7 D-Ri04 27 COMPARISON OF TT-F-i898 SOLENT-THINNED BLOCK FILLERS i/i

WlITH &IATER-THINNABL..(I) CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERINGRESEARCH LAB (ARMY) CHAMPAIGN IL S JOHNSTON MAR 85

IUCASFE ELT--58 / 13 N

MEu'..,

L1.

,,.

11 1. E 028 II..L6

#Igo

1111"--8 : I111111-25 11111".4 11111--.-6-

I

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHARTNATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS- 1963-A '4

ZA

9.--: -. , .. --.-... --.-,,--... . . . . . . .... . ... ... . . . .... . . . . . . . . ..: : ., : .-.: ; } ., P .- .- .-...a.: . ;-, .- - . ..: .: ..-. ... . .. .: - ..... .. . : .. _ .: .- : ... ... .....-, -......-.-.-.. .:

US Army Corpsof EngineersConstruction Engineering TECHNICAL REPORT M-85/09Research Laboratory March 1985

COMPARISON OF TT-F- 1098 SOLVENT-THINNED

.. 2 BLOCK FILLERS WITH WATER-THINNABLE

- ~BLOCK FILLERS

' I'V

4 bySusan Johnston

Failures of paint systems using solvent-based* block fillerst to smooth concrete surfaces prior to

painting have been reported in two Corps of En-gineers Districts. This study 'hes evaluated water-thinnable block fillers as a possible alternative tosolvent-based block fillers. The evaluation was basedon testsoof compatibility between the block fillersand various types of topcoats and on acceleratedweathering tests. Solvent-based block fillers 4re

>.. adequate for use with some restrictions; however,0... latex block fillers are equal to solvent-based fillersO) @in their compatibility with most topcoatseend are

Cu- superior for use when the topcoats .contain strongL-' organic solvents. They are also more resistant to

- ,J deterioration caused by ultraviolet light and conden-sation, are easier to work with, provide fewer vaporproblems, and are easier to procure. Latex block

. fillers are therefore considered a good alternative tosolvent-based block fillers.

Approved for public rcleasc: distribution unlimited. E

I .. .,.., *

pv, The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an

,official indorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN ITH IS% I O.%'.bR NEEDEDDO NO T R ETURN I T TO THf ORIA, INA4 TOR

".:d

I.

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (WMhen Date Entered)

PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFRED COMP TIGOBEFORE COMPLETING FORM L

1. REPORT NUMBER 12. ECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

CERL TR M-85/09 __n

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

COMPARISON OF TT-F-1098 SOLVENT-THINNED BLOCK FINAL

FILLERS WITH WATER-THINNABLE BLOCK FILLERS

S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(e) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(p)

S. Johnston

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK

U.S. Army Construction Engr Research Laboratory AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

P.O. Box 4005 FAD 2-24-71

Champaign, IL 61820-1305

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATEMarch 479.4

13. NUMBER OF PAGES

1314. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report) C.

UNCLASS IF IED

IS.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

ak

S IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are obtainable from the National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22161

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side It necessary nd Identify by block number)

masonryblock fillerscoatingsTT-F-1098

20. A T1ACT (Centhue - everse I It necety a Identify by block number)

Failures of paint systems using solvent-based block fillers to smooth concrete surfacesprior to painting have been reported in two Corps of Engineers Districts. This study has

evaluated water-thinnable block fillers as a possible alternative to solvent-based block

fillers. The evaluation was based on testseof compatibility between the block fillers

and various types ofdopcoats and on accelerated weathering tests. Solvent-based blockfillerswre adequate for use with some restrictions; however, latex block fillers are equal tosolvent-based fillersein their compatibility with most topcoats and are superior for usewhen the topcoatsaontain strong organic solvents. They are also more resistant to deteri-

DO IFOD 1473 EDITION OF I NOV s5IS OBSOLETEUJA 73 UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

.......................................................................

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGKi(When Dote Entge"0

BLOCK 20 (Continued)

oration caused by ultraviolet light and condensation, are easier to work with, providefewer vapor problems, and are easier to procure. Latex block fillers are therefore con-sidered a good alternative to solvent-based block fillers.

,'%

a_'.

