Sr4 33
o
U5 a
i
/61_
Fourth Progress Repor t
PRIMING-COAT REDUCTIONS FOR PAINTING N W DSURFACE S
A Joint Project o f
Northwestern Paint and. Varnish Production Clu b
Minnesota chapter of the International Associa tion of Master Painters and Decorator s
Paint, Oil and Varnish Club of the Twin Citie s
of the Twin Citie s
Retail
m4!!emi e -Ae .r,w rir
with the assistance o f
Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service ,
U .S . Department of Agricultur e
By F . L . Brown e
For the St . Paul Test Fence Comm tte .
W . J . Philippbar, Chairman
- 'L . P . Warren
T . J . MacMahon
S . O . Sorenso n
J . M . Olse n
Peter Gydese n
M. H . Sim e
F . L . Browne
;
•
PRIMING-COAT REDUCTIONS FOR PAINTIN G
NEW WOOD SURFACE S
By
F . L . Browne
for the Test Fence Committee-
The principal object of this study is to discove r
the optimum priming-coat reduction in applying common hous e
paints to softwoods and to determine whether the primin g
coat should be reduced differently according to the natur e
of the softwood painted . The experiments were described i n
detail in a first progress report published in American Pain t
and Varnish Manufacturers Association, Scientific Section ,
Circular 404 ; 596 (1031) . A second progress report appeare d
in Federation of Paint and Varnish Production Clubs, Official
Digest No . 121, 1068 (1932) and a third report in America n
Paint and Varnish Manufacturers Association, Scientifi c
Section, Circular 445, 454 (1933) : Oil,Paint and Drug
Reporter 124, 68 (Nov . 16, 1933) ; Paint, Oil and Chemica l
Review 95, 67 (Nov . 2, 1933) .
•
Four woods and three paints were used in th e
experiments on priming-coat reduction . The woods were Norwa y
pine, northern white pine, western red cedar, and redwood .
The paints were white linseed oil house paints that differe d
only in the nature of the pigments ; in one the pigment wa s
entirely basic carbonate white lead, in the second the pigmen t
contained 60 percent by weight basic carbonate white lead ,
30 percent lead-free zinc oxide, and 10 percent magnesiu m
silicate, and the pigment of the third contained 60 percen t
titanox B, 30 percent lead-free zinc oxide, and 10 percen t
magnesium silicate . All three paints were made in the for m
of semi-pastes one gallon of which consisted of 0 .435 gallo n
1
•
. J . Philippbar, Chairman, L . P . Warren, T . J . MacMahon ,
S . O . Sorenson, J . I . Olsen, Peter Gydesen, M . H . Sime ,
F . L . Browne .
R1045
of pigment and 0 .555 gallon of linseed oil .
For the variou s
priming coats these paste paints were thinned with linsee d
oil, turpentine, and paint drier as indicated in table 1 .
Some of the painting was done in two-coat work and some i n
three-coat work . For the final coat in two-coat paintin g
the paste paints were thinned with 0 .655 gallon of linsee d
oil, 0 .036 gallon of turpentine, and 0 .036 gallon of drie r
per gallon of paste paint, making paint of 26 .4 percen t
pigment volume . For three-coat work the second coat wa s
made by mixing 1 gallon of paste paint, 0 .218 gallon o f
linseed oil, 0 .437 gallon of turpentine, and 0 .036 gallon o f
drier, making paint of 35 .9 percent pigment volume ; for th e
third coat the mixtures were 1 gallon of paste paint, 0 .946
gallon of linseed oil, 0 .036 gallon of turpentine, and 0 .03 6
gallon of drier, uaaking paint of 22 .4 percent pigm-en-t volurn:e..
Panels were attached to both sides of test fences ,
providing both northern and southern expo•sura-s . 14e panels
were made of boards of bevel siding 12 feet long +o tha t
groups of 6 matched test areas each 2 feet hang were provide d
on which six variations in priming-coat reduction were tested
on the same boards . In table 1' the 6 priming praaadure :s
tested on _subdivisions of the same boards are groro :p d
together . Priming reduetiltOR 1-3 was re!p .e .ted on each s•e t
of boards in order to reveal .differences due to characterij =
tics of the boards in dif14 ;cLt panels of the same wood. aria
to furnish z basis for oor Nr'.ng priming pro.oedutes•' e !ted
on different panels .
