their comments, which aided in turning an idea into reality,
were reviewed and incorporated into SSCM by the following committee:
R. Reel,
D. Conte,
P. Kerins,
M. Batten,
F. Leech,
G. Ridley,
R. Quinn,

Structural Office
Structural Office
Structural Office
Contract Management Office
Environmental Office
Engineering Materials Office
Highway design Office

We are also pleased to acknowledge the assistance of Bridge Management Sections

Anne Caravaggio, Secretary, in the numerous tasks associated with compiling and typing
this manual.

April 2004

PREFACE TO THE SSCM 2004 EDITION

The Structural Steel Coating Manual, SSCM, was first published in 1987 primarily to
assist the ministry staff in achieving a consistent approach with respect to the preparation
of coating contracts. Since then there have been five updates issued from time to time
until 1992.
In order to continue to meet this objective and to provide the ministry staff with the latest
developments in coating technology for corrosion protection, Bridge Office recognised
the need for a revised version of the SSCM. The following were assigned to work on this
project:
A. Coomarasamy,
David Lai,

Senior Rehabilitation Officer, Bridge Office, ESB

Head Rehabilitation Engineer, Bridge Office, ESB

There have been many developments in coating materials and practices since 1992.
This revised edition incorporates many changes to the original manual, including changes
made to the coating condition rating system in the OSIM, low VOC coatings, new
developments & alternative approaches available for maintenance coating of steel
structures such as overcoating and zone painting, details of test methods to be used during
detailed coating condition survey to evaluate overcoatability of the existing coatings, a
detailed discussion on criteria to be used for the selection of the most appropriate coating
option, revision to the chapter on planning and a set of new specifications and special
provisions.
Extensive consultations with the paint manufacturers, material suppliers, contractors,
consultants, ministry staff, other departments of transportation, and professional
organizations, and a thorough review of the construction practices and the literature have
been conducted to ensure that policies and guidelines given in the manual are based on
up-to-date information.
It is expected that if all involved parties are made aware of the criteria for the different
maintenance coating options, latest specifications, procedures and approved coating
systems, and if coating systems are applied by competent contractors under the
supervision of qualified coating inspectors, it is possible to mitigate corrosion in the most
economical fashion.
Assistance provided by all who were contacted/consulted on this project is gratefully
acknowledged. Grateful thanks are due to Grant Ridley of Materials and Engineering
Research Office, Brenda Carruthers of Provincial and Environmental Planning Office,
Harold Doyle of Traffic Office, and John Torontali of Bridge Office, for technical input
in their respective specialised areas, and to Rita Goulet, Administrative Assistant, Bridge
Office for the work associated with word processing and formatting of the document
suitable for publication.

April 2004

ii

SCOPE
Part 1of this manual details the activities essential in the planning and design of structural
steel coating contracts.
The text in Part I addresses four of the five main stages that contribute bridge coating,
namely:
i)

Assessment of the extent and location of coating breakdown and

corrosion, and deciding if re-coating or other maintenance painting
(touch-up, overcoating, zone painting) is required;

ii)

Planning determining the requirements for traffic control, environmental

protection and other factors, which may control or affect the contract;

iii)

Design selecting the appropriate coating system and requirements for

surface preparation & cleaning; and

iv)

Preparing the contract documents.

The fifth stage construction: involving the actual surface preparation & cleaning,
coating and inspection of the bridge (coating work) is outside the scope of this manual.
Construction Administration and Inspection Task Manual prepared by the Construction
Office of the Ministry, which is regularly updated, provides the necessary information
related to the construction administration and inspection work of all ministry contracts.
Part 2 contains typical special provisions used in coating contracts. It is to be noted that
most of the technical aspects of the SP 911F06 of October 2000, SP 911S07 of October
2000, SP 911S09 of November 1999, SP 911F04 of March 1997, and SP 911 S01
Environmental Protection During Coating of Structural Steel and Railing System of
May 1996 have been incorporated into the new OPSS 911 Construction Specification
for Coating Structural Steel Systems dated April 2003. Consequently, the new special
provisions in Part2 of this manual are significantly smaller and deal with mainly the Fill
in sections and aspects which were not included in the OPSS 911 of April 2003. The
Special provisions 911S05 and 911S01 have also been revised by the Provincial and
Environmental Planning Office to make them compatible with the new OPSS 911.

April 2004

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 - CONTRACT PREPARATION
1.
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3

General ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

Coating Systems used in Ministry Structures/Bridges ................................................................ 1-1
Steel Substrate Surface Condition Requirements used for Various Coating Systems................. 1-4

2.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING COATNG SYSTEM .................................................. 1-6

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6

General ........................................................................................................................................ 1-6

Condition Survey of Existing Coating......................................................................................... 1-6
Coating Deterioration and Section Loss .................................................................................... 1-10
Visual Aids For Determining Coating Condition Rating .......................................................... 1-12
Other Parameters Considered for Coating Condition Rating .................................................... 1-12
Levels of Coating Failure for Maintenance Painting................................................................. 1-13

3.

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY TO EVALUATE OVERCOATABILITY OF THE

EXISTING COATING ................................................................................................ 1-14

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5

General ...................................................................................................................................... 1-14

Inspector qualification ............................................................................................................... 1-15
Inspection Tools and Materials.................................................................................................. 1-15
Visual Inspection....................................................................................................................... 1-15
Physical Inspection.................................................................................................................... 1-16

4.

CRITERIA FOR RE-COATING AND OTHER MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

FOR COATINGS ........................................................................................................ 1-24

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

General ...................................................................................................................................... 1-24

Full Removal and Re-Coating ................................................................................................... 1-24
Zone Painting ............................................................................................................................ 1-25
Overcoating ............................................................................................................................... 1-27
Touch-Up .................................................................................................................................. 1-32
Guide for Selection of Maintenance Painting Procedure........................................................... 1-33

5.

PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 1-35

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

General ...................................................................................................................................... 1-35

Review of Data.......................................................................................................................... 1-35
Environmental Protection.......................................................................................................... 1-37
Traffic Control and Protection................................................................................................... 1-38

6.

DESIGN....................................................................................................................... 1-40

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9

General ...................................................................................................................................... 1-40

Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry Between 1986-1996......................................... 1-41
Current Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry (Since 1996) ....................................... 1-41
New Steel .................................................................................................................................. 1-43
Coating of Railing Systems ....................................................................................................... 1-44
Localized Coating Failure ......................................................................................................... 1-44
Field Identification of Existing Coatings................................................................................... 1-45
Surface Preparation and Cleaning Requirements for the Approved Coating Systems .............. 1-46
Selection of the Coating System................................................................................................ 1-48

7.

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 1-55

April 2004

1-i

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 4.1
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5

Condition Rating of Coating -Steel Railings

Condition Rating of Coating -Structural Steel
Rust Condition Rating Categories
Criteria for Selection of Steel Structures for
Detailed Coating Condition Survey
Assessment of Risk of Overcoating Based on Adhesion and
Thickness of Existing Coatings
Overcoating Recommendations Based on Patch Test
Testing Frequencies for Various Tests During
Physical Inspection for Overcoating Projects
Maintenance Coating Guide Based on Coating Condition Rating
and Localities of Coating Deterioration
Coating Systems and Surface Preparation Requirements
Coating System Selection- Factors to be considered
Advantages and Disadvantages of Coating Systems Used in
Ministry projects
Comparison of Coating Systems Costs (based on 1998 to 2000 data)
Coating Cost (Actual) Comparison
Metallizing, Galvanizing and Painting

1-7
1-8
1-10
1-14
1-19
1-22
1-23
1-34
1-47
1-49
1-50
1-53
1-54

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5

April 2004

Rust Condition Rating Categories for Coatings in OSIM

Performance Curves of Oil/Alkyd/SSPC-SP 2
Corrosion of Base Carbon Steel
ASTM D610 Pictorial- 0.3% rust
ASTM D610 Pictorial- 10% rust

1-ii

1-9
1-11
1-11
1-13
1-13

PART I - CONTRACT PREPARATION

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

General

The Ministry of Transportation has over 700 steel bridges under its jurisdiction. A recent
study1 showed that there are about 475 carbon steel bridges and about 250 atmospheric
corrosion resistant (ACR) steel (or weathering steel) bridges. It is mandatory that these
vital links in the highway system be protected from the detrimental effects of corrosion.
ACR steel, under normal weathering cycles, oxidises to form a tough layer of rust
referred to as "patina", which protects the steel from unabated corrosion2. However, this
steel too is susceptible to corrosion-induced deterioration under prolonged or severe
wetting and drying conditions (i.e. when the conditions are not right for the formation of
patina). The corrosion-induced deterioration is aggravated in the presence of de-icing
salts, especially under the leaking expansion joints and in the splash zones3, 4. Therefore,
ACR steel too needs to be protected in corrosion prone areas, such as under the leaking
expansion joints and in the splash zones in a bridge4.
Coatings are by far the most widely used form of steel protection and corrosion control.
A well-formulated coating system applied under the right environmental conditions on a
properly prepared surface is expected to protect the structure for many years. Failure of
the coatings invariably leads to corrosion and associated material and performance
defects of steel components in the structure. The related rehabilitation and replacement
costs are a concern to the ministry.
Historically, coating of bridge structures has been a lower priority item in the ministry,
compared to other rehabilitation needs. Due to continually rising labour costs, material
costs and the enormous increase in associated environmental protection costs, it is
necessary to place greater emphasis in developing economical coating alternatives in
order to address the need to protect steel structures from deterioration.
In recent years there have been significant developments in the areas of surface
preparation methods (e.g. the use of high and ultra high pressure water-jetting), protective
coating system formulations (e.g. coating systems for marginally prepared surfaces) and
maintenance painting procedures (e.g. overcoating). Hence, all the currently available
options for maintenance coating need to be carefully examined.
1.2

Coating Systems used in Ministry Structures/Bridges

Prior knowledge of the existing coating is useful and often necessary to decide on the
maintenance coating options. It is imperative to know the existing coating system, if one
considers overcoating as an option for maintenance coating. The following coating
systems have been used on provincial steel structures.

April 2004

1-1

1.2.1
a)

Paint Coating Systems

3 Coat Alkyd System (discontinued)

This system was used on most coated steel bridges until about 1974 when it was
discontinued. It consisted of:
- red lead primer;
- Light grey second coat;
- green top coat.
b)

High Build Alkyd System (discontinued)

This system was used on most coated steel bridges from about 1974 to 1985. Its use has
been discontinued. It consisted of:
- yellow zinc chromate primer, one or two coats;
- green high build alkyd topcoat (for hand rails); or - grey high build alkyd topcoat
(for other steel work).
c)

Inorganic-zinc/Vinyl System (discontinued)

This system was used from 1982 until the introduction of low VOC systems in 1996. It
consisted of:
- reddish grey to greenish grey inorganic zinc primer;
- reduced vinyl wash second coat or proprietary tie coat, in white, green or grey;
- green high build vinyl third coat;
- high build vinyl top coat, usually grey in colour, sometimes green.
d)

Epoxy-Zinc/Vinyl System (discontinued)

This system was used on coated steel bridges starting in 1987 until the introduction of
low VOC systems in 1996. It consisted of:
- green or reddish grey organic zinc primer;
- high build vinyl second coat, in green or light grey;
- high build vinyl topcoat, grey in colour.
e)

Aluminum-Filled Epoxymastic System (discontinued)

This system had been used since about 1982 on a number of coated steel bridges. It had
also been used in selected locations on atmospheric corrosion resistant (weathering) steel,
under expansion joints. It was discontinued in 1988 as a complete recoating system, but
could still be used for touch-up. It consisted of:
- two coats of aluminum coloured epoxymastic.
April 2004

1-2

f)

Coal Tar Epoxy (System 5)

This system has been used in the past on the inside of some box girders. It is black or
dark brown in colour.
g)

Inorganic-Zinc/Epoxy/Urethane System (System 4)

This system is one of the low VOC systems that have been in use for coating structural
steel since 1996. It consists of:
- reddish grey to greenish grey inorganic zinc primer;
- an epoxy second coat, green or white;
- urethane top coat, grey in colour.
h)

Epoxy-Zinc/Epoxy/Urethane System (System 2)

This system is one of the low VOC systems that have been in use for coating structural
steel since 1996. It consists of:
- green or reddish grey organic zinc primer
- an epoxy second coat, green or white;
- urethane top coat, grey in colour ( for ACR Steel brown in colour).
i)

Inorganic Zinc/Acrylic/Acrylic (System 3)

This system is one of the low VOC systems that are in the DSM list for coating structural
steel. It has only been used on a trial basis on some girders of Willow Creek Bridge. It
consists of:
- greenish grey inorganic zinc primer;
- buff acrylic mid coat;
- grey acrylic topcoat.
j)

Epoxy-Zinc/Acrylic/Acrylic (System 1)

This system is one of the low VOC systems that are in the DSM list for coating structural
steel. This system has only been used on a trial basis on some girders of Willow Creek
Bridge. It consists of:
- greenish grey organic(epoxy) zinc primer;
- buff acrylic mid coat;
- grey acrylic topcoat.

April 2004

1-3

k)

Overcoating Systems

Paint coating systems recommended for marginally prepared surfaces, as defined in

OPSS 17045, are referred here as Overcoating Systems. Two coating systems were
approved in 19986, based on MTO laboratory evaluation. In the years 2001 and 2002,
overcoating was used for coating of the external girders of Moira River Bridge, under
contract # 2000-0076.
The prime coat is an aluminium filled epoxy mastic type product, the mid coat is high
solids flexible aliphatic surface tolerant polyurethane and the topcoat is aliphatic
polyurethane. This system was applied on to the north side of the bridge. However, due to
the non-availability of the mid coat material, the south side received two coats of
aluminium filled epoxy mastic prime coat material and aliphatic polyurethane topcoat.
This bridge was previously painted with high build alkyd system [see subsection (b)
above], which received the above overcoating treatment.
1.2.2

HotDipped Galvanizing

Hot-dipped galvanizing of steel hand rails components commenced in 1987, after the
introduction of a coating policy which required that standard steel hand rails be hot-dip
galvanized and the posts and brackets metallized (see Appendix IV). Hot-dipped
galvanizing was used for coating of five bridges during 90s, which included Upper
Canada CNR Overhead in the Eastern Region, Cripple Creek Bridge, New Liskeard, and
CNR Overhead at Parry Sound (Site # 44-163 - now a Municipal Bridge) in Northern
Region, Dereham Townline Overpass and Kent County Road # 15 Bridge over Hwy 401,
in the South Western Region1.
1.2.3

Metallizing

As stated above, metallizing of steel posts and brackets commenced in the year 1987 as a
field application method using flame spray process. Thermal arc sprayed metallizing was
employed for coating of the girders and new diaphragms of Division Street overpass,
Hwy 401, Kingston in 19987. A clear seal coat was applied over the metallic coating to
provide additional corrosion (barrier) protection. This work was done off site in a shop
and the coated components were transported back to the site and erected prior to the
installation of a new bridge deck.
1.3

Steel Substrate Surface Condition Requirements used for Various

Coating Systems

The alkyd systems and aluminium epoxymastic system used in the past were applied onto
steel surfaces abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC -SP6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast
standard8 with the exception of a few structures which were coated over mill scale. For
the vinyl systems and the Low VOC systems, specification required the steel surfaces to
be abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC-SP10/NACE No. 2, Near-White Metal Standard9. For
the metallizing of steel girders of Division Street overpass in Kingston, the specification
April 2004

1-4

called for the steel surface to be abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC SP-5/NACE No.1 White
Metal standard10 having a surface profile within a range of 50-100 microns.
At present, as a general practice, only the low VOC three coat paint systems from the
Designated Sources Materials (DSM) 12 list are specified for coating application on
abrasive blast cleaned steel.

