Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Steel corrosion

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
That's the point of my question.  The steel is 0.01" thicker than the
NOMINAL thickness, which is within the mill tolerances of 1951 (I have the
old specs).  If the steel had not been subjected to hydrochloric and
sulphuric (or sulphurous - I'm not a chemist) acid from the coal for 50
years I wouldn't be so curious.  I just find it hard to believe that all it
did was eat the paint away.  

We used a needle-gun to clean the steel, which does a pretty good job of
removing extraneous material.  The excess material could be paint that
wasn't removed.  I didn't get too wild with needle-gun because the life
insurance money would just make my wife too damn happy (sparks + coal dust =
Hawaiian vacation for wife & new boy toy).  A field spectral analysis (it
was silver) of the cleaned areas indicated steel without paint.  That's why
I was curious about some chemical reaction that would make the paint take on
the physical appearance of the steel - a sort of "leeching".

Of course, as someone already said, the fabricator could have substituted
something a little thicker.  

Jack Creviston, EIT

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Sherman, William [mailto:ShermanWC(--nospam--at)] 
Sent:	Tuesday, April 17, 2001 10:38 AM
To:	'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject:	RE: Steel corrosion

To satisfy my curiosity, do you know what kind of paint was used on the one
bunker? It sounds like it did a pretty good job if there is no significant
corrosion after 50 years. 

> -----Original Message-----

*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: