Maintenance procedures and definition of limit states for exterior wood coatings

On the industrially finished balcony constructions a few signs of imperfect coating application were observed that led to early alterations in weathering. For the systems with flow application (2, 5, 7, 8 and 9) on single elements from one end to the other, different states of weathering defects were observed after 18 months of exposure. It was figured out that the film thickness of the flow coated elements was distributed unequally, with one side showing smaller (during flow application on top) and the other side higher dry film thicknesses (during flow application on bottom). The areas with smaller film thickness showed defects earlier. Also uneven spreading rates during brush application led to some differences in weathering behavior, which was observed for systems 11, 12 and 13.

It came out that assembling the components before coating application of film forming systems was negative because during weathering moisture spread from a few uncoated areas below the coating film and ended up in local colour changes and flaking of the coating film.

The coating systems showed marked differences in degradation after 18 months of natural weathering before application of the maintenance coatings as well as after 24 months of natural weathering. Ratings of general appearance according to EN ISO 4628-1 of all main components of the balcony constructions are listed in Table 2. All coated surfaces showed at least minor alterations like changes in gloss or colour, superficial mould growth and dirt deposition, so that no surface was rated with a general appearance of zero (0). The most pronounced alterations were observed at the surfaces on the most severely exposed top sides of the hand rails of the balcony constructions, whereas all other parts were less degraded because of their vertical position and occasional protection by other parts. The maintenance coatings on semi-transparent coating systems resulted in slightly darker colours of the surfaces. With the white coating systems the original colour was retained and refreshed by applying the maintenance coating.

Coating systems 1, 2, 3 and 4 were in very good condition before application of the maintenance coating as well as after 24 months of weathering. There were no visible defects of the coating films. The two opaque white coating systems 1 and 2 were the most durable ones, while amongst the semi transparent systems only systems 3 and 4 showed no visible film defects after that period of weathering on the top sides of the hand rails.

For coating systems 5 and 6 the original coating showed minor defects such as small cracks and discolorations around them while on the maintained surfaces no defects were visible, also in the regions around knots and patches in the wood. The coating systems 11 and 12 comprised severe defects on the original surface and somewhat less pronounced defects on the part with the maintenance coating.

The coating systems 13, 14 and 15 with dry film thicknesses around 30 μm can be regarded as non film forming systems and, hence, they revealed a different weathering behavior compared to all other coating systems used in this study. Their surfaces showed numerous coarse and fine cracks in the wood and the original surfaces became matt after 24 months of weathering. However, no colour differences and no flaking were observed in the regions of wood cracks and patches. The surfaces with the maintenance coating also comprised cracks in a similar quantity and size. The matt appearance was, however, replaced by a refreshed surface, clearly darker in colour than the original one.

It was not found that the additional vacuum impregnation at the semi transparent system 7 contributed to better results in weathering than system 8 which was made of the same primer and topcoat.

The results obtained in the weathering trials with balcony constructions revealed differences in durability and weathering behavior of typical coating systems for exterior wood. As expected it was found that the opaque white coating systems 1 and 2 were the most durable ones, showing no defects after 24 months of weathering on the most severely exposed top sides of the hand rails in nearly horizontal position. With these coating systems maintenance was easy and the original colour was retained and refreshed very well. Because of the high durability of the coatings the limit state for maintenance was not reached after 18 months of exposure since the coatings were still in very good shape. Therefore, maintenance was carried out too early on these coating systems and it could have been done after longer periods of exposure.

The semi transparent coating systems 3 and 4 revealed exceptionally high durability; the maintenance coating was applied at an early stage and could have been applied after a longer period of weathering. At systems with lower durability, like systems 7 and 9, a maintenance interval of 18 months after the start of exposure was optimal on the top side of the hand rails because on the maintained surfaces further degradation was prevented while the surfaces without maintenance showed marked alterations in the following six months of exposure. For other less durable systems, like systems 11 and 12, the maintenance coatings were applied on partly degraded coating films with visible defects. Maintenance should have been applied earlier on these surfaces, before visible defects occurred. The coatings have passed the maintenance interval, their condition has proceeded beyond that limit state, and they would have required renovation to repair the defects. In the present stage, however, maintenance prevented further development of the film defects, but the semi transparent maintenance coatings were not able to hide discolorations already present on the surfaces.