April 2004

1-5

2.

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING COATNG SYSTEM

2.1

General

Prior to any field inspection, all available documents concerning the original coating and
subsequent maintenance coating and their respective performances must be studied. This
review will establish what the inspector may encounter and also what to look for.
While conducting the detailed visual inspection, the Regional Structural Section should
note the coating condition as well as the condition of the members of the structure.
2.2

Condition Survey of Existing Coating

2.2.1

General

A structure must be inspected prior to contract design to ascertain the type and condition
of the existing coating system, condition of structural steel members and to assess
problem areas and maintenance requirements such as:
-

corrosion perforated steelwork that may need strengthening or replacement prior to

coating;

deck drains and/or 25mm drain tubes that should be lengthened to prevent deposition
of runoff water on freshly coated steel members;

potential access problems that may necessitate diaphragm removal at abutments or

piers in order to clean and coat the main steelwork;

bearings requiring protection measures prior to sandblasting;

expansion joints that should be repaired or replaced ,or eliminated to prevent

deposition of runoff water on freshly coated steel members; and,

to decide on maintenance painting options such as zone painting, touch up, full
removal & recoating and to decide on conducting a detailed coating condition survey
to assess overcoatability of the existing coatings.

2.2.2

Biennial Inspection and Coating Condition Rating System

The biennial inspection of existing coating is addressed in Ontario Structure Inspection

Manual, OSIM 12.The coating condition rating has been recently revised in the OSIM in
order to be consistent with the new Ontario Bridge Management System (OBMS).

April 2004

1-6

Instead of the six categories of performance and material rating in the previous system,
the new system in the OSIM has the following four condition ratings: Excellent,
Good, Fair and Poor. This change is necessary to have a unified system for rating all the
different components in a structure and it facilitates the quantifying of percentage of each
component in each of the condition states.
The new condition rating in OSIM for coatings is based on material defects and Rust
Condition Rating Categories 1-4, which is described below and illustrated in Figure 2.1
This rating is performed for a component or sections of a component when there is a wide
variation in localised areas of a component. The new OSIM Coating Condition Rating
Categories and the parameters used for this assessment are presented in Table 2.1 and
Table 2.2.
As shown in Table 2.2, condition rating of coatings on substructures and superstructures
is dependent on rust condition rating category as well as on the extent of other coating
defects (such as checking, cracking, alligatoring, undercutting, pinholing, runs, sags,
overspray, blisters, chalking, intercoat delamination, peeling, underfilm corrosion,
pinpoint rusting, bridging, edge defects, shadows etc.).
Rust condition rating in the new OSIM (Tables 2.1 & 2.2) is based on the percentage of
surface rust on the coated steel. ASTM D 610 standards/sketches13 and SSPC VIS 2
Pictorial standards14 are used as guides for rating purposes. The rust condition rating
categories and maximum % rust for various categories are given in Table 2.3.
This evaluation is performed by detailed visual inspection of coatings on steel elements
and the results of the inspection are expressed in percentage of the total area of each
element. The results are then fed into the Bridge Management System (BMS), which in
turn will indicate whether a detailed coating condition survey (for assessing
overcoatability) is warranted. The threshold value for the BMS program to trigger such a
detailed coating condition survey is when the combined area in Fair and Poor conditions
is >25 % of the area, but the area in poor condition should be less than 10%.
Table 2.1
Condition Rating of Coating* Steel Railings
Excellent Condition Good Condition
Fair Condition
Poor Condition
RUST
RUST
RUST
RUST
CONDITION**
CONDTION
CONDITION
CONDITION
RATING CAT.1
RATING CAT.2
RATING CAT.3
RATING CAT. 4

Table 2.2
April 2004

1-7

Condition Rating of Coating* - Structural Steel Substructures and Superstructures

Excellent Condition Good Condition
Fair Condition
Poor Condition
No Observed Material Minor Checking,
Checking, Cracking, Severe Checking,
Defects
Cracking,
Alligatoring
Cracking,
Alligatoring,
Alligatoring
Chalking
Intercoat
Undercutting,
Delamination,
Blisters, Peeling
Peeling (top coat
(prime coat),
only)
Underfilm
Corrosion
Signs of Chemical
Attack
Overspray, Runs,
Bridging, Edge
Sags, Pinholing
Defects, Shadows,
Pinpoint Rusting
RUST
RUST
RUST
RUST
CONDITION**
CONDITION **
CONDITION **
CONDITION **
RATING CAT.1
RATING CAT.2
RATING CAT.3
RATING CAT. 4
Detailed Coating
Detailed Coating
Condition Survey if Condition Survey if
>25% of combined
>25% of combined
area in Fair and
area in Fair and
Poor Condition
Poor Condition
States, and the area States, and the area
of Poor Condition
of Poor Condition
state is < 10%***
state is < 10%***
*

Galvanized elements are included under the Coating category.

**

OSIM Rust Condition Ratings based on ASTM D 610 sketches are shown in
Figure 2.1.

***

In order to consider overcoating as a viable rehabilitation option, a detailed

condition survey should be triggered before deterioration is too widespread.

April 2004

1-8

Category 1: No Rust
Condition State: Excellent

Category 2: Light Surface Rust

Condition State: Good
Upper limit 1% rust shown

Category 3: Medium Surface Rust

Condition State: Fair
Upper limit 3% rust shown

Category 4: Severe Surface Rust

Condition State: Poor
5% rust shown as example

Figure 2.1: Rust Condition Rating Categories

for Coatings in OSIM

April 2004

1-9

Table 2.3
Rust Condition Rating Categories
% Rust
Rust Condition Rating
Category
No rust
CAT. 1
0 -1

CAT. 2

1 -3

CAT. 3

Greater than 3

CAT. 4

Detailed condition survey of the coating is necessary if overcoating is to be considered.

Refer to Section 3.0.
The use of a pen knife to lift the paint film from areas which surround total loss of
coating will assist in determining the actual area, which should be considered as failed,
resulting in more appropriate rating.
During detailed coating condition survey, the percentage of metal area exposed or
affected by corrosion and corrosion by-products as evident on the steel surface is also
evaluated to determine the sectional loss of a component or a sectional loss in localized
areas.
2.3

Coating Deterioration and Section Loss

Although a coating's breakdown may be insignificant when first inspected, this

deterioration is ongoing with a linear increase around the 0.1% - 0.3% of surface rust
mark15. If coating repairs are delayed unduly, then the damaged area will most likely be
much greater when re-coating is done in subsequent years.
Figure 2.2 and 2.3 show how rapidly coatings can deteriorate if not maintained and how
this then translates into section loss16.

April 2004

1-10

Figure 2.2: Performance Curves of

Oil/Alkyd/SSPC-SP 2

Figure 2.3: Corrosion of

Base Carbon Steel

Figure 2.2 is for an oil/alkyd coating but similar curves were reported for other coatings
in different environments. The points A, B, C refer respectively to 0.03%, 0.1% and 0.3%
rust 16. The graph shows that at about 0.3% rust the coating breakdown accelerates
rapidly.
Figure 2.3 shows the rate of metal loss after the coating has deteriorated completely. The
SSPC has determined that metal loss may occur beyond the 10% rust mark16.
In the new OSIM coating condition rating, rust marks of 3% and above are rated as in
Poor condition.
The Metals Handbook17 by the American Society for Metals (ASM) cautions that the
environmental classifications into rural, urban, industrial, marine, etc., are gross
oversimplifications of a particular situation. It suggests that the corrosion rate data, like
the above shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, should be used as qualitative rather than
quantitative. Corrosion rates can vary considerably within small proximities.
The main factors affecting corrosion of bridge members in Ontario and other places
where de-icing salts are used for winter maintenance are: a) the degree of exposure to deicing salts and b) the duration of wetness.
The Ministrys experience clearly shows that within a bridge there can be different
corrosive environments. Under leaking expansion joints, at locations subject to salt
splashing, and in areas where there is bird droppings and accumulation debris, steel
components are in a severe corrosion environment and corrosion can occur at higher
rates. Areas that are not exposed to salt spray or the accumulation of debris and moisture
usually show much lower corrosion rates and can be considered as relatively benign.
Therefore, during inspection, special attention needs to be placed to the corrosion prone
areas described above to assess the extent and degree of coating failure and corrosion
damage.
April 2004

1-11

2.4

Visual Aids For Determining Coating Condition Rating

The OSIM condition rating for coating is determined by assessing the degree of rusting
(Rust Condition Rating Categories) and other defects included in the Table 2.2.
To assist the person conducting the assessment arrive at an objective Rust Condition
Rating Category (and Coating Condition Rating), the following sketches in Figures 2.1,
based on the ASTM D 61013 should be used. These sketches are visual aids and they
compare, where applicable, the rust condition ratings for painted steel components to
pictorial representations of percent rust in SSPC- VIS 214 published by the SSPC. The
SSPC-VIS 2 pictorials are representative of rust but not blisters. Blisters should be treated
as if they were rust when determining the rust condition rating.
2.5

Other Parameters Considered for Coating Condition Rating

In addition to the assessment of degree of rusting (Rust Condition Rating), the inspector
should look for and assess the following defects in the coating.
Formulation/Material related Defects:
-Checking
-Cracking
-Alligatoring
-Chalking
Adhesion Related Defects:
-Intercoat Delamination
- Peeling (top coat only)
- Undercutting
- Blisters
- Underfilm Corrosion
Defects related to External Factors:
-Signs of chemical attack
Application related defects:
-Overspray
-Runs, Sags
-Pinholes,
-Pinpoint rusting
-Bridging
-Edge defects
-Shadows
Detailed description on the above defects and their causes are found in the Steel
Structures Painting Manual Volume 1, Good Painting Practice18and Corrosion Prevention
by Protective Coatings19.

April 2004

1-12

2.6

Levels of Coating Failure for Maintenance Painting

MTO does not wait for a fixed time period before re-coating and maintenance painting.
The current practice is to allow certain level of corrosion or coating failure to occur
before re-coating or to adopt other maintenance painting procedures.
For many years, the Ministry has been using 10% rust mark (based on ASTM D610,
SSPC-VIS 2) as a failure point of the existing coating for primary components that
requires re-coating. With the revision of the OSIM coating rating categories, areas of
components exhibiting 3% rust mark and above are all classified as in Poor Condition.
Many organizations use more stringent criteria than the ministry's criteria for re-coating.
The Society for Protective Coatings, SSPC, criterion falls between 0.03% - 0.3% rust16
(see Figure 2.4) while the British Iron ands Steel research association use 0.1% rust (ref.
19, p 294). Appleman 16 says a structure should be re-coated at least at the 10% rust mark
(see Figure 2.5) before there is a possibility of metal loss, which is seen as happening
beyond the 10% rust mark.

Figure 2.4: ASTM D610 Pictorial- 0.3% rust

Figure 2.5: ASTM D610 Pictorial- 10% rust

April 2004

1-13

3.

DETAILED CONDITION SURVEY TO EVALUATE

OVERCOATABILITY OF THE EXISTING COATING

3.1

General

A detailed coating condition survey is carried out to assess whether the structure is a
suitable candidate for overcoating project and to assess the risks associated with such a
decision. In order to select candidate structures for such a survey, one has to consider not
only the coating condition rating of individual structural elements, but also about the
overall coating condition (of all the elements) of the bridge structure. In the case of steel
girders, the ends of girders are considered as separate elements from the rest of the
girders12. The following combinations of coating condition rating is proposed for the
selection of structures for detailed condition survey and to assess whether the structure is
suitable for overcoating (Table 3.1). Since the detailed coating condition survey to
evaluate overcoatability is discussed in detail in this section of this manual, OSIM only
lists the tests to be performed during a detailed coating condition survey and makes
reference to this manual (Structural steel coating manual) in Section 1.3.3 Specialized
Investigations.
The detailed coating condition survey for assessing overcoatability of the structure
includes visual inspection and physical inspection of the structure and the existing
coating, which is discussed in depth below in this section (Section 3).
Table 3.1
Criteria for Selection of Steel Structures for Detailed Coating Condition Survey
Ends of Girder
Middle Section of Girder b
Overall
Category

% Area in
Fair & Poor
Condition a

50> X >25

% Area in
Good &
Excellent
Condition
> 50

% Area in
Fair & Poor
Condition a

50> X >25

% Area in Good
&
Excellent
Condition
> 50

> 50

< 50

50> X >25

> 50

50> X >25

>50

<25

>75

Action

Option/
Comments

Detailed coating
Condition survey
and technical
assessment for
overcoating
No immediate
action required, if
length of girder is
<20 m

Overcoating
may be an
option

No action required
at present

Overcoating
may be an
option for
girders
> 20m
Overcoating
may be an
option in the
future

Note: If majority of the girders in the structure comes under the overall category A and the rest in category C, it is
recommended that a detailed coating condition survey is carried out to assess the technical suitability of the structure
for overcoating, provided that the area of poor condition is under 10%. However if the majority of the girders are in
category C, with a smaller number in category A, the detailed coating condition survey may be delayed. Superscript a:
% of Poor Condition should be <10%;
Superscript b: Criteria to be used for full girders, if the ends of the girders are not rated separately.

April 2004

1-14

3.2

Inspector qualification

The inspector performing a detailed coating condition survey should have:

i)
Passed NACE Level I Coating Inspector Training; and,
ii)
3 years of coating inspection experience.
3.3

Inspection Tools and Materials

The following is a list of equipment required for a detailed coating inspection:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.

