An Overview

of Anti-Slip

The Rough,
Coatings for
Structural Steel

The Smooth, T
his article describes
the process of solv-
ing ironworkers

and the
(and painters) safe-
ty concerns with
anti-slip coating systems for structural
steel. Aspects of slippage are outlined as
well as current joint task force activity

Ugly:
by SSPC: The Society for Protective
Coatings and the American Institute of
Steel Construction Inc. (AISC) in testing
for slip resistance. The results of the au-
thors studies to measure slip indices of
20 coating systems (with four different
types of generic finishes) are discussed.
By Mike ODonoghue, Ph.D.; These results are particularly important
in light of the fact that, over the next
Ron Garrett; Jamie Garrett; and four years, the U.S. Occupational Safety
V.J. Datta, MSc, ICI Devoe Coatings; and and Health Administration (OSHA) is ex-
pected to phase in the requirement for
Dwayne Hunka, Waiward Steel Ltd. anti-slip coatings to have a slip index
This article was published in the JPCL (June, 2003) and is reprinted here with permission of the
publisher, Technology Publishing Company, Pittsburgh, PA, which holds the copyright. value of 0.5 English slip units (ESU) or
Publication without explicit permission from the publisher is not allowed. To read more articles
from JPCL, go to www.paintsquare.com.