Since the third progress report was written tber e
have been two formal inspections of t1 ;e fence, one in Jun e
and the other in October 1934 . At the last ii spect'a )n th e
coatings were 38 months old . The writer also inspedted 'W e
fence in August 1934 in company with a group of visiting
paint technologists but records were not made at that tiia e::
At 38 months the coatings on the south side of the fenc e
were failing in integrity sufficiently to re v e, .!!: disttiiitc t
differences caused by the variations in. pruning-coat
reduction . ; On the north side of the fence, h! wever ,
coatings remained intact except for cexfta.in J gcal ca
' '•
moisture failure mentioned in the third progri,se repo
The present report is concerned chiefly witly i4,e trend s
durability of the coatings on the s out- side of 'tie fenwt=;
,
.
R1045
-2-
.
1
1
S
Effect of Priming-Coat Reductio n
Table 1 ree ordlt the rat i - of the coatings i n
integrity at age 38 maonttt, the ieJ0 4ii7 in months of thos e
coatings that had become unserViceable,send were in the perio d
of paint neglect, and an arbitrary estimate of the du abilit y
of those coatings that still remained serviceable The r
estimated durabilities are based on the assumption tha t
coatings rated Poor plus at the last inspection will remai n
serviceable 3 months longer, those rated Fair minus 6 months
longer, and those rated Fair 9 months longer . The estimated
durabilities calculated in this way greatly facilitat e
discussion of the results but they are far from accurat e
predictions of future behavior . Less than one-third of th e
durabilities recorded in table 1, however] are estimated i n
this way and for that reason the relative Merits of th e
various priming procedures are as clearly revealed as the y
will be when the tests have continued until all of th e
coatings are unserviceable . •
In table 1 the priming-coat reductions nu b,erAd 1=1 ,
1-4, '4, 1 -4, and 1-5 were mixtures in whioh. the c.otc.entration of pigment is suitable for three-cat paintiog 4
ranging from 17 .2 to 23 .2 percent by volume of the mixtur e
(including volatile) . Reduction-s numbered 2-1 ) 2-2, and.
2-3 had a higher concentration of pigment, 24 .1 to 26 . 3
percmi, suitable for two-coat painting . Among the reduction s
of series 1 the best results were obtained with 1-1, in which
no turpentine was used, and the tendency was for th e
durability to decrease as the turpentine was increased an d
the linseed oil decreased in the priming coat . Th e
difference in results with primers 1-1, 1 .2 ; and 1-3 ,
however, was so small that they may well be cons .derod equall y
serviceable : Reductions 1-4 and 1-5 were on the whole distinctly inferior although on redwood-1-4 wa . Still provin g
nearly as good as 1-3, Threductions of series 2 wheal.
used in two-coat work revealed a definite superiority o f
the reduction 2-1 ; made with linseed oil and no turpent,i-n e
over those in which there was linseed oil and turpent-U14 4
Of the two reductions of series 2 used for three-eoO vwa-rk ,
the one containing more oil and less turpentine prove d
somewhat superior .
It should be noted that, in three-coat work ,
reduction 2-2 was slightly superior to 1-3 in the case•"s- o f
white lead and titanox and zinc paint and slightly inf :ri:o r
in the case of lead and zinc paint . In other words ,
R1045
-3-
O
ma
m-.1.
H
H am
Ha
m Ht
ma
OyI H
H
H
- mro
>d 0 0
I m
I
0
I d
dooa
II)00cOOM c000LOCO 0
ON
OT O, 'O H M MMMKIM
LI) 4 1 t 4414
MMMMM4
M
M M Icl Ifl O O cO cO 0 10 c0 Kl
001O,[-[ON
4MMI
Cn14 I41N00004
MMMNICI 4M
MI(1MIflL.0
M1010)1lcO M
O' 11-IMO-3
444O(N
MMMMN4MMMMM M
M
H HH H'04 lObcp'000cO
44441,14 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.
o
434-lcICI4
M00 M41CN coco
MM
H .-1 r-1 r-110
NCO 10 cO0
1
44440
.4 4 H4MICIMM
M
1.
