Atlantic City Test FenceView of Atlantic City Test Fence
View of Atlantic City Test Fence
Construction of Panels.The panels were constructed of Dutch weather boarding, tongued and grooved together in strips of three pieces and capped at the top with a weather strip, forming a finished surface three feet long and fifteen and a half inches high. They were firmly braced together at their backs and nailed in such a manner that no portion of the nails would appear on the surface of the panel, thus preventing the staining of the panel from rust. The construction of the framework of the fences at Atlantic City and Pittsburg was of such a nature that they would each accommodate 560 panels of this type.
Starting of Tests.On account of the lateness of the season, it was found necessary to do the painting of the tests within a building, so that each formula might be subjected to fair and equal conditions of application, thus excluding the blowing of dust or rain upon the painted surfaces, which would have taken place had the panels been painted upon the fence. The painting of the panels began in January, 1908, the temperature within the buildings in which the work was done averaging 50 degrees Fahrenheit throughout the work.
It was decided to test each formula in three colors, in duplicate, and on each grade of wood, exposing the duplicates on eitherside of the fence. Thus for one paint formula there were required 18 panels, or 6 painted in each color and on 3 grades of wood.
Paints for Tests.The mixed paints received for the tests were in quart cans, having been especially prepared from the formulas submitted to manufacturers by the technical committee in charge of the work. They were properly labeled with their number and color, in each case. The formulas decided upon for the test are described later. The various white leads and other single pigment paints which were used were received in kegs weighing 121⁄2pounds each, having been bought in the open market and then given a formula number. The formulas of the paints designed for both the Atlantic City and Pittsburg tests, as well as the numbers of the panels upon which the paints were applied, are shown on pages131-133-145. The analysis of one of the combination paints applied is herewith given, to show the correct method of stating the composition of a paint.
Brushes.Heavy 7-O round bristle brushes were used for the priming coat so that the paint might be well worked into the wood, while for the second and third coats three-inch chisel edge brushes were used. These brushes were, of course, washed several times with turpentine after painting each panel, so that pigments from one paint could not be carried over into a paint containing other pigments.
Cypress PanelsCypress Panels
Cypress Panels
Shellacking Panels.The shellacking of any bad places of minor nature which may have been present on the surfaces of some of the panels, was done with the highest grade orange shellac. It was thought advisable to determine whether shellacking over the priming coat of paint or on the bare woodprevious to the application of the priming coat, was the better method. Panels Nos. 1 to 8 in each test were therefore shellacked over the priming coat, while on all other panels the shellacking was done directly on the bare wood previous to the application of the priming coat of paint.
Application of Paints.In order to determine just how much paint was applied to each panel and to reckon the spreading rate therefrom, careful weighings were made during the application of every paint. This was carried out by placing a quart can of paint as received, upon a laboratory balance, the gross weight being taken and recorded. The can was shaken and its contents transferred to a quart-size enameled cup where with the aid of a paddle it was broken up into a mixture of even consistency. A portion of this paint was then transferred to two small sample cans carefully numbered with the formula number, for future reference and analysis. The reduction of the paint was then made. The brush used on the priming coat was placed with the pot and the paint on the balance and the weight taken by the official weigher. The pot was then given to the painter who applied the priming coat to one panel. The brush, pot, and paint were then handed back to the official weigher and the difference in weight recorded. From these data could be reckoned the spreading rate of the formula applied.
The drying of the panels was noted every few hours and observations made to determine whether the paints were penetrating properly into the surface of the wood. A period of eight days was allowed between each coat in order that thoroughly hard setting might take place.
During the application of the second coat of paint to the panels, fresh cans of paint were used in every case so that fresh reductions could be made of the proper consistency. Full data were also recorded on the ease of application, working, and nature of drying shown, as well as appearance presented by each paint after each coat had been applied. New packages of paint were also used for the third coat, and, as a rule, the paint was applied without reduction or with full oil reduction, turpentine being eliminated in nearly every case for the third coat work.
Reductions.The single pigment paints, such as white leads, were reduced by the so-called ounce system, each ounce of oil added to 121⁄2ounces of paste pigment representing one gallonof vehicle to one hundred pounds of lead. A complete report of the reductions, spreading rates, etc., used in the tests would take up three or four hundred pages of printed matter. The reductions shown on the following formulas are, however, fairly representative of the reductions used on the combination and single pigment paints.