40 JPCL June 2003 PCE www.paintsquare.com

greater for structural steel in new construction projects.
Case histories exemplify the success of anti-slip coating
systems in new construction projects in the pulp and pa-
per industry.
The Slippery Problem
Early in 1990, the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers in
Alberta, Canada, urgently sought constructive suggestions
for producing a sprayable anti-slip finish for shop-applied
coatings.
What was the problem? In a nutshell, the ironworkers
faced serious safety hazards when erecting newly coated
steel. Concern had arisen on an upcoming pulp mill pro-
ject about loss of traction between footwear and coated
steel beams, and the potential of men falling as a result of
Fig. 1a: (Top, p. 40) Steel panels coated with systems containing
4 oz or 8 oz of polybeads in the finish coat
Fig. 1b: (Left, p. 40) Close-up of new construction structural steel I-beam
coated with polybeads added to the finish coat of anti-slip system
(zinc/epoxy/polyurethane)
Fig. 2: (Right, p. 40) The test foot of the slip-meter prior to its striking a coated
surface (photo courtesy of Bernard R. Appleman, KTA-Tator Inc.)
Fig. 3: (Above) The slip-meter held in the operating position
(photo courtesy of Bernard R. Appleman, KTA-Tator Inc.)
slipping on wet, damp, or lightly frost-covered
polyurethane finishes. Aside from the danger of traversing
beams coated with smooth and slick polyurethane coat-
ings, accidents had been known to occur in which iron-
workers had lost traction and crushed their heels after slid-
ing down slippery vertical columns. With construction
slated in cold Alberta winter conditions, the ironworkers
needed an effective solution that would not involve the im-
practical use of very costly safety nets.
From a coating manufacturers viewpoint, the challenge
presented by the ironworkers was demanding because of
its multifaceted nature. It required balancing several key
criteria and addressing all manner of potential obstacles,
www.paintsquare.com
including the following.
A candidate anti-slip coating system had to be viable
with regard to the anti-slip characteristics required by iron-
workers.
An anti-slip coating system had to be easy to apply in the
fabricators shop.
The media added for texture to produce an anti-slip effect
in a finish coat had to be inexpensive, inert, and long last-
ing.
No inter-coat or intra-coat adhesion problems could be
tolerated because of the texturizing media.
In-service integrity and function of an otherwise excel-
lent coating system could not be compromised by the addi-
tion of a texturizing media.
The anti-slip finish of the coating system had to be easy
to clean during maintenance shutdowns.
The surface roughness facilitated by the texturizing me-
dia could not be conducive to build-up of process chemi-
cals and/or debris, which might otherwise cause poultice
corrosion.
The anti-slip coating finish had to be sufficiently hard
wearing and able to retain its anti-slip property for years to
come during maintenance shutdowns.
The Anti-Slip Solution
The authors and industry experts began a program to as-
certain which anti-slip materials, if any, could achieve all
the anti-slip, application, and performance objectives out-
lined above.
Several anti-slip additives with varying hardness were con-
sidered.1 While aggregates like aluminum oxide were used
with great success on steel substrates such as aircraft carrier
decks, this aggregate was discounted in the present work.
The primary reasons for this were its relatively high cost, dif-
ficulty of application in thin coating films, wear of spray tips
and pump equipment, and poor cleaning of the finish coat
into which it had been incorporated.
Other texturizing media were discounted for similar rea-
sons. For instance, quartz was inexpensive but not useful be-
cause, like fine aluminum oxide, it might yield a sharp sur-
face and have no ability to float to the surface in a
polyurethane finish. Softer crushed walnut shells damaged
very easily during handling tended to rot in highly humid en-
vironments and were not amenable to spray application. Lat-
er, discussion with a yacht refinisher led to the authors
(MOD/RG) idea of trying polyolefin bead media (polypropy-
lene or polyethylene) because of its success in anti-slip coat-
ings on yacht decks.2
Inexpensive and completely resilient to the effects of hu-
midity and solvents, the white flour-like polyolefin beads
(hereinafter polybeads) were added to a polyurethane coat-
ing and mixed for two minutes. The coating was applied on
a section of transparent window glass to provide a visual
JPCL June 2003 PCE 41
 Table 1: Mean Slip Indices and Statistical Data of All Coating Systems
Panel Coating System Panel Mean Coating Mean std dev CV* 1.96*StdDev CI** CI**
No. Slip Index Slip Index 1 sigma (stddev/mean) Lower limit Upper limit
1 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 8oz beads/USG 0.62
2 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 8oz beads/USG 0.62 0.616 0.051 0.083 0.101 0.516 0.717
3 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 4oz beads/USG 0.69
4 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 4oz beads/USG 0.66 0.675 0.093 0.138 0.182 0.493 0.857
5 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 8oz beads/USG 0.7
6 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 8oz beads/USG 0.78 0.736 0.044 0.06 0.086 0.65 0.821
7 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel 0.16
8 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel 0.16 0.158 0.014 0.09 0.028 0.13 0.186
9 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic 0.22
10 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic 0.19 0.204 0.026 0.126 0.051 0.154 0.255
11 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 4oz beads/USG 0.68
12 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 4oz beads/USG 0.68 0.675 0.016 0.024 0.031 0.644 0.706
13 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.8
16 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.81 0.801 0.035 0.043 0.068 0.733 0.869
14 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 0.27
15 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 0.27 0.266 0.032 0.121 0.063 0.203 0.328
17 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.82
18 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 0.85 0.838 0.035 0.041 0.068 0.77 0.905
19 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 0.26
20 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 0.22 0.24 0.029 0.119 0.056 0.184 0.296
21 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 8oz beads/USG 0.94
22 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 8oz beads/USG 0.88 0.908 0.043 0.047 0.084 0.824 0.991
23 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.85
24 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.9 0.876 0.035 0.04 0.068 0.808 0.944
25 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 0.2
26 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 0.16 0.177 0.028 0.157 0.054 0.123 0.231
27 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 0.15
28 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 0.15 0.151 0.021 0.136 0.04 0.111 0.192
29 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.81
36 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.85 0.833 0.03 0.036 0.059 0.774 0.892
30 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.87
31 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.88 0.874 0.014 0.016 0.028 0.847 0.902
32 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.89
33 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.85 0.871 0.039 0.045 0.077 0.794 0.949
34 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.82
35 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.81 0.816 0.024 0.029 0.046 0.769 0.862

37 RIOZ, solvent-borne 0.54

38 RIOZ, solvent-borne 0.8 0.673 0.138 0.205 0.271 0.402 0.944
39 IOZ, solvent-borne 0.83
40 IOZ, solvent-borne 0.8 0.815 0.028 0.034 0.055 0.76 0.87

