Designation: D 4417 – 93

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Reprinted from the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Copyright ASTM

Standard Test Methods for

Field Measurement of Surface Profile of Blast Cleaned
Steel1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 4417; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope microscope. This is done because of evidence that coatings performance

in any one small area is primarily influenced by the highest surface
1.1 These test methods cover the description of techniques features in that area and not by the average roughness.2
for measuring the profile of abrasive blast cleaned surfaces in
the laboratory, field, or in the fabricating shop. There are 4. Apparatus
additional techniques suitable for laboratory use not covered by 4.1 Method A—A profile comparator3 consisting of a num-
these test methods. ber of areas (each approximately one square inch in size),
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the usually side by side, with a different profile or anchor pattern
safety problems, if any, associated with its use. It is the depth. Each area is marked giving the nominal profile depth in
responsibility of whoever uses this standard to consult and mils or micrometres. Typical comparator surfaces are prepared
establish appropriate safety and health practices and deter- with steel shot, steel grit, or sand or other nonmetallic abrasive,
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. since the appearance of the profile created by these abrasives
may differ. The comparator areas are used with or without
2. Summary of Test Method
magnification of 5 to 10 power.
2.1 The methods are: 4.2 Method B—A dial gage4 depth micrometer fitted with a
2.1.1 Method A—The blasted surface is visually compared pointed probe. The probe is machined at a 60° angle with a
to standards prepared with various surface profile depths and nominal radius of 50 µm. The base of the instrument rests on
the range determined. the tops of the peaks of the surface profile while the spring
2.1.2 Method B—The depth of profile is measured using a loaded tip projects into the valleys.
fine pointed probe at a number of locations and the arithmetic 4.3 Method C—A special tape containing a compressible
mean determined. foam attached to a noncompressible uniform plastic film. A
2.1.3 Method C—A composite plastic tape is impressed into burnishing tool is used to impress the foam face of the tape into
the blast cleaned surface forming a reverse image of the profile, the surface to create a reverse replica of the profile that is
and the maximum peak to valley distance measured with a measured using a spring-loaded micrometer.5
micrometer.
5. Test Specimens
3. Significance and Use
5.1 Use any metal surface that, after blast cleaning, is free of
3.1 The height of surface profile has been shown to be a loose surface interference material, dirt, dust, and abrasive
factor in the performance of various coatings applied to steel. residue.
For this reason, surface profile should be measured prior to
coating application to ensure that it meets that specified. The 6. Procedure
instruments described are readily portable and sufficiently 6.1 Method A:
sturdy for use in the field. 6.1.1 Select the comparator standard appropriate for the
NOTE 1—Optical microscope methods serve as a referee method for abrasive used for blast cleaning.
surface profile measurement. Profile depth designations are based on the 6.1.2 Place the comparator standard directly on the surface
concept of mean maximum profile ( h̄ max); this value is determined by to be measured and compare the roughness of the prepared
averaging a given number (usually 20) of the highest peak to lowest valley
measurements made in the field of view of a standard measuring
2
John D. Keane, Joseph A. Bruno, Jr., Raymond E. F. Weaver, “Surface Profile
for Anti-Corrosion Paints,” Oct. 25, 1976, Steel Structures Painting Council, 4400
Fifth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
3
1
These test methods are under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D-1 on Paint Suitable comparators include Keane-Tator Surface Profile Comparator and
and Related Coatings, Materials, and Applications and are the direct responsibility Clemtex coupons.
4
of Subcommittee D01.46 on Industrial Protective Painting. Suitable depth micrometers include the Elcometer Model 123 Surface Profile
Current edition approved May 15, 1993. Published July 1993. Originally Gage.
5
published as D 4417 – 84. Last previous edition D 4417 – 84. Suitable replica tape and micrometers include Testex “Press-O-Film” tape and
Mitutoyo Model 7326 Spring Micrometer.

