PROJECT REPORT

STAR AVIATOR

SEALCOATING FOR AIRPORT PROJECTS

COMPARATIVE STUDY AGAINST CONVENTIONAL FAA SPECIFICATIONS.

OBJECT

To perform a comparative study of STAR AVIATOR STAR AVIATOR against the conventional FAA (P-627 & P-628) compositions.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

1. STAR AVIATOR was found to be demonstrably superior in performance to all the conventional FAA mix designs.

2. Amongst the conventional grade, the scrub resistance properties generally deteriorated with the increase in the amount of the rubber content.

MAJOR BENEFITS

STAR AVIATOR is unique in its composition.

1. Unique product and technology. No one in the industry offers a similar product.

2. Performance- Demonstrably superior to conventional FAA, P-627mix designs in overall performance.

3. Mix design control- Rubber is the most critical component in FAA mix designs. Factory blending of the rubber in STAR AVIATOR assures that the accuracy of the mix.

4. Cost Effectiveness- STAR AVIATOR performs better than mix designs containing much higher rubber latex e.g. at 7% and 10% levels.

5. Savings in labor Cost

Better performance with STAR AVIATOR

- In fewer coats,

- No need for special equipment, e.g. drag box, etc.

- Time saved by not adding rubber on the job.

MATERIALS

STAR AVIATOR is a special proprietary sealcoating composition, specifically developed for FAA projects. As supplied, the product contains 4% Acrylonitrile/ Butadiene Rubber (the polymer meets the requirements of FAA P-627), on the total volume of the sealer. No latex rubber or polymer shall be mixed with the product prior to application. Just mix with;

- The desired amount of sand, per FAA specifications for the project and

- Water not exceeding 15% -25% (by volume), to attain a good workable consistency.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

STAR AVIATOR was compared against;

- The conventional FAA mix compositions, using; STAR SEAL (ASTM 5727-00, formerly Fed Std. RP-355 e.)

- Rubber Additive- Macro-Flex Acrylonitrile/ Butadiene Rubber Latex

- Water and sand.

Three (3) samples were made by post adding STAR MACRO-FLEX, to the diluted samples of STAR SEAL (50% by Volume) at;

a. Five (5)%,

b. Seven (7)% and

c. Ten (10)% percent by volume on the volume of the sealer.

No sand was mixed with any of the samples for this study.

1. Scrub Resistance Under Water

The samples that were tested are;

A. STAR AVIATOR: Applied at 20 Mils wet film thickness.

B. Conventional FAA mixtures i.e. compositions where rubber was post added to the sealer according to the FAA mix design recommendations. Post added samples (5,7,10%) were applied at 30 mils wet film thickness on white mylar panels.

The difference in the wet film thickness of the post added samples (30 mils) versus 20 mils for STAR SEAL STAR AVIATOR Grade was to allow all the samples to dry to the same thickness, prior to scrub testing.

The panels were allowed to cure for four (4) days. After the cure the panels are covered with water containing silica sand as an abrasive medium and scrub tested with a brass bristle brush. This test method is a modification of the standard ASTM D-2468, but more torturous (the standard method uses a nylon brush and detergent/water solution as scrub medium).

The test is stopped when a solid line goes across the width of the swatch down to the panel. The cycles are noted at this point and reported as cycles to failure.

The panels were further tested for softness and re-emulsification resistance.

2. Water Absorption / Desorption Characteristics

The wet samples were applied in 30 mils wet film thickness on brushed aluminum panels (pre weighed) and allowed to cure at ambient room temperatures (77 ^o F, 50% relative humidity) for one (1) week. The coated panels are weighed again to determine the weight of the coating material.

The cured panels are weighed after one weeks cure to determine the weight of the dry sample on the panels. The cured panels are then suspended in distilled water and taken out after 3, 6, 24, 48, hours, and one week, then dried to remove surface moisture. The panels are weighed after each period and the percentage of water absorbed is calculated from the dry sample weight.

After the completion of one weeks water absorption period, the panels are removed from the water and allowed to release the remaining water. During this period the panels are weighed after 3, 6, 24, and 48 hours or longer to determine the time taken to release all the absorbed water.

Results and Discussions

1. Wet Scrub Resistance Test (Table II)

1. STAR AVIATOR was found to have better scrub resistance;

than all the three (3) conventional FAA mix designs.

2. Also, the scrub resistance amongst the conventional mix designs deteriorated with the increasing amounts of rubber.

3. The resistance to softening (hardness) and re-emulsification under water was found to be generally comparable. Only in one case (for FAA -7% rubber), the hardness and resistance to re-emulsification suffered.

Water absorption / Desorption Characteristics (Table III)

The following inferences were made:

ABSORPTION CYCLE:

1. STAR AVIATOR had much lower tendency to absorb water, especially in the first 6 hr.. of immersion. It was less than 50% of the best FAA- post add. specimen (with 5% rubber).

2. Amongst the FAA post add. specimens the tendency to absorb water increased with the increasing amounts of the rubber additive; i.e. 5% was the best and 10% the worst.

Written By- Girish C. Dubey

S.T.A.R, INC.