*Coefficient of variation. **Confidence Interval. See the authors SSPC 2002 Proceedings paper for full details (SSPC Publication 02-16)

guide of the bead behaviour within the applied film. The
polybeads floated to the top of the finish coat and mani-
fested well-rounded protrusions, in marked contrast to the
rough protrusions of aluminum oxide, quartz, or crushed
walnut shells. Close inspection showed that a sheath of
polyurethane finish encapsulated the beads.
Encouraged by these findings, and with fast track industri-
al coating applications in mind, the authors tested the ease of
use of polybeads in specific polyurethane coatings that were
finish coats in zinc/epoxy/polyurethane systems (Table 1).
Various mesh sizes of polybeads were tried, with addi-
tion rates of each candidate at 2 to 10 oz per U.S. gallon of
polyurethane to identify the most effective degree of anti-
slip attained. Spray trials on I-beams, with and without fil-
ters, and with various tip sizes and pump pressures, were
investigated. In this way, the authors identified the condi-
tions needed to obtain a pronounced anti-slip texture in a
polyurethane finish that could readily be achieved in a fab-
rication shop without hampering spray application or shop
productivity.

42 JPCL June 2003 PCE www.paintsquare.com


Fig. 4: Mean slip indices of all coating systems investigated
Fig. 5: Inter-coating comparison with 4 oz. and 8 oz. of polybeads added
to the polyurethane finish coat
Fig. 6: Mean slip indices of SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic coating system as
a function of polybead addition to the finish coat
www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2003 PCE
When the best conditions were eventually deter-
mined and the anti-slip polyurethane coating had
cured, the polybeads provided a uniform, non-slip
texture. The uniformity stemmed primarily from the
fairly tight control on the particle size distribution of
the polybeads themselves (see microns, Table 2).
Routine testing according to ASTM D4541 was car-
ried out to ensure good adhesion of bead-laden
polyurethane coatings to both epoxy and zinc-rich
undercoats (approximately 800 psi [53 bar]). Later,
the selected anti-slip zinc/epoxy/polyurethane was
applied in the field and subjectively evaluated by the
ironworkers. It was well received.
The ironworkers challenge had been met, and ap-
proval was granted for the client, fabricator, and coat-
ing manufacturer to coat several thousand tons of
steel in a pulp mill project. This new construction
project began in 1992 and was the first of several to
employ the anti-slip coating system for structural
steel.3
Slipping
Skid resistance and slip resistance have been de-
scribed as the two components of slipperiness.4
The definition of skid is an act of sliding without ro-
tation, and slip is defined as a slide that occurs either
suddenly or involuntarily.
For a slip to occur while walking on a structural
steel member, the heel of an individual may slip for-
ward on making contact with the surface. Typically,
there is a 21-degree average angle of contact between
the heel and surface. The toe may slip back in the ac-
tion of pushing forward or during a turning move-
ment, or the ball of the outer foot may cause a slip to
occur.5
Coefficient of Friction and Slip Index
The literature shows that slip resistance is discussed
in terms of coefficient of friction (COF) or slip index,
the latter measured in English slip units (ESU). Both
are dimensionless numbers. The COF is simply the
weight of an object divided by the force to initiate its
movement.4 The slip index is measured as a hard
rubber foot is resisted on an incline (on a surface wet
by water) before slippage. Both COF and slip index
will be influenced by factors such as the roughness of
the surface being traversed; contamination on that
surface; and the type, condition, and cleanliness of
the ironworkers shoe and sole materials.6
Values of COFs for aircraft carrier deck non-skid
coating systems are typically approximately 0.85.7
But a static COF as low as 0.5 has been reported as
apparently being acceptable for a walking surface.8
43

