St.

Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System

5 Year Case Study

Dave Bowen, P. Eng.,

of Wardrop Engineering;

John Davidson, P.Eng.,

of Public Works and Government Services Canada;

and Robert van Ginkel, P. Eng.,

of Wardrop Engineering Inc.

Paper prepared for presentation at the

Innovations in Bridge Engineering Session
of the 2004 Annual Conference of the
Transportation Association
of Canada, Quebec City, Quebec

Page 1
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Abstract

The St. Andrews Lock and Dam (SALD) Corrosion Protection System exemplifies
engineering foresight, innovation and the practice of investing in the future to protect this
historic, vital structure. The 1900 vintage main truss spans, comprised of detailed, built-
up, riveted latticed steel members, were successfully metallized using zinc aluminium
(85/15) wire material during the harsh 1998/1999 Manitoba winter. Over 380,000 ft2 of
structural steel was coated in the seven, 40-m-long spans. This was the largest
metallizing project in North America at that time.

One of three camere-style removable dam structures in the world, the St. Andrews Lock
and Dam contributes to the quality of life in the Greater City of Winnipeg area and
provides a vital road link between the communities of Lockport and St. Andrews,
Manitoba.

A five-year case study of this project, evaluates the key elements to this project’s
success, which include the coating selection process and the life cycle cost analysis,
construction inspection arrangement and innovative five-year warranty arrangement with
a $300,000 returnable incentive. The life cycle cost analysis explores the need to
critically evaluate real long-term costs required to maintain a structure over a selected
50-year service life. The unique 5 year warranty arrangement examines methods to add
incentive, to motivate contractors to “take ownership” to provide superb workmanship
and to protect the owner’s interest.

This case study provides an evaluation of a successful solution for the treatment of
problematic maintenance areas such as packed rust joints with the use of stripe coating
and caulking. It also discusses the 100% environmental containment system used to
contain the blast media during removal of the old lead-based paint and how it allows
metallizing to be applied at below 0oC temperatures.

Minimal warranty work has been required during the five-year warranty period, which
ends this summer; and it has been a significant measure of the success of the coating
system. Owned and Operated by Public Works and Government Services Canada, this
$8 million dollar investment will ensure the structures vitality throughout the century.

Page 2
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System – 5 Year Case Study

1.0 Introduction

Maintaining bridge structures has become an increasing financial burden in Canada and
the United States. Many structures built between 1950-1990 have coating systems,
often containing lead-based paints, approaching the end of their viable life. Over the last
20 years the bridge coating industry has undergone immense changes, largely driven by
the tightening of environmental regulations which has increased recoating costs. Costs
have increased primarily due to the legislation that requires the hazardous lead based
paints to be contained and properly disposed of upon removal.

Coating suppliers are continually developing more durable coating systems to meet the
strict environmental standards and to offer superior protection and long life. Today,
costs and longevity of different engineered coating systems vary significantly. With this
in mind, bridge owners have a continual challenge of protecting their investment by
finding a superior coating system that does not compromise the biophysical environment
or human health.

In 1996, PWGSC retained Wardrop Engineering Inc. to provide engineering services for
the selection and application of a coating system at the St. Andrews Lock and Dam
(SALD) as the final stage of a $25 million reconstruction project for this structure. Areas
to be coated were the six 38.6-m river spans and the dam frames above the water line
along with the single 38.6-m overland span, which is adjacent to the east approach.
These seven spans cover a length of 283 m and the structural steel surface area that
was metallized is in excess of 35,300 m2 (380,000 ft2).

A total of four contractors submitted bids and the base bids ranged from a low of $7,
421,808 to $9,730,325. Clara Industrial Services Ltd. from Thunder Bay, Ontario was
the low bidder and was awarded the project on August 26, 1998. The base bid included
zinc metallizing the majority of the structure and applying Termarust (Bridgecote) to the
steel members at the soffit. An alternate to metallize the complete structure was
included as part of the bid package. Prior to the start of construction, this alternate was
accepted and the contract was increased by $300,000 to $7,737,053.

Construction work involved the removal of the existing lead paint and coating of the St.
Andrews Lock and Dam using 10 mils of zinc metallizing, an 85% zinc and 15%
aluminium metallizing coating system was completed in the spring of 1999. The end of
the five-year warranty period will be completed this year (2004). A five year case study
of this project evaluates the key elements to this project’s success which include the
coating selection process and life cycle cost analysis, construction inspection
arrangement and innovative five year warranty arrangement with a $300,000 returnable
incentive. In addition, the case study reports on the performance of the coating during
the five-year warranty period and the repairs required during this period.

The Structure

The St. Andrews Lock and Dam (SALD) commonly known as the "Lockport Bridge" is a
multi-use facility owned and operated by Public Works and Government Services

Page 3
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Canada (PWGSC) located on the Red River, 25 km north of the City of Winnipeg, at the
town of Lockport, Manitoba (Figure 1). The Lock and Dam was originally constructed in
1910 and a road deck was installed in 1913 linking west and east Lockport. It facilitates
navigation along the Red River from Lake Winnipeg to the City of Winnipeg by regulating
the water levels on the Red River.

