coatings

Article
Influence of Coating Formulation on Its Mechanical
Properties and Cracking Resistance
Laurence Podgorski 1, *, Mari de Meijer 2 and Jean-Denis Lanvin 1
1 FCBA Technological Institute, Allée de Boutaut BP227, F-33028 Bordeaux, France; jean-denis.lanvin@fcba.fr
2 Teknos Drywood, Hendrik ter Kuilestraat 181, NL-7547 SK Enschede, The Netherlands;
mari.demeijer@teknos.com
* Correspondence: Laurence.podgorski@fcba.fr; Tel.: +33-556-436-366

Received: 23 August 2017; Accepted: 27 September 2017; Published: 30 September 2017

Abstract: The mechanical properties of coatings strongly influence wood coatings’ performance,
as coatings may be stressed by dimensional variations of wood when exposed outdoors. Within the
European project SERVOWOOD (2014–2016), the influence of coating formulation on mechanical
properties and cracking resistance has been studied. Several acrylic and alkyd formulations with
different pigment volume concentrations (PVCs), with and without UV protection have been applied
on pine samples and exposed to artificial weathering (EN 927-6) for 12 weeks. Persoz hardness
of coatings applied on wood was assessed before and after weathering. Tensile tests on free films
have been carried out at −10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C. For each formulation, elastic modulus, tensile
strength, and strain at break have been determined for the three test temperatures. For each test
temperature, there was no correlation between the elastic modulus and strain at break, nor between
tensile strength and strain at break. The results showed a relation between Persoz hardness and
elastic modulus. The best performing formulation had a mean elastic modulus at room temperature
lower than 400 MPa and a mean strain at break higher than 30%.

Keywords: wood; coating; tensile test; elastic modulus; hardness; cracking; weathering

1. Introduction
Improving the durability of exterior coatings is essential for the use and development of wood as
a building material. The approach of trying to improve the performance of coatings by optimizing
different elements of the coating system that contribute to coating longevity has been recently published
for clear coatings [1], taking into account the dimensional stability of wood, photostability of the
wood surface, moisture ingress via end-grain, coating flexibility and photostability, and finally,
coating thickness.
Mechanical properties of coatings strongly influence wood coatings’ performance when exposed
outdoors, as coatings may be stressed by dimensional variations of wood [2,3]. Despite their significant
influence on performance, a prior control of the tensile properties of coating formulations has not yet
been systematically assessed. As a result, the European Standard EN 927-2 [4] regarding performance
specification for exterior wood coating does not include any mechanical properties in the performance
criteria. However, a first draft of a Technical Specification on the tensile properties of wood coatings
has recently been produced by the European Committee for Standardization in charge of exterior wood
coatings (CEN/TC 139/WG2) [5], showing the growing interest of this Committee in the mechanical
properties of exterior wood coatings.
The objective of the SERVOWOOD project (2014–2016) was to develop and establish European
Standards that will facilitate the prediction of service life for exterior wood coatings. The work content
of this European project and some preliminary results have been recently presented [6]. Within this
project, the influence of coating formulation on mechanical performance and resistance to cracking

Coatings 2017, 7, 163; doi:10.3390/coatings7100163 www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2017, 7, 163 2 of 11

has been studied and is presented in this paper. The mechanical properties of 24 coatings produced
by Teknos Drywood (Enschede, The Netherlands) and based on four binders were assessed at FCBA
(Forêt Cellulose Bois Ameublement Technological Institute, Bordeaux, France). Tensile tests on free
films have been carried out at −10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C. Elastic modulus, tensile strength, and strain at
break have been determined and analyzed in terms of cracking resistance after exposure to artificial
weathering according to the standard EN 927-6 [7].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Coatings
Four resins (two acrylics and two alkyds) described in Table 1 were used. Each resin was used to
produce six formulations mixed on a high-speed dissolver with or without UV protection and three
pigment volume concentrations (PVCs) as follows: clear PVC (0%), low PVC (17%), and high PVC
(48%) using TiO2 and other fillers (calcium carbonate and talc). In total, 24 formulations were produced
by Teknos Drywood and are described in Table 2. The UV protection was achieved using two additives
as described in Table 3. Details about pigment and fillers loading are shown in Table 4.

Table 1. Description of the four resins used.

Resin Information/Recommendations on Formulation and Use (from Data Sheets)

Acrylic 1 Dispersion; Good elasticity, especially at low temperature; For highly durable wood coatings
Acrylic 2 High-gloss paints interior/exterior/wood stains
Alkyd 1 Long oil alkyd emulsion; Interior/exterior primers and topcoat; Outdoor durability
Alkyd 2 Alkyd dispersion; Interior/exterior stains and trim paints for wood and metals

Table 2. Description of the 24 coatings. PVC: pigment volume concentration.