Fig. 7: Mean slip indices of SP 10/med-oil alkyd enamel coating system as a
function of polybead addition to the finish coat
Fig. 8: Mean slip indices of SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur 1 coating system as a function of
polybead addition to the finish coat
Fig. 9: Mean slip indices of SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur 2 coating system as a function of
polybead addition to the finish coat
44 JPCL June 2003 PCE
Table 2: Typical Properties of Polyolefin Beads
Suited to Spray Application in WB Acrylics,
Alkyd Enamels, Epoxies and Polyurethanes
Appearance White free-flowing powder
Microns 210-300
Specific gravity 0.90
Initial melt/softening point F: 21.2
Final melt point F: 330
Flash point F: >530
In 1988, a detailed study was undertaken to investi-
gate COF measurements in light of subjective evalu-
ations of 34 test subjects. All subjects had to climb
coated structural steel columns (12 ft [3.6 m] high)
and walk across coated I-beams with a flange width
of 6.5 in. (16 cm).9 The coating systems evaluated
were primers: a red oxide primer, a zinc chromate
primer, and a solvent-borne inorganic zinc. The con-
ditions of the structural steel surface were varied to
reflect environmental excursions from dry and clean
to wet and clean, and to wet with clay contamina-
tion. From the present authors perspective, some of
the most notable conclusions of this study were as
follows.
The solvent-borne inorganic zinc yielded the high-
est COF for all conditions tried.
Values of COF increased as the coatings went from
a wet to a dry condition. (The reason for this effect
was not investigated.)
The COFs of the coatings became lower as the
coatings were polished by the test subjects.
A significant difference was noted in subjective
ratings for all the types of coating evaluated.
Subjective ratings indicated that the effects of wa-
ter on a coating appeared related to climbing a coat-
ed column or walking on a coated beam.
SSPC-AISC Task Force
Given documented cases of ironworkers being in-
jured after slips and falls from slippery structural
steel, in 2001, the U.S. OSHA issued a regulation that
by 2007 all coatings applied to new steel erection sur-
faces (surfaces walked upon) must have a slip resis-
tance of 0.5 ESU or greater.10 The measurement of
slip index had to be done with the coating wet with
water. The regulation also stipulated that the manu-
facturer of the coating system must certify the slip in-
dex value for that coating in any given project.
An SSPC-AISC joint task force initially challenged
the U.S. OSHA proposal for two reasons.11,12 First,
www.paintsquare.com
there was variability and lack of precision for the
measurement of slip indices using different test
methods. Second, the roughness and texture of the
surface of coated steel always varied. Hence, there
was considerable difficulty in obtaining statistically
meaningful data. As a result of these problems, slip
testing of coated steel plates became the subject of
intense activity by the SSPC-AISC task force. Initial
values for the precision were established in a round
robin testing program with six testing labs. A signif-
icant factor affecting the precision is the variability
of the neolite, the rubber foot surface for slip resis-
tance measurements. The task force is exploring the
use of reference panels and increased control of the Fig. 10: Mean slip indices of SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur 1 coating system as a
measuring process to improve the precision of the function of polybead addition to the finish coat
method.

Experimental and Test Procedures

Panel Preparation
Forty steel panels measuring 1 ft by 1 ft (30 cm by
30 cm) and 316 in. (5 mm) thick were abrasive blast-
ed to produce an SSPC-SP 10, Near White Metal
standard. Panels 1336 were abrasive blasted with
a 20/40 silica abrasive. The temperature was 25 C
(77 F), and relative humidity was 2530%. Panels
112 and 3740, were abrasive blasted with 24
mesh aluminum oxide at 2326 C (7379 F) and a
relative humidity of 55%. A 23 mil (5075-mi-
crometer) average profile was obtained on both sets
of steel panels.