UNCLAS S IF Il.DSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGl[(W1?en Data Bnlted)

", -. .-.J ... - . - . -. - - . - . • * .. . - . . . . .,

FOREWORD

This study was conducted for the Directorate of Engineering and Construction, Officeof the Chief of Engineers (OCE), under Funding Authorization Document 2-24-71, dated25 March 1983. The work was performed by the Engineering and Materials Division(EM), U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research La boratory (USA-CERL). The OCETechnical Monitor was John lchter, DAEN-ECE-S.

Dr. Robert Quattrone is Chief of EM. COL Paul J. Theuer is Commander and Directorof USA-CERL, and Dr. L. R. Shaffer is Technical Director.

F GOSSOUFo

NTS A

Distritut lO/

Aia.fdc

3

CONTENTS

Page

DD FORM 1473 1FOREWORD 3

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................... 5BackgroundObjectivesApproachMode of Technology Transfer

2 REPORTED FIELD PROBLEMS ................................ 5

Indiana Army Ammunition PlantWhite Sands Missile Range

3 SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE TESTING ........................... 6

4 DESCRIPTION OF COMPATIBILITY ANDACCELERATED WEATHERING TESTS ............................ 8

Compatibility TestsAccelerated Weathering TestsCompatibility Test ResultsAccelerated Weathering Test Results

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 9

DISTRIBUTION

4°.4

COMPARISON OF TT-F-1098 adequate, (2) can be used with some restrictions, orSOLVENT-THINNED BLOCK FILLERS (3) should be removed from the guide specificationWITH WATER-THINNABLE in favor of CID A-A-1500A or some other type ofBLOCK FILLERS material.

ApproachProblems with TT-F-1098 reported at two Army

INTRODUCTION, installations were investigated and categorized.

Two samples of TT-F-1098 block filler and six

Background samples of water-thinnable block fillers were selectedBefore painting porous surfaces such as rough from various manufacturers. The samples were tested

concrete, concrete block, stucco, and other masonry, for conformance to Federal Specification TT-F-1098Army installation maintenance personnel use masonry or CID A-A-I 500A, as appropriate. The samples were

fillers to fill open pores and voids to produce a fairly applied to rough concrete block surfaces and topcoatedsmooth surface. Corps of Engineers Guide Specifica- as specified in CEGS 09910 to test compatibility. Thetion (CEGS) 099101 specifies TT-F-1098 block filler block fillers were also tested by accelerated weatheringas a first coat o, exterior-surface concrete masonry, techniques to evaluate their resistance to the effects ofunits and on interior surfaces where there will be sunlight and condensation.frequent cleaning or where the surfaces will often bewet or damp. TT-F-1098 is a solvent-thinned material Mode of Technology Transferbased on vinyl toluene butadiene copolymer resin. It is anticipated that the information in this report

This coating has been implicated in coating failures will impact on CEGS 09910.

in field use, and private industry, which uses mostlylatex block fillers, considers the coating to be veryinadequate. 2lREPORTED FIELD PROBLEMS

In September 1982, the Corps of Engineers' FortWorth District suggested replacing the TT-F-1098 Indiana Army Ammunition Plantpaint systems with systems based on a water-thinnable The 155-mm Center Core Building at Indiana Armyblock filler. Advantages cited were: greater compati- Ammunition Plant, Charlestown. IN. was built in 1982bility with topcoats containing strong solvents, easier using concrete block construction. Some *of the

, to work % :th and clean up, less sensitivity to damp building's rooms required a water-resistant coatingsubstrates, fewer problems with vapors in enclosed that would be able to withstand downaras adgratr vilbiit ro mnuatuer.system tawolbebetoihsndhosing dwareas, and greater availability from manufacturers. with water. The system specified for these interior

SAewalls was of TT-F-1098 block filler, topcoated with.. " A u C cTT-C-535 epoxy. This system is recommended in

for a water-thinnable block filler (A-A-I 5OOA) was CEGS 09910 for use on concrete masonry unitspublished in 1981. its use is not widespread because located in heavy traffic areas and in areas requiringit is not mentioned in the guide specification. a high degree of sanitation. The coatings had been

applied in the fall of 1982.Objectives

The objectives of this study were to (I) investigate The contractor had been instructed to apply thethe use and failures of TT-F-1098 block fillers and block filler with a long-nap paint roller, wait about(2) compare TT-F-1098 to water-thinnable (latex) 5 minutes, and then remove the excess block tillerproducts formulated for the same purpose. Results from the surface of the concrete block with a squeegee.would determine if the TT-F-1098 specification (1) is The epoxy topcoat was to be applied no sooner than