Resin UV Protection PVC Coating Reference

Clear 05
No Low 06
High 07
Acrylic 1
Clear 11
Yes Low 12
High 13
Clear 17
No Low 18
High 19
Acrylic 2
Clear 23
Yes Low 24
High 25
Clear 29
No Low 30
High 31
Alkyd 1
Clear 35
Yes Low 36
High 37
Clear 41
No Low 42
High 43
Alkyd 2
Clear 47
Yes Low 48
High 49
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 3 of 11

Table 3. UV protection of the formulations.

Additive wt %
2-Hydroxyphenyl-s-triazine 3.0
Amino-ether hindered amine light stabilizer 1.5

Table 4. Pigment and fillers loading for the different PVCs.

Pigment and Fillers (wt %)

PVC
TiO2 Calcium Carbonate Talc
Clear n/a n/a n/a
Low 18 1.5 0.75
High 18 15 7.5

2.2. Hardness
Hardness was assessed for coatings applied on wood directly in order to achieve a realistic film
formation. Coatings were applied on Scots pine selected to fulfil the requirements of EN 927-6: it was
free from knots, cracks, and resinous streaks, and the inclination of the growth rings to the test face was
5◦ to 45◦ . Three coats of 50 g/m2 (wet) with a mean total dry film thickness of 40.6 µm were applied on
three samples. Their dimensions were 150 mm (L) × 75 mm (R) × 20 mm (T). After 1 month of drying
at 20 ± 2 ◦ C and 65% ± 5% relative humidity, hardness was measured using the Persoz pendulum (N3,
Touzart & Matignon, Paris, France) at FCBA. The time for damping from 12◦ to 4◦ displacement was
recorded, and represented the hardness of the surface tested—the longer the damping time, the harder
the coating. The pendulum was calibrated using a glass plate (without any coating) and checking that
the damping time was 430 ± 15 s. For each coating, nine measurements were made and the mean
hardness was calculated.

2.3. Tensile Test

Each coating was applied on silicone foils using a four-side film applicator (VF2167, TQC B.V.,
Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands). Coatings were air-dried for two weeks in a controlled
environment at 20 ± 2 ◦ C and 65% ± 5% relative humidity. Then, films were carefully detached by
hand and cut to size (70 mm × 20 mm) using a scalpel. Specimens were oriented longitudinally relative
to the direction of film preparation. The mean dry film thickness was 317 µm. The specimens were
conditioned at 20 ± 2 ◦ C and 65% ± 5% relative humidity for a further two weeks prior to testing.
Tensile tests were carried out at FCBA using a hydraulic actuator (MTS, 25 tons, MTS Systems
Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) equipped with a 100 N load cell. The film specimens were
held by mandrel type holders to avoid damage by cutting the films near the grips. The gauge length
used was the distance of the free film between the clamps and was set to 50 mm. The actuator speed
was set to 10 mm/min. The elastic modulus was determined as the slope of a linear portion of the
strength–strain curve as detailed by FCBA in the document CEN/TC 139/WG2 N872. Five replicates
were used for each coating and for each test temperature: –10 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C. Mean values were
calculated for elastic modulus, strain at break, and tensile strength at the maximal load.

2.4. Artificial Weathering

Each coating was applied on four Scots pine samples fulfilling the requirements of EN 927-6.
They were free from knots, cracks, and resinous streaks, and the inclination of the growth rings
to the test face was 5◦ to 45◦ . Their dimensions were 150 mm (L) × 75 mm (R) × 20 mm (T).
After two weeks of drying at 20 ± 2 ◦ C and 65% ± 5% relative humidity, three samples were exposed to
fluorescent UV lamps (UVA-340 nm, Q-Lab, Westlake, OH, USA) and water in an artificial weathering
device (QUV/Spray/RP, Q-Lab) at EMPA (Dübendorf, Switzerland). They were exposed to 24 h of
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 4 of 11

condensation at 45 ± 3 ◦ C followed by 48 cycles alternating 2.5 h of UV and 0.5 h of water4 of 11 

Coatings 2017, 7, 163  spray for
a total of 2016 h according to EN 927-6. One sample was kept as a control. At the end of exposure,
exposure, the cracking density was assessed by EMPA on a scale from 0 (no cracking) to 5 (severe 
the cracking density was assessed by EMPA on a scale from 0 (no cracking) to 5 (severe cracking)
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  4 of 11  using
cracking) using ISO 4628‐4 [8]. 
ISO 4628-4 [8].
exposure, the cracking density was assessed by EMPA on a scale from 0 (no cracking) to 5 (severe 
3. Results and Discussion 
cracking) using ISO 4628‐4 [8]. 
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Hardness before Weathering 
3. Results and Discussion 
3.1. Hardness before Weathering
Figure 1 shows the influence of the coating formulation on the mean Persoz hardness for each 
3.1. Hardness before Weathering 
Figure
resin.  1 shows the influence of the coating formulation on the mean Persoz hardness for each resin.
Figure 1 shows the influence of the coating formulation on the mean Persoz hardness for each 
resin.  100