Inspection mirror, torchlight, 30X magnifying glass, preferably an illuminated

type.
Knife (putty knife) sample bags and vials.
Camera with close up lens and appropriate quantity of film or a digital camera.
Constant Pressure- Probe Type II Dry Film Thickness (DFT) gauge and
calibration standards - to determine total DFT of coating.
Tooke gauge - to determine total DFT and DFT of individual coats/layers.
Coating adhesion testing based on ASTM D3359 (or a Modified Procedure B
based on ASTM D 3359 for the use of KTA-Tator Cross Cut Guide and
accessories for adhesion testing is given subsequently).
Equipment for pull-off adhesion testing conforming to ASTM D 454120 (Note: Of
the three types of apparatus, the hydraulic and pneumatic testers (e.g. PosiTest
Pull-off Adhesion Tester, HATE & PATI) give more accurate pull-off adhesion
values compared to the hand operated mechanical tester such as Elcometer 106).
Zinc rich touch-up paint21 for repair of areas where destructive tests (such as Took
gauge DFT measurements, cross hatch adhesion test and pull-off adhesion tests
etc.) were conducted.
Soluble salt test kits (e.g. KTA Swab test kit, Bresle Patch test kit, Chlor*Test kit
for extraction and quantitative estimation of chloride ions; Available from KTATator, Atlas International and Termarust Technologies).
Personal protective equipment.

3.4

Visual Inspection

Visual inspection to be performed during a detailed coating condition survey requires a

much closer examination of the structure compared to the initial biennial inspection,
which triggered the detailed inspection. It is more comprehensive and quantitative with
regard to reporting of the coating condition of all the elements and the structure as a
whole. The coating condition rating is based on New OSIM Table 4 for Coating Structural Steel Substructures and Superstructures. In this survey, special attention should
be paid to the recording of the percentage of each level of failure accurately with respect
to the percentage area of each element. Each individual girder or truss should be rated
separately. The results of this survey should be compared with the previous biennial
inspection report, (to check the differences and discrepancies, if any) and to evaluate the
progress of the coating deterioration, especially when there is a significant time lag
between the previous inspection and the detailed inspection.

April 2004

1-15

3.5

Physical Inspection

3.5.1

General

Physical inspection of the existing coating is conducted to determine the dry film
thickness (DFT), number of layers of paint, adhesion, underlying substrate condition,
coating type and the presence of soluble salt and other surface contamination. The
number of test locations examined must be such that it provides a representative picture
of all major conditions existing on the structure22. Table 3.4 gives testing frequencies for
the different tests.
Prior to the detailed inspection, the inspection crew should review all the information
available with regard to the structure and the existing coating, including the previous
construction and inspection reports. Information on the coating materials and the abrasive
blast cleaning standard used for coating work could be obtained from the above reports.
Section 1.2 of this manual also gives valuable information regarding various coating
systems and surface preparation standards used over the years on ministry structures,
which may be of use if information with regard to coating systems are not available from
other sources. However, laboratory testing of the coating material is necessary for
positive identification of the coating materials/systems. For such a positive identification
of the existing coating, small representative paint chips (small paint samples) retrieved
from the structure should be sent to the Concrete Section of the Materials Engineering
and Research Office (MERO) of the MTO, 2nd Floor, Building C, 1201 Wilson Avenue,
Downsview, Ontario.
3.5.2

Dry Film Thickness (DFT) Measurements

DFT measurements to determine the total DFT of the existing coatings can be readily
performed using a Type 2 (constant pressure probe) magnetic gauge (such as Positector
6000 etc.). It is recommended that DFT measurements be taken on all accessible faces of
the steel girders/members.
Since many potential candidate MTO steel structures for overcoating projects consist of
I-beam carbon steel girders, it is appropriate that DFT measurements are taken, possibly
on all the accessible faces of the I-beam girders in the structure, i.e. on 7 faces. Ray
Weaver of SSPC, Pittsburgh, in his answer to Problem Solving Forum on Measuring
DFT on Steel I-Beams23, states that SSPC is developing a procedure for measuring the
dry film thickness of coatings on steel beams.
The following procedure, which was suggested by Mr. Weaver as a possible procedure
for measuring DFT on I-beams, is recommended for conducting DFT measurements
using Type II magnetic gauge on MTO structures with I-beam girders (for overcoating
projects).

April 2004

1-16

3.5.2.1

Procedure for Measuring DFT on Steel I-Beams

For beams up to 12 m in length, choose a 0.6m length of beam near one end and another
0.6m length near the centre. As indicated in SSPC-PA 2 (Section 4.1.2), take one spot
measurement on each of the seven surfaces within the designated 0.6m length. The
average of these spot measurements is the DFT. If some of the seven surfaces are not
accessible, take at least five spot measurements with at least one spot on each accessible
surface. Repeat for the other 0.6m length.
For beams between 12m and 24 m in length, divide the beam into thirds. Choose a 0.6m
length of beam near one end, and randomly select a 0.6m length from each of the other
thirds. Measure the DFT in each 0.6m length as described above.
For beams over 24 m in length, divide the beam into 12m segments. The final segment
will be less than 12m, if the total length is not a whole number of 12m increments.
Choose a 0.6m length near one end and randomly selected 0.6m length from each beam
segment. Measure DFT in each 0.6m length as described above.
3.5.2.2

DFT of Individual Layers

DFT of individual layers and the number of layers on coated steel can be measured using
a Tooke gauge. The procedure is based on ASTM D 413824, Measurement of Dry Film
Thickness of Protective coating Systems by Destructive Means. Tooke gauge
measurements are made by making a sharp straight scribe/cut at precise angle through the
paint layers down to the substrate, using the cutting tool that comes with the instrument.
The scribe is viewed through a 50x microscope of the instrument and the number of each
coat and thickness of each coat are measured. When examining the coating, the inspector
can observe the condition of the substrate as well. If rust is present beneath the primer
coating, it will often be visible. Since this is a destructive test method, the damage caused
to the coating has to be repaired after taking the measurements.
3.5.3

Coating Brittleness

One method for assessing the condition of the coating in terms of its flexibility (or
brittleness) is to scrape off a small area of paint with a sharp carpenters chisel. If the
paint film curls up, it is flexible and in good condition for overcoating with little risk. If
the film fractures into chips, it is considered brittle and a higher risk for overcoating25.
Coating brittleness can also be assessed by a simple crosscut of the coating film by a
sharp knife. Poor coatings tend to crack and flake/come off, especially at the intersection
of the cuts. Again this is a destructive test and the coating has to be repaired after the test.
3.5.4

Surface Contaminants

Ionic surface contaminants such as chlorides and sulphates can lead to decreased coating
life and increased rate of corrosion of the substrate, whereas grease, oil, and dust result in
poor wetting and adhesion of the overcoating system. Quantitative methods and semiApril 2004

1-17

quantitative methods such as swab tests (SSPC methods or ISO methods26) are available
for the measurement of soluble salts such as chlorides and sulphates. Since de-icing
chemicals/salts are used in most of the highways and bridges, chloride ion would be the
most widely expected invisible soluble ionic contaminant in bridge structures. As such, it
is recommended that a quantitative measurement of soluble chlorides on the surface of
the steel members be conducted using one of the commercially available kits (e.g. Bresle
Patch 27, CHLOR*Test28, KTA- Tator Swab test29), during detailed inspection for
overcoating projects. The details of the field methods for retrieval and analysis of soluble
salts on substrates are given in SSPC-TU 430 and other SSPC publications 31, 32. Recent
publication33 based on the work done by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Soil and Land Use Technology Inc., provides some guidelines and recommendations for
performing chloride extractions from salt contaminated substrates using commercially
available kits and for quantitative estimation of chloride ions in the extracted solution.
Tests to determine the extent of contamination (contamination level) with grease, oil and
dust may also be conducted using published methods 32 during the detailed inspection. It
is necessary to record exactly the locations of sampling and the procedures adopted for
sampling and testing of contaminants.
3.5.5

Coating Adhesion

3.5.5.1

Adhesion Test based on ASTM D 335934 (Modified Method B CrossHatch Test Method)

The minimum specified thickness of coating systems used in MTO structures is expected
to be above 200 m (or above the minimum specified) at the time of application. In order
to evaluate adhesion of these coatings, it is recommended that a modified version35 of
ASTM D 3359 Method B, called crosshatch method, be used. This modified procedure
requires the spacing of 5mm between adjacent cuts. KTA-Tator crosshatch cutting kit
(steel template with the required spacings, sharp razor or knife, pressure-sensitive
adhesive tape) or equivalent apparatus could be used. A grid of cuts is made through all
paint layers (by first making a set of parallel cuts using the cutting tool with a spacing of
5mm between the cutting edges and then making a second series of cuts, made
perpendicular to the first), resulting in 9 squares each 5mmx5mm. Pressure-sensitive tape
is applied to the cut surface and pulled off as given in the ASTM D 3359 Procedure34.
The amount of paint removal within the grid is used to assess the strength of the adhesive
bond. On a scale of 0B to 5B, Rating of 1B is between 35% and 65% paint removal,
which is unsatisfactory. Rating of 2 B is 16% to 35%, which is considered marginal, with
a considerable risk, since overcoating this paint would result in early failure. Ratings of
3B, 4B and 5B are satisfactory indicating that the old paint is sound enough to be
overcoated with compatible coating system and would have the normal expected life.
Risk assessment for overcoating based on ASTM D 3359 adhesion tests and coatings
thickness1 are summarized in Table 3.2. ASTM D 3359 Method B can be directly
applied (unmodified) for coatings having a thickness of <125m.

April 2004

1-18

Table 3.2
Assessment of Risk of Overcoating Based on Adhesion and Thickness of Existing
Coatings
Adhesion Classification,
Overcoatability and Associated Risks
ASTM Method D3359
(Amount of paint removed)
Method B, using Method
<125m 125 - 200m
200 -500m
>500m
5mm* guide to
A
make cross-hatch
x-cut
cut
method
5B (None)
5A
O.K - No risk O.K - No risk O.K - No risk O.K. - No risk
4B (1% - 5%)

4A

O.K - No risk O.K - No risk

O.K. - No risk

O.K. - No risk

3B (6 %- 15%)

3A

O.K - No risk O.K - No risk

O.K. - No risk

O.K, Low risk

2B (16% -35%)

2A

Low risk

Low risk

1B (36%-65%)

1A

Medium risk

Medium risk

Medium risk

Low Medium risk

High risk

0B (> 65%)

0A

Do not
overcoat

Do not
overcoat

Do not
overcoat

Do not
overcoat

Low risk

* Crosshatch cutting using 5mm guide is a modified procedure developed by KTA Tator to evaluate
adhesion of thicker coatings (>125m) by method B of ASTM D 3359.
For coatings <125m, ASTM D 3359 Procedure B (unmodified) can be applied.

3.5.5.2

Pull-Off Adhesion Test

As an alternative to the adhesion testing based on ASTM D3359, pull-off adhesion tests
based on ASTM D 454120 can be carried out to assess the adhesion of the aged coatings.
According to KTA Tator Report35, In a survey of SSPC Paint manufacturers, minimum
values of 0.34 MPa - 2.1 MPa (50 300 psi), were cited as necessary for overcoating.
Lenhart and El-Nagger have suggested the pull-off adhesion values of 0.69 MPa - 1.38
MPa (100 -200 psi) are marginal for overcoating and that adhesion of 1.72 MPa 4.14
MPa (250 -600 psi) is acceptable for overcoating. Glen Amos, in a recent article36 on
Maintenance Painting/Practical Advice, states, As a rule, if the new coating is a single
component product that would add very little stress to the old coating, a minimum of 1.38
MPa 1.72 MPa (200 - 250 psi) adhesion/cohesion is acceptable. Conversely, if the new
coating is a multiple-component product that would impart significant stress during cure,
the old system should display minimum adhesion/cohesion readings of 2.4 MPa (350
psi). This higher number is also appropriate for structures with more than five coats of
old paint, >20 mils (508 m) thickness of old paint, and a severe environment. Based on
the above information, it is recommended that a pull-off adhesion value of over 1.38 MPa
(200 psi) is required for overcoating projects.

April 2004

1-19

There is a significant scatter (margin of error) in pull-off adhesion values when

mechanical testing devices (such as Elcometer 106) are used. Therefore, caution should
be exercised when pull-off adhesion values are considered for making decisions. More
consistent/accurate pull-off adhesion values are usually expected with pneumatic and
hydraulic instruments (such as the PATI, HATE, PosiTest Pull-Off Adhesion Tester). All
the pull-off adhesion test methods require metallic (aluminum) dollies of a specific size
to be glued on to the surface of the coatings to conduct the test. It has been found that the
some of the 5-minute cure epoxy compounds and cyano-acrylate adhesives may not be
suitable to securely bond the test dollies onto the coatings (for the pull-off adhesion test)
and in general the epoxies with 24 hour curing period are suitable. However Lepages 5minute epoxy glue was found to be satisfactory after a curing period of 2-3 hours. Lord
201 acrylic adhesive with Lord Accelerator 4 (available from Lord Corporation) was also
found to give satisfactory bonding of the dollies with a curing period of 2 hours, which
enabled the pull-off adhesion test to be completed on the same day.
3.5.6

Patch Test

Patch testing is a good method for determining whether the new overcoating system that
is to be used is compatible with the existing coating. The test should be performed so that
the worst-case exposure to the patch is achieved. This could be conducted as described in
ASTM D 506437. Representative areas or components of the structure should be selected
for testing. It is important that any test patch should include the feathered edges of the
existing paint at prepared rusted or degraded areas. Area(s) in poor condition as well as
area (s) that typify the overall condition of the existing coating should be selected for this
evaluation. The areas selected should be inspected (visual and physical) carefully and the
results of the inspection recorded. It is recommended that the surface preparation to be
used for the patch test should be the same as the procedure to be used for overcoating
project and is as follows:
a) SSPC-SP 1- Solvent Cleaning38 to remove oil residues and patches.
b) SSPC-SP 11 -Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal40, of rust spots larger than100cm2.
d) Power washing with potable water at 10.34 MPa 17.24 MPa (1500 - 2500 psi)
pressure.
e) Blow dry with contaminant free compressed air.
Overcoating materials to be used for patch testing should be from the MTO approved
coating systems for marginally prepared coated steel. It is necessary to apply the
overcoating materials by the same procedure that will be used on the overcoating project,
at the recommended thickness under the recommended atmospheric and surface
conditions. The patch shall be re-inspected after curing/drying and condition of the patch
shall be documented. If the old coating is attacked, there will be signs of softening,
blistering or delamination. If there are no signs of initial failure then, the test patches
should be re-inspected a second time after 6 -12 months, preferably after one winter
season. DFT measurements and adhesion test may be conducted on the patch.
Patch test results are rather straightforward to interpret. Good compatibility is indicated
by the absence of any delamination in the patch or adhesion failures. Delaminated
April 2004

1-20

patches imply a very high risk. Poor intercoat and or substrate adhesion indicates that
there is intermediate level of risk associated with overcoating. Signs of early rusting or
blistering may also indicate a higher risk associated with overcoating. Other warning
signs include wrinkling, mud cracking and lifting1.
Recommendations for feasibility of overcoating based on patch testing are given in
Table 3.3.
3.5.7

Compatibility Data

At present the ministry does not have any specific information with regard to
compatibility of approved overcoating materials with the existing coating systems on
MTO bridges. Therefore, it is mandatory at the initial phase to conduct patch testing with
the approved overcoating materials on to the following existing coating systems on MTO
bridges:
-Old Alkyd system with red lead primer
-Alkyd system with zinc chromate primer
-Vinyl systems with inorganic zinc and epoxy zinc
-Low VOC epoxy zinc/epoxy/polyurethane
-Low VOC inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane
Once the data on compatibility of the approved overcoating systems (materials) with the
above existing coating systems are collected and analysed, this information could be
made available for future reference.