24 hours after application of the block filler. Within4 months after application of the coatings, the paint

'Corps of Engineers Guide Specification (C'I;GS) 09910. began to peel and crack. In May 1983, LouisvilleGeneral Painting, (Office of the Chief of Engineers, January1978). District asked the U.S. Army Construction Engineering2(Commercial Item Description A-A-I5tJOA. Sealer. .5urfj' Research Laboratory (USA-CERL) to inspect the siteILatex Block hiller) (General Services Administration, July to help determine the cause of the failure and recom-29. 1981). mend corrective measures.

5

......

- - - -

When USA-CERL personnel visited the facility, the could soften the film and keep it soft until the solvents* epoxy paint system was peeling and cracking on wall evaporated. This means that the filler would be soft

surtaces in several rooms within the building: large while the epoxy was curing, a time when stresses arechips of paint up to 8 in. (203.2 mim) or more across built up in the epoxy film as it hardens. This could

-. had come loose from the concrete block wall. The result in the type of failure noted.paint had disbonded within the layer of block filler.The paint chips had a total thickness of IS to 25 mils White Sands Missle Range

" (.38 to 64 min). and several mils of block filler re- In 1978 and again in 1982, the White Sands Missilemained on the wall. In many areas, the pattern of the Range in the Fort Worth District experienced failuresnap of the paint roller was visible on the surface of the of the TT-F-1098/TT-C-535 system. In a Design orblock filler. Thus, it was apparent that the contractor Project Deficiency Report dated 8 September 1982.had not followed instructions to remove excess block poor bonding was reported between the block fillerfiller from the wall surface. and the epoxy topcoat. Paint spalls had been coming

off the concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls all the wayBlock filler had also been applied as a first coat on down to the CMU substrate. The strong solvents in the

structural support members with a smooth concrete two-component epoxy topcoats were thought to be. surface, which was unnecessary, since TT-C-535 affecting the resin of the TT-F-1098 block filler and

epoxy will adhere to smooth concrete surface without "liffing'" it off the wall.a prime coat. The coating had failed on these areas aswell. A latex paint had been used over the block filler The problem was avoided by placing a barrier coaton interior areas of the building that are not required of TT-P-29 interior latex paint between the two

I to be water-resistant. No failure of the latex system materials. The latex was not visibly affected by thewas observed, strong solvents in the epoxy. The system originally

specified called for two coats of the epoxy to beIn at least one room in the building, the epoxy applied over the block filler. However, White Sands

block filler system did not fail. Because the adhesion personnel found that they could get a good system- was good, it was difficult to judge the thickness of the by replacing one coat of the TT-C-535 with the TT-P-

filler. However. no marks from the nap of the paint 29. This also saved money, because the latex is lessroller were visible. The appearance of the surface expensive than the epoxy it replaced. In both cases,indicated that the underlying block filler was not as the masonry walls were dampened before the fillerthick as on the tailed areas. USA-CERL thus concluded was applied, in accordance with Guide Specificationthat the failure was due to excessive thickness of the CE-250, now superseded by CEGS 09910. However,block filler and recommended that the peeling areas CE-250 recommended dampening the surface of thebe scraped thoroughly, and that the excess block masonry walls before application of cement-emulsion

. tiller be removed by hand or power tools down to the filler. This recommendation does not apply to solvent-surface of the concrete block. The affected areas thinned materials such as TT-F-1098, which must be

* could then be recoated with the original epoxy top- applied to thoroughly dry substrates (see para. 12.5 ofcoat. Adhesion would be expected to improve be- CEGS 09910).

-, cause the epoxy would be in contact with the surfaceof the concrete block to some extent; the block fillerwould only be in the pores. not on the entire surfaceof the block. SPECIFICATION

.COMPLIANCE TESTINGIn April 1984, Louisville District contacted USA-

CERL once again because the peeling problem hadworsened, expanding into areas that had not been Block fillers were selected from various manufactur-affected previously. Two manufacturers of TT-F-1098 ers and tested for compliance with CEGS 09910block filler had submitted letters to Louisville District according to test methods outlined in Fed. Spec.stating that the resin in the block filler was incompat- TT-F-1098 and CID A-A-1500A. Tables I and 2 sum-ible with strong solvents such as those found in TT-C- marize the test results.535 epoxy. Further investigations at USA-CERLshowed that the strong organic solvents in the TT-C-535 Two of the water-thinnable block fillers (Chemrextopcoat readily dissolve the vinyl toluene butadiene Vinyl and Sandstrom) had a viscosity reading of morecopolymer resin in TT-F-10). Thus, the topcoat than 141 Krebs Units (KUI), which was the maximum

6

i,%

p'.