The structure consists of six identical 38.6 m long river spans that house a 6-bay
spillway with a camere-type moveable dam, a lock, a seventh 38.6 m overland span
adjacent to the east approach, three east approach spans totalling 73.0 m and an 89.9
m west approach comprised of two spans (Figure 2). The six river spans are made up of
three main trusses, upper framing members supporting the road above, a working floor
providing access to the moveable dam, a main floor, sway bracing and the moveable
dam frames (Photo 1 and Figure 3). The main trusses are comprised of built-up lattice
box beams riveted together. Channels, I-beams and latticed built-up sections were
employed to make up the other components of the structure. Below the working floor
are the moveable, tapered/built-up, dam frame girders. These are supported by an
elaborate system consisting of steel hangars, thrust wedges, and steel castings. The
seventh span is made up of two main trusses identical to those supporting the road deck
in Spans 1-6. It also includes a crane storage facility.

Historical Background

The Lister Rapids, located on the Red River between Winnipeg and Lake Winnipeg,
have provided an obstacle to boats since the start of the Fur Trade. In 1896, after
attempts to dredge the rapids failed, a plan was devised to construct a lock and dam
system to regulate water levels, facilitating travel over the rapids.

The design of the present lock and dam structure took a great deal of thought and
ingenuity. A permanent dam structure could not be constructed because it had the
potential to cause an ice jam during the spring freshet, which would cause serious
flooding upstream. In the end, the present camere-style moveable dam was chosen
which could be placed in the water during the navigation season and removed during the
winter months. Only two other similar camere type structures have been constructed in
the world and both are located on the Seine River in France; SALD is the largest of the
three.

In October 1900, construction began and after many set-backs including outbreaks of
typhoid and the loss of many workers, the St. Andrews Lock and Dam was scheduled for
completion for the start of the 1910 navigation season. On July 14, 1910, Sir Wilfred
Laurier officially declared the Locks open.

In 1913, a bridge deck complete with a bascule lift over the lock structure (that has since
been removed) was added to allow the movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

Over the years, commercial shipping between Lake Winnipeg and the City of Winnipeg
has declined. However, recreational and passenger vessels still depend on the structure
for navigation. The City of Winnipeg depends on the structure to help increase the
quality of life by providing an artificial summer water level, the benchmark elevation to
which many structures are built.

Page 4
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Figure 1. Location of Lockport

Page 5
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Figure 2. Cross Section of Bridge Showing Coating Zones

Page 6
 St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

WESTAPPROACH MAINTRUSSSPANS EASTAPPROACH

SPAN1 SPAN2 SPAN3 SPAN4 SPAN5 SPAN6 SPAN7

CRANESTORAGE
FACILITY

SU1 EXIST. SU5

WESTAPPROACH LOCK SU4 EASTAPPROACH
ABUTMENT ABUTMENT
PIERSU2
SU3 PIERNo. 1 PIERNo. 2 PIERNo. 3 PIERNo. 4 PIERNo. 5 EASTABUTMENT
WESTABUTMENT

Figure 3 – South Elevation of the Entire Bridge Structure

Page 7
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Photo 1. Photo of SALD During Construction

PWGSC initially employed a large crew of workers to maintain the structure. All work
was performed "in house" which included a yearly painting of the dam frames. However,
continued cutbacks to staff has only left a "skeleton crew" which operates the Lock and
Dam and now all major work to the structure is performed by consultants and
contractors.

Painting this structure over the years has proven to be a difficult task due to the
immense detail of this built-up riveted/lattice structural steel, typical of 1900 vintage steel
bridges. The bridge has seen many contractors underbid the work to coat the structure
and end up not completing the work and/or facing bankruptcy. The last major coating of
the bridge occurred in 1974. Since then, only touch ups have occurred on a limited
basis and the coating had deteriorated significantly.

SALD Operations

The SALD operates during the navigation season, which runs from the end of the spring
freshet to the fall drawdown. In a "normal year" the freshet ends in late May, at which
time PWGSC operational personnel organise a sizeable crew to lower the 89 frames and
curtains at the six river spans. Once the moveable frames are placed in the water,
Douglas Fir curtains are lowered into the water to act as a dam. PWGSC is continually
challenged by the weather and resulting flows from the Red and Assiniboine river basins
to keep water levels upstream as consistent as possible. As a result, curtains are
continually moved up and down to regulate the water levels.

During the operational season, PWGSC requires continual access to the steel working
deck for proper control of the river water level. After heavy rains in the Red River
watershed, PWGSC may require adjustment of the curtains or removal of the frames at
any time. Drawdown usually begins around October 15 and is usually complete by
November 1. PWGSC lowers river water levels by approximately 300 mm (1") per day
to mitigate any riverbank destabilisation and all frames and curtains are removed prior to
freeze-up.