1
 D 4417
surface with the roughness on the comparator segments. This Method A was found to be 0.75 and the coefficient of
can be done with the unaided eye, under 5 to 10 power determination was found to be 0.54.
magnification, or by touch. When using magnification, the 8.1.2 Precision—In an interlaboratory study of Test Method
magnifier should be brought into intimate contact with the A in which 2 operators each running 2 tests on separate days in
standard, and the depth of focus must be sufficient for the each of 6 laboratories tested 8 surfaces with a broad range of
standard and surface to be in focus simultaneously. profile characteristics and levels, the intralaboratory coefficient
6.1.3 Select the comparator segment that most closely of variation was found to be 20 % with 141 df and the
approximates the roughness of the surface being evaluated or, interlaboratory coefficient was found to be 19 % with 40 df,
if necessary, the two segments to which it is intermediate. after rejecting 3 results for one time because the range between
6.1.4 Evaluate the roughness at a sufficient number of repeats differed significantly from all other ranges. Based on
locations to characterize the surface as specified or agreed upon these coefficients, the following criteria should be used for
between the interested parties. Report the range of results from judging, at the 95 % confidence level, the acceptability of
all locations as the surface profile. results:
6.2 Method B: 8.1.2.1 Repeatability—Two results, each the mean of four
6.2.1 Prior to use set the gage to zero by placing it on a piece replicates, obtained by the same operator should be considered
of plate float glass. Hold the gage by its base and press firmly suspect if they differ by more than 56 %.
against the glass. Adjust the instrument to zero. 8.1.2.2 Reproducibility—Two results, each the mean of four
6.2.2 To take readings, hold the gage firmly against the replicates, obtained by operators in different laboratories
prepared substrate. Do not drag the instrument across the should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 54 %.
surface between readings, or the spring-loaded tip may become 8.2 Test Method B:
rounded leading to false readings. 8.2.1 Applicability—Based on measurements of profiles on
6.2.3 Measure the profile at a sufficient number of locations surfaces of 8 steel panels, each blast cleaned with 1 of 8
to characterize the surface, as specified or agreed upon between different abrasives to a white metal degree of cleaning, having
the interested parties. At each location make ten readings and known ratings of profile height ranging from 1.5 mils (37 µm)
determine the mean. Then determine the mean for all the to 5.4 mils (135 µm), the correlation coefficient for Test
locations and report it as the profile of the surface. Method B was found to be 0.99 and the coefficient of
6.3 Method C: determination was found to be 0.93.
6.3.1 Select the correct tape range for the profile to be
8.2.2 Precision—In an interlaboratory study of Test Method
measured: coarse, 0 to 2 mils (0 to 50 µm) and extra coarse, 1.5
B in which 2 operators, each running 2 tests on separate days,
to 4.5 mils (40 to 115 µm).
in each of 5 laboratories tested 8 surfaces with a broad range of
6.3.2 Remove the wax paper backing and place the tape on
profile characteristics and levels, the intralaboratory coefficient
the prepared surface with the foam side down, that is, put the
of variation was found to be 19 % with 113 df and the
dull side down.
interlaboratory coefficient was found to be 28 % with 32 df,
6.3.3 Hold the tape firmly on the surface and rub the circular
after rejecting 3 results for one time because the range between
cut-out portion (approximately 3⁄8 in. (6.5 mm) diameter) with
repeats differed significantly from all other ranges. Based on
the burnishing tool until a uniform gray color appears.
these coefficients, the following criteria should be used for
6.3.4 Remove the tape and place it between the anvils of a
judging, at the 95 % confidence level, the acceptability of
spring-loaded micrometer. Measure the thickness of the tape
results:
(compressed foam and non-compressible plastic film com-
8.2.2.1 Repeatability—Two results, each the mean of four
bined). Subtract the thickness of the noncompressible plastic
replicates, obtained by the same operator should be considered
film to obtain the surface profile.
suspect if they differ by more than 54 %.
6.3.5 Measure the profile at a sufficient number of locations
to characterize the surface, as specified or agreed upon between 8.2.2.2 Reproducibility—Two results, each the mean of four
the interested parties. At each location make three readings and replicates, obtained by operators in different laboratories
determine the mean. Then determine the mean for all the should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 79 %.
locations and report it as the profile of the surface. 8.3 Method C (X-Coarse Tape):
8.3.1 Applicability—Based on measurements of profiles on
7. Report surfaces of 8 steel panels, each blast cleaned with 1 of 8
7.1 Report the range and the appropriate average (mean or different abrasives to a white metal degree of cleaning, having
mode) of the determinations, the number of locations mea- known ratings of profile height ranging from 1.5 mils (37 µm)
sured, and the approximate total area covered. to 5.4 mils (135 µm), the correlation coefficient for Test
Method C (X-Coarse Tape) was found to be 0.96 and the
8. Precision and Bias coefficient of determination was found to be 0.93.
8.1 Test Method A: 8.3.2 Precision—In an interlaboratory study of Test Method
8.1.1 Applicability—Based on measurements of profiles on C (X-Coarse Tape) in which 2 operators each running 2 tests on
surfaces of 8 steel panels, each blast cleaned with 1 of 8 separate days in each of 6 laboratories tested 8 surfaces with a
different abrasives to a white metal degree of cleaning, having broad range of profile characteristics and levels, the intralabo-
known ratings of profile height ranging from 1.5 mils (37 µm) ratory coefficient of variation was found to be 9 % with 120 df
to 5.4 mils (135 µm), the correlation coefficient for Test and the interlaboratory coefficient 13 % with 32 df. Based on