Table I

Results of TT-F-1 098 Tests for Block Fillers

Requirements Chemrex PPG

Min. Max. TT-F-1098 TT-F-1098

Condition in Container OK OKViscosity, Krebs Units 120 118 104Appearance OK OKTotal Solids, % 71.6 1(1"Nonvolatile Vehicle Content, % 22 27.6 35.2Vehicle % of Filler 40 43 38.9 40.9Pigment Content, % 57 60 61.1 59.1Weight per Gallon, lb 11 11.9 11.8Dry Set-to-Touch, hr 1/4 3/4 OK OKDry Hard, hr 2 OK OKBrushing Properties OK OKDilution Stability OK OKLifting OK OKStorage Stability, 6 mos. OK OKSkinning OK OK

Adhesion OK OK

Color (near white) OK OKVinyl Copolymer % NVV 58 66.5 65.9Freeze-thaw OK OK

Table 2Results of CID A-A-1 500A Tests for Block Fillers

Requirements Chemrex Moor- Bloc- Sand- ChemrexMin. Max. NV craft Fil strom Vinyl Vista

Condition in Container OK* OK OK OK OK OKViscosity, Krebs Units 10 125 110 107 123 141+ 1414+ 100Appearance OK OK OK OK OK OKTotal Solids, % 55.8 59.4 63.4 61.8 62.0 58.8Nonvolatile Vehicle Content, % 24.6 18.1 20.3 10.1 20.0 24.8Vehicle % of Filler 58.6 49.6 45.9 42.5 30.4 54.8Pigment Content, % 41.4 50.4 54.1 57.5 69.6 45.2Weight per Gallon, lb 11.5 12.4 12.8 12.7 13.7 11.2Dry Set-to-Touch, hr 1/4 3/4 OK OK OK OK OK OKDry Hard. hr 2 OK OK OK OK OK OKBrushing Properties OK OK OK OK OK OKLifting OK OK OK OK OK OKStorage Stability OK OK OK OK OK OKSkinning OK OK OK OK OK OKAdhesion OK OK OK OK OK OKColor (near white) OK OK OK OK OK OKFreeze-thaw OK I AIL OK OK OK OK

*Chemrex Nonvibrated Block I-iller has an unusual, almost "curdled" consistency, but this is normal for this product.

' : " "" " .~ - ,. . ... -..- . .,

viscosity measurable by the Krebs-Stormer viscometer. exterior systems to increase water resistance, and TT-F-They were still byushable, but were more ditficult to 1098 is specified for filling concrete block surfaces inwork with than the less viscous block fillers, interior laundry or latrine areas which will be ,et

frequentlv, are in heavy traffic areas, and require aMoorciaft water-thinnable block filler failed the high degree of sanitation. Many types of topcoats are

tree/e-thaw test. Tie tiller formed a gumnv solid specified for use over TT-F-1098, including latex,which could not be broken Lip. The other products epoxy, polyurethane. chlorinated rubber, and oil-basedpassed the fieeze-thaw test, with viscosity increases paints. Seven of these were selected to test theirne er exceeding 8 Kt' after thiee cycles of 16 hours at compatibility with block fillers:

) ± I CC followed by one cycle of 8 houts at 25 -I 1_1c.

These fillers showed no significant changes in either I . TT-S-1 79, Sealer , Surface: Pigmented Oil. fotblu shing properiles or appearance of the died filmu. Plaster aid Wallboard.