Page 8
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

It should also be noted that during all months of the year water is open on the
downstream side of the dam causing high humidity conditions.

2.0 Coating Selection Process and Life Cycle Analysis

General speaking, a coating is applied to structural steel to provide corrosion protection.

The costs considered when selecting a new coating system includes both the application
initial (capital) costs and future (maintenance) costs. Presently, bridge owners are faced
with the challenge of escalating bridge maintenance costs and at the same time
shrinking or stagnant maintenance budgets. This and the fact that more and more
bridges require maintenance has led to a changed philosophy in the bridge coating
industry as the focus of expenditures has shifted from incremental maintenance budgets
to life-cycle cost budgets. Presently, most bridge owners are using paint systems which
will hopefully provide a service life of 30 years and fewer maintenance requirements.
With this in mind, a net present value analysis on various high performance coating
systems was performed to determine which coating system would be the most cost-
effective when considering a 50+ year period coating life. The coating selection process
consisted of the following steps:

 Define Corrosion Environments

 Identify Coatings Suitable for Corrosion Environments
 Define Initial Construction Costs and Expected Maintenance Costs
 Undertake Comparison of Coatings using a Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Our first step in the analysis was to define the different types of corrosion environments
present at the SALD. The structure was divided into four distinct corrosion zones
(Figure 3) according to the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) and
SSPC guidelines. These zones were treated separately when analysing and selecting
coating systems.

Zone 1, the "Fresh Water Immersion Zone," consisted of the lower portion of the dam
frames that are immersed in the water when the dam is in operation. This area has the
harshest corrosion environment as the frame sections are partially submerged in water
during the summer months; and they are exposed to ice fog in the winter. Prior to
construction this portion of the original frames were deteriorated to such a degree that it
would be impossible to sandblast them. Therefore, they were not coated and were
replaced in 2001-2002.

Zone 2, the "Moderate (Industrial) Zone,” consisted of the remaining portion of the dam
frames and lower half of the main truss section. This zone was determined to be in a
high humidity environment typical of moderate industrial exposure. Zone 3 was defined
as " Seacoast Marine," and is the upper half of the trusses excluding the main floor
beam protected by the bridge soffit. This zone is also exposed to humidity as well as
very corrosive deicing salts, which come from the roadway above. Finally, Zone 4, the
"mild (rural)" Zone contains the main floor beams and cross bracing located immediately
under the roadway. Bridgecote was specified as the base bid for this zone and was
changed to metallizing during construction for a small incremental cost. This area is well
protected from almost all environmental elements and exposed to a very passive
corrosion environment.

Page 9
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Once the bridge had been divided into various zones, a number of coating alternatives
were identified to protect the steel in each zone. Over fifty possible systems were
examined. Once this was done, several factors were considered to form the basis of a
coating system selection. These included: material and labour costs, suitability of
coating systems to particular zones, total number of coatings, life span selected for life
cycle cost analysis, and the interest rate used.

Construction cost data was obtained from a number of sources including PWGSCs past
experience at SALD, other bridge owners in Manitoba, NACE, contractors, and
suppliers. Material cost is the actual cost of the paint or coating and surface preparation
is the cost to achieve the required degree of blast cleanliness; both of which are well
defined. Application costs are somewhat more subjective and are dependant on factors
such as the curing times, number of coats required, time of year when construction
occurs, and the equipment required to perform the work were included in this calculation.
Consideration was also given to the number of different coating systems that would be
applied in different corrosion environments. Minor adjustments were made; depending
on the number of zones a particular coating system would coat to reflect quantity
discount of a product. Net interest rates are variable depending on inflation and interest
rates. For this project, both 3% and 5% interest rates and a 50-year life span were used
for the cost calculations.

In addition to the above, adjustments were made to the costs based on the following
factors:

 containment and hoarding requirements;

 soft costs including overhead and inspection costs including differences between one
coat and multicoat applications; and
 winter work premiums.

Some of the high performance coating options examined included:

 part Zinc Rich Moisture Cure Urethane (MCU) with two coats of MCU;
 zinc rich primer with two coats of MCU;
 Inorganic Zinc (IOZ) with an HB Epoxy intercoat and Polyester Urethane top coat;
 Zinc Metallizing with an HB Epoxy intercoat;
 Zinc Metallizing;
 two coats of coal tar epoxy; and
 Termarust (Bridgecote).

Various coating systems had advantages and disadvantages specific to the SALD. Our
cost analysis revealed that although zinc metallizing had the highest initial cost, its’ Net
Present Value over a 50+ year period proved it was the most economical option at the
SALD. In addition to cost, the following distinct advantages which helped to put
metallizing on top:

 mechanical durability in a destructive environment (many chains, cables and workers

are constantly moving over the steel structure;
 coating requires relatively minor maintenance over a 50-year period; and

Page 10
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

 affords galvanic protection to the structural steel (protecting the structural steel from
corroding if a small portion of the steel is exposed to the elements).