1. F. .1 S . 1. 1. 1. f.+0 1.
00000H
0 1.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 001
0
0
4444 44 P.441.. 0
.4444 01444
4
. C . 1+, +
H14 ..IQ
H 14O14 0C. H C000010
0004
10 C.00
co
d
ad0Old
P. .00
.444414 44 4444 1(1444
4
N 1. C. 1+. 1. si 1.. 1.
O
O0O0O0O0H0 00000 0
0 0) 00
00
4444444444 G. P.44 P.0
.444
4
r1 r-1 r1 C0
4. 4 4 .41
CO CO 40 .-1 CO
444
Kn14
K1MK14
M
HHHHCO
HOO CO'O4 N
4444
ln~ 4MI.INM
M
4r=1HcO
44410
.4
C.
1. C.
to
0
0
0 0 'd+ C.
H as+.C000000
0 1.
0 C.
0 C.
0 00ti
0000443
C44 A,1:14. 44444444 444
4
I+O
-. OC.O
I+i O
1. O HC.01.0C.0 +
1. C0.
00
000000
oo o aso
o
P. 04 .440
. P. k. 0
.0WWP . P.
L C. C.
C. C.0 f+
•.. S.
.-11+.0 0 0 f+0,
.-I
0. 14
0 0 .H
4410000
a; 000 00 0
. A. P . P. 44 4,4 P. P.44 44 44
0
a'O
b 440
H 0340MMI+IM'1MIC
CO 4 cO' Ol
M MM
K.) N4
cO440
1O M
NI0040N4
Ic1MMMN
KI 00T
IcnNKINN
4
N044NNCO
N M M N N M M4441
MMN4
MM
000'+
41o 000'+
o o o5aia3o
000000
o 0o
444444101444 444444 01 44 P.
C.000'5'50
C .1.
1 S. C.+1. 1 .1.o
000 .aas0 oroo0o
0004410 0
4444 44014144 4444444444 P.
.+1 .1.0
+++ I C. I.I.C
ooo0o
'd'd'd'droo
Id 44X0010)0. 000a30 0
004114 PI 40 P
44 444440444
4
QJc0O04cO4 cOCO'04 .0 4
KlK\0.'11c)al
NNHNN N
0c)c0c0004
40H .-1cOl
011(1 MIc1My Mn4
MMKlO
NO NHHN4 O)\0 N HNO N
N 0 N N 0 4 M N N (UN N
1
I
0000 'd H 'd'd4414$'1
0000441 0 00014410X1
4444444440 44 1014131411041
4 O14 S.o
1.00000H
C. C. S. f. C. 11.o'd Oro
00000441 0100/30 40
44 13.440
.11.P. 44014440444
1
I
o ' + 'd 'd 'd -4 0 ' + d 'd 'l 'd
o
al
441
cd
0
443
0 0.i 443
cd al
0.S 10
44 411(1 40 41 C,, A)
41 10
10
10
M In In In In n NNI Ch n n
KIMMMMM NN KIN KI M
M Kl K1l\l)M NNIc\NKI lc)
ON 1144
0H0
O.IR
N NNN4
NN McO \O
c0O N(lII[lOIfl
NMINI±nKnnI
OHKl44
NNK1'0NC 0
0HN01M 000011001f1
N NNN4
NK\N ntc) n
0HM44
0HN
ON ICI
010004
to H"O t(-l{ 4
NO NO NOM1O rn
K
0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0
01H\0 N4 -NN
s0I00)
.'O
0N M
MN
40 40M0N0H0n 0
0 0 0 0N
0
0
ll '1 H IO t-4
VD c0 c0.'O
0 M
44MNH
MNN N
0 0 0 0 0 MN
00000
0
b
1-4
U
8
OM
mro
a.
H
r-I
O 0
.-10 9
a
'd
H C.
[ala
.0 41
4 .-)
0 al[ral
0o m .0a) ala)
H
aa
0 H
a 1.
0 d .0 am
mw
a a3
1.
O0 H
a0 1.a)
0
H 4.
