Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/752514
POWDER COATING, November 2016 23 actually prevented adhesion of the pow- der coating to the aluminum substrate. He did not realize this because he had no intention or means of testing for adhesion. Additionally, the makeshift batch oven was unable to get the part and applied powder up to the proper c u r e t e m p e r a t u r e f o r t h e c o r r e c t amount of time, so the parts were under-cured. This was not an apparent concern or problem because there was no attempt at testing the final finish for cure. Amazingly enough, the parts passed what was later referred to in deposition testimony as a "visual color inspection," and they were shipped to the jobsites for assembly to the buildings. Of course, neither the job shop owner nor their fabrication contractor had a clue about professional finishing quality standards or quality test methods, and they had never heard of the acronym AAMA (American Architectural Manufactur- ing Association) according to their later testimony. As you may have guessed, the coating began to fail in the field at the end use customer shortly after installation was complete on all of the buildings. Within a few months of con- tinuous processing and construction, the complaints from the franchise own- ers began to pour in. The owner and his staff ignored the calls and letters from the general contractor demanding that they address the failure and explain what was happening. Shortly thereafter, litigation began. In the meantime, the general contractor researched the proper methods for pro- cessing commercial architectural alu- minum parts and instructed the fabrica- tor to hire a company that was capable of compliance to AAMA 2605 Volun- tary Specification, Performance Require- ments and Test Procedures for Superior Performing Organic Coatings on Alu- minum Extrusions and Panels. The job shop was forced by pending lit- igation to address the failure. The defense turned out to be a disaster of admissions of professional incompe- tence. Months of investigations, inspec- tions, depositions, laboratory testing, and legal review concluded that the job shop was at fault and was responsible for the damages. The following are a few key points that were presented and proven in fact at arbitration in advance of the pending trial by jury: • Poor equipment condition • Poor equipment control • Improper pretreatment method • Improper pretreatment chemistry • Improper powder chemistry for the intended use of the product • Incomplete cure of the finish • No supplier involvement (equipment, chemical, or material) • No employee training • No quality control • No testing equipment • No test methods • No process control documents or records • No specification reference • No first article submittals As much as the job shop owner tried to explain away the whys and the hows of his poor decisions and actions, includ- ing some untruths and attempts to d e c e i v e , t h e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e trumped everything. There is no subjec- tivity in the science used to investigate what really happened. Samples of the failed finish were removed from several of the jobsite locations and sent to an accredited laboratory for testing. Sam- ples were tested for completeness of cure using Differential Scanning Calorime- try (DSC) testing, which provided proof that the coating did not properly cross-link (cure). Additionally, the back of the finish and the metal surface inter- face were analyzed by Scanning Elec- tron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) to iden- tify the elemental constituents beneath the coating. Sodium, silica, iron, calci- um, and other contaminants were found under the finish. Interviews and depositions of the owner, processing personnel, and suppliers were conduct- ed to identify finishing procedures, How NOT to grow your finishing business The following is a short story that is a prime example of what happens when business decisions and actions are based entirely on the pursuit of money with a complete disregard for established fin- ishing industry standards, specifica- tions, and quality control. There once was a fairly successful job shop powder coating company with an average size conveyor line designed for general metal finishing. The owner was contracted to provide the services of powder coat finishing to a metal fabrica- tor that was hired by a general contrac- tor to fabricate, finish, and install archi- tectural aluminum panels and awnings and components that were designed by a professional architect for a food service franchise with buildings located all over the US. The job shop custom coater at the time did not have large enough con- veyor processing equipment to handle the work. The project was so inciting that the job shop owner made a com- mitment to the fabricator and proceed- ed to construct a large makeshift batch oven and powder coating booth to han- dle the large aluminum parts. After construction of the batch oven and booth was complete, the job shop owner began thinking about pretreat- ment. He knew that he lacked the expertise in this area but decided on his own to "invent" his own cheaper, bet- ter, faster way to prepare large architec- tural aluminum metal components for powder coating. So, off to the hardware store he went to purchase a gas-powered pressure washer and a bucket of name brand liquid household alkaline clean- ing soap. He set up the "wash and rinse area" outside of the building using the loading dock because he had no space inside the building to process the large components. He had no means of heat- ing the water and alkaline soap solution. Furthermore, the "clean water supply" to the building came from a local well with very high dissolved solids (hard water) and there was no attempt to filter the water. You probably know by now where this story is headed. The ineffective cold alkaline cleaning process and poor-quality high total dis- solved solids (TDS) rinse water had