Coating System Selection and Spray Application

The coating systems investigated represented some
of the more commonly applied industrial coatings. Fig. 11: Mean slip indices of SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur 2 coating system as a
function of polybead addition to the finish coat
Of considerable interest were panels coated with the
zinc/epoxy/urethane systems because one of these
systems had been used extensively for new con-
struction projects in the 1990s. The approximate to-
tal dry film thicknesses (TDFT) in the present work
were as follows.
Two-coat water-borne epoxy/water-borne acrylic:
68 mils (150200 micrometers) TDFT
Two-coat medium-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel: 35
mils (75125 micrometers) TDFT
Three-coat reinforced inorganic zinc/epoxy/
acrylic polyurethane: 810 mils (200250 microme-
ters) TDFT. Note that the epoxy used was either a
polyamide (EP) or modified aliphatic amine Man-
nich Base (MMB). Two formulations of
polyurethane were used (Pur 1 and Pur 2).
One-coat reinforced inorganic zinc (RIOZ): 34
mils (75100 micrometers) DFT Fig. 12: Mean slip indices of reinforced inorganic zinc and ethyl silicate
inorganic zinc coatings
One-coat ethyl silicate inorganic zinc (IOZ): 34
www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2003 PCE 45
mils (75100 micrometers) DFT Standard Test Method for Using a
Duplicate sets of panels for each Variable Incidence Tribometer (VIT).
coating system were prepared (Fig. 1 ASTM is also developing a procedure
on p. 40). The TDFT on the panels for preparing and testing painted test
coated with finishes containing poly- plates.
beads varied somewhat, depending
on where the reading was taken on Scanning Electron Microscopy
the panel. The scanning electron microscopy
All systems were spray-applied us- (SEM) instrument used in the work
ing conventional equipment. Except was a Hitachi S2500. All images
for the zinc-rich coatings, polybeads were Backscattered Electron Images
were added to each systems finish (BEI) and produced a 25kV acceler-
coat at the rate of 4 oz and 8 oz per ating voltage with high resonance
U.S. gal. before spray application. digital imaging and editing. Electron-
micrographs of the coating surface
Determining Slip Index were taken to examine the topogra-
with the VIT 13 phy of the anti-slip effect afforded by
The variable incidence tribometer the polybeads, and whether or not
(VIT) is both a laboratory and the polybeads were held securely in
portable field device used to measure Fig. 13: Electronmicrograph of polybeads in a polyurethane
place by the polyurethane coating.
the slip index of coated steel sur- finish (zinc/epoxy/polyurethane coating system).
faces. Slip indices can be measured Results and Discussion
on surfaces that are clean and dry, Slip Testing
wet, or contaminated. Slip index val- A ranking of the mean slip indices of
ues determined by the VIT method all coating systems is presented in
on the different coating surfaces pro- Table 3. Figures 412 show the effect
vide a comparison of frictional differ- on mean slip index of adding 4 oz and
ences between those coated surfaces. 8 oz per U.S. gallon to the water-
Figures 2 and 3 on pp. 4041 show borne acrylic, alkyd enamel, and
the VIT used to measure the slip in- polyurethane finishes. Figures 4 and 5
dex of coated steel panels in the cur- compare and contrast the mean slip
rent work. 12 In the test procedure, a index values for all systems investi-
slider pad made from neolite de- gated, with and without polybeads, as
scends and makes contact with the well as the zinc-rich coatings.
coated surface under investigation. From Figures 6 to 11, it can be
The slider is subjected to a constant seen that the steel surfaces prepared
vertical load as well as an increasing to SSPC-SP 10 and coated with the
horizontal or tangential load, until two-coat water-borne epoxy/water-
the combination of loads initiates borne acrylic, two-coat medium-oil
slippage. Once slippage takes place, a alkyd/alkyd enamel, and three-coat
strut kicks out in an arc. The slip in- zinc/epoxy/ polyurethane have
dex is the tangent of the angle of the mean slip indices of 0.16 to 0.27. For
tribometer to the vertical, which is Fig. 14: Electronmicrograph of polybeads in a polyurethane smooth and slick surfaces, these val-
finish (zinc/epoxy/polyurethane coating system).
the ratio of the horizontal and verti- ues are to be expected and fall well
cal components of the force applied below the 0.5 criterion set by OSHA.
to the slider pad. Interestingly, these values are lower than those published
The measurement procedure requires four readings from by the SSPC-AISC task force for similar generic systems.
the four different compass orientations. The surface of the However, the SSPC report concluded that within each
coating must be wet (puddled) during the operation. One generic class of coatings, a wide range of slip indices may
calculates the mean of the four measurements of each pan- be observed.13
el, then determines the grand mean for the two (or more) The one-coat zinc panels had mean slip indices ranging
panels to obtain the slip index for a given test surface. The from 0.67 to 0.82 (Fig. 12). Previous studies had shown
operation of the instrument is described in ASTM F1679, that zinc-rich coatings (both organic and inorganic) give
46 JPCL June 2003 PCE www.paintsquare.com
 tem had mean slip indices ranging from 0.68 (4 oz)
Table 3: Comparison of Coatings from Highest to 0.74 (8 oz), compared to 0.16 for finishes that
to Lowest Mean Slip Index did not contain polybeads.
The three-coat zinc/epoxy/polyurethane finishes
1 21/22 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 8oz beads/USG 0.91 had mean slip indices ranging from 0.8 (4 oz, Pur
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 8oz beads/USG
1) to 0.91 (8 oz, Pur 1). Amongst the generic fin-
2 23/14 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.88
ish coats evaluated, these values represented the
SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG
largest effect to result from the addition of poly-
2 30/31 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.88