Reductions on Formula No. 2White and Yellow1st CoatCondition when opened—good.Consistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction recommended by manufacturer—none.Reduction used—3 pints raw oil, 1 pint turps, 1 gallon paint.Consistency after reducing—good, stiff.Working—fair.Drying—fair on pines; cypress—poor.Penetration, pines—good; cypress—poor.2nd CoatConsistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction used—11⁄2pints turpentine, 1 pint boiled oil.Consistency after reducing—good.Working—good.Hiding—medium.Drying on pines—good; cypress—poor. One-half pint japan added to gallon of paint.Penetration—fair.3rd CoatReduction used—11⁄2pints oil,1⁄2pint turpentine.Reductions for Lead PastesCalculated on 100 lb. keg.Formulas Nos. 37-38. (Corroded White Lead.)1st Coat61⁄2gallons oil,1⁄2gallon turpentine, 1 pint turpentine japan.2nd Coat31⁄2gallons oil, 1 gallon turpentine, 1 pint japan.3rd Coat3 gallons oil, 1 pint turpentine,1⁄2pint japan.
White and Yellow1st CoatCondition when opened—good.Consistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction recommended by manufacturer—none.Reduction used—3 pints raw oil, 1 pint turps, 1 gallon paint.Consistency after reducing—good, stiff.Working—fair.Drying—fair on pines; cypress—poor.Penetration, pines—good; cypress—poor.2nd CoatConsistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction used—11⁄2pints turpentine, 1 pint boiled oil.Consistency after reducing—good.Working—good.Hiding—medium.Drying on pines—good; cypress—poor. One-half pint japan added to gallon of paint.Penetration—fair.3rd CoatReduction used—11⁄2pints oil,1⁄2pint turpentine.Reductions for Lead PastesCalculated on 100 lb. keg.Formulas Nos. 37-38. (Corroded White Lead.)1st Coat61⁄2gallons oil,1⁄2gallon turpentine, 1 pint turpentine japan.2nd Coat31⁄2gallons oil, 1 gallon turpentine, 1 pint japan.3rd Coat3 gallons oil, 1 pint turpentine,1⁄2pint japan.
White and Yellow
1st Coat
Condition when opened—good.Consistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction recommended by manufacturer—none.Reduction used—3 pints raw oil, 1 pint turps, 1 gallon paint.Consistency after reducing—good, stiff.Working—fair.Drying—fair on pines; cypress—poor.Penetration, pines—good; cypress—poor.
2nd Coat
Consistency when broken up—heavy.Reduction used—11⁄2pints turpentine, 1 pint boiled oil.Consistency after reducing—good.Working—good.Hiding—medium.Drying on pines—good; cypress—poor. One-half pint japan added to gallon of paint.Penetration—fair.
3rd Coat
Reduction used—11⁄2pints oil,1⁄2pint turpentine.
Reductions for Lead Pastes
Calculated on 100 lb. keg.
Formulas Nos. 37-38. (Corroded White Lead.)
1st Coat
61⁄2gallons oil,1⁄2gallon turpentine, 1 pint turpentine japan.
2nd Coat
31⁄2gallons oil, 1 gallon turpentine, 1 pint japan.
3rd Coat
3 gallons oil, 1 pint turpentine,1⁄2pint japan.
Hiding Power of Paints.When the priming coat had thoroughly dried on each panel, the painter carefully stencilled a black Geneva cross over the priming coat with lampblack in oil. The object of this black cross was to make a determination ofthe comparative opacity or hiding power of the different paints applied. It is well known that various pigments when ground in oil differ in their hiding power in direct proportion to the difference in the refractive indices of the pigments and oils used, those containing high percentages of pigments such as white lead and zinc oxide being superior in hiding power. After the second and third coat of paint had been applied to each panel, there was evident a remarkable difference in the hiding power, as the black cross showed through in some cases quite clearly, while in other cases it was almost completely hidden. The hiding power of a paint is one of the properties which the master painter looks upon as most essential, but it should, of course, be accompanied in a satisfactory paint by good spreading power and longevity.
Actinic Light Tests.After the drying of all the paints, it was decided that it would be of extreme interest to conduct a test on the resistance of certain paints to actinic light. It is well known that the ultraviolet or chemical rays of the sun are most energetic in causing chemical reactions that result in the early decay of certain types of paint. It was thought that the disintegrating effect of these rays, as well as their effect in the bleaching out of colors, might be prevented by placing upon certain panels small orange colored glass slides which would prevent the passing of these rays to the painted surface. The slides used were five inches long and three inches wide and were placed upon the middle board of certain panels, with picture framing, putty, and galvanized iron tacks. The preservation of the underlying surface from the sun’s rays would, it was thought, prevent the deterioration of the paint, and at the same time preserve its original color so that it might be compared to the color of the exposed portion at the time of inspection.