Costs that were not included in the original analysis that should be examined include
project costs and user costs. Project costs include the cost to the owner to prepare,
tender and manage maintenance work of a project. These costs were ignored since the
size of the structure is very large which makes these costs less influential. However, on
smaller projects, these costs could have a larger influence.

User costs are defined as the estimated value of time lost as a result of maintenance
activities which require lane closures or detours. Typically these costs are ignored since
they are not direct costs to the bridge owners and they are often much larger than the
cost of the construction work. The soul purpose of any traffic bridge is to provide safe
and efficient movement of people and goods and user costs are real costs to the users
of a bridge and the surrounding economy. All construction activities at the SALD
minimally impacted vehicular traffic since the trusses are located beneath the bridge and
only a few nighttime lane closures were required. However, user costs should be
carefully considered when examining these costs.

Zinc metallizing has the highest initial cost compared with cadillac three coat paint
systems. Generally speaking the breakeven point for metallizing is at 40 to 60 years
when comparing using a NPV. In cases where lead abatement necessitates elaborate
contaminant systems, the incremental costs to switch to metallizing over a paint system
is lowered as a percentage of the overall cost. However, metallizing is the only system
available that can last 50 years or more. The service life of this system is directly
proportional to the thickness of the coating. Therefore, in order to achieve a longer
service life additional coating thickness can be applied at a very low square area cost.

Presently, the cost to zinc metallize in the shop is between 10 to 12 $/ft2 and the cost of
a 3 coat paint system is approximately 8 to 9 $/ft2.

3.0 Zinc/Aluminum Thermal Spray Process

Thermal spray coatings have the ability to revolutionize the coating industry, since they
are an extremely durable, single coat system which can offer life spans in excess of 50
years with little or no maintenance. Thermal spray coatings or metallizing have been
around since the early 1900s and have seen widespread use in Europe; however, until
about a decade ago equipment used to metallize was very arduous and expensive to
use in the field. Recent improvements to the “arc spray” technology have increased
production rates and has helped to make metallizing a more viable alternative.

Thermal spray coatings can spray many types of metallics or even ceramics. Metallizing
involves the spraying of molten metal onto a prepared steel surface by means of
atomized air (usually compressed air). Typical applications of metallizing include the
application of pure zinc or aluminum; or a combination of zinc and aluminum via a flame
spray gun or an arc spray gun. Flame spray is an older technology that uses a gas
flame to heat either zinc powder or zinc wire. When powder is used it is “dusted” onto a
prepared steel surface. The flame spray metallizer then heats the powder and melts it,
causing it to mechanically fasten to the steel surface. When zinc wire is used, the wire is
continuously fed thru a flame which turns it to molten zinc. Compressed air then thrusts

Page 11
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

it onto a prepared steel surface. This technology covers approximately 1/4 of the total
area that can be covered by an arc spray metallizing machine.

The arc spray metallizer has been around for over 30 years; however, recent
modifications to this machine has helped to make metallizing an economically viable
option. An arc spray metallizer functions by continually feeding two oppositely charged
wires through a metallizing machine. At the point of contact, the wires “arc,” instantly
turning into molten metal. The molten metal is then thrust onto the prepared steel
surface by three 90-psi directional compressed air nozzles, instantly cooling and
mechanically bonding to the steel. Until the 1990s, the arc spray metallizer had very low
deposition rates and were very cumbersome to use in the field. Older machines used a
3.2-mm (1/8”) wire, as opposed to new machines that have been capable of using
4.8 mm (3/16”) since about 1990. This change in wire diameter and modifications to the
field portable machines has provided contractors the ability to increase production by up
to 6-fold; again significantly lowering costs.

Why 85% Zinc and 15% Aluminum

In the 1960s, extensive research was performed to determine the effects of combining
varying amounts of aluminum and zinc and how well it protects the steel. It was
determined the combination of 85% zinc and 15% aluminum wire (by weight) offered
superior protection in chloride environments. In this combination, small zinc particles
affords the steel galvanic protection, and elongated particles of aluminum form an inert
barrier protecting the steel from any airborne contaminants. A combination of 85/15 wire
was applied to the SALD. It should be noted that the 85/15 wire is recommended on
steel structures that are exposed to harsh salt environments. The 85/15 wire cannot be
used on concrete, as the aluminum will cause the concrete to disbond from the
reinforcing steel. Steps must be taken when metallizing steel adjacent concrete
surfaces to ensure only minimal amounts of overspray hit the concrete surface.

Advantages

Metallizing offers many distinct advantages over a conventional coating system. These
include:

 Mechanical durability;
 Cathodic protection;
 50 year plus life span with little or no maintenance (directly proportional to coating
thickness);
 Single coat systems; and
 No curing time.