April 2004

1-21

Table 3.3
Overcoating Recommendations Based on Patch Test
Observation/Test results*
Inspection Tools/Method
Recommendations/
Comments
Patch in good condition
Visual, Observation of the surface Good compatibility
without any visible signs of
under x30 magnification
(material compatibility)
delamination, peeling, signs
Meets adhesion test requirements - System used on the
of rusting or other failures
patch is suitable for
overcoating
Delamination of the patch
Visual, observation of the surface Very poor compatibilityunder x30 magnification
Overcoating is not
recommended
Poor intercoat and or
Visual, observation of the surface Poor compatibilitysubstrate adhesion on visual under x30 magnification.
Overcoating is not
observation or on adhesion
Do not meet the adhesion test
recommended
testing
requirements
Rusting and blistering
Visual & observation under
Effectiveness in reducing
X30 magnification
the corrosion rate is poor.
- Not satisfactory for
overcoating
Wrinkling, mud cracking,
Visual & observation under
Poor compatibilitylifting, peeling
X30 magnification
Overcoating is not
recommended
* After a minimum of 6 months service exposure & through one winter.

April 2004

1-22

Table 3.4
Testing Frequencies for Various Tests During Physical Inspection for Overcoating
Projects
TEST
Location/Location Selection
Number of Tests
Recommended
Total DFT (Type
In Conformance with
In Conformance with
II Pull-off
SSPC-PA 2
SSPC-PA 2
magnetic gauge)
DFT of individual Select at random (or select areas where the total DFT
Limit the number to a
from the previous measurements are either too low or too
layers by Tooke
few tests at
high)
gauge
representative locations
Limit the number to a
Coating Brittleness Select at random, to include areas where the
few tests at
coating is prone to more environmental
degradation (e.g. external faces of girders, splash zones, representative locations
areas close to leaking expansion joints etc.)

Surface
ContaminantsSoluble chloride
Surface
ContaminantsDirt
Surface
ContaminantsOil and grease
Adhesion- Crosshatch method

Adhesion- Pull-off
adhesion test
Patch test

April 2004

Select areas close to expansion joints, splash

zones as well as areas where there is less
likelihood of salt contamination
Random
Select locations after careful visual
observation- Splash zones, external girders
etc.
Select areas close to expansion joints/ends of
girders, external girder web and lower flange
as well as some representative inner sections
of steel members
Select areas close to expansion joints/ends of
girders, external girder web and lower flange
as well as some representative inner sections
of steel members
Only done if all the other test results are
satisfactory to consider overcoating as an
option for maintenance painting and when
compatibility data is not available for the
systems concerned.

1-23

A few representative
locations (about 5- 9 tests)
A few representative
locations
A few representative
locations
A few representative
locations
(This test need not be carried out
if pull-off adhesion test at
representative location is carried
out)

A few representative
locations
A few representative
locations (e.g. external
girder web, areas close
to the expansion joints,
areas where high or low
DFT recorded etc.

4.

CRITERIA FOR RE-COATING AND OTHER

MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES FOR COATINGS

4.1

General

The primary reason for coating steel is to prevent loss of a section with a secondary
function of maintaining the aesthetics of the structure.
With the change in the Ministry's role from hands-on delivery work to steering, it is
expected that most of the coating related work would be done by contract work as part of
the capital program, while little touch-up work would be done by the Districts. However,
it is economically advantageous to touch-up coatings in critical areas before serious
coating deterioration or corrosion occurs.
Despite the funding and service delivery model, the following coating options are
available:

Full removal and re-coating

Zone painting
Overcoating
Touch-up

The prime factor to be considered for the selection of the most suitable coating option
would be the coating condition rating for the entire structure concerned. NCHRP
Synthesis 25741 and ASHTO Guide for Painting Steel Structures42 are cited here as
reference publications on Maintenance Painting.
4.2

Full Removal and Re-Coating

4.2.1

General

If the area with poor condition rating (visible metal, corrosion, blistering, loose primer)
and Rust Condition Category 4 is above 20% of the total surface area for primary
components, then the structure requires total re-coating via contract in the future.
If the area with Poor Condition rating is over 40% of the total area for secondary
structural components (e.g. railings) then they require re-coating via contract in the
future. The timing of the contract may depend on other rehabilitation needs, traffic
management issues, section losses, accessibility and the future plans for the structure.
4.2.2

Full Removal by abrasive blast cleaning and recoating

The standard practice of the ministry has been to abrasive blast clean to SSPC- SP 10/
NACE No. 2 Near White Metal standard, using a full enclosure with negative pressure in
conformance with OPSS 91143, and recoat with a low VOC three coat paint coating
system from the DSM list11. This method of full removal and recoating has given
satisfactory service performance in the recent past. However, the environmental and
April 2004

1-24

occupational health and safety considerations, along with escalating costs associated with
this practice has led to the development of alternative maintenance coating options in the
United States and elsewhere.
4.2.3

Full Removal by High- and Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting and

Recoating

Another possible coating option would be to perform total removal of existing coatings
by high/ultrahigh-pressure water jetting to SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 544 Condition WJ-2,
NV-2 as an alternative to dry abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC SP-10/ NACE No. 2 NearWhite Metal standard9 and then use a 3 coat low VOC paint system that has been
approved for coating over an abrasive blast cleaned surface. Since the use of high or
ultrahigh- pressure water jetting does not produce a surface profile, this option is only
possible for surfaces that have an existing surface profile of 25 75 microns [i.e.
previously abrasive blast cleaned (and coated) surfaces] unless a surface tolerant coating
system is used. One of the advantages of cleaning by water jetting is that it removes
invisible contaminants such as chlorides more effectively when compared with dry
abrasive blast cleaning45. However, the access to difficult areas in a bridge may pose a
bigger problem for cleaning by water jetting operations compared to dry abrasive blast
cleaning, considering the sizes of the water-jetting wands/tools that are presently
available. Another factor to be considered is the collection and disposal of wastewater
generated during this operation.
The use of high- and ultrahigh-pressure water jetting for surface preparation of steel for
recoating is a relatively new technology, which has gained wide acceptance for cleaning
of cargo ships, naval vessels and storage tanks. Performance data of this option for
cleaning and coating of bridges are not available at the present time. However, one would
expect the life expectancy for coatings applied over SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 5, Condition
WJ-2, NV-2, surface, to be about the same as that for the abrasive blast cleaned surface
(to SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2).
This coating option is at a developmental stage; trial projects are being conducted to
gather first hand experience in utilizing this new technology for bridge coating projects
and to gather pertinent information concerning collection and disposal of wastewater
generated during water jetting operations.
4.3

Zone Painting

4.3.1

General

Zone painting is a viable option when deterioration of coatings is localised, (e.g. ends of
girders under leaking expansion joints, lower portion of through trusses subjected to
direct salt splashing). If the area of Poor Condition rating according to OSIM12 exceeds
10 % of the total surface area for a primary component, or is up to 20% for a secondary
component, then that zone warrants cleaning, surface preparation and re-coating via
contract. This may be undertaken either along with other rehabilitation work or by itself
as a coating contract, depending on the total area to be coated. This may also depend on
April 2004

1-25

accessibility and possible options available for narrowing of the lanes or closing some
lanes during rehabilitation work.
With regard to the new weathering steel girders, the ministry policy is to paint the ends of
girders at expansion joints up to 3 metres after blast cleaning to SSPC-SP10. This is an
example of zone painting of new steel.
4.3.2

Options for Zone Painting

Surface preparation and Coating system specifications for zone painting can be as
follows:
i)
ii)

iii)

Blast cleaning to SSPC-SP109 and application of a low VOC three coats paint
coating system listed in the DSM11. (Option A).
or
Power Tool cleaning either to SSPC-SP339 and/or SSPC-SP1140 and application
of an MTO approved coating systems for marginally prepared surfaces in
conformance with OPSS 17045 and OPSS 91143(Option B).
or
Surface preparation by high pressure or ultra high pressure water-jetting to SSPCSP 12/ NACE No. 544 Condition WJ-2, NV-2, followed by blow drying with clean
compressed air and application of an MTO approved coating systems for
marginally prepared surfaces in conformance with OPSS 1704 and OPSS
911(Option C).
Estimated Service Life
20-25 years
15-20 years

Option A
Option C

Option B
Cleaning Method
Power Tool Cleaning to SSPC SP-3:
6-10 years*
Power Tool Cleaning to SSPC SP-11:
8-12 years*
[*For overcoating options, since the existing coating in sound/good condition is still
intact (and overcoated with the new overcoating paint coating), the estimated service life
given is the extension of service life beyond the remaining service life of the existing
coating].
Site situation, the type of the existing coating and other factors related to costs and life
expectancy of the coating system need to be considered when choosing the appropriate
method for zone painting. The use of salt removal agents may be necessary especially for
options B & C to reduce the amount of chlorides and other salts on the steel surface. In
such situations wash water need to be fully contained conforming to the environmental
regulations. As such, it is necessary to prepare a NSSP to incorporate surface preparation,
coating application and the management of wash water and all other materials generated.

April 2004

1-26

4.4

Overcoating

4.4.1

General

Overcoating is generally defined as the practice of painting over an existing coating as a

means of extending its useful life35. Overcoating typically includes preparing the rusted
spots or degraded areas by mechanical, chemical or water cleaning methods; feathering
the edges of the existing coating to provide a smooth transition at the interface between
existing sound paint and cleaned areas; spot priming with a surface tolerant coating, then
power washing of the entire structure to remove loose chalk, dirt, dust, grime and other
debris; applying full intermediate coat over the existing sound coating and repaired areas
and, finally applying a full top coat over the entire structure (optional but recommended
in most instances)46,47.
The primary driving force for this approach in coating maintenance has been the cost of
performing the work, especially in connection with a lead based paint. Since this
procedure of overcoating inherently involves less coating removal and less extensive
surface cleaning/preparation, which could be performed without extensive environmental
protection, the cost is substantially less compared to total removal by abrasive blast
cleaning and repainting. However, the service life of overcoating is, in general, much
shorter compared to the coating applied over abrasive blast cleaned steel. A recently
completed ministry study1 on Steel Bridge Coating Program Cost and Option Study
makes the following conclusion and recommendation with regard to overcoating:
Overcoating is not a competitive option if it is not feasible as the initial treatment.
However if there is a need to minimize the funding required over a period of time, or to
spread funding onto more bridges, then overcoating could be applied to some bridges
where conditions are suitable. For the 30 43% of the bridge inventory in which
overcoating might be suitable as an immediate treatment, additional tests (DFT, adhesion
etc.) have to be carried out to ascertain their suitability.
4.4.2
a)

Overcoating as a Maintenance Coating Option- Factors to be

considered
General

The decision on whether to use overcoating should take into consideration the long-term
rehabilitation program for the bridge concerned. It should be borne in mind that
overcoating is estimated to extend the service life of the existing coating by 8-12 years
compared to the 20-25 years of life expectancy for full removal and re-coating.
The ministry, at present, does not have any performance data of its own on overcoating
projects. The information available in the literature amply reveals that for overcoating
project to be successful, careful consideration should be given in the selection of
candidate structures, in addition to the selection of suitable coating system and
construction procedures.

April 2004

1-27

b)

Condition of the Existing Coating

The most important consideration is the condition of the existing coating itself. Although
coating breakdown may be insignificant when first inspected, this deterioration is
ongoing with a linear increase around the 0.1% - 0.3% surface rust mark12, thereafter the
rate of deterioration increases more rapidly16. To consider overcoating as an option, the
total amount of coating breakdown (rust) should be less than 3% (based on ASTM D610
and SSPC-VIS 2) at the time of maintenance painting. When the percentage of coating
deterioration is higher, there is much higher risk of failure apart from higher cost
associated with surface preparation/spot repair and application of coating (not
economical).
On the average, ministry construction projects require a two-year period for design,
contract preparation and execution, after the initial inspection of the structure. Since
coatings continue to deteriorate at an increasing rate over time, it is necessary to consider
only the structures that have a much smaller percentage of coating failure at the time of
inspection. In our assessment based on OSIM12, if the combined area of coating in Fair
and Poor condition is 25 %- 50 % of the total area (with Poor condition is less than 10%
of the area) of coating on the steel member, with the rest of the area in Good Condition,
then a detailed coating condition survey is warranted if overcoating is to be considered.
c)

Type of Structure

As stated previously, the ministry has about 725 steel structures of which 250 are
weathering steel structures with the rest being carbon steel structures. Of the carbon steel
structures, about 350 are girder type and the rest (about 125) are truss type structures1.
The truss type structures are usually complex with numerous elements. Maintenance
painting of truss structures is more labour intensive and the cost of access is usually much
higher than for girder bridges. Furthermore, the coating condition rating for truss
structures is done for the whole structure and not for the individual members. Such an
overall rating introduces some uncertainty with regard to the extent of cleaning required
for overcoating projects. Considering this uncertainty, along with the limited life
expectancy for overcoating projects when compared to the full removal and recoating,
one would prefer full removal and recoating for truss structures. (Abrasive blast cleaning
of the steel structure to SSPC- SP10/NACE No. 2 and recoating with approved coating
systems, which would last at least 20 years or more). However, there may still be
situations where the engineer may consider overcoating as an option of maintenance
painting for truss structures. This will be based on the condition of the coating and other
considerations; in such cases, a project specific life cycle financial analysis should be
carried out to assess the economics of the overcoating option.
The carbon steel girder structures would be the prime candidates for overcoating projects.
Between the years 1982-1998, 234 ministry bridges have been recoated1, which
represents 38% of the carbon steel bridge inventory. It is reasonable to assume that the
candidates for overcoating projects would most likely come from this list of bridges,
which have been recoated after 1982. However, structures which have been coated prior
to 1982, may also qualify if the criteria based on the condition of the existing coating are
April 2004

1-28

met. Clive Hare 48, one of the well-known specialists in this field, cautions, Wherever
possible, limit overcoating to bridges that were blast cleaned before the application of
lead-based paint (or existing coating) i.e., bridges built after 1970". His recommendations
with regard to avoiding overcoating failures are given in the next section.
4.4.3

Risks Associated with the Overcoating Process

The main risks associated with overcoating are35, 48,49

a)
b)