O m a
H
mK
a .0
mm
a
cod 0
03
1. 44 m4NO
0 a
a
0.a) co O H
$4 rcl
a) C
P.
. a a))
H41 a-)aa) -4,`) 'ada)
as H
. i.
0
.
0
F . co
H m m a
m
El
'd CH. CDla H0.i
0D O, a3m 4-.
H
H
H
0
.p1
q co ca
PH
A
oa f m
.04
. 4O
0
amHd 0m o9
,r+ H o.
m
m H a 44 m
4G 3 ~ A
f
I
H1
'd H
m It
0
0
H
O+o.
A
ma
as T c)a)
E
aH coa
HO
Atd a
'd§ H'03
OA
.a
0
0) 0
~m
W'lA
CIS
0
a, 4
C. a) .4
m as m
V O.'H
0
1
C4
I
a-) P.
o o cd
1
1I ,s0
I 4
H I1
1
I
I cI m I m
I 'd 1 9 H I C.
0 1 a) I H> i w
•0
a II 9 i 44
+~m
1. 1I H
O I .' II f.
'0
0.'d
1. Cl'
m II 4ItlI 10
1 . 1 441 . -• I. • ., I m 1 0I
I
443O 1 am I --0
I '
1 1 44 1 u0)
I m
W
1
13 1 0
Q4
1 I.
44HCOH H
4440
.4 4
I
1.
NKnC01f19
0\10 N N
.
H
N [Qt-cO 1.
o
O
I
91~IN
O 1I'dm II
.1. II H
0
as I O
al .4O I al
I tO
II H II -. .
C7
I
0
I
0,01
1
m9
I!
N OT.'
i
114
H
al
0.
a)
H
.
1 3,
1.
LC) El
04(10 (1 N--'4
NI(lt-cO 1.
NMKIN
M
O\CO
c0 0v:0
N If.llON
l(1
o
0
.4 I(1
co NO 10
C.-AO ON 1- 01
10'04
L- O 100
.3 H KlH
H 0014 -4 '040 N4N
HH
O
H
.4
0.
0
H0
'd
0
HN0
.4
Ul
HNKl
Iclcu
M
I I I I 1 1 I NNHNNN
1 1 1 1 1 1 a' d
HHHHH
S
4-1
If
l
0400
.000 041
0
Nlfl«1N111 • •
O
O
C
441
tb ''0to x1t-40O't-01 O
0)404
H Ma-4
H 00h4N O
m 1n
104Kl4O.04
N .C4
H H 0
N
K\oO 10 a)44
01
N C- El
N :0
I(INOO
H
0
Q.
NNMCON\ O
N .130111
NMNMM M
NO0
cV Kl CO
K1tU M
O
O4OO
01cn
N Ifl al CV
I
0
Olt` 1001 C--- ON
'0'04
t- O 1flln4
H M HV
H 0 0.4
¼04 0104
c
HHO0
CO VI [C) H
a)
.JI NK141
1- I1
11 11 11 111 c 11 M1
I tHl Hri
r-IH
{ NNHNNN
0
a!
-4
E
HNM41f1
HNMMN
1 H
1 1H 1H1 I1 N
1N 1 H1 N1 N1 M1
H1 H
N
reductions 2-2 and 1-3 on the whole proved about equall y
serviceable . The pigment volume in 1-3 was 22 .3 percen t
(of the non-volatile and the ratio of linseed oil t o
turpentine by volume was about 2 .6 . In 2-2 the pigment volum e
was 30 .2 percent and the ratio of oil to turpentine 3 .4.
Reduction 1-4, which was inferior to 1-3 with all paints, ha d
a pigment volume of 29 .4 but a ratio of oil to turpentine o f
only 1 .4 . It seems, therefore, that the ratio of oil t o
turpentine is more significant, at least within the range o f
desirable reductions, than is the pigment volume . Apparently
a good primer should have at least 2-1/2 times as much linsee d
oil as turpentine and it is questionable whether there nee d
be any turpentine in the primer at all . The pigment volum e
in a good primer for three-coat painting presumably may b e
anywhere in the range of 20 to 30 percent but for two-coa t
painting practical considerations require that the pigmen t
volume be in the upper portion of this range .