90
100
(s)

80
90
Persoz hardness

70
(s)

80
Persoz hardness

60
70
50
60
40
50
Acrylic 1 Acrylic 2 Alkyd 1 Alkyd 2
30
40 5 6 7 11 12 13 17 18 19 23 24 25 29 30 31 35 36 37 41 42 43 47 48 49
Coating  
Acrylic 1 Acrylic 2 Alkyd 1 Alkyd 2
30
5 6 7 11 12 13 17 18 19 23 24 25 29 30 31 35 36 37 41 42 43 47 48 49
Figure 1. Mean Persoz hardness and confidence interval at 95% for the mean for the 24 coatings. 
Figure 1. Mean Persoz hardness and confidence Coating
interval at 95% for the mean for the 24 coatings.
 
An interaction plot established using MINITAB statistical software (Version 16) is included in 
Figure 1. Mean Persoz hardness and confidence interval at 95% for the mean for the 24 coatings. 
An interaction
Figure  plotthat 
2.  It  shows  established using
the  hardness  was MINITAB statistical
mainly  influenced  by software (Version
the  resin  type  16)PVC. 
and  the  is included
The  in
FigureAcrylic 1 clearly led to the lowest hardnesses (48.2 s for clear coatings), whereas coatings made with 
2. ItAn interaction plot established using MINITAB statistical software (Version 16) is included in 
shows that the hardness was mainly influenced by the resin type and the PVC. The Acrylic
Alkyd 2 displayed the highest values (68.6 s for clear coatings). The increase due to pigments was 
1 clearly led to
Figure  the
2.  It  lowest
shows  hardnesses
that  (48.2
the  hardness  s for
was  clear
mainly  coatings),
influenced  by whereas
the  resin coatings
type  and made withThe 
the  PVC.  Alkyd 2
especially significant for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 2 (low 
the highest values (68.6 s for clear coatings).PVC).  One  could  expect a  higher  increase 
Acrylic 1 clearly led to the lowest hardnesses (48.2 s for clear coatings), whereas coatings made with 
displayed The increase due to pigments in 
was especially
hardness with the highest PVC. However, for these two coatings a slight decrease in hardness was 
Alkyd 2 displayed the highest values (68.6 s for clear coatings). The increase due to pigments was 
significant for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 2 (low PVC). One could expect a higher increase in hardness
observed. The highest PVCs were obtained by using pigments and fillers. The apparent decrease in 
especially significant for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 2 (low  PVC).  One  decrease
could  expect a  higher  increase  in 
with the highest PVC. However, for these two coatings a slight in hardness was observed.
hardness for the highest PVC may be due to a difference in the pendulum hardness of pigments and 
hardness with the highest PVC. However, for these two coatings a slight decrease in hardness was 
The highest PVCs were obtained by using pigments and fillers. The apparent decrease in hardness for
fillers. The UV protection had almost no influence on hardness, except maybe for Acrylic 2 where a 
observed. The highest PVCs were obtained by using pigments and fillers. The apparent decrease in 
the highest PVC may be due to a difference in the pendulum hardness of pigments and fillers. The UV
slight decrease in hardness was observed. 
hardness for the highest PVC may be due to a difference in the pendulum hardness of pigments and 
protection had almost no influence on hardness, except maybe for Acrylic 2 where a slight decrease in
fillers. The UV protection had almost no influence on hardness, except maybe for Acrylic 2 where a 
hardness was observed. Interaction plot for Persoz hardness (s)
slight decrease in hardness was observed. 
) )
te te
hi hi
(w (w
Interactions plot forcle Persoz
ow
hardness
ar
)
ig
h (s)
o ( L H
N Ye 0 1- 2- )
) te
te hi
hi
) (w (w
ar h 80 Resin
le w ig
o s (c Lo H A cry lic 1
Resin N Ye 0 1- 2- 70
A cry lic 2
60
80 A lk y d 1
Resin
50
A
A lk
cryy dlic21
Resin 70
40
A cry lic 2
Resin
60
80 A lk y d 1
50 UV
UV 70 A lk y d 2
No
40
60 Resin
Yes
80
50 UV
UV 70
40 No
60 Yes
50
PVC  
40
Figure 2. Interaction plot for the mean Persoz hardness. 
PVC  
Figure 2. Interaction plot for the mean Persoz hardness. 
Figure 2. Interaction plot for the mean Persoz hardness.
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 5 of 11
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  5 of 11 

3.2. Tensile Tests

3.2. Tensile Tests 
Figure
Figure  33  compares
compares  the
the  tensile
tensile  properties
properties  of
of  the
the  acrylic
acrylic  and
and  alkyd
alkyd  coatings
coatings  for
for  the
the  three
three  test
test 
temperatures. It shows that the shape of the strength (MPa)–strain (%) curves were different between
temperatures. It shows that the shape of the strength (MPa)–strain (%) curves were different between 
the acrylic and the alkyd coatings.
the acrylic and the alkyd coatings. 
From the shape of the curves, the ductile or brittle behavior can be summarized as shown in
From the shape of the curves, the ductile or brittle behavior can be summarized as shown in 
Table 5.
Table 5. 