Delamination
Premature failure due to recurring corrosion and deterioration at spot
cleaned areas

Factors that affect the above mentioned risks in overcoating are as follows35:
i) Condition of the exiting coating including thickness and adhesion.
ii) Condition of the steel substrate, corrosion pattern and extent.
ii) Surface contaminants such as soluble salts, oil, dirt, debris including bird droppings.
iv) Coating compatibility
v) Type of structure
vi) Exposure environment
4.4.3.1

Delamination

A primary risk associated with overcoating is that the overcoating system may cause
delamination of the existing coating system. Delamination is primarily due to the internal
stresses in the overcoat material being transferred to existing coating layers. Internal
stress in a coating layer is mainly due to shrinkage of the coating material or system
during drying/curing and aging and is dependent on the chemical composition of the
coating material and the curing mechanisms involved. Many of the overcoating systems,
therefore, have been formulated as high solids systems with low shrinkage stress. The
other factors that affect the internal stress include coating thickness, film-forming
conditions, coating age, temperature and temperature fluctuations.
Low internal stress on the existing coating is vital if the overcoating project is to succeed.
The reduction in internal stress can be addressed at the formulation and/or overcoating
system design stages48.
With regard to the formulation, many approaches have been taken by the manufacturers
to mitigate internal stress (that is incurred in overcoating projects). The major emphasis
has been in resin design. Here, the emphasis should be to reduce cross-link density and
the glass transition temperature (Tg )48. The result is a flexible system that incurs less
internal stress during curing and more readily allows strain relaxation. A greater
molecular distance between reactive groups on the curing agent yields a final film that is
more flexible and stress dissipative. Highly reactive or functional cross-linking agents are
not wanted because they increase the brittleness of the film. Flexibilizers, such as the
aromatic hydrocarbon resins, plasticizers, and reactive chain stoppers, have been used in
April 2004

1-29

formulations to reduce curing rates. This results in improved adhesion as well. The use of
aluminum and other platey pigments are beneficial because they tend to dissipate stress.
Other beneficial effects on reducing internal stress, in the case of aluminum pigments,
come from the fact that these pigments effectively reflect UV light and heat, thereby
reduce the rate of oxidative changes to the film. In addition, better barrier properties of
platey pigments play a role in mitigating stress build up resulting from moisture
penetration into the film48.
With regard to the system design, Clive Hare48 suggests the following:
- Wherever possible, limit overcoating to bridges that were blast cleaned before
the application of the existing coating (or lead-based paint- i.e., bridges built
after 1970).
- Prepare the bare steel areas as well as possible, preferably with scarifying tools.
- Apply spot primers in 2 or more coats to a film thickness of 10 mils (250 m)
total, but only over the corroded areas.
- Minimize the number of coats applied to areas of the substrate still bearing intact
existing (or lead-based) paint.
- Note that the overcoating will be less likely to succeed where the system is
subject to severe fluctuations in temperature and humidity (especially sharp falls
in temperature).
- Do not use the overcoating approach where there is clear evidence of existing
widespread adhesive or cohesive deficiencies in the existing coating system.
a.

Effect of Dry Film Thickness (DFT)

The risk of delamination is higher when the DFT of the existing coating is either too low
or too high. Based on the Alberta Transportation and Utilities Guidelines24, it is
recommended that the dry film thickness (DFT) values of the existing coating should be
between the range of 75 m and 350 m (3 mils - 14 mils) for considering overcoating as
an option for MTO structures.
b.

Coating Compatibility

For the overcoating process to be successful, it is necessary that the overcoating system
to be used is compatible with the existing coating in the structure and that the new
coating material adheres well to the existing coating and the steel substrate where
exposed. If the overall compatibility is poor, failure due to cracking, delamination, and
peeling will occur. Here the term compatibility encompasses material compatibility
between the two different coating systems (or chemical compatibility) as well as the
ability to retain the integrity of the whole composite system without the above mentioned

April 2004

1-30

failures, during application and curing/drying of the overcoating system and service
conditions.
The coating compatibility could be assessed in the field by conducting a Patch test; in
accordance with ASTM D 506437.This is a practical field method for assessing the overall
suitability of the existing coating to accept an overcoating system or systems under
evaluation.
c.

Adhesion

An important factor to be considered in assessing the risk of delamination is the adhesion

of the existing coating system. A loss of adhesion of the existing coating system at either
the steel/coating interface or within the layers of the existing coating may result in
delamination and failure of the overcoat. The existing coating needs to be somewhat
flexible to achieve good adhesion with the overcoating system. Heavily aged brittle
coatings are not suitable substrates for overcoating. Adhesion between the overcoat
system and the existing paint is also affected by the presence of surface contaminants.
Rust on the surface of steel in the deteriorated areas is a foreign material and will
effectively prevent chemical adhesion because it separates the coating and the substrate.
Loose rust is particularly problematic, for the coating has to wet and bind the rust into its
continuum during application and drying.
4.4.3.2

Premature Failure Due to Recurring Corrosion and Deterioration

Another risk associated with overcoating is that the original/existing coating along with
overcoat system may not provide an adequate period of service primarily due to the
ongoing degradation of the coating material and recurring corrosion of the steel surface
due to severe service environment. This type of degradation may be manifested by pinpoint rust, undercutting at small breaks in the coating system or blistering.
Low DFT of the existing coating, presence of rust and surface contaminants affects the
performance of the overcoating. The extent and the type of surface preparation used prior
to overcoating significantly affect the performance of the overcoat systems. For example,
power tool cleaning to SSPC-SP 3 would not remove the rust fully and these areas are
more prone to corrosion and rusting if oxygen and moisture could get in. Furthermore,
many overcoating systems are formulated to be tolerant barrier systems without the
galvanic benefit of zinc; these systems are less tolerant to the level of chloride
contamination.
4.4.4

Overcoating Materials

The paint system for overcoating shall be one of the MTO approved systems for
marginally prepared surfaces.

April 2004

1-31

4.5

Touch-Up

4.5.1

General

Touch-up refers to spot cleaning by power or hand tools and painting the affected areas
only, as compared to overcoating which requires spot priming, followed by application of
mid coat and top coat over the entire or designated area of the structure.
It is economically advantageous to touch-up coatings before serious coating deterioration
or corrosion occurs. It is therefore recommended that the touch-up of the bridge coatings
be undertaken, where feasible, before the deterioration reaches 3% rust mark (i.e. when
the coating in general is in Fair condition, with the deterioration/rust mark in the range of
1-3%). It is essential that every effort be made to try to avoid large rusted areas that
require expensive surface preparation operations (e.g. blast cleaning).
The coating life is, to a large degree, determined by the cleanliness of the steel surface to
which it is applied. A coating applied to a rusty substrate or on a flaking paint will not
last as long as the one applied to a blast-cleaned surface. Bearing this in mind, the
following situations may be repaired as follows:
4.5.2

Touching-up Intact Coatings

An intact coating free of defects such as blisters should be left in place. After thoroughly
washing the surface to remove contaminants, extra coatings may be applied. Existing
coating may have to be abraded in order to topcoat them. This surface roughening may be
done by power tools/discs on small areas or power tools with vacuum attachment on
larger areas.
4.5.3

Touching-up Slightly Flaked or Blistered Coatings

Where the coating is reasonably adhered to the steel with a slight degree of flaking or
blistering but no surface rusting, remove the loose paint by any means practical. A good
power wash of the steel surface at a water pressure of about 10 MPa should be carried out
before new coats are applied.
4.5.4

Touching-up Rusted Areas

If there is coating failure with substrate corrosion, then the deteriorated coating and rust
shall be removed. These areas should be repaired as follows:
i)

Remove all visible oil and grease by SSPC-SP 1Solvent Cleaning38, from areas
that are to be coated.

ii)

Remove all loose rust and loose paint to the requirements of SSPC-SP2 (Hand
Tool Cleaning). However cleaning to SSPC-SP3 -Power Tool Cleaning39 standard
or SSPC-SP7 Brush-off Blast Cleaning50 standard (especially a vacuum shrouded

April 2004

1-32

equipment) would be preferable. Feather the edges of the intact coating so that
about 2 mm - 4 mm of all coats are exposed.
iii)

If the original topcoat is grey, (it could be alkyd, epoxy mastic, vinyl paint,
polyurethane or acrylic), apply epoxy-mastic to a total dry film thickness of
225 m in the bare spots.
If the original topcoat is green, (indicating alkyd paint), apply a single coat
surface tolerant paint system which is quite flexible after curing (e.g. calcium
sulfonate based system- Termarust 210051) to a total DFT of about 250m in
matching colour.

4.6

Guide for Selection of Maintenance Painting Procedure

A general guide for the selection of suitable maintenance painting procedure, based on
coating condition rating and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation schedules, is
presented in Table 4.1.

April 2004

1-33

Table 4.1
Maintenance Coating Guide Based on Coating Condition Rating and Localities of
Coating Deterioration
Feasible Treatments
Comments
Coating Condition rating
Fair
Condition
>50%

Poor
condition
< 10%
Scattered
throughout

>50%

< 10%
localised

60% - 90%

10% - 40%
localized

60% - 80%

20% - 40%
Scattered
throughout
and not
localized

0ver 40%

Overcoating of the entire

structure after SSPC-SP 3 and
localized SSPC-SP 11
Surface Preparation

Overcoating of the entire

structure with Zone painting
of localized poor areas after
SSPC-SP 11 Surface
preparation
Zone painting of localized
poor areas after SSPC SP 10
or SSPC-SP 12 Surface
preparation and Recoating of
fair areas (Optional)

Total Removal by*

SSPC-SP 10 and recoating
with a 3 coat paint system for
abrasive blast cleaned surface
from the DSM
or Total removal by
SSPC-SP 12 and recoating
with a coating system for
marginally prepared surfaces
from the approved systems.
Same as above

SSPC-SP 11 cleaning of
corroded patches larger than
100 cm2.
Vacuum shrouded power
tool would be the preferred
option for SSPC-SP 11
cleaning.
Vacuum shrouded power
tool would be the preferred
option for SSPC-SP 11
cleaning
Full enclosure with negative
pressure is necessary for
SSPC-SP 10 cleaning.
A collection (and filtration)
system is required to collect
the processed water during
SSPC-SP 12 surface
Preparation
Full enclosure with negative
pressure is necessary for
SSPC-SP 10 cleaning.
A collection (and filtration)
system is required to collect
the processed water during
SSPC-SP 12 surface
Preparation
Same as above

*Abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC-SP5/NACE No. 1 and metallizing & sealing, or hot
dipped galvanizing may be considered on a caseby-case basis.

April 2004

1-34

5.

PLANNING

5.1

General

All factors that may affect the coating contract must be investigated before the contract
package is assembled. The offices charged with responsibility for the environment,
vehicular traffic control, navigable water, etc. must be contacted so their requirements
can be incorporated into the contract.
Structural steel coating should be carried out under a separate contract52 (See Appendix
I). Where it is included as part of a bridge rehabilitation project, it may, as in the past,
result in unrealistic underbidding of the coating item; the use of unqualified local
contractors unversed in bridge work leading to poor quality or work carry-over; and the
relegation of the coating item to the latter stages of the contract schedule resulting in
unfavourable weather conditions.
If a coating contract is combined with a structure rehabilitation contract, it should only be
done after careful analysis shows there are savings to be gained by sharing access
facilities, traffic control equipment and/or environmental protection devices. If it is
deemed economical to proceed with a combined contract, the rehabilitation work must be
completed prior to the coating work. This will avoid damage to the freshly coated steel.
Where damage will not occur and where later access may be difficult, then carry out the
coating work before the rehabilitation of the structure.
Contract preparation is the responsibility of the Regional Structural Sections Project
Manager.
5.2

Review of Data

The Project Manager must be familiar with the following:

existing structure drawings;

maintenance inspection file;
site conditions (topography and traffic volumes);
district concerns;
future plans for the bridge;
other proposed contracts in the vicinity (Ministry or Municipality);
Recent literature on coating materials (References 1, 5,7, 47, 48) and DSM
listing (Reference 11);
OPSS 911 Construction Specification For Coating Structural Steel
Systems (Ref. 43);
Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (Ref. 12);
Structural Steel Coating Manual (Year 2003 Edition);
Ontario Traffic Manual Book 7 Temporary Conditions53, 2001, Queen
Printers of Ontario.

The more important items of information from the above are discussed below.
April 2004

1-35

5.2.1

Existing Structure Drawings

5.2.2

structure type and size;

unusual design features (inaccessible areas, truss boxes, etc.);
roadway width (for staging);
any attachments to the structural steel (utilities or railway baffle plates);
expansion joints locations, type;
deck drains and pipes.
Maintenance Inspection File

5.2.3

history of deterioration;
areas where coating failure occurs most frequently;
previous cleaning/surface preparation methods employed;
types of previous coatings, presence of lead and chromium pigments.
Site Conditions

Visits made to the site, as discussed in Section 2.2, can be useful in establishing:

5.2.4

traffic conditions;
geometry of adjacent highway;
options for staging (including detours);
inaccessible areas;
nature and extent of deterioration;
deviations from design information;
any unusual features (e.g. utilities, etc.);
need for liaison with other authorities;
any utility attachments or appurtenances not shown on the as-built drawings.
if overcoating is intended, whether the coating condition is still within
applicable limits.
District Concerns

District Maintenance staff should be contacted to see if they have any concerns that may
bear on any final decisions.

April 2004

1-36

5.3

Environmental Protection

An environmental protection item is to be included in each contract involving coating of

existing structural steel, unless otherwise determined by the Regional Environmental
Unit.
The type of enclosure under environmental protection item would depend on the surface
preparation method to be specified as well as on the type and method of application of
coating material. Total removal of existing coatings by abrasive blast cleaning would
require a full enclosure with negative pressure, whereas power tool cleaning would
require only a partial enclosure. A partial enclosure is also adequate during brush or roller
application of coating materials, but a full enclosure is required during spray application
of paint coatings.
OPSS 911 and Special Provision 911 S01 Environmental Protection During Coating of
Existing Structural Steel and Railing System will constitute the prime requirements for
this item. It is to be noted that a memorandum of understanding between MTO/MOE54 is
in place.
Before a project is specified to be conducted entirely or in part as night work, the
Regional Environmental Unit will make application, on behalf of the Contractor, to the
affected municipal council(s) for exemption from any night-time noise bylaw constraints.
Formal exemption ensures that the Contractor (otherwise bound by municipal by-laws)
will be permitted to conduct nighttime operations. The details of the exemptions are to
be outlined in the contract.
Special Provision 911 S05 Management of Spent Blasting Medium and Disposal of
Removed Coating Material and Spent Blasting Medium is to be included in all contracts,
(which require surface preparation by abrasive blast cleaning). It is to be noted that spills
response requirements are as per MTO General Conditions.
The Regional Structural Section will provide the Regional Environmental Unit with
sufficient notice of upcoming contracts involving coating of structural steel so that site
investigations can be conducted under summer conditions prior to contract preparation.
Where environmental protection measures to be incorporated in Structural Steel Coating
Contracts are at variance with these guidelines, they will be reviewed by the Regional
Environmental Unit with the Environmental Policy and Standards Section (Provincial &
Environmental Planning Office).
The Regional Structural Sections will assemble the protection measures in the contract
package as recommended by the Regional Environmental Unit. This will be done after
any review and consultation between the Regional Environmental Unit and the
Environmental Policy and Standards Section.

