DOI

10.5703/1288284313323

Abstract

The study identifies various painting systems that are successfully used in Indiana’s surrounding states and other industries. The identified systems are further screened and evaluated. After prudently comparing INDOT’s inorganic zinc / vinyl system with the waterborne acrylic system, the moisture cure urethane coating system, and the 3-coat system of zinc-epoxy-urethane, the results show that the new 3-coat system fulfills INDOT’s needs with the most benefits. Therefore, the 3-coat system is recommended to replace INDOT present inorganic zinc / vinyl system. To deal with the problems facing the lead-based paint, a comparison between full-removal and over-coating alternatives is made. Results show that over-coating might provide a good protection for less than half the cost of full-removal; however it delays the lead full-removal process and does not completely solve the environmental problem. The metalization of steel bridges is seemingly a potential protection policy. After reviewing standards and specifications on metalization, it is shown that metalization jobs require a higher degree of control. It suits on-shop practices, however, the initial cost is considerably high. This study also describes a life cycle cost analysis that was done to determine an optimal painting system for INDOT. Herein, a deterministic method of economic analysis and a stochastic method of Markov chains process are used. The analysis not only reconfirms that the 3-coat system is the comparatively better painting system, but also generates an optimal painting maintenance plan for INDOT. To assure the quality of paint material and workmanship after substantial completion of the painting contract, the development of legally binding and dependable warranty clauses is initiated in this study. The developed painting warranty clauses were primarily derived from the painting warranty clauses used by IDOT, MDOT, and INDOT’s pavement warranty clauses. A comparative study was conducted on eleven essential categories. Among them, it was found that the warranty period, the definition of “defect”, and the amount of the warranty bond all need further evaluation.

Report Number

FHWA/IN/JTRP-98/21-V

Keywords

coating, inspection, life cycle cost analysis, Markov Chains Process, metalization, painting, quality control, steel bridge, warranty clauses, SPR-2038

SPR Number

2038

Project Number

C-36-26J

File Number

4-4-10

Performing Organization

Joint Transportation Research Program

Publisher Place

West Lafayette, IN

Date of this Version

1999

Download Free PDF

Share

COinS