beads (given the lowest mean slip index value of
SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG
0.15 for the polyurethane minus the polybeads).
4 32/33 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.87
SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG Statistical analysis of the data provided standard
5 17/18 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.84 deviations, and 95% upper and lower confidence
SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 bands. (A normal distribution was assumed.) The
6 29/36 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG 0.83 ratio of standard deviation to the mean slip index
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 4oz beads/USG varied from 1.6% to 15.7%. As noted in earlier
7 34/35 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG 0.82 studies, the higher the slip index, the lower the
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 + 8oz beads/USG standard deviation.13
7 39/40 IOZ, solvent borne 0.82 For the particular slider foot assembly used, the
IOZ, solvent borne data in Table 2 indicate that all the bead-laden
9 13/16 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG 0.81 coating systems of the anti-slip systems essentially
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1 + 4oz beads/USG meet the OSHA slip index criterion of 0.5 with
10 5/6 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 8oz beads/USG 0.74 95% confidence.
SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 8oz beads/USG
11 3/4 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 4oz beads/USG 0.68 Scanning Electron Microscopy
SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel + 4oz beads/USG Figures 13 and 14 are electronmicrographs that re-
11 11/12 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 4oz beads/USG 0.68 veal how the rounded polybeads provide a non-
SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 4oz beads/USG slip texture. Furthermore, the electronmicrographs
13 37/38 RIOZ, solvent borne 0.67 confirm the findings from window glass experi-
RIOZ, solvent borne ments, where the polybeads essentially floated to
14 1/2 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 8oz beads/USG 0.62
the upper layer of the resin-rich polyurethane sur-
SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic + 8oz beads/USG
face. Because they are so well encapsulated, it can
15 14/15 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 0.27
be assumed that the polybeads would be virtually
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1
impossible to knock off. This was indeed found to
16 19/20 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur1 0.24
be the case by the ironworkers during the erection
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur1
17 9/10 SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic 0.21 of the structural steel during pulp mill projects in
SP 10/WB epoxy/WB acrylic Western Canada.
18 25/26 SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 0.18
SP 10/RIOZ/EP/Pur2 Polybead Addition in the Fabricators Shop
19 7/8 SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel 0.16 The following summarizes the results of the au-
SP 10/med-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel thors intense collaborative research on how best
20 27/28 SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 0.15 to achieve an anti-slip polyurethane finish for
SP 10/RIOZ/MMB/Pur2 structural steel and joists in a pulp mill project.14
For successful spray application, polybeads were
required to have an average particle size of
relatively high slip indices without polybeads.13 200300 micrometers and pass through a 50-sieve mesh.
The addition of polybeads dramatically improved the Depending upon the texture required, 4 to 6 oz of the
mean slip indices of all coated systems (none added to zinc specified polybead material was added per mixed U.S.
coatings), although the amount of polybeads added, 4 oz or gallon (3.8 L) of the acrylic polyurethane coating. Four oz
8 oz, was not a statistically significant factor. per U.S. gallon was, thereafter, most commonly used as a
The water-borne epoxy/water-borne acrylic system had stir-in powder to acrylic polyurethanes.
mean slip index values ranging from 0.62 to 0.68, com- The polybeads were added and dispersed while the base
pared to 0.20 for the same system minus the polybeads in and converter of the polyurethane were being mixed.
the finish coat. The medium-oil alkyd/alkyd enamel sys- Spray application of the polybead-laden polyurethane
www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2003 PCE 47
coating was achieved using an airless 45:1 pump (0.019 tip
with the filter removed).
It is important to note that the rates of polybead addition
were the same for other generic coating types, such as wa-
ter-borne acrylics, alkyds, and epoxies. Not unexpectedly,
the spray application of thick-film, heavily pigmented
epoxies proved to be more difficult with polybeads present.
Cost of Adding Polybeads
In a three-coat zinc/epoxy/polyurethane coating system,
minimal additional material costs were incurred where
polybeads provided non-slip textures in the polyurethane
finish. A premium of approximately C$2-3 (Canadian dol-
lars) per U.S. gallon resulted from the use of polybeads
added to a gallon of acrylic polyurethane. This cost equat-
ed to about an extra C$2-3 per ton of coated steel.
Experience has since shown that it is a reasonably sim-
ple matter for applicators to learn how to perform this
work quickly and effectively. Touch-up procedures in the
field are the same, irrespective of whether polybeads are
present in the finish or not.
From a comparison of past mega-projects in Western
Canada it was discovered that no additional capital costs
were incurred in producing an anti-slip polyurethane finish
coat in a three-coat zinc/epoxy/polyurethane system.
New Construction Projects in Canadian Pulp Mills
A zinc/epoxy/polyurethane finish coatingcontaining
polybeadswas used on structural steel for a pulp mill. Af-
ter erection of the structural steel, the beads were virtually