 
Figure 3. Comparison of the tensile strength–strain curves of the different coatings (examples with 
Figure 3. Comparison of the tensile strength–strain curves of the different coatings (examples with
coatings 06, 18, 30, and 42 made with low PVC). 
coatings 06, 18, 30, and 42 made with low PVC).

Table 5. Ductile or brittle behavior of the coatings (examples for clear and low PVC coatings).   
Table 5. Ductile or brittle behavior of the coatings (examples for clear and low PVC coatings).
Temperature 
Resin  Temperature
Resin −10 °C  20 °C  45 °C 
−10 ◦ C 20 ◦ C 45 ◦ C
Acrylic 1  Ductile  Ductile  Ductile 
Acrylic 1 Ductile Ductile Ductile
Acrylic 2  Brittle  Ductile  Ductile 
Acrylic 2 Brittle Ductile Ductile
Alkyd 1 
Alkyd 1 Brittle 
Brittle Ductile 
Ductile Ductile 
Ductile
Alkyd 2
Alkyd 2  Brittle
Brittle  Ductile
Ductile  Ductile
Ductile 

The two
The two acrylic
acrylic  resins 
resins werewere 
moremore  ductile 
ductile than 
than the twothe  two  as
alkyds, alkyds,  as  they 
they were were 
capable capable  of 
of undergoing
undergoing  larger  strains  (room  ◦
temperature  and  45  °C)  before  failure.  Acrylic 
larger strains (room temperature and 45 C) before failure. Acrylic 1 was especially interesting, 1  was  especially 
as it
interesting, as it 
was ductile evenwas ductile  even at low 
at low temperature, temperature, 
which confirms thewhich  confirms information
qualitative the  qualitative information 
provided in its
provided in its data sheet. 
data sheet.
At room
At room temperature,
temperature,  Alkyd 
Alkyd 2  was 
2 was moremore  ductile 
ductile than than 
AlkydAlkyd 
1. Both1. alkyds
Both  alkyds  −10 ◦ at 
were atbrittle 
were brittle C.  
−10 °C. Only Acrylic 1 was used above its glass transition temperature (T
Only Acrylic 1 was used above its glass transition temperature (Tg ), as it was g), as it was ductile for the 
ductile for the three test
temperatures. It can be estimated that Tg of the three other coatings was between −10 ◦ C and 20 ◦ C.
three test temperatures. It can be estimated that T g of the three other coatings was between −10 °C 
and 20 °C. 
The mean elastic modulus is presented in Figure 4 for each coating and each test temperature
(–10 ◦The mean elastic modulus is presented in Figure 4 for each coating and each test temperature 
C, 20 ◦ C, and 45 ◦ C). Figure 4 shows a broad range of elastic modulus from 130 to 1900 MPa at  
−10 C, from 5 to 1615 MPa at room temperature, and from 2 to 738 MPa at 45 ◦ C. The lower the test
◦
(–10 °C, 20 °C, and 45 °C). Figure 4 shows a broad range of elastic modulus from 130 to 1900 MPa at 
−10 °C, from 5 to 1615 MPa at room temperature, and from 2 to 738 MPa at 45 °C. The lower the test 
temperature, the higher the elastic modulus. For all coatings, the higher the PVC the higher the elastic
temperature, the higher the elastic modulus. For all coatings, the higher the PVC the higher the elastic 
modulus. The elastic modulus of Alkyd 2 was the least influenced by the recipe changes.
modulus. The elastic modulus of Alkyd 2 was the least influenced by the recipe changes. 
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 6 of 11
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  6 of 11 
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  6 of 11 

 
 