April 2004

1-37

5.4

Traffic Control and Protection

The method of traffic control and protection of construction personnel must be decided
from the following options or combinations, as detailed in the Ontario Traffic Manual,
Book 7, Temporary Conditions53.
Traffic Control:

road closure
lane closures
detours
temporary signals
traffic control persons
remote control flaggers
night work
cones
construction markers

Traffic Protection:

flexible drum or barricades

temporary New Jersey barriers
temporary steel beam guide rail
temporary steel beam attached to existing posts

Where a convenient detour exists or can be constructed, it is often advantageous to close

a road to traffic during coating operations. This allows the contractor to operate with
maximum efficiency and, consequently, is the most economical solution. The time that
traffic is disrupted shall be kept to a minimum.
Where closures are being considered, it is essential that emergency services and local
authorities be advised early in the planning stage. However, the opportunity to detour
traffic is rarely available and most coating contracts are carried out in stages.
Traffic control shall provide safe passage through the construction zone while keeping
the disruption of traffic flow to a minimum. The number of lanes required, lane widths,
and the need for speed restrictions will be determined by the Regional Traffic Section.
Temporary lane widths will not normally be less than 3 m. The traffic control plan for
construction staging and lane closures will be determined jointly by the Planning and
Design, Traffic, Structural and Construction Sections in the Region. It is essential that
the traffic control plan be finalized before detailed design work begins.
The Planning and Design and Traffic Sections shall decide whether signing, traffic
control persons or temporary signals are required at the site. Traffic control devices
include construction markers, temporary New Jersey barriers, or temporary steel beam
guide rail. Any non-standard control devices should be covered in the special provisions.
In all cases, traffic control measures must conform to the requirements of the Ontario
Traffic Manual, Book 7, Temporary Conditions53.

April 2004

1-38

Night work on high traffic volume roads can also be used to mitigate traffic delays. Two
aspects of night work that must be carefully monitored are lighting and weather
conditions. Proper lighting is vital, not only for the blasters and painters, but also for the
Ministrys inspectors to check the work for conformance to specification. A separate
tender item should be used in the contract, and a special provision entitled Site
Illumination has been written (see Part 2 of the Manual) which specifies a minimum
lighting value of 400 lux at any point in the work area for each phase of the construction
and inspection. This SP should be included in the package when night work is deemed
necessary.
Problems may occur during night work relative to application temperatures and dew
point. The Society for Protective Coatings specification, SSPC-PA155, specifies that the
o
steel surface temperature must be a minimum of 3 C above the dew point before painting
is allowed. This criterion is mandatory and should be achievable between May August
in Southern Ontario; and June July in the rest of the Province.
Two other aspects which should be investigated if night work is contemplated are: an
exemption from the noise by-laws of local municipalities may be needed; and provisions
for parking the contractors equipment on or off the right-of-way during daylight hours.
The contractors equipment shall not be placed where it may pose a safety hazard or
impede the flow of traffic. Once the traffic control plan has been formulated, the Project
Manager should inform all interested parties, including emergency services and the
media.

April 2004

1-39

6.

DESIGN

6.1

General

6.1.1

Mechanism of Corrosion and its Control by Protective Coatings

Corrosion is the deterioration of a material, usually a metal, because of a reaction with its
environment. It is an electrochemical reaction (sometimes called galvanic action). The
following four essential elements must be present for corrosion to occur18, 19.
An anode (that corrodes)
A cathode (that does not corrode)
An electrolyte external path
A metallic pathway to complete the circuit
Protective coatings and other systems that interfere with one or more of these
components can be used to control corrosion. Protective coatings on structural steel
interfere by three basic mechanisms:

Barrier Protection- Most coating films form a barrier to isolate the metal surface
from electrolytes in the environment. e.g. epoxy zinc/epoxy/polyurethane, or
epoxy zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic, or epoxymastic system;
Chemical inhibition- Chemical components added to the coating may inhibit
anodic or cathodic reactions. e.g. chromates, molybdates, borates, zinc phosphate,
red lead, calcium sulfonates;
Galvanic (Cathodic) protection-The use of a primer heavily loaded with zinc
particles, galvanizing and metallizing provide galvanic protection to the base
metal (steel). These coatings also provide barrier protection to varying extents.

6.1.2

Structural Steel Coatings, Bridge Environment and Coatings

Durability

Structural steel coatings must perform in every type of macro environment, from the mild
rural atmosphere to the severe industrially polluted atmosphere. Structural steel coatings
in bridges and other highway structures in Ontario are subjected to exposure to de-icing
salts, to wetting and drying, to freezing temperatures, to blistering sunlight, and to all
types of atmospheric pollutants including acid rain.
It is not surprising that coatings break down, if not from the above, then inevitably from
degradation due to the aging of the coating itself. When coating breaks down (in the case
of barrier protection) or when the galvanic coating is consumed, corrosion of steel sets in.
In addition, contaminants trapped underneath the coating at the steel surface have
pronounced effect on corrosion of the steel substrate and the coating breakdown.

April 2004

1-40

6.2

Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry Between 1986-1996

In 1985, the Ministry adopted the following policy: Effective 1986, all coating contracts
would specify the removal of all existing coatings and rust (See Appendix II), with one of
the following cleaning/surface preparation requirements:

Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP6/NACE No. 3- Commercial Blast

Cleaning;
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP10/NACE No. 2 - Near-White Blast
Cleaning;
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP5/NACE No. 1- White Metal Blast
Cleaning; or
Surface preparation Specification No. 8 Pickling - SSPC-SP8 (1982).

In 1985, the Ministry had also decided to curtail the use of zinc chromate/alkyd based
coating system (See Appendix III), based on the many examples of premature coating
failure on contracts that had used this coating system. Alkyd coatings have poor
resistance to a road salt environment, resulting in a life span much less than anticipated.
The coating systems that were used during this period included inorganic zinc/vinyl/vinyl
and epoxy zinc/vinyl/vinyl system on SSPC- SP 10/NACE No.2 blast cleaned surface
and coal tar epoxy system on SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 blast cleaned surface. Aluminium
filled epoxy mastic system was also used to a smaller extent on SSPC-SP 6/ NACE No. 3
blast cleaned surface until 1988. The above mentioned coating systems contained more
than 350 mg/l of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and, as such, are classified as high
VOC coating systems.
Galvanizing and thermal metal spraying (metallizing) were used for coating handrails,
other railing systems and highway appurtenances. Hot-Dipped galvanizing had also been
used for coating five steel girder bridges between 1991 and 19961. Hot-dipped
galvanizing requires the steel surface to be cleaned to an SSPC-SP 8 Pickling standard,
while metallizing requires the steel surface to be abrasive blast cleaned to SSPC-SP 5/
NACE No. 1 White Metal Blast standard10.
6.3

Current Coating Policies and Practices of the Ministry (Since 1996)

6.3.1

Paint Coating Systems

In 1996, the Ministry decided to terminate the use of high VOC coating systems and
embarked on the use of low VOC coating systems. This decision was mainly based on
environmental considerations without compromising on the service performance
expected. As in the past, it was necessary that the coatings to be used in ministry
contracts be selected from the pre-approved list of products in the ministrys designated
sources materials (DSM) list. Pre-approval was based on laboratory evaluation
conforming to the OPSS 1704 Material Specification5 for Structural Steel coatings.
Since 1996, in almost all the bridge coating contracts, low VOC paint coating systems
have been used for maintenance painting, after full removal of the existing coating.
April 2004

1-41

The Low VOC Paint Coating Systems in the current approved list are as follows11:
Coat
Primer

System 1
Epoxy Zinc

System 2
Epoxy Zinc

System 3
Inorganic Zinc

Mid coat
Topcoat

Water-based Acrylic
Water-based Acrylic

Epoxy
Polyurethane

Water-based Acrylic
Water-based Acrylic

6.3.2

System 4
Inorganic
Zinc
Epoxy
Polyurethane

Surface Preparation Requirements for Low VOC Coating Systems

The surface preparation required for the above low VOC three coat paint coating systems
is abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Metal standard9
having a surface profile within a range of 25 75 microns43.
6.3.3

Metallic Coatings (Hot-Dipped Galvanizing and Metallizing)

Hot-dipped galvanizing and metallizing (metallic coatings) could be the two other
options if total removal is considered. Hot-dipped galvanizing is essentially a shop
operation, while metallizing could either be performed at site or offsite in a shop.
Although these two recoating options were available, these methods were seldom used
for coating bridges in the past, mainly due to the high initial costs. However, advances in
metallizing technology and the availability of larger galvanizing kettles for hot-dipped
galvanizing have made these processes more cost competitive in terms of life cycle costs
(LCC). As stated previously, hot-dipped galvanizing was employed for recoating of five
steel girder bridges between 1991 and 19961. Metallizing was performed in the shop for
recoating of a ministry bridge in 19987.
(See Section 1.3 for surface preparation requirements).
6.3.4

Total Removal Its Advantages and Implications

Total removal of all existing coating is advantageous for the following reasons: the
majority of the old coatings constituted of lead or chromate based paints and they are
designated hazardous substances which need to be properly disposed; total removal of the
existing coating would eliminate the hazardous materials once and for all; cleaning of the
steel to near-white metal condition provides the new coating systems a better/clean
substrate for a longer service life; and because longer service life is achieved, the
mobilisation and traffic protection and user costs are kept to a minimum over the life of
the bridge. The service life of the coating achievable by this approach is 20 years or
more.

April 2004

1-42

6.3.5

Environmental Protection Requirement

Since 1994, it has been the Ministrys standard practice to require a full enclosure with a
negative pressure whenever total removal of the existing coating and abrasive blast
cleaning is carried out.
6.3.6

Cost Implications and Other Coating Options

Coating cost for bridges has escalated significantly during the last decade mainly due to
the cost associated with environmental protection for full removal by abrasive blast
cleaning. This is not unique to Ontario. Escalation of costs, sometimes coupled with
dwindling funding for bridge coating projects, has prompted many US agencies41 and
some Canadian provinces including Ontario to incorporate overcoating as an option of
maintenance painting of bridges. Ministry has already approved some coating systems
(surface tolerant coating systems) for this application.
As stated in a previous chapter, protective coatings of a bridge are subjected to many
different microenvironments ranging from benign to highly corrosive areas such as under
the leaking expansion joints. This often results in corrosion in localised areas due to the
breakdown of coating in these areas, while the coatings in the rest of the areas of the
structure remain in sound (excellent to good) condition. Cost consideration also has
resulted in such situations to adopt zone painting of the affected areas.
6.4

New Steel

Since 1968, the Ministry has used C.S.A. G40.21 Grade 350 A weathering steel or
Atmospheric Corrosion Resistant (ACR) steel exclusively for new construction 3.
Current policy calls for the following:
a)

Structures with Expansion Joints:

All weathering steel, including diaphragms and inside surface of box girders, but
excluding surfaces in contact with concrete and the contact surfaces of bolted joints to be
cleaned to the requirements of SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Metal standard and
shop coated with epoxy zinc/epoxy/polyurethane coating system for a distance of 3
metres from the end of the girders, (wherever there is an expansion joint or as specified in
the contract documents).
b)

Structures with Integral Abutment:

Exterior surfaces of ends of weathering steel girders at integral abutment to be cleaned to

the requirements of SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Metal standard and shop
coated in accordance with Structural Manual56 to a distance of 600 mm in total from the
face of the abutment towards the centre of the bridge and a total of 100 mm towards the
end of the bridge, which is based on the recommendations given in Report BO-99-04 57.

April 2004

1-43

The coating should be applied in three coats, as specified in OPSS 91143, with the first
coat (primer) 75 m minimum thickness, the second coat 100 m minimum thickness and
the third coat 50m minimum thickness. Topcoat of the coating system shall be a semigloss equivalent of 20045 brown of the US Federal Standard 595B Colors (as specified in
the OPSS 17045) to match the colour of the patina on the rest of the steelwork.
6.5

Coating of Railing Systems

The steel railing system attached to concrete or steel structures should first be checked
whether the railing system meets the current standard. A substandard railing should be
replaced with a new railing conforming to the current standards at the time when the deck
is being rehabilitated.
The steel railing system attached to concrete or steel structures that meets the current
standard should be recoated when the combined area of rust and unsound paint exceeds
20% of the steel surface area. The railings should be removed and hot dipped galvanized,
where feasible. If galvanizing is not practical, or removal of the rails is not possible, then
the low VOC Paint Coating System 2 should be specified (See Appendix IV). Normally,
the railing system is coated when the rest of the bridge is coated.
If any part of the steel railings is damaged (e.g. bent balusters), or if the components of
the rails are connected with incomplete welds, then these defects should be repaired prior
to galvanizing.
When the rails are to be galvanized and where it is not feasible to remove the steel posts,
the posts should be metallized using either pure zinc or using Zn/Al 85/15 alloy
metallizing wire, after abrasive blast cleaning to SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1. If metallizing
is not a viable alternative, then the posts should be coated with Epoxy Zinc/ Epoxy/
Polyurethane (System 2), after the required SSPC SP-10/NACE No. 2 surface
preparation.
Where the rails are removed, temporary traffic protection must be used according to the
requirements given in the section on Traffic Control and Protection.
6.6

Localized Coating Failure

If regular inspections, in conjunction with past history, reveal a pattern of localized

coating failure (e.g. under expansion joints) it may be economically prudent to just
address those areas. This could be done based on the guidelines provided in Section 2 of
this manual for zone painting, overcoating and touch-up.
Although thick coatings usually protect steel better than thin coatings, a point is
eventually reached where internal stresses from the number of coats applied over the
years, leads to cracking and flaking. It is not optimum to keep applying the same amount
of paint to sound and rusted areas alike.

April 2004

1-44

If coating failure is occurring repeatedly around expansion joints, a contract should be set
for zone painting, specifying total removal of the coating and rust at the affected area and
at least one metre beyond the area of deterioration. Then the new coating should be
applied to the thickness shown in Table 6.2. If the coating breakdown/rust on the
remainder of the structure is below the 3% mark, no corrective procedures are necessary
by contract, but it may be repaired. Before the coating is repaired, the leaky joint should
preferably be replaced.
6.7

Field Identification of Existing Coatings

The existing coatings must be identified in the contract package. If in doubt, samples
should be taken (note where they are taken from) and after careful packaging, sent to the
Materials Engineering and Research Office (MERO), Concrete Section in Downsview for
analysis. Some information has already been provided in Section 1 of this manual. The
following points will also help to identify the existing coatings:

To ascertain the primer, remove a portion of the topcoat. The old Alkyd system used
red lead primer, while the High Build Alkyd (See Section 1), used from 1974 1985,
employed a yellow zinc chromate primer.