Unlike many conventional paint systems, metallizing mechanically bonds to a prepared

surface and has had typical adhesion values for this job ranging from 700 to 1100 psi.
Because of this strong bond, the metallized coating may only “nick” off if it is struck on a
corner with a heavy object. If there is a small area of exposed steel, the zinc coating is
able to cathodically protect this area by sacrificing itself. Depending on the corrosion
environment and with the right amount of dry film thickness (DFT) metallizing can protect
a steel surface for 50 years or more.

Page 12
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Application

There are many keys to successfully applying 85/15 wire, the two most important are
having a properly prepared surface and an adequate profile on the steel surface. Steel
surfaces must be prepared to a SSPC-SP10, Near White Metal Blast, as a minimum
requirement. This ensures that the surface is free from all paint, mill scale, pact rust, dirt
and any other corrosion producing contaminants. Often a SSPC-SP5, White Metal
Blast, is recommended; however, this is almost impossible to achieve in the field
especially when the steel is 90 years old. Metallizing does not have the ability to
"bridge" over any contaminants as it bonds mechanically to a prepared steel surface.
Our experience at the SALD has shown that if tightly adhered pact rust covering a
surface the size of a thumb tack was not removed and was metallized, a coating failure
would occur in which the metallizing would simply fall off. For this reason, strict quality
control and quality assurance was enforced to ensure that a SP10 blast was achieved.

The profile on the steel surface is defined as the size of the indentation made by the
blast media. Looking under a microscope, the steel should appear to have a "toothed"
surface. It is essential that angular blast grit be employed, as it will cause the steel to
have a "barbed" surface. A surface profile of 2-3 mils was specified and on average the
surface profile ranged between 3-4 mils throughout the project. It is recommended that
a 3-4 mil profile be specified for future work since it improves bond and increases the
amount of zinc on the steel surface.

A 3-4 mil profile occurred because the contractors’ blast hoses had pressures between
110 to 120 psi and heavy blast media to remove tightly adhering pack rust. The dry film
thickness (the actual thickness of the coating) of various coating systems is measured
from the top of the blasted profile to the top of the coating; therefore, with a deeper
profile or deeper “pits” more zinc is required to fill these areas. The longevity of a zinc
metallizing coating is directly proportional to the coating thickness. Other important
factors to note include SP 1 Solvent Washing for the removal of chlorides and oils from
the steel surface prior to the commencement of abrasive blasting. Surface steel
temperature at application was also closely monitored, as it is believed to affect the
adhesion values.

4.0 Construction at SALD

The coating system for this project included the following:

 Surface preparation – SP10 Near White Metal Blast with a 3 to 4 mil profile
 Coating - 10 mils of 85/15 zinc/aluminum metallizing
 Stripe Coat – Stripe coat all joints in Zone 2 using Carboline 242
 Pact Rust Joints – Seal all pact rust joints whose widths exceed 3/32” with caulking
(Mulco Supra Expert Caulk)
 Inaccessible Areas – Coat with stripe coat material

As new technology in the metallizing industry, namely the application of 3/16” wire has
emerged; the SALD provided the largest testing ground in North America for the 85/15
wire at the time of construction. The painting project was awarded to Clara Industrial
Services Ltd. of Thunder Bay, Ontario in November 1998 and construction began
immediately. Since the existing paint contained lead, the contractor was required to

Page 13
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

contain all materials used to remove the paint and the paint itself and provide net
negative air pressure. The contractor elected to construct an elaborate containment
system which completely encapsulated one of the seven 38.4m bridge span at a time.

Up to three different spans were completely enclosed at any one time enabling the
contractor to sequence their work in the most efficient manner. It is extremely important
to understand the actual operations, the level of effort, and cooperation between all
parties that took place to ensure the success of this project. At SALD, Clara Industrial
Services Ltd. was awarded the contract to metallize the structure. They are a very
experienced contractor who have the necessary financial and human resources to
complete a project of this magnitude. The key to the success of meeting a tight
schedule within the SALD operations, complying to strict environmental constraints and
guidelines, and meeting all specified requirements can only be understood by describing
the sequence of their operations and adjustments made to increase production and
improve quality.

Operations continued 7 days a week and 24 hours a day beginning in November 1998
and ending in May 1999. During the work in all spans of this project the operations
performed followed the same sequence; however, changes occurred in the time during
which these operations were performed. Operations in the first span were notably
different than in the subsequent spans as the contractor had little flexibility in how
operations could proceed. Metallizers and sandblasters worked hand in hand and the
steel that was abrasive blasted during the night shift was metallized during the day. This
sequence caused the sandblasters and metallizers to constantly trip over one another
and it also left little time for the required inspections to take place. Because there were
typically many sandblast misses each night, the day shift spent the better part of the
morning spot blasting and blowing down the surfaces to be metallized.