Very different characteristics were observed with the low build coating systems 13, 14 and 15. Because of their non film forming character surface degradation was very uniform without local discoloration or flaking. The appearance of many cracks in the wood surfaces required maintenance, which was easy and effective in refreshing the coated surfaces and preventing further degradation. That indicates that limit states of non film forming coatings are different from those of film forming ones.

The maintenance procedures used were simple and effective for all coating systems. Applying the maintenance coatings was beneficial to prolong a coating’s service life and to repair the observed deficiencies from imperfect coating application. Those deficiencies were present in spite of the parts being finished by professional painters and experienced industry partners. This stresses the importance of maintenance of coated wood components in exterior use in proper time intervals. However, it remains difficult to determine the right period for maintenance work, in particular when definitions of limit states are lacking, because maintenance is needed before visible defects occur or at least visible defects are very small and do not require removal of the original coating film.

The experience gathered with the investigated coating systems on balcony constructions showed that durability of coatings systems on wood is characterized by reaching different types of limit states where specific properties become unacceptable for the end-user or from a technical point of view and therefore action is needed to restore them. Table 3 suggests a series of limit states for coating systems on wood that can be reached consequently over time of weathering. The relevant coating properties can be divided into those affecting only the esthetical appearance of a coated surface and those influencing the technical functions of the coating system or the wood components. Therefore, the table includes esthetical limits (L-E) and durability limits (L-D) separately. The latter can be further separated into three levels of durability where the levels L-D1 and L-D2 are related to the coating system itself and the limit state L-D3 indicates the durability of the coated substrate, i.e. the wood component, by the onset of decay in wood, which is unlikely to happen with proper construction and wood preservation. The occurrence of these limit states is indicated by typical and tolerated defects that are listed in the last column of Table 3. The acceptance of esthetical factors depends on subjective impression and therefore emphasis is put on technical defects of coatings. For most of these defects their presence or absence is decisive for the incidence of a limit state and not their quantity or size. For flaking where the quantity is relevant to decide if maintenance or renovation is needed, tolerated values are included in Table 3. Thereby it is intended to allow simple application of these definitions in practice without the need of quantitative test methods or ratings.

For film forming coating systems two durability limits must be defined depending on the status of coating degradation and the work needed either for maintenance or for renovation of the coating system. Minor degradation without visually detectable defects can be acceptable until a maintenance coating is needed. This indicates the maintenance interval of the coating system as limit state L-D1. It is known that even for experts it is sometimes difficult to determine the proper time interval to apply a maintenance coating on top of an aged coating film. With the definition of maintenance as stated in the introduction (MacKenzie et al. 2007) and based on the results of the maintenance trials it becomes obvious that maintenance work contributes to prolong service life of a coating and specified maintenance intervals are therefore needed. If the end-user abstains from maintenance, ongoing degradation of the coating will lead to severe defects and finally the loss of technical functions of the coating (De Meijer 2002). This eventually requires removal of the degraded coating film and the application of a new coating to protect the wood component again. Therefore, maintenance should be considered as a cheap and preventive process to avoid renovation which is more time-consuming and expensive. Regular inspections are recommended in a maintenance scheme.

The results showed that the characteristics of film forming coatings and non film forming coatings are different. With non film forming coatings, flaking and esthetically unacceptable local discoloration are unlikely. Hence, the alterations due to weathering are usually very uniformly distributed over a surface. However, due to the high water permeability of these coatings cracking of wood is not prevented. These characteristics lead to the conclusion that with non film forming systems no separation between maintenance intervals and renovation intervals can be defined and there is only one limit state of coating durability (L-D1=L-D2) which is shown in Table 3.