One conc!usion was also made regarding the testing 2. TT-E-545, Enamel. Odorless, Alkyd, Interiormethods based on the test results. CID A-A-1 5OOA Undercoat. Flat, Tints. and White.sihould be updated to include two changes. First. theflexibility test should be eliminated, because concrete 3. TT-P-I9. Paint, Acrylic Emulsion, Exterior.nasonry units do 1not expand or Contract significantly.,o tlexibility is not a necessary requirement. Second, 4. TT-P-95, Paint. Rubber, for Swimming Pools andthe method for testing adhesion with an Elconeter Other Concrete and Masonry Surfaces.adhesion tester should be updated. Currently, the tilleris applied with a drawdown blade to electrolitic tin 5. TT-C-535, Coating, Epoxy, Two-Component , forpaniels of unspecified thickness at a wet film thickness Interior Use on Metal, Wood, Wallboard, Painted Sur-of 10 Tils 1.25 nm). The saine method is used to faces, Concrete. and Masonry.prepaie test specim ens for the flexibility test, whichgenerally uses tin panels only 1/32 in. (.8 nn) thick. 6. iT-C-542, Coating, Polyurethane, Oil-Free, Mois-Elcometer tests shoald be performed on substrates at lure Curing.least 1/4 ii. (6.4 am) thick to avoid errors caused bydeformation of the substrate during tle test. The paints were purchased from the General Services

Administration.

Concrete patio block 8 X 16 X 2 in. (203.2 X 406.4DESCRIPTION OF X 50.ni mm) were used as test specimens. Each systemCOMPATIBILITY AD tested was applied to one half of ine face of nine patio

blocks ar 8- X 8-in. (203.2- X 203.2-nm) area. The

block fillers, both TT-F.1098 and water-thinnable.rile most critical factor in evaluating the latex block were applied at a spreading rate of 50 sq ft/gal (4.5

tillers is their compatibility with various types of top- I 2/3.8 L). The fillers were allowed to dry 3 to 5coats. Therefore. a series of compatibility tests was minutes, and then the excess material was removeddevised to conparc the latex and the solvent-based with a squeegee. TIme block fillers were dried forblock tilles. Additional tests were developed in re- 24 hours before topcoats were applied. The topcoats

iponsc t t he field complaint that TT-F-1098 block were brushed on at the spreading rates recommendedtillcis yellowed and chalked severely it left exposed for each paint. The test specimens were dried forwithout a topcoat to sunlight for more than a few days. 14 days before testing.Tihe guide specification does not warn against leavingtle block fillers uncoated for a period of time. The ac- The adhesion of each specimen was tested ac-,.elerated w&eathering tests are significant, but not as cording to ASTM D 3359, Method B, "Measuringc tical as the compatlibility tests because the block Adhesion by Tape Test," in which a number of parallelfillers are riot recommnended fIr use without a topcoat. cuts are Made through the film to Ire substrate.

Identical cuts are then nade perpendicular to tie firstCompatibility Tests ones to make a cross-hatch pattern. Adhesive tape is

(F:GS 09 10 specifi-e, several systens lor interior presed ,over the area and removed by pulling back at.ind exterior concrete masonmv units. IT-F-I098 ot an angle of 180 degrees. The area is inspected with ancernent-emulsion tiller is specified as the first coat for illnminated imagnifier tin reoval ut time coating fron

.. .., , , .. . . -. .. , .-. . ...-. -.-... .. .. . .. -. .-.-. . -, .-.- ..- -. -. ., - , .- .- - - --S

* - -,. - - -b -. , - . . . .- ,- - .c c rml , rr'. rrv . _-,, +++ : . nw: , V' : - -. ', rV r r. ''T "'.+_ . '

the substrate or froim a previous coating. A kit manu- The appearance of all the fillers was satisfactory.factured b, Paul N. Gardner Company, Inc., Lauder- Voids were filled so that a smnooth, cont inutous coat ofdale By-The-Sea, FL, provided the cutting tools, tape, p,-int could be applied. Chemrex Nonvibrated Blockand magnifier. The cutting tool has teeth to make eight Filler gave a somewhat rougher surtace than the otherscuts It a tine, 2.0 mmni apart, because of its "'curdled' consistency: however, this

rtoughness appeared to atfect only tile appearance.Accelerated Weathering Tests not tile perfornance.