Normally, metallizing could only take place for half of the 10-hour day shift. In the next
spans, the contractor wisely adjusted their sequence of operations and attempted to get
the sandblasters ahead of the metallizers. They were able to do this by constructing
multiple containment systems. By the third span the sandblasters were approximately 10
days ahead of the metallizers and would actually be abrasive blasting in a different
containment system which allowed the contractor to abrasive blast during the day time
as well.

A typical day was broken down as follows:

Table 1 – Typical Daily Operations of the Contractor at St. Andrews Lock and Dam
OPERATIONS PERFORMED Operation Time
Abrasive blasting 9:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Blowdown of steel to be 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
metallized for inspection
Inspection of steel by QC/QA 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 p.m.
Spot blasting and blowdown 8:15 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Reinspection of steel by QC/QA 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Metallizing 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
QC/QA Inspection of steel 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Page 14
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

During the night shift abrasive blasting took place. Prior to starting their work the
blasters would speak to the quality control inspector to find what areas had been missed
the night before, and would often be given a drawing outlining the general locations.
The blaster would then enter the containment system and walk through their work area
identifying “misses” and their area to sandblast that night. Sandblast operations
continued until approximately 6:00 a.m., at which time the sandblasters would stay and
blow down (clean off) the sandblasted areas for inspection. Once this was done, usually
around 7:30 a.m., the quality control and quality assurance inspectors would reexamine
the specific area that would be metallized that day and identify any blast misses. Quality
assurance would follow quality control to help expedite this work in a timely fashion.

The day shift would arrive at 8:00 a.m. and would begin by speaking with the inspectors
and surveying the area that they wished to metallize that day. Because there were
always misses from the night before, the metallizers would begin by spot blasting or
sweep blasting the steel areas. Once the sandblasters were well ahead of the
metallizers the steel was always swept blasted (given a quick, light sandblast) to remove
any potential flashrust that may have occurred. This ensured that the surface always
met an SSPC-SP10, Near White Metal Blast, and was free from any corrosion producing
contaminants.

After this occurred, a brief inspection occurred to ensure that all “misses” were blasted
off and the areas were ready to be metallized. Final checks of ambient conditions, steel
temperature, and humidity were performed. At this point the metallizers were told what
areas could be metallized. Metallizing occurred for roughly 7 hours a day. Areas
covered ranged between 232.25 m2 to 325.15 m2 a day (with a 10-mil thickness),
depending on the number of metallizers. Typically, six metallizers ran daily and towards
the end of the project as many as eight were running to increase production.

Once the day shift was complete, the night inspection shift started. During this shift,
quality control would inspect first round blast quality, identify misses and sometimes
perform dry film thickness checks. Dry film thicknesses were usually checked during
metallizing operations in the daytime. Quality control would use this time to inspect
blasted areas and quality assurance normally was able to complete this work in half the
time. As this project progressed, typically quality control had to look at the blasted steel
twice identifying any blast misses. Once quality control was satisfied with the blast
quality, the quality assurance inspector would look at the blasted surface and identify
any misses. Touch-up blasts were then performed as required. The role of quality
control and quality assurance is further described in the next section of this paper.

5.0 Quality Investment – Five-Year Warranty

Bridge owners have always had the dilemma of finding better means to increase the
quality of coating application and maintaining a coating system after a contractor had
completed the work. PWGSC’s goal was to protect the investment that the Government
of Canada was making in the SALD and to adequately manage their risks. With this in
mind, Wardrop took the following measures to ensure that the best coating application
for this project was achieved. Some of these measures were:

Page 15
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

 Prequalification requirements for the construction contractor including requirement

for NACE certification, conformance to SSPC-QP 1 and QP2.
 Specifying that the contractor was required to provide an independent full time NACE
inspector for quality control inspections.
 Providing a full-time quality assurance NACE inspector to provide PWGSC with
quality assurance review and inspection on the coating operation. This system
guarantees contractor conformance with the plans and specifications of the project.
 Obtaining a 5-year, single-source warranty from the contractor to keep the contractor
responsible for any deficient work over a reasonable period of time.

Prequalification

The coating industry has been infamous for “fly by night” contractors, and therefore all
efforts had to be taken to ensure the contractor had previous experience and could
complete a job of this size. Contractors had to prequalify to bid on this project by
showing evidence of NACE, SSPC-QP1 and QP2 certification. During the tender period,
it was found at that time that only one company in Canada had SSPC-QP1 and QP2
certification. As a result, contractors were asked to provide evidence of application for
SSPC-QP1 certification. SSPC-QP1 is defined as the, “Standard Procedure for
Evaluating Qualifications of Painting Contractors (Field Application of Complex
Structures). SSPC defines the objective of this program is to determine if a painting
contractor has the personnel, organization, qualifications, procedures, knowledge, and
capability to produce surface preparation and coating application of the required quality
for complex structures. Management procedures, technical capabilities, quality control
and safety formed the outline of the general qualification requirements. This
requirement ensured that the contractor had knowledge, experience, the necessary
equipment, human resources, and financial backing to complete a job of this magnitude.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance

The contract documents also specified that the contractor was to provide an
independent NACE certified inspector to perform all quality control. The quality control
inspector was to ensure that all operations related to abrasive blasting, metallizing and
coating of the structure were done in accordance with the contract specifications. Some
of the key responsibilities were to ensure:

 prepared steel surface was sandblasted to an SSPC SP-10, Near White Metal Blast,
and free from any corrosion producing contaminants;
 all pack rust in pack rust joints was removed to a depth greater than or equal to the
width of the joint and sealed;
 the steel temperature was 3oC greater than the dew point and rising prior to any
coating operations;
 all chlorides were removed by hand solvent wash to a level of less than 30 ppm prior
to abrasive blasting;
 all oils and grease were removed by hand solvent washing prior to abrasive blasting;
 adhesion values of the metallizing were a minimum 700 psi during cold weather
application of the metallizing (cold temperature application was defined as when the
steel or air temperature was less than 4oC);
 zinc metallizing was applied to a minimum dry film thickness of 10 mils; and
 all joint member connections were striped in Zone 2.

Page 16
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

Wardrop’s subconsultant To-Spec Ltd., provide NACE-certified quality assurance

inspections to ensure that the Contractor’s work met or exceeded the requirements of all
items listed above and all coating items outlined in the contract specification. One could
compare the requirement for full-time NACE-certified quality control and quality
assurance as a reinforced web. Quality Control’s role was to ensure all surface
preparation and coating operations met or exceeded the contract specifications and
quality assurance would provide a second check on all this work preventing anything
from “slipping through the cracks.” This system of QC/QA helped to ensure that the
contractor would continually be “pushed” on two sides to achieve high quality results
required.

5-Year, Single-Source Warranty

Selection of a warranty and warranty period was paramount to achieve the best quality
and a long lasting coating. Either a single-source warranty with the general contractor or
a joint warranty with the general contractor, paint suppliers, and painting subcontractors
could have been selected. A single-source warranty with the general contractor was
selected. Responsibilities can become diluted when joint warranties are specified and
painting failures occur. General Contractors blame suppliers and suppliers claim that
their product was not applied according to the manufacturers’ guidelines. Battles
between the General Contractor and coating supplier can become the problem of the
owner; in the end the warranty work may still be performed, but not without a lot of
negotiations with different parties and wasted time and resources.

By having a single-source warranty, PWGSC had no contractual obligations with anyone

but the general contractor; the general contractor was held solely responsible to
PWGSC for the total work. Therefore, for example, if the coating material fails and the
supplier does not honour the warranty, the contractor is still fully responsible to the
owner for all repairs and the owner does not have to waste time dealing with suppliers.

Warranty Period

Owners' investments in coating systems have not always been adequately protected
with standard one- or two-year warranty periods for projects of this type. Since, after five
years most, if not all, defects in coating material or application will have been identified,
Wardrop agreed with PWGSC that a five-year warranty was desirable for this project.
This project, along with projects like the abrasive blasting and painting of Edmonton’s
downtown “High-Level Bridge,” are setting a precedence for extended warranties on
bridge painting contracts.

Why was a Warranty Period of this Length Chosen?

As with any project of this nature a certain level of warranty work was expected. Three
categories of warranty work were anticipated, which can be identified by the required
level of repair. They are:

 Minor failure – e.g., A painting crew required on-site for a few days (approximately
<$50,000).

Page 17
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

 Localized failure – e.g., All truss A connections fail. Here a painting crew will be
required on site for a few weeks (approximately $50,000 to $300,000).
 General failure – e.g., Complete spans require repainting. Here a painting
contractor will be required on-site for months (approximately $300,000+).

Generally speaking, the more costly the required warranty repair, the more difficult it is to
get the contractor back on-site to perform the required warranty repair work. It would be
relatively easy to get a contractor back on-site to perform touch-up repairs since the
contractor can repair the work at relatively little cost. On the other hand, general failure
of the coating system will probably lead to legal action before the contractor will return to
the site to perform the required repair. In both cases, repair will be performed and the
owner is reasonably protected. However, based on previous experience, the most likely
scenario is “localized failure” of the coating system which will require repair in the order
of $50,000 to $300,000. It is very difficult to get the contractor back on-site to perform
this required repair and the value of repair probably does not warrant costly legal action
on behalf of the owner. Many times in the past the owner has been left with the cost of
repair and the contractor has simply “walked away.”

To protect PWGSC from a contractor who may be delinquent in performing required

warranty repair for “localized failure,” and to ensure added quality and care during
construction, it was decided that the contractor would warranty the coating and its
appearance against all defects in material and workmanship for a period of five years.
The warranty included a $300,000 returnable incentive that was retained by PWGSC.
The contractor was required to engage an independent inspection agency to provide
annual inspections, complete with annual reporting showing required repair at Years 3,
4, and 5. All identified painting failures had to be repaired prior to payment. Table 2
describes the warranty and schedule of holdback release.