The intermediate coat on the old Alkyd system consists of a grey Alkyd paint.

The top or final coat of the old system (prior to 1974) consists of a grey or green
Alkyd paint or Aluminum paint.

Aluminum paint is identified by scraping the top layer, exposing a silvery coating.

A galvanized coating (e.g. on a handrail) is smooth to the touch, while a metallized

finish feels like sandpaper.

The vinyl systems have been used since 1982 until 1996.

The epoxy mastic/epoxy mastic system has been used starting in 1986 1988.

Low VOC inorganic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane has only been used staring in 1995.

Low VOC organic zinc/epoxy/polyurethane has only been used starting in 1995.

Low VOC organic zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic has only been used
on some of the weathering steel girders and diaphragms of Willow Creek bridge.

Low VOC inorganic zinc/water-based acrylic/water-based acrylic has only been used
on some of the carbon steel girders and diaphragms of Willow Creek Bridge in 1995.

The colour of the finish coat for the low VOC system5 for carbon steel structure is a
semi gloss equivalent of either 501-101 grey (1-GP-12C) or 26307 grey (US Fed

April 2004

1-45

Standard 595B Colors). For Atmospheric Corrosion Resistant steel, the colour of the
finish coat is a semi-gloss equivalent of either 504-217 brown (1-GP-12C) or 20045
brown (US Fed Standard 595B Colors).
6.8

Surface Preparation and Cleaning Requirements for the Approved

Coating Systems

The surface preparation requirements for the low VOC paint coating systems in the DSM
list11 are shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 also lists the surface preparation requirements for
spray metallizing and hot-dipped galvanizing that could be considered for coating some
bridge structures. (OPSS 91143, Subsection 3).
Some of the generic requirements for the surface preparation of steel components include
the following:

Solvent cleaning to SSPC-SP 138 prior to blast cleaning and hand or power
tool cleaning is pre-requisite, when visible oil, grease, soil and other soluble
contaminants are on the steel surface. Blast cleaning usually does not
remove these contaminants.
The baked-on carbon residue from diesel trains is very difficult to remove
by solvent cleaning. Abrasive blasting has, in the past, proven the only
effective way of removing it.
For faying surfaces, either an epoxy zinc primer or inorganic zinc primer
from the low VOC coat systems should be applied to obtain frictional
resistance values conforming to the CHBDC CAN/CSA S6-00 Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code 43, 58; the mid and topcoat should not be
applied. Faying surfaces could also be metallized or galvanized.
All the paint coating systems, including the seal coat for thermal spray metal
coating and paint systems to be applied over galvanised coating, should be
selected only from the pre-approved products lists.

April 2004

1-46

Table 6.1 Coating Systems and Surface Preparation Requirements

Surface
Preparation
Requirement

COATING SYSTEM
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc/Water-Based Acrylic/
Water-Based Acrylic
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane
Low VOC Inorganic Zinc3/Water-Based
Acrylic/Water-Based Acrylic
Low VOC Inorganic
Zinc3/Epoxy/Polyurethane

SSPC-SP10/
NACE No. 2
Sept 2000
Near-White
Blast Cleaning

SSPC-SP11-87
Edit changes
Sept 2000
Power Tool
Cleaning

SSPC-SP3-82
Edit changes
Sept 2000
Power Tool
Cleaning

X2

X1

X2

Zinc/ Al Metallizing with a low VOC seal coat

Hot Dip Galvanizing alone or with a low VOC
paint coating system4 (Duplex system)
Coal Tar Epoxy
Low VOC coating systems for marginally
prepared surfaces6 (surface tolerant systems)

SSPC-SP12/
NACE No. 5
20027

SSPC-SP8-82
Edit changes
Sept 2000
Pickling

SSPC-SP5/
NACE No. 1
Sept 2000
White Metal
Blast
Cleaning

1. When the area to be cleaned and coated is small, SSPC-SP11 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal could be specified.
2. This paint system could be used in place of a paint system for marginally prepared surfaces, provided the surface has a minimum profile of 25m (e.g. surfaces
which have been previously abrasive blast cleaned).
3. Inorganic zinc primer is less surface tolerant compared to epoxy zinc primer. It requires a very clean surface (SSPCSP 10/NACE No. 2 Blast Cleaning to
Near-Whiter Metal standard or better) for optimum performance.
4. Sign support columns receive paint coatings over galvanizing (Duplex system) to provide additional corrosion protection. Prior to paint coating application,
galvanized zinc coating needs to be brush blast cleaned using low hardness (Mohs hardness of 6 & lower) to provide a clean surface for paint application.
Abrasive blasting to SP6 may be required prior to pickling to remove existing coating.
5. SSPC-SP6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast cleaning standard is acceptable for coal tar epoxy system.
6. These systems are recommended for Overcoating projects. When overcoating is to be performed, surface preparation shall be performed to SSPC-SP 3 Power
Tool Cleaning standard throughout, except in corroded areas/rust patches which are greater than 100 cm2 in area, which require Power Tool Cleaning to Bare
Metal SSPC-SP 11/NACE No. 2 standard, prior to the application of an approved coating system for marginally prepared surfaces. Non-visible contaminants
such as the chlorides need to be removed by the use of chloride removal agents during power washing. It is recommended that the designer contact the Bridge
Office, MTO with regard to the preparation of a non-standard special provision for coating of existing structural steel and environmental protection.

7. Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP 12/NACE No. 5 Surface Preparation and Cleaning of Steel and Other Hard Materials by High and
Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting Prior to Coating.

April 2004

1-47

6.9

Selection of the Coating System

The selection of the coating system is a very important step in the preparation of a bridgecoating contract. Many factors must be considered, such as:

The location of the structure;

The structures importance in the highway system;
The volume of traffic at the site;
The impact of lane closures on traffic flow;
The type of structure (e.g. truss or girder);
The anticipated remaining service life of the structure;
Environmental considerations;
Application temperature requirements; and
The cost per m2/year of the proposed coating system.

Selection of the most durable coating system is warranted for structures where lane
closures may cause serious disruption to the normal flow of traffic. Coating systems with
greater life spans reduce the frequency of re-coating and resulting traffic disruptions.
6.9.1

System Selection Criteria

Table 6.2 provides pertinent information concerning the various (ministry approved)
coating systems that could be considered for coating projects. The information provided
includes factors such as the optimum utilization, surface preparation requirements,
possible practical limitations in achieving the required surface preparation standards and
the sensitivity of the coating systems to such situations.

April 2004

1-48

Table 6.2 Coating System Selection- Factors to be considered

Coating System
(Total Minimum Dry Film
Thickness)

System 1
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc/WaterBased Acrylic/Water-Based
Acrylic
(75 m /75 m /75 m)

System 2

Optimum Utilization
Has not been used since 1995; awaiting
further evaluation/assessment on its
service performance

Moratorium on its use is in place since

1997. Once the moratorium is lifted, it
could be considered as an alternative to
System 2 when multi-component, complex
steelwork (e.g. truss) is to be coated.

Suitable for all structure types

This system is more tolerant to the degree

of surface preparation compared with
System 4. Hence, it should be used for
multi component, complex steel work (e.g.
trusses). Service-life expectancy: 20 years
Moratorium on its use is in place since
1997. Once the moratorium is lifted, it
could be considered as an alternative to
System 4

Low VOC Epoxy

Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane
(75 m /75 m /75 m)

System 3
Low VOC Inorganic Zinc/WaterBased Acrylic/Water-Based
Acrylic
(75 m /75 m /75 m)

System 4

Has not been used since 1995; awaiting

further evaluation/assessment on its
service performance

Suitable for girder type structures.

Low VOC Inorganic

Zinc/Epoxy/Polyurethane
(75 m /75 m /75 m)

System 5
Coal Tar Epoxy
(225 m in total)
Metallizing (Zinc or Zn/Al)
(200 m) and Seal coat system
(50.m)

Hot-Dipped Galvanizing
(87 m) or Hot-Dipped
Galvanizing plus top paint coating
(Duplex system).

Surface Tolerant Paint Coating

Systems (Systems for marginally
prepared Surfaces for
Overcoating) from MTO
Approved List

Remarks

Suitable for steel piles

Could be considered as an option for

coating of certain bridges where the
steel is in fair condition without too
much pitting or other surface defects.
Suitable for steel post or attachment
brackets on steel handrails.

Suitable for all standard steel handrails

and sign support structures. Duplex
system is generally specified for sign
support columns (prone to salt splash)
for additional corrosion protection.
Could be considered as an option for
coating of bridges when rehabilitation
involves deck replacement, especially
in locations closer to the galvanizing
facility, subject to size limitations.
Suitable for overcoating.
Suitable for difficult to access areas and
areas cleaned to SSPC-SP3 or
SSPC -SP11 or SSPC-SP 12

Require very clean surface prepared to the

SSPC-SP10 standard or better for its
optimum performance. However, it is not
suitable for truss type structures, which are
difficult to clean.
Service-life expectancy: 20 years
At present used only to coat steel piles and
underground steel components
Metallizing could be performed either in the
field or in the shop.
Requires SSPC-SP 5 White metal blast
cleaning and high surface profile of 50 100m to attain good adhesion to the
surface and long service performance.
Metallizing could also be performed in
winter weather conditions even when the
ambient temperatures are marginally below
0C.
Service life expectancy: 25 years
Hot-dipped galvanizing is a shop operation.
This system may be used for recoating steel
handrails that were previously painted or
galvanized after stripping off the old
coatings and preparing the surface by
pickling.
Long service performance of over 20 years.

These systems are surface tolerant coating

systems, designed to provide effective
barrier protection. However the life
expectancy would depend on the degree of
surface cleanliness.

Systems 1, 2,3,4 & 5 in the above Table 6.2 correspond to the respective systems in Tables 1-5 of
the OPSS 911, April 2003

April 2004

1-49

6.9.2

Comparison of Coating Systems Technical Characteristics and

Performance

Table 6.3 lists the advantages and the disadvantages of the individual coats of the various
paint coating system types and metallic coatings (metallizing, hot-dipped galvanizing).
Table 6.3- Advantages and Disadvantages of Coating Systems Used in Ministry projects
Coating System
1)

Low VOC Water-Based

Acrylic Mid and Topcoats

Advantages
More tolerant of poor surface
preparation and application than
inorganic zinc systems
usually easier to topcoat than
inorganic zinc systems
spray application preferred, but can be
brush or roller applied
Galvanic protection due to high
content of zinc.
low odour and user friendly
rapid drying and re-coating
excellent chemical resistance
good corrosion resistance
excellent water resistance (immersion)
good colour and gloss retention
fair abrasion resistance
easy to repaint
good weatherability
Expected life of the system is 20 yrs

System 2

Same as System 1

Same as System 1

User friendly
High film build
Excellent salt resistance
Some moisture tolerance
(low permeability while curing)
Rapid dry and top coat
Excellent Chemical resistance
Excellent adhesion and flexibility
Surface tolerant
good application characteristics
good chemical resistance
excellent gloss, hardness
excellent UV resistance &
weatherability
excellent flexibility
expected life of the system is 20 yrs
fast dry/recoat
excellent solvent resistance
excellent abrasion resistance
gives cathodic protection at scratches
and pin-holes and prevents
undercutting
excellent gloss/colour retention

Poor gloss retention without topcoat

not moisture tolerant in high humidity

limited pot life
not recommended for application below 5C
(slow drying)

Not surface tolerant

no acid resistance
poor alkali resistance
can cause bubbling in finish coats since film
is porous
requires better surface preparation than other
coatings
spray application only

System 1
Low VOC Epoxy Zinc
Rich Primer

2)

Low VOC Epoxy Zinc

Rich Primer
Epoxy Mid-Coat

Polyurethane Topcoat

3)

System 3
Low VOC Inorganic Zinc
Rich Primer (alkali
silicate)

April 2004

Disadvantages
Poor acid and alkali resistance without
topcoat
less solvent resistance than inorganics

Low film build per coat

can give dry spray in summer
almost impossible to brush
Poor solvent resistance
Less water resistance
Not surface tolerant
Not recommended for application below 5C

1-50

Coating System
Low VOC Water-Based
Acrylic Mid &Topcoats
4)

5)

System 4

Advantages
Same as System 1

Disadvantages
Same as System 1

Low VOC Inorganic Zinc

Rich Primer
Epoxy Mid-Coat

Same as System 3

Same as System 3

Same as System 2

Same as System 2

Polyurethane Topcoat

Same as System 2

Same as System 2

System 5

excellent chemical and solvent

resistance
excellent water resistance
excellent adhesion
excellent abrasion resistance
hard film
expected life of 10 15 years

suitable for coating steel piles

poor gloss retention
chalks in sunlight
will blush when applied in humid weather or
if rained on within several hours of
application
not recommended for applications below
10 C
difficult to re-coat due to the continuous
curing mechanism that increases their
hardness
coating thickness determined by operational
procedures and the thickness and mass of the
article
some fabricated assemblies may distort due
to the galvanizing temperatures ( 850 F/
454 C)
Size limitation

Coal Tar Epoxy

6)

Hot-Dipped
Galvanizing

7)

Metallizing
Zinc/Al 85/15

Seal coat

8)

Surface Tolerant
Coating System
ST 1

Zinc and micaceous iron

oxide filled surface tolerant
polyurethane Primer

April 2004

good abrasion resistance

not easily damaged
the zinc forms a metallurgical bond
with the substrate giving excellent
adhesion
provides sacrificial protection at
pinholes and scratches
gives thick coating on edges
complete coverage achieved
gives a smooth, even coating
expected life to 20+ years
provides sacrificial protection at
pinholes and scratches
no solvents, zero VOC
depth of coating can be varied
expected life of 25+ years (with a seal
coat)
can be applied at a lower temperature
(marginally below 0 C)
provides additional barrier protection
to the metallized coating
some seal coat systems could be
applied even around 6 C.
expected life of the system is 25 yrs
surface tolerant, suitable for overcoating
projects.
can be applied on to surfaces power tool
cleaned to SSPC-SP 3 .

single component moisture cure

can be applied in cold damp
conditions and even below freezing
conditions.
easy to apply and recoat
Low shrinkage stress

1-51

requires highest level of surface cleanliness

and angular profile for proper adhesion
must be coated soon after blast cleaning
porous surface
sealer is often used

needs to be applied as soon as possible before

zinc corrosion products form

more experience than most surface tolerant

coatings

Coating System
Single component moisture
cure polyurethane with
corrosion inhibitor and
micaceous iron oxide
Mid-Coat.