The latex and the IT-F-I098 block fillers weretested in accelerated exposure to compare the resist- It should be noted that the TT-F-I098 fromance t' each to degradation by a combination of Chemrex had a much lower average adhesion valueSun.ignt arid condensation. The ASTM Test Method than any of the others. The TTI-F-1098 manufacturedG 53. "Operating Light- and Water-Exposure Appara- by PPG had an average well within the range of theiu for E,'posure of Nonmetallic Materials." was used, water-thinnable block fillers.in wkhtch specimens are alternately exposed to ultra-%iolet W(VI lieht alone and then condensation alone in One system (TT-E-545 alkyd enamel applied overa repetitive cycle. The UV source is an array of fluores- Chenrex TT-F-I098) began to peel severely after onlycent lamps. whose emissions are concentrated in the 3 days of curing at room temperature (see Figure I).IV range. Condensation is produced by exposing the When the test was repeated, similar results were oh-test surface t, a heated, saturated mixture of air and tained. However, none of the other systems showed,rater vapor, while exposing the reverse side of the visible failure during the testing.specimen it) the cooling influence of ambient roomair. The apparatus used was the UVCON model UC-I Accelerated Weathering Test Resultsmlanufactured by Atlas Electrical Devices Company, The binders in the latex block fillers were muchChicago, IL. more resistant to tile effects of ultraviolet light and

condensation than was tile tile vinyl toluene butadiene

The test panels were pieces ot cement asbestos copolyner resin in the TT-F-I098 block fillers. Thesiding material of 3 X () X I,,8 in. (76.2 X 228.6 latex block fillers showed much less yellowing aridX 3.2 nun!). Block tillers were applied to the panels chalking.and allo,,sed to dr for 3 days before testing. Tile

nanels %kere then exposed in tile t'V('ON tOr 16 days. Figure 2 plots tile yellowness index (N) vs. timeTristtiuUs colo0 values were determined every 48 for each of tile block fillers. Tile latex block fillershours. according to ASTM D 2244 "Standard Method ,rellowed very little during the test. The solvent-ftor InstrmnCutal [valiat1 irr, ot Color Differences of thinned block fillers yellowed very rapidly at first,Opaque Materials." ile yellowness index. N. was then leveled off as chalk residues covered the surface.calculated front the follhwing ttrnula published in The Chem rex Nonvibrated Block Filler had ain initialFed. Test Methoid Std. No,. 141 B (February I, 197()), yellowing index niuch higher than any of the others,Method 63 31 but it did not increase significantly during the test.

I .250X I .03,8Z) The latex block fillers had only tra'es of chalk onN-q I the siface after 16 days of exposure in the UVCON.

The TT-F-I098 block fillers began to chalk heavilywhere X. Y. and Z are the International ('omnission very early in the test.orr Illurminatirn tistirnitlus values. Reprrted N valuesare tire average of five readings onm each paniel at each48-hour interval.

CONCLUSIONS ANDCompatibility Test Results RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 3 summrlarizes the compatibility test results.('tlUn is 3 and 4 rt the table list tile values if' thecoss-hatch adhesion test before arid alter 7 days at The TT-F-I098 block filler specification is adequateelevated temperature and humidity. Columns 5 and 6 under nmost conditions encountered at Army installa-are tire sun of the ''before" and "'after' values ft)r each tions. However, it ,lould not be used under topcoatssvstemn. and the average of the suris fOr each block with strong organic solvents such as TT-C-535 epoxy.tiller. respectively. The most often reported field problems center around

w eew ,l~e - .- e • - % p + . . * . .= = , . + . -. - - xm .,%4 -" -. "% . % . . -

Table 3

Compatibility Test Results*

Block Adhesion Adhesion AdhesionFiller** Topcoat Before After Total Average

(hcrex TT-C-535 5 4 9 3.5"T-1 -1098 TT-C-542 1 0 I

TT-F-545 0 0 0TT-P-I 9 2 1 3TT-P-95 3 0 3TT-S-179 3 2 5

PP(; TT-C-535 4 4 8 7.2iT- -1098 TT-C-542 4 2 6

TT-F-545 4 3 7TI-P-I 9 4 4 8TT-P-95 5 3 8TT-S-I 79 4 2 6

Bhc-I d TT-C-535 5 4 9 7.3TT-C-542 4 3 7TT-V-545 4 3 7TT-P-I 9 4 3 7TT-P-95 4 3 7TT-S-179 4 3 7

(hcmnrcx TT-C-535 5 4 9 7.8Nonvibratcd TT-C-542 5 4 9

TT--.-545 3 4 7TT-P-I 9 4 2 6TT-P-95 4 5 9TT-S-I 79 5 2 7

(hcrnrcx Vin, I Ti-C-535 5 2 7 7.2TT-C-542 5 4 9TT-I- -545 4 2 6IT-P-1 9 4 4 8TT-P-95 5 2 7TT-S-179 4 2 6