Supervision of Tests.The Atlantic City tests were under the constant supervision of Committee E of the American Society for Testing Materials, this committee having accepted the inspection of the fence. A representative was constantly present throughout the work in order to see that each formula received fair treatment. The actual painting work was under the supervision of the writer, together with a master painter representing George Butler who was chosen by the Master Painters’ Association of Philadelphia as the official painter ofthe Atlantic City test fence. Mr. J. B. Campbell of Chicago also acted as an official of the Paint Manufacturers’ Association in the application of the formulas to both the Atlantic City and Pittsburg fences.
At Pittsburg the fence was placed directly under the supervision and control of the Carnegie Technical Schools, who chose for the fence work a committee of their technical force. Drs. James and Schaeffer of this institution were present throughout most of the work and were constantly represented during the test. The Pittsburg Master Painters’ Association appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. Dewar, Rapp, and Cluley, for the actual painting work, and they were represented with the writer throughout the tests.
Great interest was exhibited in the work by the committees in charge, and the skill of the practical painters, combined with the care of the inspectors, made the treatment of each formula fair and satisfactory.
Inspection of Atlantic City Tests.During the month of March, just one year after the placing of the painted panels on the Atlantic City fence, an inspection was made jointly by a committee representing the Master Painters’ Association of Pennsylvania, the Scientific Section of the Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the United States, and certain members of sub-Committee E of the American Society for Testing Materials.
Methods Used at Inspection.One of the most important tests made when inspecting paint is the determination of the chalking taking place.[16]There was developed during the inspection of the Atlantic City panels a new method for determining the comparative chalking of the various paints. It was thought desirable to secure a method, if possible, that would show results which might be photographed and even tabulated in percentage form, if desired. The apparatus for the new test consisted of a small strip of black felt three inches wide by five inches long, placed across a small block of wood which would fit in the palm of the inspector’s hand. This outfit resembled a blackboard eraser and was used in a similar way. By holding the apparatus firmly against the panel and drawing it half-way across the panel in a straight line toward the operator, there was obtained on the black cloth a white mark proportional in intensity to the amount of chalking which had taken place on the given area. When a series of these cloths were made, they were assembled and photographed for comparison. It should be noted that the above chalking test is useful only where the painted panels under examination have been exposed over a period of one to two years, during which period the chalking of paints has been shown to be greatest and the chalked surface of a fairly adherent nature. Where longer exposures have been made and where rains have removed from the painted panels a considerable amount of the chalked pigment which has formed, such a test would not be fairly representative of the amount of chalking which had taken place.
[16]Mr. Macgregor of the Picher Lead Co. has just developed a new test to determine the relative imperviousness of paints which have begun to chalk. He draws a mark about two inches long upon the painted surface with a fountain pen. The ink mark will spread rapidly to a wide area if the chalking is of a bad order. If the chalking is slight and the film in good condition, the ink mark will not spread.
[16]Mr. Macgregor of the Picher Lead Co. has just developed a new test to determine the relative imperviousness of paints which have begun to chalk. He draws a mark about two inches long upon the painted surface with a fountain pen. The ink mark will spread rapidly to a wide area if the chalking is of a bad order. If the chalking is slight and the film in good condition, the ink mark will not spread.
Black Felt Cloths for Chalk TestsSeries of Black Felt Cloths used in making the Chalk Tests on the Various Formulas. Numbers over Cloths represent Panels
Series of Black Felt Cloths used in making the Chalk Tests on the Various Formulas. Numbers over Cloths represent Panels
ChalkingCHALKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
CHALKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
CheckingCHECKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
CHECKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
BlisteringBLISTERING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
BLISTERING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
CrackingCRACKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
CRACKING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
General DisintegrationGENERAL DISINTEGRATION.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
GENERAL DISINTEGRATION.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
ScalingSCALING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
SCALING.—Type of Decay Exhibited by Improperly Made Paint (magnified view)
Gloss.The gloss of the various panels was a condition which was also reported upon, the middle board of each panel being washed with a wet sponge one day before the inspection so that any surface dirt might be removed. By looking at a panel from the side, a day after the washing, the inspector was enabled to get a fair idea of the degree of gloss exhibited by each formula.
Hiding Power.The hiding power of each paint was determined, as before described, by observing the degree to which the stencilled lampblack cross on the priming coat was visible through the second and third coats. Single pigment paints such as white lead possessed very great hiding power and obscured the black cross almost completely, while the cross was quite visible through paints containing high percentages of crystalline pigments.