Bead-Laden Anti-Slip Coatings

Increase Safety in Steel Handling,
Transportation, and Erection

I
n 1990 and 1991, Waiward Steel,
one of Western Canadas largest
steel fabrication facilities, was
awarded a 6,000-ton project to sup-
ply and erect steel for what was to be
one of the largest pulp mills in the world.
Because a major part of the project was to
be erected during winter months, adverse
conditions were anticipated, and some sort
of anti-slip material was needed by the
ironworkers erecting coated steel on this
massive project. Complicating the need for
traction, a three-coat system consisting
of zinc, epoxy, and a high-gloss urethane
topcoat was specified. Originally, Waiward
planned to spread warm/heated sand over
the tops of the erected beams (prone to ice
and frost formation) to prevent workers
from slipping. For many reasons this was
not a realistic and practical option, and al-
ternative procedures were investigated.
One of these procedures was the insertion
of expandable polybeads into the system.
Arguably, inserting expandable poly-
beads into a paint system tends to go
against conventional wisdom because the
coatings industry goes to great lengths to
keep contaminants out of products that
are designed to be smooth, uniform, and,
in some cases, glossy. However, the addi-
tion of beads did not make the application
any more costly or troublesome. In fact,
the following significant safety benefits of
the material were noted.
The uniform coating texture imparted by
the beads afforded greater safety at the
paint shop during the handling and slinging
of the structural steel to the storage areas
and later to decks of trucks for shipment to
the site.
A significant part of this large project was
to have coated steel erected during winter
months. Adverse conditions were anticipat-
ed, and glossy urethane-coated structural
steel had to be shipped approximately 150
miles on flatbed trucks. Added protection
was afforded to the trucking company and
its driver when the steel was tied down to
dunnage and transported to the job site.
The texture of the coated steel assisted in
keeping the loads tied securely, preventing
them from shifting during transportation.
The beaded texture of the coating sys-
tem also facilitated the loading, handling,
and slinging of the structural steel to final
position during the winter months when
the site and steel were covered with frost,
ice, and snow.
According to independent sources, site
crews, and a pulp mill owner, overall han-
dling damage was reported to be minimal
and far less than that budgeted for.
During the erection of steel, the beaded
texture of the coating finish greatly assist-
ed ironworkers when they were tied off
with their fall protection apparatus.
The ironworkers benefited from the
non-slip qualities of the bead-laden coat-
ing system, not only when walking the
beams during installation but also when
sliding down beams to travel from one
level of erected structural steel to another
(a common practice among ironworkers).
The beaded texture of the system gave the
ironworkers traction for the slings and
hand-holds to prevent slippage as well as
heel and knee damage.