T I-( -535 5 4 9 7.0TT--542 5 3 8TT- -545 3 2 5I -P-I9 4 2 6IT-P95 4 3 7TI -S-17 5 2 7

N,11.'4 1 5 5 10 6.8II14 42 4 2 611 --4- 4 2 61 4 2 6rF " I'4 3 7

4 2 6

114 4 9 7.8I11 '42 4 3 7i I -4, 4 2 6

IlF'i 4 4 8liII, 4 9

4 4 8

I M l ,1, 0 ) 3359.I.h b '!'j' I Tl ITrc Ii Ic irT %tlcr-hasid.

I..

T TI w, ,C1, T T R,- _.Z_7_,.:_._.q7.4

Figure 1. Example of* severe peeling ot t'iller.

timlings of thre 1I-1(-535 epoxy topcoat whleii applied 4. They Lire move widely m1anlillitcted an1d iheiC-Ie 1 1-1 -10')S so0lvent-thinnejId block filler. These f'ore easier- to piOcUre.L

Crdlen ceil when thle %il (oluene hultadieneCoqC I 'p net r esinl InI I--I (lS is softened by thle strong (onciete masonry units do not expand or contract111r1-1.11ik h ill die epoxy topcoat . This ,Sstem, significantly. so block ftlers do not need testing f"or

ill p~oitcilar. 55 'tld~ he Improved hy ic placing thle flexibility. Subst rates used for testinig adhesion should1 1-1 -1i9iS hI ick filer with a latex block tillet ithat be at least 1,'4 inl. (0.4 nim) thick to avoidl errors

\\,oid he mote iesistant ito attack roin itie strong caulsed by det,0riltiioln.M'kent, Ill the epo\\y topc~oat.

Since wate -t hintiable block tillers have nom been[-,tic\ blok tillers are as compatible as or move shown) to be comlpat ible N\ ith tile topcoat', Specified ill

w tmlpatile thtan TTi--I , M)~bock fIllers with thle ('[(iS 09)10. and have manym othei advantazges. theytosselected hrio ULI.(,s f09910. Thley perf'orml should hie iticluded inl (IGS 099'- 10. as a contr Iactors

* betx~ ili tin the Ti-IltO1) blocLk tillers Wheti top- option. T-F-I 098 can tbe msed. h mit ntiunder epiixco)iled vs tl paints containing 5troig s lvent andL di topcoat TT-C-535. It should retin il thle guide11'' s llik andl chalk excessively it' left exposed to speciticaltion heca use it alone shoi d be used onl

* imlhelt -I to.' AM)o rae severlal oHii adVantagCe l c stirtaIces which bave been painted previously . The guideiI-l s speciticat itill should state spciticallx that it) prevenlt

elloiuwng or- clialktug. TJ.F-l0is block fillet shoiruldl I luc aic eaIsier tI( stirk wsill and Jleanl up. noti be lef't without a topoat tor noteI thlan a few

days oin exterior smuraces. C'imtmercial Item IDeseiip-[lies~~~~~~~~~ ca eapidoe dti tbtaetili A-A-I 500A shtiid ble upda6ted tii e1liinate thle

ilcxibilit\ test and to Specify a1 subi iae panel Ohick-[lietv p~ tetel ptiitseits \01th vapors III ell- nless ot, at least I 4 ill. (6).4 m)1 tot the Iclcmuter

Ji Nctl it I u adlme-sii in test.

0 I0

000

N40

d0 d0

**N 'x3IN I SS3NMOTJ-3). N 'X~aNI SS3NMO'113A E

0 4)0-

L.1 0

x I.

w NAl.7-

IAIJ

w 40

CD ID

N X3UNI SS3NMO-113Ak N 'X3cJNI SS3NMO-113,k

40

zL d I

0 N Xa~ S3M-1'3,

AL 2

C,)

4

C4

0 d4o

LiN 'X3aN1 SS3NMO113Ak

01

CERL DISTRIBUTION

Chief of EngineersATTNa Tech Monitor INSCON - h ai. DivATTN DAEN-ASI-L (2) ATITM FaciLties Engineer (3)