Checking.The checking of each panel was determined by examining with a small high-power hand glass magnifying fifteen diameters. It is well known that examinations with such a hand glass will not determine whether so-called fine matt checking is taking place, but it will determine whether checking has appeared to any marked extent. Fine matt checking is the first sign of the decomposition of a paint, and is preliminary to the visible checking seen by the naked eye, which is often followed by alligatoring. Examination of some formulas disclosed this so-called alligatoring and even the exposed wood between the fissured surface which had developed from what were at first fine hair checks. It is, in the opinion of the writer, possible to predict with a fair degree of accuracy by examination of a painted surface, one year after exposure, how the paint will wear in the future and what its appearance will be at the end of another year.
Hardness.The hardness of each panel could not be determined with any degree of accuracy, but the inspectors were able to roughly determine this condition by very close inspection.From practical experience of the wearing of white lead and zinc oxide, and the comparative hardness of these two pigments, zinc oxide was selected as the maximum for hardness and termed number 10, while white lead was selected as the minimum and termed number 1. The varying degrees of hardness exhibited by the formulas were recorded in terms from one to ten. This comparison of course was only an approximate one.
General Condition.The so-called general conditions of the panels was, as a rule, the consensus of the judgment held by the various inspectors, with due regard to such properties as chalking, checking, gloss, hiding power, color maintenance, condition of surface, etc.
Results on Various Woods.On the Atlantic City Fence all the tests made on yellow pine and cypress were found to be in an unsatisfactory condition for a report, for in every case the sap and small knots contained in such wood had a very bad effect upon the paint, causing peeling and scaling. The white pine panels were in very much better condition, and it was therefore decided to make the inspection entirely from the white pine panels and in the future to remove the yellow pine and the cypress panels from the fence and from the test. The Committee advised that all future tests be made on white pine, as it is obviously unfair to use anything but the highest grade wood for a paint test in which the desire is to determine the comparative wearing value of pigments.
Note.—Recent tests have shown that Cypress may be successfully painted when the priming coat of paint is thinned with Benzol (Solvent Naphtha).
Note.—Recent tests have shown that Cypress may be successfully painted when the priming coat of paint is thinned with Benzol (Solvent Naphtha).
Atlantic City Fence PanelsPanels on Atlantic City FenceTwo Lower Sets of Panels are painted with Lithopone Paints. Rapid Failure shown
Panels on Atlantic City FenceTwo Lower Sets of Panels are painted with Lithopone Paints. Rapid Failure shown
Atlantic City Fence PanelsPanels on Atlantic City Fence
Panels on Atlantic City Fence
Panels on Atlantic City FencePanels on Atlantic City FenceTwo Lower Sets of Panels are Painted with Combination Pigment Paints. Excellent Results shown
Panels on Atlantic City FenceTwo Lower Sets of Panels are Painted with Combination Pigment Paints. Excellent Results shown
Paints Containing Lithopone.One of the most striking exhibitions of paint disintegration in the whole test was the failure of nearly all the lithopone formulas tested. At the time these formulas were suggested for the test, various European technical journals had advocated the use of lithopone in large percentage for paints to be used on exterior surfaces. Good results had been obtained in the northwestern section of Europe, with this pigment in certain mixtures, and the object of these lithopone tests at Atlantic City and Pittsburg was to determine whether satisfactory paints could be made of this pigment for exposure in this country. Failure of the tests, however, in nearly every case except where zinc oxide and whiting were mixed with the lithopone, indicated that pigments such as zinc and whiting are necessary in order to prevent the decomposition of lithopone pigment paints. The decay of lithopone paints after they are applied seems to start with rapid oxidation of the linseed oil, and this oxidation seems to continue in a progressive and even accelerated way; after six months’ exposure the surface of the paint being chalked to a great extent and showing rapid decomposition of the binder or vehicle. Inasmuch as lithopone is really an inert pigment, this rapid decomposition of its vehicle cannot be explained in the same way as the decomposition of the vehicle of pure white lead paints, where the alkaline nature of the lead is probably responsible for the formation of easily destroyed compounds. As complete failure had taken place in nearly every case where lithopone had been used, it was decided to condemn the lithopone panels on the fence, consisting of formulas 21 to 27, including panels 151 to 164 in white, panels 131 to 144 in yellow, and 109 to 122 in gray. These lithopone tests were later on replaced by new tests in 1909, which will be reported uponlaterin this book.