Reductions for Different Wood s
The notion has long prevailed that the optimu m
priming-coat reduction differs according to the kind . of woo d
painted . There is no published evidence in support of such a
belief and its soundness may well be doubted in view of th e
contradictory recommendations often made when writers try t o
give specific priming-coat formulas for different woods .
The data of table I suggest the same optimum priming-coa t
reduction for all woods, namely, reduction with linseed oi l
and little or no turpentine . The results are not at al l
consistent with the view that the reduction for red ceda r
or redwood should differ from the reduction for white pin e
or Norway pine . It should be recognized, however, that th e
present experiments were concerned principally with th e
proportions of linseed oil and . turpentine in the primin g
coat and did not cover possible variations in pigment concentration as adequately as could be desired . Further researc h
may show that for woods like redwood and red cedar, whic h
absorb paint oils quickly, a slightly lower pigment concentration may be advisable in order to avoid unduly lo w
spreading rates and difficulty with painters' laps than i s
appropriate for such woods as Norway pine, southern yello w
pine, and Douglas fir . Nevertheless the present indication s
are that a single recommendation for reducing priming coat s
for all kinds of woods is entirely practical and probabl y
advisable . The "easily paintable" woods probably differ fro m
the "difficultly paintable" ones chiefly in degree o f
sensitiveness to departure from the optimum reduction, tha t
R1045
-4-
is, less damage to the serviceableness of the coating may b e
expected if the painter fails to use the optimum reduction i n
painting redwood than will result when painting Norway pine .
Order of Failure on the Four Wood s
The order of failure of the three paints on the fou r
kinds of wood is indicated in table 2, which records in eac h
case the average durability for all priming-coat reduction s
of the white paint . Certain physical properties of the board s
of each of these woods were reported in table 1 of the thir d
progress report . On cedar, white pine, and Norway pine th e
average curability of the three paints was inversely proportional
to the average density of the boards of those species . The
durability on redwood, however, was about as great as it wa s
on red cedar although the density of the boards was nearl y
the same as the density of the white pine . These results ar e
entirely in accord with results previously reported by th e
Forest Products Laboratory (Federation of Paint and Varnish
Production Clubs, Official Digest No . 95, p . 106 (1930) ) .
Table 2 .--Order of failure of paints on the four wood s
Kind_ o f
wood
:Average durability in months of coatings of :Density :
: of
:'mite mead : Lead and :Titanox : Average
: wood : paint
:zinc paint :and zinc : for al l
: 3 paint s
: paint
:Lbs .per :
:cu . ft . :
Redwood
Red cedar . . .
White pine . .
Norway pine .
R1045
:
:
:
:
26 .2
21 .5
26 .8
28 .9
.
.
.
.
I
38 .4
38 .8
35 .5
30 .0
39 .3
37 .4
33 .6
36 .5
-5-
:
:
:
.
38 .8
40 .6
30 .5
24 .3
:
.
.
38 . 8
38 . 9
33 . 2
30 .3
The relative behavior of the white lead paint, lea d
and zinc paint, and titanox and zinc paint during the firs t
two years of exposure was described in detail in the thir d
progress report . Since that time all throe paints have bee n
chalking freely enough on the south side of the fence t o
dislodge most of the remaining dirt and the white lead an d
lead and zinc paints at 38 months were nearly as clean an d
white as the titanox and zinc paint . On the north side of th e
fence the titanox and zinc paint still remained almost a s
clean and white as it was on the south side, the lead an d
zinc paint had thrown off most of the dirt previousl y
accumulated and was only slightly more gray than the titano x
and zinc paint, but the white lead paint still retained muc h
dirt, was very spotted in discoloration, and was still rate d
Bad in appearance .
On the south side of the fence at the last inspectio n
the characteristic reticulate checking of white lead pain t
was readily visible on close examination without a magnifyin g
g lass . The checking was then undoubtedly deep . The lead and
zinc paint was likewise checking visibly and the checking wa s
gradually becoming reticulate . The titanox and zinc pain t
remained free from checking .