ATTN: OAEN-CCpATTN: DAEN-CW NDW, ATTN: DES (3)ATTN: DAEN-CIE

ATTN: DAEN-CWN-R MTHC

ATTN' DLN-CWO ATTN MTMC-SA 20315

ATTN: DAEN-CWF ATTN: Facilities EgLU4er (3)

ATTN: DASN-ECATTN: DAEN-ECC NAIADCON, ATTt DROL-F 01160

ATTN: DARN-ECKATTN: DARN-ECd TCCU, loc. Div. 4090ATTN: DABN-RDATTM: DARN-DC T RADIC

ATTN: DAN-RDM HQ, TI30OC, ATNt ATN-DIH

ATTN: DAN-RN ATHis 03R (19)

', ATTN: DAEN-ZCEATINi osa-zcr TSARCON, ATIIM STSAS-F 63120ATTM: DAN-ZCATIN: DAZN-,CH USACC, ATTIl Facilities Sanr (2)

ATTN: DAEM-ZCZ

FESA, AITN: Library 22060 AIIt DER, Ft, Shatter 96858

ATTN: DIT I1 79906 ATI: MEZN-IN

US Army Engineer Districts SNAPE 09055

ATTN: Library (41) AYII: Sur. Section, CCB-OpsInfraetructuire rdach, LANDA

r '',us AM'Y zgBneac Divisions

ATTM: Library (14) HQ USUCON 09128ATINt ICJ 417-LE

US Army EuropeAZ-AN-ODCS/EUr 09403 Fort eIeloir, VA 22070 (7)

ISAR 09081 AIM: Canadian Liaiaon Office

SV Corps ATtI: Water Resources Support Cer

ATTN: DES (11) ATTM: ngr Studies CenterVII Corps ATTl: Sngr Topographic Lab.

ATTN: DEN (15) ATTI ATZA-DTE-S1U

21st Support Command ATTN: ATZA-DTx-EN

ATTM: DER (12) AMI 0IIs CommandUSA BerlinATT: DER (11) CMIEL, ATTNS Library 03755

USASETAT

ATTN: DER (10) WEB, ATTN, Library 39180Allied Command Europe (ACE)

AT I: DES (3) MQ, XVIII ALrborn Corpsand Fort Bragg

8th USA, Korea (19) AIIN LFlA-FE-El 28307

"OK/US Combined Forces Command 96301 Area Engineer, AKRC-Area Office

ATTN: EUSA-HH-CFC/Enr Arnold Air Force Station, TN 37389

USA Japan (USASJ) Chanute AnS, IL 6186aATTMt AJE-ORS 96343 3345 CIS/D1, Stop 27AIIN DER-Honshu 96343

ATTNI DEN-Okinava 96331 Norton AYF, CA 92409ATTN AFICE-mx/DgI

,. . 416th Engineer Command 60623

ATIN: Facilities Engineer NAFACATTN: Engineering Command (7)

US Military Academy 10966 ATTN: Division Offices (6)

ATTN: Facilities Engineer ATTN: Noval Public Works Center (9)

ATTN: Dept of Geography & AIIN: Naval School, MRall Library

Computer Science AIN Naval Civil Egr Lab. (3)

AIIN DSCPERI/MAIN-ANCEL AIIM: Library, Code LOSA 93041

"AJMC, ATTN DiXuJ-WE 02172Defense Technical Info. Center 22314

USA AUCON 61299 ATTN ODA (12)AIIN: DRCIS-RI-I

AIIMt OSR-tS Ear Societies Library, My 10017

AMIC - Dir., last., & Servc Natl Guard bureau Iotl. Div 20310

ATrN: DEN (23)US Govt Printin office 22304

DIA ATT: DLA-VI 22314 Receiving Sect/DepoeLtory Copies (2)

,A - , DNA AIIns NAD 20305 US Army Env. Hygiene Agency

AIIM: 1SlM-S 21010

FOUCOMFORCOW Engr' AIIM: MEN-DES national Bureau of Standards 20760AIIM: DUN (23)

GSA 98001NSC

AII: HSLO-F 78234 331S.A AIIM: Facilities Engineer 03/22/85

Fitasimons AMC 60240Walter Roed AMC 20012

• ..... .. ,....... . -- . ..... - . + . .- ,> +.' ' .-. ', ., '

0

.4. LL u6w

j 2Z

ILAJ a-J

co 0U.-

w0

IL U. >

z SE

0

FILMED

6-85

DTlC