Failures of the coating system included but were not limited to:

 Any debonding or failure of adhesion of the coating either to the structural steel or
inter-coat adhesion.
 The appearance of any rust stains on the structure due to loss of coating or due to
leaking from joints between structural members.
 Failure of the coating to resist chipping due to traffic-thrown sand or road chips

Warranty Works

Wardrop Engineering inspected the structure in 2000 and 2001 (Years 1 and 2 of the
warranty period) to monitor the condition of the coating. Inspections during these two
years revealed that there was approximately one failure for every 65 ft2 of structural steel
and that the typical failure size was smaller than a quarter. It confirmed that overall the
condition of the coating was in excellent shape and was performing very well. Coating
failures were isolated to the backs of rivets and edges of flanges (Photo 2). In addition,
the caulking of the pact rust joints was also performing extremely well (Photo 3).

Formal warranty repair works occurred in 2002 and 2003 and will be completed in the
early summer of 2004. Each year the contractor mobilised a small crew of painters and
a NACE certified inspector to perform the repair work and inspection. The repair areas

Page 18
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

were identified by the NACE inspector and by Wardrop to the painters. The painters
then worked ahead of the inspectors making repairs to all failures. Once the painter was
satisfied that all areas had been completed they were inspected by the contractor’s
NACE quality control inspector. Any areas requiring touch-up were identified and
repaired. Finally, a quality assurance inspection was performed as the final litmus test
for the work. Again, any areas requiring repair were identified and repairs were made.
In addition, the contractor’s inspector monitored all aspects associated with the work
including the ambient conditions, mixing of the paint and application.

Photo 3. Typical Condition of Caulking

of Pact Rust Joints

Photo 2. Typical Condition of Coating

All failures that required repair were minor in nature and would be defined as localised
failures. They typically included the backs of rivets, and the edges of flanges. Overall,
less than 0.1% of the structural steel required repair. These areas were difficult to coat
areas and locations where the dry film thickness of the coating could not be measured.
Areas of galvanizing that were partially damaged during the abrasive blasting were also
repaired. Although the size of failures was minimal, it still took the contractor a
signifigant amount of time to inspect the structure and walk/climb over the 380,000 ft2
plus of structural steel.

Table 2 below, summarises the work during the warranty period:

Warranty Calendar Work Payment Person Days

Year Year Spent on
Repairs
1 1999-2000 Warranty Inspection N/A N/A
2 2000-2001 Warranty Inspection N/A N/A
3 2001-2002 Warranty Repairs and $100,000 44
Inspection

Page 19
St. Andrews Lock and Dam Corrosion Protection System - 5 Year Case Study

4 2002-2003 Warranty Repairs and $100,000 15

Inspection
5 2003-2004 Warranty Repairs and $100,000 20
Inspection plus (Estimated)
interest

6.0 Coating Performance and Corrosion Study

The overall performance of the coating system has been excellent as evident by the
minimal amount of repair works required during the warranty period. During this period
32 test locations measuring 50mm x 50mm were set up to monitor the rate of corrosion
of the metallizing coating. In addition, five locations were set up to photographically
monitor the condition of the caulking.

Results from four years of monitoring the rate of corrosion indicate that there is no
measurable corrosion loss. The measured corrosion loss falls within the accuracy of the
dry film thickness gauge and the large amount of variability which is inherent of the
metallizing. Dry film thickness were measured using a Delfasko Positech 6000 F1
gauge.

At each measurement location, three measurements were taken across the top, middle
and bottom. The average of these nine measurements was recorded. The minimum
applied dry film thickness was 10 mils, however, much greater thicknesses were found in
most locations. Typical variability of the coating dry film thickness was 1 to 3 mils when
taking measurements within only one mm of the last measurement. The reason for this
is that the gauge measures the coating thickness from the steel surface to the top of the
metallizing. Since both the steel and metallizing surfaces are “toothed”, there is a high
degree of variability. Remember that the blast profile was 3-4 mils.

The performance of the caulking has been exceptional. The areas monitored
photographically show no signs that the caulking is drying out and losing adhesion to the
metallized surface. This is also the case for the remaining caulked joints throughout the
structure.

Reasons for the success of the caulking are likely attributable to the excellent adhesion
to the metallizing surface, the extremely dry ambient conditions during the construction,
and the extensive removal of the pact rust during construction. At all locations, Mulco
SupraExpert caulk was applied to the joints.

7.0 Conclusion

The zinc metallizing coating system applied to the St. Andrews Lock and Dam will
ensure that the structural steel is protected from corrosion for over 50 years with minimal
maintenance requirements. Although the initial cost of this coating system was greater
than the best 3 coat paint systems, the long-term cost of the coating system is more
economical in the long run. This coating system challenges bridge owners to evaluate
the coating system they are applying to a bridge over the same service life of the bridge
itself.

Page 20