Figure 4. Influence of coating formulation on elastic modulus for the three test temperatures (in blue: 
Figure 4. Influence of coating formulation on elastic modulus for the three test temperatures (in blue:
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC). 
Figure 4. Influence of coating formulation on elastic modulus for the three test temperatures (in blue: 
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC).
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC). 
The strain at break for each coating and each test temperature is included in Figure 5. It varied 
The strain at break for each coating and each test temperature is included in Figure 5. It varied
from 1% to 106% at −10 °C, from 1% to 259% at room temperature, and from 2% to 322% at 45 °C. The 
The strain at break for each coating and each test temperature is included in Figure 5. It varied 
from 1% to 106% at −10 ◦ C, from 1% to 259% at room temperature, and from 2% to 322% at 45 ◦ C.
acrylic coatings clearly displayed higher strain at break than the alkyds. Increasing the PVC clearly 
from 1% to 106% at −10 °C, from 1% to 259% at room temperature, and from 2% to 322% at 45 °C. The 
Theacrylic coatings clearly displayed higher strain at break than the alkyds. Increasing the PVC clearly 
acrylic coatings clearly displayed higher strain at break than the alkyds. Increasing the PVC clearly
decreased the strain at break for all coatings. For example, increasing the amount of pigments from 
decreased the strain at break for all coatings. For example, increasing the amount of pigments from
clear to low PVC decreased the strain at break of 74% for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 1, 49% for Acrylic 1, 
decreased the strain at break for all coatings. For example, increasing the amount of pigments from 
and 20% for Alkyd 2. With higher amounts of pigments and fillers (high PVC), the strain at break 
clear to low PVC decreased the strain at break of 74% for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 1, 49% for Acrylic 1,
clear to low PVC decreased the strain at break of 74% for Acrylic 2 and Alkyd 1, 49% for Acrylic 1, 
andwas dramatically reduced to less than 15% for all coatings and for all test temperatures. For clear and 
20% for Alkyd 2. With higher amounts of pigments and fillers (high PVC), the strain at break was
and 20% for Alkyd 2. With higher amounts of pigments and fillers (high PVC), the strain at break 
low PVC coatings, cold temperature clearly decreased the strain at break. 
was dramatically reduced to less than 15% for all coatings and for all test temperatures. For clear and 
dramatically reduced to less than 15% for all coatings and for all test temperatures. For clear and low
PVClow PVC coatings, cold temperature clearly decreased the strain at break. 
coatings, cold temperature clearly decreased the strain at break.

 
 
Figure 5. Influence of coating formulation on strain at break for the three test temperatures (in blue: 
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC). 
Figure 5. Influence of coating formulation on strain at break for the three test temperatures (in blue: 
Figure 5. Influence of coating formulation on strain at break for the three test temperatures (in blue:
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC). 
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC).
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 7 of 11
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  7 of 11 

The tensile strength for each coating and each test temperature is shown in Figure 6. It varied
The tensile strength for each coating and each test temperature is shown in Figure 6. It varied 
from 5.3 to 15.8 MPa at −10 ◦ C, from 2.2 to 11.7 MPa at room temperature, and from 0.5 to 5.1 MPa
from 5.3 to 15.8 MPa at −10 °C, from 2.2 to 11.7 MPa at room temperature, and from 0.5 to 5.1 MPa at 
at 45 ◦ C. The lower the test temperature, the higher the tensile strength. A significant increase in
45 °C. The lower the test temperature, the higher the tensile strength. A significant increase in tensile 
tensile strength was observed at °C  ◦ C compared with room temperature. The effect of high PVC was
−10compared 
strength  was  observed  at  −10  with  room  temperature.  The  effect  of  high  PVC  was 
different according to the type of binder. For the acrylic coatings there was a general trend towards
different according to the type of binder. For the acrylic coatings there was a general trend towards 
an increase in the tensile strength with high PVC compared with clear and low PVC for the three test
an increase in the tensile strength with high PVC compared with clear and low PVC for the three test 
temperatures. This increase was in good agreement with the increase in the elastic modulus due to
temperatures. This increase was in good agreement with the increase in the elastic modulus due to 
high PVC (Figure 4). For the alkyd coatings, this trend was not observed and the opposite effect was
high PVC (Figure 4). For the alkyd coatings, this trend was not observed and the opposite effect was 
even ◦ C with a decrease in tensile strength with high PVC formulations. This trend
at −10 °C with 
even  shown
shown at −10  a  decrease in  tensile strength  with  high  PVC formulations.  This  trend 
should be confirmed with the study of a larger range of coatings.
should be confirmed with the study of a larger range of coatings. 
For each test temperature, there was no correlation between the elastic modulus and strain at
For each test temperature, there was no correlation between the elastic modulus and strain at 
break, nor between tensile strength and strain at break.
break, nor between tensile strength and strain at break. 

 
Figure 6. Influence of coating formulation on tensile strength for the three test temperatures (in blue: 
Figure 6. Influence of coating formulation on tensile strength for the three test temperatures (in blue:
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC). 
clear PVC; in red: low PVC; in green: high PVC).

