Figure 4. Test panels cleaned by Treatment 1. 



Each cleaned panel was brush- coated underwater with CEL Formulation 

 101-2 and cured underwater for 1 week before the bonding strengths of 

 the coating were determined as previously described. All the panels were 

 coated relatively easily. The results shown in Table 5 indicate that 

 sandblasting (Treatment 5) gave the best bonding strength and waterblast- 

 ing underwater (Treatment 2) the next best. Waterblasting above water 

 (Treatment 1 ) , waterblasting underwater with added abrasive (Treatment 

 3), and wirebrushing (Treatment 4) resulted in a much reduced bonding 

 strength, but it was still well above that of the uncleaned control 

 panel (Treatment 6). 



FIELD TESTING OF UNDERWATER-APPLIED PAINTS ON QUEEN MARY 



With the cooperation of CDR John W. McAdams and Mr. Marvin M. Wolff 

 of the Queen Mary Department of the City of Long Beach, a field test of 

 four CEL formulations was conducted on the Queen Mary on 21 January 

 1975. These four formulations were 101-2, 102-2, 101-5, and 102-5. 

 The area selected for the test was located partly above and partly below 

 water on the steel propeller box on the port side. It was given only a 