Disintegration of the white lead paint proceede d
entirely by crumbling . The lead and zinc paint and the titano x
and zinc paint disintegrated by slitting or cracking followe d
by curling and flaking . Chalking of the titanox and zin c
paint had reduced the thickness of the film enough to impai r
the opacity observably although very close inspection wa s
necessary to disclose that fact . There had, however, been n o
washing of the chalk over the black identification number s
with which the test areas were marked .
The extent to which disintegration of the three paint s
had gone after 38 months may be seen by referring again t o
table 2 . On redwood and red cedar they were provin g
practically equal in durability but on white pine and Norwa y
pine the titanox and zinc paint had disintegrated earlier tha n
the other two paints . As a result there was a greate r
variation in durability on different woods with the titano x
and zinc paint than with either of the other two paints .
As was pointed out in the third progress report ,
there was more difference in durability between any one of th e
paints on the four woods than there was between that of that
R1045
-6--
r~.■ ,
r
"Moe
.-1
11
1-
1
n
L
11
11
- -■ 1
•
a
'I 11
1
1 - , three paints on any one wood . It is also true that the r
was more difference in durability between the best and t e
worst priming-coat reduction with any one paint than ther e
was between tlat
he thre•j paints on redwood
r e p .cedar ,
..
-% or white
' 1,
.4 WI
--- '_
-.
~ - 1■
1
1
e
1
.m
0
1
r1
!'
Coat and Three-Coat Paint ing 1
■'
~
11
1
_
Al
ir
With the white lead paint and the titanox and zinc
paint the best two-coat job (priming-coat reduction 2-1 }
• proved equal or superior in durability on the whole to th e
- hest three-coat job (with white primer) applied on the sam e
-r
boards . With the lead and zinc paint the best two-coat job
r was slighly inferior to the best three-coat job on the s '
boards except on red cedar, where it was better . Table 3
I
'm - the first progress report recorded the total amounts o f
y%
paint applied in the two-coat and three-coat jobs and s wed _
_• - that, by reason of the higher pigment concentrations and
lower spreading rates followed in the two-coat painting ,
roughly similar total quantities of paint were applied i n
1 ▪
_ two-coat and three-coat jobs, It is evident that two-coatpainting when done in the manner followed in these experiment s
' - is thoroughly practicable and gives coatings that closel y
% approach good three-coat work in durability and prove die 1
tinctly better than poor three-coat work .
-r - 11 1
▪
r_
■
1
1
%
'
▪
~
J
i~ =
A
t~linum Priming Paint
_1' ice'
Y
-
~.
~
--
s
;•!1J
▪ -%. -~~-~ Table I indicates that the best results were ob tamed with aluminum primin g iming paint ~ followed by two coats o f
- white paint . On all woods except white pine the coatings o f
1 all three paints over aluminum primer were still rated Fai r ,
► - minus or better in integrity at the last inspection and i n
all cases except that of lead and zinc paint on white pi n
:1
0 •• the coating over aluminum primer was rated as high or highe r
1
in integrity than the best coating over a white primer o n
the same boards . On 10 out of 12 panels the coating over ,
-- aluminum primer had the highest rating, on 1 panel it s
.%
rating (Fair minus) was equalled only by white priming-coa _
{
reduction 1-1, and on 1 panel it was distinctly superior t o
- - reductions 1-4 and 1-5 but inferior to reductions 1-1, 1-2 ,
and 1-3 . On the last panel, however, failure was confined t o
r%
r
two of the four boards which developed loose grain toward th e
end on which the aluminum primer was applied but not on th e
11
end that received reductions
1-2, and 1-3 . This panel, -.
~~
rb'
nu
-1
11=115
41-1■
1
1
J~
■ -
-
1 iv I t
■
•
11 11 "
II -
r
■
be
therefore, was not an exce p tion to the rule that the
aluminum primer in these tests tended to hold the coating s
intact longer than any of the priming-coat reductions of th e
white paint .
Unusually Early Failure of the Paint%
Failure of the coatings in integrity took plac e
unusually rapidly on the St . Paul test fence . Coatings o f
the white paints used should be expected to remain service able in the Lake States region for at least 4 years on suc h
woods as red cedar, redwood, and white pine, yet th e
failures took place in less than 4 years . The coatings o f
white lead paint and of lead and zinc paint applied wit h
priming-coat reduction 1-3 as recorded in table 1 ma y
reasonably be compared with certain tests by the Forest
H
Products Laboratory in which the same paints were applie d
with very similar reductions and on some of the same kinds o f
wood at Fargo, N . P ., and at Madison, Wis ., in 1930 . Table 3
records data suitable for comparing the results with thos e
at St . Paul .