3.3. Cracking and Weathering Resistance 
3.3. Cracking and Weathering Resistance
Figure  7  shows  the  main  effects  plot  for  mean  cracking  produced  by  the  statistical  software 
Figure 7 shows the main effects plot for mean cracking produced by the statistical software
MINITAB.  In  such a  plot, the  steeper  the  slope  of  the  line,  the  greater  the  magnitude  of  the  main 
MINITAB. In such a plot, the steeper the slope of the line, the greater the magnitude of the main effect.
effect. This figure shows that all parameters (coating, number of coats, UV protection, PVC) had an 
This figure shows that all parameters (coating, number of coats, UV protection, PVC) had an influence
influence on cracking. The lowest cracking scores were obtained with coatings made with Acrylic 1 
on cracking. The lowest cracking scores were obtained with coatings made with Acrylic 1 and Alkyd 2.
and Alkyd 2. Increasing the number of coats from two to three clearly reduced the cracking density, 
Increasing the number of coats from two to three clearly reduced the cracking density, as did including
as did including UV protection in the recipe. The PVC had a large influence on cracking, and higher 
UV protection in the recipe. The PVC had a large influence on cracking, and higher degradation was
degradation was obtained for coatings with high PVC. 
obtained for coatings with high PVC.
The influence of the different parameters on the mean elastic modulus and the mean strain at break 
The influence of the different parameters on the mean elastic modulus and the mean strain at break
are summarized using main effects plots shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Figure 8 shows that 
are summarized using main effects plots shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. Figure 8 shows that the
the main influence on the mean elastic modulus comes from the PVC and the type of binder. The highest 
main influence on the mean elastic modulus comes from the PVC and the type of binder. The highest
moduli were obtained with coatings with high PVC. The influence of the UV protection on the mean 
moduli were obtained with coatings with high PVC. The influence of the UV protection on the mean
elastic modulus was minor. However, it may influence the mechanical properties after weathering. 
elastic modulus was minor. However, it may influence the mechanical properties after weathering.
Figure 9 shows that the main influence on the mean strain at break comes from the PVC and the 
Figure 9 shows that the main influence on the mean strain at break comes from the PVC and the
type of binder. The lowest strain at break was obtained for coatings with high PVC and coatings made 
type of binder. The lowest strain at break was obtained for coatings with high PVC and coatings made
with Alkyd 1. The influence of the UV protection on the mean strain at break was minor. 
with Alkyd 1. The influence of the UV protection on the mean strain at break was minor.
 
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 8 of 11
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  8 of 11 
8 of 11 

From
From 
From Figures 7–97–9 
Figures 
Figures  it can
7–9  it  be observed
it  can 
can  that that 
be  observed 
be  observed  coatings
that  mademade 
coatings 
coatings  with Acrylic
made  2 had 2 
with  Acrylic 
with  Acrylic  a mean
2  a elastic
had  a 
had  mean modulus
mean  elastic 
elastic 
of 584 MPa and a mean strain at break of 61%, which led to a mean cracking score
modulus of 584 MPa and a mean strain at break of 61%, which led to a mean cracking score of almost 
modulus of 584 MPa and a mean strain at break of 61%, which led to a mean cracking score of almost of almost 4. Coatings
4.  Coatings 
based
4.  Coatings 
on Alkyd based 
based  on had
1 also
on  Alkyd 
Alkyd  1 
the 1  also mean
same
also  had  the 
had  the  same  mean 
cracking
same  mean  cracking 
score,cracking  score, 
a mean score,  a modulus
elastica  mean  elastic 
mean  elastic 
of 161modulus 
MPa, and
modulus  of    a
of 
161 MPa, and a mean strain at break of 22%. 
mean strain at break of 22%.
161 MPa, and a mean strain at break of 22%. 
It  can 
It can
It  can  be  observed 
observed 
be observed
be  that 
thatthat  the  best 
the best
the  best  performing 
performing coatings 
coatings
performing  were 
werewere 
coatings  those 
thosethose  made 
mademade  with  Acrylic 
with Acrylic
with  Acrylic  1 
1 and 1  and  2.
Alkyd
and 
Alkyd 2. Their elastic modulus at room temperature was lower than 400 MPa and their strain at break 
Their elastic modulus at room temperature was lower than 400 MPa and their strain at break was
Alkyd 2. Their elastic modulus at room temperature was lower than 400 MPa and their strain at break 
was higher than 30%. Acrylic 2 displayed interesting properties regarding strain at break (60% as 
was higher than 30%. Acrylic 2 displayed interesting properties regarding strain at break (60% as 
higher than 30%. Acrylic 2 displayed interesting properties regarding strain at break (60% as shown
shown in Figure 9), but displayed high cracking (see Figure 7) because its elastic modulus was the 
shown in Figure 9), but displayed high cracking (see Figure 7) because its elastic modulus was the 
in Figure 9), but displayed high cracking (see Figure 7) because its elastic modulus was the highest
highest (almost 600 MPa). In other words, selecting coating based on just strain at break may lead to 
highest (almost 600 MPa). In other words, selecting coating based on just strain at break may lead to 
(almost 600 MPa). In other words, selecting coating based on just strain at break may lead to incorrect
incorrect selection. These results show that the elastic modulus must also be taken into account when 
incorrect selection. These results show that the elastic modulus must also be taken into account when 
selection. These results show that the elastic modulus must also be taken into account when designing
designing coatings for wood which is exposed outdoors. 
designing coatings for wood which is exposed outdoors. 
coatings for wood which is exposed outdoors.

