Preparing an economic analysis helps justify one coating system over another;
however, this task can be quite complex and is therefore uncommon.
Figures 300-2 through 300-7 give six examples of economic analyses chosen from the dozens of surfaces the Company coats:
• Tanks
• Piping
• Piping—Surface Preparation
• Structural Steel
Fig. 300-1 Cost Factors to Consider for Coating Systems
Task Consider Other Comments
Materials Selection Cost per square foot at specified thickness
Varies with the percent of solids, the specified dry film thickness and the cost per gallon
Paint loss Typical 15 percent for flat surfaces to 30 percent or more for complex shapes
Surface Preparation Cleanliness vs. Life
Wheelabrators may take only single pieces of pipe which then need to be welded and reblasted before painting
Application Complexity of the paint Single or multiple component?
Complexity of the shape Flat tank surfaces or small piping?
Cost of access for final coats and maintenance
On ground, in the air, or offshore?
Impact of curing time on the schedule
Fig. 300-2 Tanks—Comparing Costs of Coating Systems
Fig. 300-3 Piping—Comparing Cost of Several Coating Systems
Fig. 300-4 Piping—Comparing Surface Preparation Costs of Several Coating Systems
Fig. 300-5 Structural Steel—Comparing Cost of Several Coating Systems
Fig. 300-6 Offshore Platforms—Comparing Costs of Several Coating Systems
• Offshore Platforms
• Internal Coating
Each example shows the net cost of several coating systems where cost includes surface preparation, application, and materials.
See the following resources:
• Figures 300-8, 300-9, 300-10 for cost analyses
• Figure 300-11 for coating life in various climates
In the six examples (Figures 300-2 through 300-7), the most cost-effective coating system is the one with the lowest, net, present cost at the design's projected life.
Additionally:
• Consider systems with almost equal costs essentially equal.
• Base selection on non-quantifiable factors such as chalking resistance and expected level of maintenance.
• Consider the system with the longer life if you anticipate little maintenance effort.
Fig. 300-7 Internal Coating for Tanks—Comparing Costs of Several Coating Systems for Saltwater Immersion (80°F)
Fig. 300-8 Surface Preparation Costs—$/Sq. Ft.
Cleanliness
Abrasive Blast (Shop & Field)
Wheelabrator (Shop) Piping and Structural Steel
SSPC – SP3 .45 N/A
SSPC – SP7 (NACE 4) .60 N/A
SSPC – SP6 (NACE 3) .80 .40
SSPC – SP10 (NACE 2) 1.05 .55
SSPC – SP5 (NACE 1) 1.25 .60
Tanks
SSPC – SP3 .40 N/A
SSPC – SP7 (NACE 4) .50 N/A
SSPC – SP6 (NACE 3) .75 .35
SSPC – SP10 (NACE 2) .90 .50
SSPC – SP5 (NACE 1) .95 .55
Source: Jeffco Painting & Coating, October 1994
Their prices are good engineering estimates for Northern California. Costs will vary by location. Estimates are based on 10,000 Ft2 of surface area.
Fig. 300-9 Application Costs—$/Sq. Ft.
Coating DFT (mils) Field-Applied Shop-Applied
Piping and Structural Steel
One Part Primer (alkyd) 2.0 .24 .21
Two Part Primer (epoxy) 4.0 .32 .25
Zinc Rich Primer 3.0 .38 .30
One Part Topcoat (alkyd) 2.0 .22 .21
Two Part Topcoat (urethane) 2.0 .39 .35
Tanks
One Part Primer (alkyd) 2.0 .15 .14
Two Part Primer (epoxy) 4.0 .20 .18
Zinc Rich Primer 3.0 .35 .25
One Part Topcoat (alkyd) 2.0 .15 .14
Two Part Topcoat (urethane) 2.0 .33 .32
Source: Jeffco Painting & Coating, October 1994
Their prices are good engineering estimates for Northern California. Costs will vary by location. Estimates are based on 10,000 Ft2 of surface area.
Fig. 300-10 Cost of Materials
Cost $/Sq.Ft. DFT (mils)
Primers
Alkyd (off the shelf) .08 2
Chlorinated Rubber N/A N/A
Epoxy .09 4
Epoxy Mastic .16 5
Inorganic Zinc – Self Cure .21 3
Universal Primer .07 2
Vinyl N/A N/A
Zinc Rich Epoxy .16 3
Intermediate Coats
High Build Epoxy .09 4
High Build Vinyl N/A N/A
Vinyl N/A N/A
Top Coats
Alkyd (off the shelf) .08 2
Chlorinated Rubber N/A N/A
Coal Tar Epoxy (C200 version) .13 8
Coal Tar Epoxy (Standard) .12 8
Epoxy .09 4
High Build Chlorinated Rubber
N/A N/A
High Build Vinyl N/A N/A
Silicone Alkyd .17 2
Urethane .14 2.5
Vinyl N/A N/A
Includes 20% spray loss. Source: Jeffco Painting & Coating, October 1994. These prices are good for engineering estimates for Northern California. Costs will vary by location. Estimates are based on 10,000 Ft2 of surface area.
Assumptions
The analyses in Figures 300-2 through 300-7 are based on the following assumptions:
• Re-coating the equipment. Often this may not be true, and it would be better to choose a system with a longer life and pay a somewhat high cost.
• Coating primarily for aesthetics. Maintaining a good appearance as long as possible is one of the bases for selection.
Note Different assumptions could lead to different lowest-cost systems. There are many coatings systems which will do the job. No one system is perfect. Overall, there is more to gain by working on the quality of surface preparation and applica-tion than by working long hours to select optimum materials.
330 Color
This section guides you in choosing and matching paint colors for new and existing process plants and tanks. It also emphasizes the proper use of safety colors and Company Identity colors. Building interiors and equipment are not included in this section.
The Corporation has chosen to update the Company color scheme to simplify the color palette and improve the compatibility of the colors in the palette. These changes are also discussed in this section.
Fig. 300-11 Application Costs—$/Sq. Ft.
Coating DFT Dry Inland
SCIZ/Silicone Alkyd 6 25 20 15
Vinyl - 5 Coat 8 12 10 7
Epoxy/Alkyd with Brush Blast 4.5 12 10 6
Notes: SCIZ = Self cured inorganic zinc HB = High build
Color selection is a management decision, but many facilities have adopted the color systems outlined below. Each system description has suggested uses for each color group to best match the facility's environment with color systems. If a local preference exists it shall take precedence over the color palettes described hereafter.
When warranted, a qualified color consultant can be engaged to develop a specific color to blend with the surroundings at a particular site. This is especially encour-aged where facilities will have special public impact. Use this approach with care as approval of more than one unique color for a given facility is rare.