The reason for faster disintegration of the paint s
at St . Paul is unknown but the fact that there is unmistakable evidence of some moisture failure on the north sid e
of the fence, as pointed out in the third progress report ,
suggests that moisture getting into the fence at some tim e
may have hastened disintegration on the south side eve n
though the moisture conditions were not severe enough t o
result in typical blistering or other developments clearl y
recognizable as moisture failures . It has been reported t o
the test fence committee that at one time during the winte r
of 1932-33 snow drifted against the fence to the extent o f
practically covering one side . This snow was not shovele d
away and there is a possibility that entrance of moistur e
within the fence took place when it melted .
Miscellaneous Tests on Units 7 and 8
In addition to the main portion of the test fenc e
there were two units added for the purpose of trying th e
effect of special primers made with white pigments in th e
81045
f
•
Bakelite varnish used as a vehicle for the aluminum prime r
on units 1 to 6 and for trying the recommendations fo r
thinning white lead paint made by the National Lead Compan y
and the Eagle-Picher Lead Company and certain paints suggeste d
by the New Jersey Zinc Company and the Titanium Pigment s
Company. The condition of these paints with respect t o
integrity of the coatings at the last inspection is recorde d
in table 4 .
Of the special primers made with white pigments i n
Bakelite varnish the one made with zinc oxide gave distinctl y
inferior results . The ones made with white lead and titano x
were better but by no means so good as the aluminum prime r
reported in table 1 . The type of failure of the white lea d
paint over these priers was not the same as that of whit e
lead paint over white lead primer or over aluminum primer bu t
took the form of flaking as distinguished from crumblin g
over the bands of summerwood .
F-i
0
H
-p a)
Sri
F~
cd
cd
ho
O
co
00
f-i
+'
•
4H
cd
0
o
U
'd
O
11 +'
CO
co
,0+''
,L)
a)
Fi
•r
I'
-I
~i -HU)
ri
bC
g .1-i
O
CO
+D r d
-H
Fi
cd
rP.'d ~,
a) 00
•r+
r-I
U
a)
a+
UJ
a)
cd
cd
rd
l rd
0
o
N
'd
4- N
rn rn
rn
cd
a.
4.-
l50
4-
F-I
4-
,
-z rn
4- 4
RI
rI
I
-Z'
H
LC\
H
•
w
-H+'
)
,c
cd
▪
o
1
I Fr • r-1 1
I
I O
I
I ;
I .. I
I +' I
' I •r-I
CO
Q)
CO
O
+'
R'
a)
Fi
cd
R,
0
co
4
i
r
CO
a)
F-1
co H
a~i I
cdcdcd
1
1
I
ai d I
-± rn
m
1d
a) O Fa
0
FI
rr 1 cd R
I
I
m r-I a) cd
pRcd ~
O
1
•rI RI
O
•
4-'
. . 1;
I
CJ d r
I
rn
Lf1
111
a)
1
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
H I r-1 1
,~ .
RI
0 NI N
I
co
d Fi a) cd + '
� Fib H
q 6 d ad
o cd a)
0 0 +'
,RI I O R
I
+' i
H 9-1 cd p .
R} •ri
w
da
cd
CD
~
O r-l
0
.'
4
0
0 cd
0 U) CJ
H I % U
rI I O
0
I 'd
F- 1
0
4-•ri
LO 150 O
a 1 N rn Lf1 11 1
F-I
•R
0
F-I
a cdd,c ` "
O co
'd F-I a)
o cd
O
+'
o
I
•
H
2i .Q
c
Q) 0d
r-I U
O
o 'd
CU
a) a) 1
4.
I cd
rn
a
+' I RI I +' F;
q
•r 1 F-I
C)
i
rr
o a)
'
C) +
o
H
rf)
•
cd +'cd
F-i
'C O
a) ad cd
0
.4 +'3 -1 +'Fa u)
a)
H
R, cO
I. 6
630
F-i
. . -- . . . . . . . . . .