  
Figure 7. Main effects plot for the mean cracking. 
Figure 7. Main effects plot for the mean cracking.
Figure 7. Main effects plot for the mean cracking. 

  
Figure 8. Main effects plot for the mean elastic modulus (room temperature). 
Figure 8. Main effects plot for the mean elastic modulus (room temperature).
Figure 8. Main effects plot for the mean elastic modulus (room temperature). 
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 9 of 11
Coatings 2017, 7, 163  9 of 11 

Coatings 2017, 7, 163  9 of 11 

 
Figure 9. Main effects plot for the mean strain at break (room temperature). 
Figure 9. Main effects plot for the mean strain at break (room temperature).
 
It  was  recently  shown  that  there  was  a  relation  between  the  elastic  modulus  and  the  Persoz 
Figure 9. Main effects plot for the mean strain at break (room temperature). 
It was recently shown that there was a relation between the elastic modulus and the Persoz
hardness of exterior wood coatings based on acrylic resins [9]. Furthermore, previous results within 
hardness ofwas 
exterior wood coatings based ona acrylic resins [9]. the 
Furthermore, previous
the SERVOWOOD project have shown that the exposure to weathering led to an increase in coatings’ 
It  recently  shown  that  there  was  relation  between  elastic  modulus  results
and  the  within
Persoz 
thehardness [10]. It can therefore be anticipated that the exposure to weathering certainly leads to an 
SERVOWOOD project have shown that the exposure to weathering led to an increase in coatings’
hardness of exterior wood coatings based on acrylic resins [9]. Furthermore, previous results within 
increase in the elastic modulus in relation with cracking development. 
hardness [10]. It can therefore be anticipated that the exposure to weathering certainly leads to an
the SERVOWOOD project have shown that the exposure to weathering led to an increase in coatings’ 
increase Results have shown that the tensile strength seems not to influence the weathering performance 
hardness [10]. It can therefore be anticipated that the exposure to weathering certainly leads to an 
in the elastic modulus in relation with cracking development.
in the QUV. However, it will probably have an influence on impact resistance (hail damage). 
increase in the elastic modulus in relation with cracking development. 
Results have shown that the tensile strength seems not to influence the weathering performance
in the QUV. Results have shown that the tensile strength seems not to influence the weathering performance 
However, it will probably have an influence on impact resistance (hail damage).
3.4. Relation between Elastic Modulus and Persoz Hardness 
in the QUV. However, it will probably have an influence on impact resistance (hail damage). 
3.4. Relation between Elastic Modulus and Persoz Hardness
Figure 10 shows the Persoz hardness versus the elastic modulus of the 24 coatings. It can be seen 
3.4. Relation between Elastic Modulus and Persoz Hardness 
there was a relation between the elastic modulus and the Persoz hardness for elastic moduli lower 
Figure 10 shows the Persoz hardness versus the elastic modulus of the 24 coatings. It can be seen
Figure 10 shows the Persoz hardness versus the elastic modulus of the 24 coatings. It can be seen 
than 400 MPa: the higher the Persoz hardness, the higher the elastic modulus. For high PVC coatings, 
there was a relation between the elastic modulus and the Persoz hardness for elastic moduli lower
there was a relation between the elastic modulus and the Persoz hardness for elastic moduli lower 
Persoz hardness was probably more influenced by the hardness of the pigment and/or fillers than by 
than 400 MPa: the higher the Persoz hardness, the higher the elastic modulus. For high PVC coatings,
than 400 MPa: the higher the Persoz hardness, the higher the elastic modulus. For high PVC coatings, 
the binder hardness. 
Persoz hardness was probably more influenced by the hardness of the pigment and/or fillers than by
Persoz hardness was probably more influenced by the hardness of the pigment and/or fillers than by 
the binder hardness.
the binder hardness. 