2
 D 4417
these coefficients, the following criteria should be used for 8.4.2.1 Repeatability—Two results, each the mean of four
judging, at the 95 % confidence level, the acceptability of replicates, obtained by the same operator should be considered
results: suspect if they differ by more than 30 %.
8.3.2.1 Repeatability—Two results, each the mean of four 8.4.2.2 Reproducibility—Two results, each the mean of four
replicates, obtained by the same operator should be considered replicates, obtained by operators in different laboratories
suspect if they differ by more than 25 %. should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 28 %.
8.3.2.2 Reproducibility—Two results, each the mean of four 8.5 Bias—Since there is no accepted reference material
replicates, obtained by operators in different laboratories suitable for determining the bias for the procedure in these test
should be considered suspect if they differ by more than 37 %. methods for measuring surface profile, bias cannot be deter-
8.4 Test Method C (Coarse Tape): mined.
8.4.1 Applicability—Based on measurements of profiles on
NOTE 2—The test methods measure different values and the qualitative
surfaces of 6 steel panels, each blast cleaned with 1 of 6 rating on which the applicability was determined also measures a different
different abrasives to a white metal degree of cleaning, having value. The mode is determined with the comparator of Test Method A. The
known ratings of profile height ranging from 1.5 mils (37 µm) height of a single valley below a plane at the level of the highest
to 2.3 mils (57 µm), the correlation coefficient for Test Method surrounding peaks is measured with the fine pointed probe of Test Method
C (Coarse Tape) was found to be 0.48 and the coefficient of B. The distance from the bottoms of many of the deepest valleys to the
determination was found to be 0.23. tops of the highest peaks (maximum profiles) are measured with the
composite plastic of Test Method C. The height of a single peak above an
8.4.2 Precision—In an interlaboratory study of Test Method
adjacent valley below is measured with a microscope for the qualitative
C (Coarse Tape) in which 2 operators each running 2 tests on rating that is compared with each of the methods in correlation calcula-
separate days in each of 5 laboratories tested 6 surfaces with a tions. Because the results for the microscope and for the fine pointed probe
broad range of profile characteristics and levels, the intralabo- are measurements to an individual valley, the readings range over much
ratory coefficient of variation was found to be 11 % with 90 df broader limits than the results of the tape or the comparator.
and the interlaboratory coefficient 11 % with 24 df. Based on
these coefficients, the following criteria should be used for 9. Keywords
judging, at the 95 % confidence level, the acceptability of 9.1 abrasive; abrasive blast cleaning; anchor pattern; surface
results: profile; surface roughness

The American Society for Testing and Materials takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection
with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such
patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible
technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your
views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.