General Results.From these tests, the inspectors reached the unanimous conclusion that a paint made from any mixture of more than one white opaque pigment, either when used alone or in combination with small percentages of inert pigments, is far superior to any one single pigment paint. It was found that the straight white lead paints failed in every case, and this failure was so marked as to make it a conclusive demonstration of the unfitness of white lead along the Atlantic coast, when used without other pigments. Paints made with large percentages of white lead, however, gave excellent results.
Gypsum was found unsafe to use in any large proportion in a paint, because of its solubility and liability to percolate through the coating of linoxyn or dried film, thus destroying the surface of the paint. Whiting, or calcium carbonate, demonstrated that it could be used in moderate percentage with some efficiency, but it was evident that any great excess of this pigment must also be avoided on account of its tendency towards rapid chalking. Magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, and silica are three inert pigments which proved to be of great value in strengthening and reinforcing paints, especially when they were used in small percentage. In the same way, black fixe and barytes, or barium sulphate, also appeared to be useful in strengthening a paint. As these two last named pigments are chemically the same but physically different, the use of both in a paint formula is considered advantageous, because of the differences in size and form of their particles.
Color Tests.It was the unanimous conclusion of all theinspectors that panels of all formulas which were tinted either gray or yellow were showing far superior wear and less chalking and checking than those which were painted in plain white. The reinforcing action of the tinting materials must be credited for this lengthening of the wear of such paints. Formulas 5, 6, 9, and 16, for instance, in the gray, were in most excellent condition, and in these formulas were used ochre, umber, bone-black, carbon-black, Venetian red and other inert bases. On the yellow panels, formulas 5, 6, 9, and 16 were also in very superior condition, and in these formulas chrome yellow and inert pigments were also used.
Some of the color tests included the priming of boards with white lead, zinc oxide, sublimed white lead, lithopone, and other single pigment paints. Over these priming coats was placed a high grade brilliant paranitraniline red. Fairly good results were obtained in every case, but especially when lithopone or zinc oxide was used as a priming base. These pigments seemed to have no effect upon the constitution of the para red.
Prussian blue, a colored pigment largely used, but one liable to react with certain paint pigments, was admixed with various paints applied to certain panels. This color was found in some cases to have faded materially, especially when mixed with alkaline pigments such as white lead. Sublimed white lead and zinc oxide, which are more inert in nature, did not have such action on Prussian blue, and the tinted bases of these pigments stood up in a remarkable manner. The greens which were tested were all in very good condition, with absence of fading, and showing only slight mildew.
Condensed Results of Inspection.The results of inspection as obtained by the fence committee[17]having in charge the inspection of the test, have been condensed intotable form, and are presented on pages 130-131.
[17]R. S. Perry, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.; George Butler, Official Painter, representing Master House Painters’ & Decorators’ Association, H. A. Gardner, Asst. Director.
[17]R. S. Perry, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.; George Butler, Official Painter, representing Master House Painters’ & Decorators’ Association, H. A. Gardner, Asst. Director.
Second Annual Inspection of the Atlantic City Test Fence.After the original paints which had been applied to the Atlantic City Fence had been exposed for over two years, another inspection was made by a committee representing the Master Painters’ Association of Philadelphia and the Scientific Section of thePaint Manufacturers’ Association of the United States. A digest of the report of this committee[18]follows:
[18]George Butler, Official Painter Atlantic City Test Fence, representing Philadelphia Master Painters’ Association; Charles Macnichol, Master Painter; Henry A. Gardner, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.
[18]George Butler, Official Painter Atlantic City Test Fence, representing Philadelphia Master Painters’ Association; Charles Macnichol, Master Painter; Henry A. Gardner, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.
“The painted panels were all carefully inspected by the inspectors in the usual manner. With the aid of high-power magnifying glasses, checking was determined. The degree of chalking exhibited by the various paints was ascertained by rubbing a piece of black cloth across the surface of each paint. Close observance was made to determine scaling, peeling, cracking, gloss, color, and the other factors to be considered when examining a painted surface. From these observations it was possible for the inspectors to state whether a panel exhibited general good condition, general fair condition, or general poor condition.
“An inspection of the white lead paints on the fence indicated in every instance a rough, chalked, and disintegrated surface that seemed to be well worn, in some cases nearly to the wood. The strongly oxidizing air of the seacoast is probably responsible for the early decay of this pigment.
“It was observed that the combination type of paint showed better hiding power than white lead, over the black crosses placed on the priming coat of each panel, as a hiding power test.