Single component moisture

cure polyurethane
micaceous iron oxide based
Topcoat

9)

Surface Tolerant
Coating System
ST 2

Aluminum and micaceous

iron oxide filled surface
tolerant two component
epoxymastic Primer
75-125 micron
The above primer (or an
epoxy) Mid -Coat

Aliphatic polyurethane
Topcoat

6.9.3

Advantages
single component moisture cure
can be applied in cold damp
conditions and even below freezing
conditions

Disadvantages

not recommended for application directly on to

metal surface

may have to use thinners for spray application

at low temperatures
higher shrinkage compared with the moisture
cured urethane

recommended for extremely cold

environments
does not weaken adhesion of old
coatings

single component moisture cure

can be applied in cold damp
conditions and even below freezing
conditions.
good UV, abrasion and weather
resistance
good coverage on edges, threads and
cracks due to MIO
surface tolerant, suitable for overcoating
projects
can be applied on to surfaces power tool
cleaned to SSPC-SP 3
low temperature curing
suitable for overlap of most coatings

same as above for aluminium and

micaceous iron oxide filled epoxy
mastic.
for epoxy mid coat- same as System 2

same as above for aluminium and micaceous

iron oxide filled epoxymastic.
for epoxy mid coat- same as System 2

Similar to System 2

Similar to System 2

Comparison of Costs for Various Surface Preparation and Coating

Options

Table 6.4 provides a breakdown and overall costs per square metre of structural steel for
the various coating options/systems (including CESS item and EP item costs).

April 2004

1-52

Table 6.41 Comparison of Coating Systems Costs (based on 1998 to 2000 data)
Coating System &
Application Method
Low VOC three coat Paint coating systems2
Full removal & recoating
Zinc/Al 85/15
Metallizing (in the shop)
Hot -Dip Galvanizing
Overcoating with an approved coating system
for marginally prepared surface
Overcoating with an approved coating system
for marginally prepared surface
Water-jetting and recoating with an approved
coating system for marginally prepared surface
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

Coating Life
Expectancy
(approx.)
Years
20

Surface Preparation
Cost/sq.m
$
Method
SP 10/

Cost
24.00

NACE No.2

20-25

SP 5/
NACE No.1
SP 8

6 105,7

SP 3

8-125,7

SP 118

15-20

SP 12
(WJ2, NV27
Condition)

25

6.00 10.00

Application
Cost/m2
$
20.00

Coating
Item
Total
Cost/.m2
$
44.00

Environmental
Protection6
Cost/m2
$
50 -60

Cost Per sq.m per Year

(approx.)
$

5.00

147.403

6.00

903/35.04

3.60 - 4.50

18.00

24 - 28

20 30

4.40- 9.60

40.008

18.00

58.00

20- 30

7.40 11.00

20.009

18.00

38.00

30- 409

3.40- 5.209

The above table reflects comparison of prices for coating systems based on the same simple structure in each case. These unit prices are to be used ONLY for
comparison of the basic coating system cost. The Estimating Office could provide an estimate of cost on a specific structure or could assist by providing historical cost
data for use in establishing program values. Special access requirements and traffic control/protection are not included in the cost estimates. Costs of these items
including environmental protection costs, depending on their severity, can substantially increase the total coating cost.
Low VOC Three coat systems: Low VOC epoxy zinc /epoxy/ polyurethane, Low VOC inorganic zinc/ epoxy/ polyurethane, epoxy zinc/ water-based acrylic/
water-based acrylic and Low VOC inorganic zinc/ water-based acrylic/ water-based acrylic systems.

Includes transportation, repair and erection costs.

The total cost quoted for hot-dip galvanizing does not include transportation, delivery and erection charges. Transportation and delivery charges are
affected by quantity of panels and distance from job site to galvanisers plant. Time to remove, delivery and galvanize would depend on plant workload,
but generally, two weeks should suffice.
Life expectancy of the original coating is extended by the number of years given in this cell.
The figures quoted include environmental protection costs for field application.

The use of salt removal agents (e.g. Chlor*rid liquid salt remover, Hold Tight 102) may be necessary during power washing to reduce the level of
chloride ions on the surface to achieve expected life for the coating system/to meet the SSPC-SP12, NV2 requirements.
Production rate for power-tool cleaning to SSPC-SP11 is low. Since it is labour-intensive and costly it is not recommended for cleaning large areas.
Only a rough estimate at this time, due to lack of field data.

April 2004

1-53

Coating costs and other associated costs for some selected contracts between 19942001 for metallizing, hot-dipped galvanizing and low VOC three coat paint
systems, obtained from a MTO Bridge office report7, are reproduced in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5
Coating Cost (Actual) Comparison Metallizing, Galvanizing and Painting
Contract
No.

Type of Coating

98-45

Metallizing &
Seal Coat

Total Area
Coated in m2
1,140

Unit Cost Based on

Area of Coated
Steel in $/sq.m
121.10
(Coating item only)
147.10
(Total)

95-68

Galvanizing

1,140

93.22

94-202

Galvanizing

709

81.56

98-0076

3 Coat Paint
Coating System

34,200

76.11

98-207

3 Coat Paint
Coating System

1,000

126.60

98-270

3 Coat Paint
Coating System

5,845

85.44

99-0016

3 Coat Paint
Coating System

1850

64.92

99-0051

3 Coat Paint
Coating System

3,046

94.83

2000-0047

3 Coat Paint
Coating System
3 Coat Paint
Coating System

2,000

128.12

2,050

122.57

2000-203

April 2004

1-54

Some Details
including Other
Costs in $
No EP,
a) 85,000 Steel
Fabrication/Repair,
b) 13,000
Transportation
c) 17,000 Erection
In ER, at Kingston,
No EP
In SWR, at Chatham
Includes Access
Cost of 9,319.00,
In NR, near New
Liskeard
Includes EP
In CR,
Total of 7 Bridges in
Hamilton, CR
EP included in
CESS,
In NWR, near
St. Sault Marie
Includes EP
In NR, near
New Liskeard
Includes EP,
In SWR, near
London
Includes EP,
In ER, near
Lancaster
Includes EP,
In CR, near Hwy 9
Includes EP,
In NWR, near
Thunder Bay

7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

REFERENCES
Kerins P. and Lai, David Steel Bridge Coating Program- Cost and Options
Study, Report Number BO-99-01, Bridge Office, Ministry of Transportation,
Ontario, 301, St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2R 7R4, June 1999.
Yamashita, M and Misawa, T Recent Progress in the Study of Protective Rust
layer
Formation on Weathering Steel Paper No 357, Corrosion 98, NACE.
Manning, David Accelerated Corrosion in Weathering Steel Bridges Report
No.ME-84-03, Research & Development Branch, Ministry of Transportation
Ontario, 1984.
SSPC, Maintenance Coating of Weathering Steel: Field Evaluation and
Guidelines, Report No. FHWA - RD-92-055, Federal Highway Administration,
US Department of Transportation, 1992.
OPSS 1704, Material Specification for Paint Coating Systems for Structural
Steel, April 2003, Ontario Provincial Standards. (Distributed by Ronen House).
Grant. R., Evaluation of Materials for Overcoating Marginally Prepared Steel,
Laboratory Report, Chemicals Section, Engineering Materials Office, MTO,
Downsview, June 1998.
Coomarasamy A. and Lai, David Metallizing Steel Girders of Division Street
Overpass Hwy 401 Kingston: Technical and Economic Aspects Bridge Office
Report BRO-006, Engineering Standards Branch Bridge Office, Ontario Ministry
of Transportation, 301 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2R 7R4,
December 2002.
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast
Cleaning, September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40
24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near White
Metal Blast Cleaning, September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective
Coatings, 40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC SP 5/NACE No. 1 White Metal Blast
Cleaning September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th
Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
DSM of Low VOC Paint Systems, Road Authority, (www.roadauthority.com).
Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM Manual), Engineering Standards
Branch Bridge Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 301 St. Paul Street, St.
Catharines, Ontario, December 2003.
ASTM D 610 - 01 Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted
Steel Surfaces, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700,
West Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959,USA
SSPC-VIS 2, Standard Method of Evaluating Degree of Rusting on Painted Steel
Surfaces, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th Street, 6th
Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Chandler K.A. and Bayliss D.A., Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures,
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London & New York, 1985.

April 2004

1-55

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.

Appleman B. R., Economics of Corrosion Protection by Coatings, pp 22- 33,

JPCL March 1985.
ASM Metals Handbook, 9th Edition, The American Society for Metals
International, 1987.
SSPC Vol I September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40
24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Munger, Charles C., and Vincent Louis D., Corrosion Prevention by Protective
Coatings, Second Edition, NACE International, 1440 South Creek Drive
Houston TX 77084-4906, 1997.
ASTM D 4541- 02, Standard Test Method for Pull-off Strength of Coatings
Using Portable Adhesion Testers, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
PO Box C700, West Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959,USA.
DSM list of Zinc Rich Touch-up Paints, Road Authority,
(www.roadauthority.com).
Contract Design and Estimating Manual, (CDEM Manual) Prepared by Contract
Preparation Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 301 St. Paul Street, St.
Catharines, Ontario.
Weaver R., Measuring Dry Film Thickness on Steel I-Beams Problem Solving
Forum, JPCL, November 1999.
ASTM 4138 Standard Test methods for Measurement of Dry Film Thickness of
protective Coating Systems by Destructive Means, ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959,USA.
Zacharia and Lasby, Bridge Paint Expert System User Documentation, Report
Number TR/RD/RR-90/09, Project number 8490-8926, Alberta Transportation
and Utilities, Research and Development, June 1990.
ISO Test Methods
a) ISO 8502-2 Laboratory Determination of Chloride on Cleaned Surfaces.
b) ISO 8502-5 Chloride Ion Detection Tube.
c) ISO 8502-6 Bresle Sampling Method.
d) ISO8502-9 Field Method for Soluble salt by Conductivity Measurement.
Bresle Patch test kits, available from many suppliers including R.B. Atlas Inc.,
Toronto, KTA-Tator Inc. USA.
Chlor*rid International Inc., PO Box 908, Chandler, Arizona 85244.
KTA-Tator, 115 Technology Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15275, USA.
SSPC-TU 4 Field Methods of Retrieval and Analysis of Soluble Salts on
Substrates, August 1, 1998; (This publication has recently been issued as
SSPC-Guide 15).
SSPC Painting Manual Volume 2 Eighth Edition, 2000, pp723-729.
Drisko, Richard W., and Jones, Thomas A., The Inspection of Coatings and
Linings: A Handbook of Basic Practice for Inspectors, Owners, and Specifiers,
Second Edition, SSPC 03-14, The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th Street,
6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA, 2003.
Shuang-Ling Chong, Yuan Yao and Rozaruio, M., Intra-Laboratory Assessment
of Commercial Test Kits for Quantifying Chloride on Steel Surfaces, JPCL
Vol. 20, No 8, Aug. 2003.

April 2004

1-56

34.
35.

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

47.
48.
49.

ASTM D 3359-02, Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape

Test, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West
Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959,USA.
Kenneth A. Trimber Michael F. MeLampy of KTA-Tator Inc. and George
L. Stone of G. L. Stone Enterprises Ltd., Manual for Technical Discussion of
Coating-Related Issues Technical Material Presented to St.Lawrence Seaway
Authority, Ministry of Transportation, 1000 Islands Bridge Commission, Niagara
Falls Bridge Commission and New York State Thruway Authority By KTA-Tator
Inc. October 1997.
Amos Glen A., Maintenance Painting/Practical Advice" Materials Performance,
October 2000 pp 39 - 41.
ASTM D 5064 - 01 Standard Practice for Conducting a Patch test to Assess
Coating Compatibility, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
C700, West Conshohoken, PA 19428-2959,USA.
SSPC-SP 1 September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings,
40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
SSPC-SP 3 September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings,
40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
SSPC-SP 11 September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings,
40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Neal, Tom W., Maintenance Issues and Alternate Corrosion Protection Methods
for Exposed Bridge Steel, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 257,
Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 1998.
AASHTO, Guide for Painting Steel Structures American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249,
Washington D.C.
OPSS 911, Construction Specification for Coating Structural Steel Systems,
April 2003, Ontario Provincial Standards. (Distributed by Ronen House).
Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP12/NACE No. 5 September 1, 2000,
SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh,
PA 15222, USA.
Howlett, J. J. and Dunpy, R., Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting (UHP WJ): A
Useful Tool for Deposit Removal and Surface Preparation, CORROSION/92,
paper No. 253, NACE International, Houston, Texas.
Appleman B. R., Critical Aspects of Overcoating Revised Final Report
Prepared by SSPC for BIRL Industrial Research Laboratory, Northwestern
University, SSPC Report #R053, Steel Structures Painting Council, 4516 Henry
Street, Suite 301, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3728, June 1985.
Anon, NEPOVERCOAT Standard on Overcoat Field Testing Program for
Protective Coatings on Existing Bridges and Salvaged Beam Test Sites, May 19.
1999, Document received from A. Rawson of New Hampshire DOT.
Hare Clive H., Preventing Overcoating Failures JPCL, November 1997 pp 5059.
SSPC-TU 3 Technology Update No. 3 Overcoating, The Society for Protective
Coatings, 40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.

April 2004

1-57

50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

55.
56.
57.
58.

Joint Surface Preparation Standard SSPC-SP7/ NACE No. 4 Brush-off Blast

Cleaning, September 1, 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, 40
24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Termarust Technologies, 9100 Edison, Anjou (Montreal), Quebec H1J 1T3.
Mr. Tharashers and Dr. Dortons memo to Regional Directors (86-8-19); See
Appendix I.
Ontario Traffic Manual Book 7 Temporary Conditions47, 2001, Queen Printers
of Ontario.
Anon "Environmental Guidelines for Structural Steel Coating On Highway
Bridges" 1996, prepared by Ontario Painting Contractors Association (OPCA),
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MOEE) (Distributed by Ronen House).
SSPC-PA1, Paint Application Specification No. 1- Shop, Field, and
Maintenance Painting of Steel, April 2000, SSPC: The Society for Protective
Coatings, 40 24th Street, 6th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, USA.
Structural Manual, June 2002, Design Section, Engineering Standards Branch
Bridge Office, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 301 St. Paul Street, St.
Catharines, Ontario (Distributed by Ronen House).
Husain, I. And Bagnariol, D., Performance of Integral Abutment Bridges,
Report BO-99-04, Engineering Standards Branch Bridge Office, 301 St. Paul
Street, St. Catharines, Ontario.
CHBDC CAN/CSA-S6-00 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, Dec 2000,
CSA International, 178 Rexdale Boulvard, Toronto, Ontario M9W 1R3.

April 2004

1-58

April 2004

1-59