 
 
Figure 10. Relation between Persoz hardness and elastic modulus at room temperature. 
Figure 10. Relation between Persoz hardness and elastic modulus at room temperature. 
Figure 10. Relation between Persoz hardness and elastic modulus at room temperature.
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 10 of 11

Based on the results with the clear and low PVC coatings, it can be seen that the relation between
elastic modulus and hardness seems to be influenced by the nature of the binder (acrylic versus alkyd),
and therefore should be restricted to coatings with similar viscoelasticity as recommended by Sato [11].
The study of coatings made from a broader range of alkyd resins for exterior wood coatings would be
useful to refine this analysis, as the relation found between Persoz hardness and elastic modulus of
acrylic coatings was already shown [9].
These results should encourage the use of the Persoz pendulum to assess the mechanical properties
of coatings. However making tensile tests gives additional and useful information, especially through
the shape of the strength–strain curves and its change due to test temperatures (negative and positive).

4. Conclusions
The influence of coating formulation on mechanical properties and weathering performance has
been studied using several acrylic and alkyd formulations with different PVCs, with and without
UV protection.
The study has shown that making tensile tests both at negative and positive temperatures was
useful to understand the mechanical behavior of the different formulations and the resistance to
cracking. It allows the ductile properties to be checked over a range of temperatures encountered by
coatings during their service life. Selecting coatings on just strain at break may lead to the incorrect
selection, as the elastic modulus must be considered. The best performing coatings (made with Acrylic
1 and Alkyd 2) had a mean elastic modulus at room temperature lower than 400 MPa and a mean
strain at break higher than 30%. The relation between Persoz hardness and elastic modulus observed
in previous work was confirmed, and coatings with low Persoz hardness had better performances.
These results are an input for the standard standardization committee CEN/TC139/WG2 (exterior
wood coatings) when drafting the Technical Specification on tensile properties for wood coatings.
They should contribute to help the coating producers to design good performing coatings and should
encourage resin manufacturers to include elastic modulus and strain at break in their data sheets.

Acknowledgments: The project SERVOWOOD receives funding from the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement FP7-SME-2013-606576. Contributions to the project from all
consortium members are acknowledged. Special thanks to Mari de Meijer (DRYWOOD Coatings) for providing
the coatings, to Martin Arnold (EMPA) for providing cracking data, to Daniel Iribarnegaray (FCBA) and Didier
Reuling (FCBA) for tensile tests, and to Lise Malassenet (FCBA) for hardness tests.
Author Contributions: Mari de Meijer designed the 24 formulations. Jean-Denis Lanvin supervised the
mechanical tests and provided the MINITAB graphs. Laurence Podgorski analyzed the data and co-wrote
the paper with Jean-Denis Lanvin with approval by Mari de Meijer.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Evans, P.D.; Vollmer, S.; Kim, J.D.W.; Chan, G.; Gibson, S.K. Improving the performance of clear coatings on
wood through the aggregation of marginal gains. Coatings 2016, 6, 66. [CrossRef]
2. Podgorski, L.; Roux, M.L. Wood modification to improve the durability of coatings. Surf. Coat. Int. 1999, 82,
590–596. [CrossRef]
3. De Meijer, M.; Nienhuis, J. Influence of internal stress and extensibility on the exterior durability of wood
coatings. Prog. Org. Coat. 2009, 65, 498–503. [CrossRef]
4. EN 927-2:2014 Paints and Varnishes—Coating Materials and Coating Systems for Exterior Wood—Part 2:
Performance Specification; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
5. CEN/TC 139/WG2 N872 Technical Specification—Draft Tensile Properties; CEN Technical Committee: Berlin,
Germany, 2016.
6. Arnold, A. EU–project SERVOWOOD—Improved service life prediction and test capability for wood
coatings. In Proceedings of the 7th European Weathering Symposium, Naples, Italy, 16–18 September 2015;
Reichert, T., Ed.; GUS: Pfinztal, Germany, 2015; pp. 149–159.
Coatings 2017, 7, 163 11 of 11

7. EN 927-6:2014 Paints and Varnishes—Coating Materials and Coating Systems for Exterior Wood—Part 6: Exposure
of Wood Coatings to Artificial Weathering Using Fluorescent UV Lamps and Water; European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
8. ISO 4628-4:2016 Paints and Varnishes—Evaluation of Degradation of—Designation of Quantity and Size of Defects,
and of Intensity of Uniform Changes in Appearance—Part 4: Assessment of Cracking; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, January 2016.
9. Malassenet, L.; George, B.; Merlin, A.; Podgorski, L. Persoz hardness: A useful property to study performance
of exterior wood coatings. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2015, 6, 174–180.
10. Podgorski, L.; Malassenet, L.; Reynaud, C. Variation in coating hardness during the EN 927-6 weathering
test: Influence of pigmentation. In Proceedings of the International Research Group on Wood Protection,
47th Annual Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–19 May 2016.
11. Sato, K. Physical significance of the pendulum hardness of coating films. J. Coat. Technol. 1984, 56, 47–57.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).