Non-Standard Methods for Assessing the Quality of Intumescent Coatings


The main most frequently used structural materials are monolithic reinforced concrete, steel profiles and lightweight thin-walled building structures, which in case of fire at temperatures above 500 °C lose their mechanical properties, deform, and collapse. To protect the load-bearing structures from dangerous deformations for a certain time before the start of extinguishing a fire, various fire-retardant materials are used, among which thin-layer intumescent coatings occupy a special place.
Serious problems with the quality of intumescent coatings are associated with the use by manufacturers of paint components (often counterfeit products of low quality) that do not correspond to those stated in the certificates. In these cases, the intumescent coating does not guarantee the formation of a high-quality protective layer of the coke foam in case of fire.
Standard methods for assessing the quality of such coatings allow to assess appearance, thickness, and adhesion of the coating prior to coke foam formation. However, it is required to check directly on the object the additional non-standard parameters of the intumescent coatings: intumescence coefficient, appearance and strength of the coke foam.
Ways are described related to the implementation of measuring the structural and mechanical properties of the coke foam: intumescence coefficient, penetration and shear-breakout strength.
It is proposed to measure the strength characteristics of the coke foam by the penetrometry method on an original installation (analogue of a cone penetrometer). The proposed measurement method is simple, demonstrative and does not require expensive equipment.
The dependence is revealed concerning the strength of the coke foam on its density, which is determined by the intumescence coefficient at all other things being equal. The higher the intumescence coefficient, the lower the density and strength of the coke foam. Therefore, high values of the intumescence coefficient do not guarantee the reliability of fire protection. It is recommended to set normatively limit values for the intumescence coefficient, which will differ for different compositions of the intumescent paints.

1. Cadena J.E., Osorio A.F., Torero J.L., Reniers G., Lange D. Uncertainty-based decision-making in fire safety: Analyzing the alternatives. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2020. Vol. 68. P. 104288. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104288
2. Wang J.H., He J., Xiao Y. Fire behavior and performance of concrete-filled steel tubular columns: Review and discussion. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2019. Vol. 157. pp. 19–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.012
3. Lucherini A., Maluk C. Intumescent coatings used for the fire-safe design of steel structures: A review. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2019. Vol. 162. Р. 105712. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105712
4. Martynov A.V., Grekov V.V., Popova O.V. Some Reasons for the Violation of the Intumescent Coatings Quality. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2020. № 11. pp. 69–75. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2020-11-69-75
5. Song Q.-Y., Han L.-H., Zhou K., Feng Y. Fire resistance of circular concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) column protected by intumescent coating. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2018. Vol. 147. pp. 154–170. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.038
6. Lucherini A., Hidalgo J.P., Torero J.L., Maluk C. Influence of heating conditions and initial thickness on the effectiveness of thin intumescent coatings. Fire Safety Journal. 2020. Vol. 120. P. 103078. DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103078
7. Grigorev Yu.A., Evtushenko Yu.M., Rudakova T.A. Modern intumescent type compositions for fire-protective coatings. Klei. Germetiki. Tekhnologii = Adhesives. Sealants. Technologies. 2018. № 3. pp. 38–42. (In Russ.).
8. Liu Z., Dai M., Zhang Yu., Gao X., Zhang Q. Preparation and performances of novel waterborne intumescent fire retardant coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings. 2016. Vol. 95. pp. 100–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.02.024
9. Liang S., Neisius N.M., Gaan S. Recent developments in flame retardant polymeric coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings. 2013. Vol. 76 (11). pp. 1642–1665. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2013.07.014
10. Mariappan T., Agarwal A., Ray S. Influence of titanium dioxide on the thermal insulation of waterborne intumescent fire protective paints to structural steel. Progress in Organic Coatings. 2017. Vol. 111. pp. 67–74. DOI: 0.1016/j.porgcoat.2017.04.036
11. Beraldo C.H.M., Silveira M.R. da S., Baldissera A.F., Ferreira C.A. Fire protection of ultraviolet-aged intumescent coatings containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes. Progress in Organic Coatings. 2020. Vol. 149. P. 105903. DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.105903
12. SP 433.1325800.2019. Fire protection of steel structures. Execution of work. Available at: (accessed: January 18, 2021). (In Russ.).
13. Dreyer J.A.H., Weinell C.E., Dam-Johansen K., Kiil S. Review of heat exposure equipment and in-situ characterisation techniques for intumescent coatings. Fire Safety Journal. 2021. Vol. 121. P. 103264. DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103264
14. GOST R 51694—2000 (ISO 2808—97). Paints and varnishes. Determination of film thickness. Available at: (accessed: January 18, 2021). (In Russ.).
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2021-6-15-20
Year: 2021
Issue num: June
Keywords : fire protection intumescent coating coefficient of intumescence quality assessment methods coke foam properties penetration strength shear-breakout strength penetrometry