. .
a) 'd
(74 0
'd I
0
I
00)a)
r-n4.~
„0 R,
rd
d) cd
'60
+' R
I
N
O
6:3
0
1
. .
d 4-4
cd F-i o
cd
CO +'
rI
d
O cd
I
1
F4
oa,
a
O
+' Co
w
U)
+'r-I
R.
O
-''
cd
0+'
•r-I
~,
cd a)
rI
RI
F4
0
F-l
cd cd
+3
I
Fi
+~o
a)
4.)
d,
4- 1
0
+3
.H
a)U) O
H
h
,R
O
0
1
cd cl
cd +'
U)
I
w
U
b
4-
'd
+'
cd
0
0
+'
0 'd 0
cd RI w
cd'
Pa,
H
ri
4-3
I
1
I
RI
aa,
+5'
WI' O
O
I~
Cl) Rcd ~
rl +' O
o
+3
cr3
W
4-I
co
-4
qa)
HI
NI
Lf\
_d-
O
H
+
o
t
f~
t
q
I
+3
•ri
1
rz i
. .
Fi
T:1 cd
tar)
N
66
r
66 +
U
I
o
I
q
Pa
0 0 cd
Pi
P-.
f4
1
•i 66 66 66 66 66 66 6 6
66 66 66 66 66 66 6 6
+
Fi +
O
ocd o
I
9-4
+
F-I
q
q
Pi
Fi
'd o
1 -0 p, I
Fzp
I
+ +
Fi
w
ti
0 0 •H
+
Fi
q
Fi Fi
0 0
Pi P-i Pi
•H I
14)a)
I
•
+~
'H I -H -H I
4-t
a. a
q
w I
t
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+
o
,•
0
66
1
+-31
Fa
w°onPo
66
w
++ i
0
P-1 P'-) Pi
+
+
Fi
Fi
0 0
0 0
P-.
Pi
Fi
0
0
P4
66 66 66 9 . 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 64 66 •6 66 66
+3
.6 6 6
cd 1
cd
a)
c
i
1
I Fi -r 4 i
I O p, I
I
I
I
+
F+
H
O
o
O cd
P. W Pa
o
66 66 66 66 6
66 66 66 66
.6 66 66 66 66 6 6
H
d
C
p
H
6.0
+p
taO
•
,.0
•
•
-d
a)
c 4
•U
co ro
w
q
•
FA p
ed cd Fi
cd
O
•
a) 0
•
.Hu)
.~
•
3 P cd
cd
a)
-N
•k
~
0
R,
+-y +' a)
cd
a) o H
M
o
cdcd
~Pg cd
O
•rl
m
Fi o
•
•
F U U
d rd •r1 b N
-k
a)
a)
-t k
cd
H
0
~, ^ cd
~d
m+' a
W . cd cd F i
P., CD 0
Cd
H
•rl
P
co
I
ci)
o
a)
.0
F-1
pz
I
k
F+
Fa
k
q
O 0 -H
q
O O cd
a P- Pi
w
'd
O Pa
O •ri N U
O F+ •r
i-1
H • • k
a) N •rl
rl •r-S -N
q
ra
•'
0 0
•rl •ri •r-4 0
•ri
• rd rx)
o
••
r~4 M
O
a)
HO
+' 4-s -P U cd
cd O•ri
+•'
q
r -r 4 •ri
q ' ;? N E+
cd
o O
• U
E+
td N a) Cd • r 4
rd Q)
a) Et) -P 4' 'd
u) -ri
S'+ Pi •H
-ri
C13
Z
p O 0
-rl Q 'd
.~,
Cd
H
E+
`7.
a) _0
+3
Cd
H 0 P. 0 p1'd O 'd I rd
o
-p
1--t
p., 71
-id
a) 0 0
a) a) - 0
ri C7 r•I Ha)>= .'
D
o cd F o'd a)-00+3 0 Cd Oo
Co
-p
0 •ri -p cd -P U p
U
•ri a) •rl .H '3a
• HoI
q H
H
H
O
4 1
r•f
a
a
0
~.
+-' a)