48 JPCL June 2003 PCE www.paintsquare.com

impossible to dislodge and were reported by ironworkers to
greatly improve the footing and skid resistance for the safe-
ty belts and tie-off harnesses. The response from the iron-
workers encouraged the authors that the ironworkers chal-
lenge had been met in some of the bleakest winter
conditions in Canada.15 Expectations were actually exceed-
ed in that there were other unanticipated benefits with this
anti-slip technology (see sidebar).
Now, some 10 years since the introduction of this tech-
nology for pulp mills in Alberta and British Columbia, post
inspection has shown that the anti-slip coating system has
performed well, as expected, with little or no coating
degradation and with the beads still intact.16,17 Further-
more, the coating systems have performed well in harsh
chemical environments equal to those anticipated for com-
parable coating systems without the inclusion of the poly-
beads.
Conclusions
Polyolefin beads used in the polyurethane finishes of
zinc/epoxy/polyurethane systems were found to be the
best approach to achieving the ironworkers safety require-
ments on over 25,000 tons (22,500 tonnes) of structural
steel without compromising the coating systems integrity
and performance.
Typical slip indices of 0.5 ESU (and higher) were shown
to be achieved with polybeads added to the alkyd, water-
borne acrylic, and polyurethane finishes tested in the pre-
sent work.
There was no statistical correlation between the slip in-
dex and doubling the polybead addition from 4 oz to 8 oz
in any of the coating systems investigated.
The data presented here show that the slip indices of the
coating systems used a decade ago far exceed the OSHA
criterion of 0.5.
The coating systems evaluated in the present work with
4 oz or 8 oz per U.S. gallon of polybeads added meet the
OSHA slip index criterion.
References
1. Jules Hermele, An Introduction to Anti-Slip Coatings,
JPCL (January 1999), p. 86.
2. Philip ODonoghue, personal communication, Fraser
Fibreglass Ltd., September, 1984.
3. Bruce Madoche, Darrell Laboucin, and Mark McCul
lough, Solving a Slippery Problem, Occupational
Health & Safety Magazine (May 1993), p.6.
4. Paul R. Guevin Jr., Slip Resistance: Painting and
Coating Testing Manual, Joseph V. Koleske (Ed), 14th
Edition of the Gardner-Sward Handbook (ASTM,
W. Conshohocken, PA, 1972), p.600.
5. R. Harrison, and F. Malkin, On-site Testing of Shoe and
Floor Combinations, Ergonomics (July 1981),
www.paintsquare.com JPCL June 2003 PCE
pp. 4751.
6. M. Tisserand, Progress in the Prevention of Falls
Caused by Slipping, Ergonomics (July 1985),
pp.1,0271,042.
7. Tom Morrisey, personal communication, ICI Devoe
Coatings, 2002.
8. J.M. Miller, Slippery Work Surfaces: Towards a
Performance Definition and Quantitative Coefficient
of Friction Criteria, Journal of Safety Research
(April 1983), p.145-158.
9. Jerry L. Purswell, and Robert E. Schlegel, Correlation
of Subjective Slipperiness Judgements with
Quantitative Cup Measurements for Structural
Steel, University of Oklahoma, School of Industrial
Engineering, 1988.
10.Proposed OSHA Safety Standard for Steel Erection
Could Affect Use of Coatings, JPCL (January 1999),
p. 65.
11. SSPC Comments to OSHA on Proposed Safety Standards
for Steel Erection, November10, 1998, http://www.
sspc.org/site/reg-news/steelcomments.html.
12.SSPC Co-ordinating Program for Slip Testing of
Coatings, JPCL (July 1999), p.17.
13.Bernard R. Appleman, Slip Testing To Meet
Construction Safety Regulations for Coated Steel,
JPCL (October 2000), p. 73.
14. Gary Possein, personal communication,
National Oilwell-Dreco Energy Ltd., September 1992.
15.Darrell Laboucin, personal communication.
International Association of Bridge, Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworker, March
1992.
16.Gordon Hillier, personal communication, Crestbrook
Forest Industries Ltd., October 1998.
17.Lyle Robideau, personal communication,
Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc., October 1998.
Acknowledgements
Bacon Donaldson Coast Testing Ltd. For SEM and optical
microscopy work; Dr. Bernard R. Appleman of KTA Tator
Inc. for conducting slip index measurements and statistical
analysis on 40 coated panels; and Rosie ODonoghue for
further statistical analysis and data presentation.
Editors Note: This article is based on a paper given at SSPC
2002 and published in Technical Presentations, the confer-
ence proceedings, SSPC Publication 02-16.
This article was published in the JPCL (June, 2003) and is reprinted here with permission of the
publisher, Technology Publishing Company, Pittsburgh, PA, which holds the copyright.
Publication without explicit permission from the publisher is not allowed. To read more articles
from JPCL, go to www.paintsquare.com.
49