The cost of failing to carry out anti-corrosion work as required
Thread Content
This diagram shows the outdoor steel structure of the production units at a petrochemical refinery; it is a newly constructed facility, and the element in question is the support for the platform stairs (round tubes). Rust removal by manual or mechanical means shall be achieved to St3 level as required, with the primer and topcoat thickness exceeding 150 microns. Inspection of the damaged coating revealed no primer, with the topcoat thickness being around 100 microns. The anti-corrosion material is an acrylic-based material. Reason for failure: First, the surface treatment did not meet the requirements ； Second, it is the primer layer; the topcoat is too thin and does not meet the requirements. Due to the thin coating, there is a high porosity, a lack of primer, and inadequate surface preparation; the combined effect of these issues leads to premature failure of the anti-corrosion coating. The reason for the failure was mainly the negligence of our project supervisors in quality inspection, which led to the construction workers not following the construction plan in this regard. Although the construction company is at fault when negotiating with the owner, it is still the owner who suffers the losses.
Improper or non-compliant anti-corrosion treatment can lead to serious consequences; in the aforementioned case, for example, inadequate surface preparation and insufficient coating thickness resulted in corrosion and damage to the steel structure. This not only affects the stability and safety of the structure, but also increases the costs of maintenance and replacement. Furthermore, the negligence of supervisors in quality inspections also highlights the importance of management and supervision; a lack of strict quality control will directly affect the overall quality and lifespan of the project. Therefore, following standardized construction methods and strict quality control are key to preventing such problems. .