Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/862794
18 POWDER COATING, August 2017 We had zinc on our hands — A technical overview of HDG and a reflection on customer service In the past, my articles have focused on technical issues as well as customer service challenges that we as cus- tom coating shops have to face. Despite having written about these things, I still find myself in the humbling position of learning from my mistakes. In this article, I will recount a recent incident where we completed a job to what we considered acceptable by past experience. The job was on galvanized light poles that were fabricated from plate and hollow structural steel (HSS). The complaints from the customer included the appearance of the welds, the finish smoothness, and the appear- ance of the galvanize after powder coat- ing. Following this, I will identify some key resources that have helped me hone my understanding of what different associations have to say about both structural steel in general and galvanize quality specifically. Setting the stage Like any good drama, it is important for me to set the stage and name the key players. After a brief synopsis, I will cut to the climax of the story and then share the lesson of the story and how my future actions will change as a result of my present pain, as well as the resources that I have since familiarized myself with to better aid my employees and customers in defining and understand- ing what is acceptable when receiving customer goods. At the end of April 2017, we complet- ed a job for a local municipality. Aegis was contacted by a local fabricator, who was in turn hired by an architect that was working alongside a general contractor for the project. The chain of custody looked something like what is shown in Photo 1. The initial request for quote (RFQ) came to us from the fabricator (our cus- tomer). As is standard with galvanized parts, we explained that galvanized parts can have runs and sags in them that we typically remove prior to brush blasting and coating the parts. This was indicat- ed in the quote and a price was provid- ed. [Problem #1: Varied expectations of surface prep] The architect had provided the fabrica- tor with a liquid paint color sample, and because the color was unclear, we received permission from our customer to contact the architect directly to iden- tify an acceptable RAL color choice. [Problem #2: Assumptions regarding details of conversation—we talked color but it was assumed we spoke about finish quality] The pieces came to our shop directly from the galvanizer. As is standard prac- tice, we photographed it (see Photo 2) and spent approximately three hours dressing the parts. In some areas, the galvanize was uneven but still intact. We processed the order and were satis- fied with the finish. Post finish inspection The main thing that we are concerned about when coating galvanize is pin- holes as a result of outgassing. The rea- sons why this happens are varied, how- ever we were satisfied with the appear- ance and let the customer know that the parts were ready to ship. Fast forward over a month to the day we received an email from our customer say- ing that the architect had identified a number of deficiencies regarding the light poles after they had been installed on site. [Problem #3: No checkpoint prior to installation] These deficiencies, as depict- ed in Photo 3, allegedly included: • Uneven finish • Concern regarding the welds • Damage to the coating This is where it gets frustrating. The ini- tial correspondence indicated there was a problem with the powder coating and that a poor job had been done at our shop. Our customer questioned why we let the product leave the shop without calling them about the appearance. We could say "that's what galvanize looks like" until we were blue in the face, but everyone outside of our company expect- ed something different. In hindsight, the areas of concern did look ugly, but we accepted this appearance based on the standard of cleaning that we had quoted and our acceptance that galvanize is an industrial corrosion protection system. In the Corrosion 2001 paper titled "Inspection of Hot Dipped Articles," Dr. Langill writes: "The inspector must remember that the coating is intended to be a corrosion protection system and not an architectural masterpiece 1 ." Evi- dently, the architect had higher expecta- tions than us. It is fair to say that we could have done more to clarify our cus- tomer's expectations at the beginning of the job. It's galvanizing—what could go wrong? The American Galvanizers Association (AGA) lists 25 surface conditions 2 , some that require outright rejec- tion and repair and others that are acceptable within certain ranges. In the case of the defects that we were dealing with, there were two present at the Chris McKinnon Aegis Industrial Finishing Coater's Corner Coater's Corner