Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper considers the physical processes of corrosion that occur in bulk carriers. Three
main types of corrosive environments are identied within a bulk carrier, namely, immersion
in seawater, exposure to an enclosed atmosphere, and exposure to porous media.
Fundamental variables inuencing corrosion in each environment of the cargo hold region,
ballast tanks and void spaces are identied. These serve to identify operational parameters
that aect bulk carrier corrosion. It is proposed that such parameters can be used to obtain
corrosion rate databases representative of vessel operation. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Bulk carriers are used to transport coal, iron ore, grain and other bulk cargoes.
During the period 199097 inclusive, 25 bulk carriers foundered or sank with an
average age of 20.4 yr. Subsequently, several research programs have identied
corrosion and fatigue as weakening the structures of aged bulk carriers [13]. In
addition to a high proportion of structural failures occurring on older vessels, the
*Corresponding author. Present address: Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO),
P.O. Box 4331, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia. Tel.: +61-03-9626-8442; fax: 61-03-9626-8409.
E-mail address: craig.gardiner@dsto.defence.gov.au (C.P. Gardiner).
0951-8339/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - 0
548 C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566
average age of the worldwide bulk carrier eet has itself increased dramatically in the
last two decades, from 8 yr in 1980 to 14 yr in 1997 [4].
Partly as a result of the continued tendency for structural failures to occur on
older vessels and partly as a result of the aging worldwide eet, the remaining life
assessment of bulk carriers has assumed greater interest in recent years. Remaining
life assessment constitutes a specic area of structural engineering involving a
probabilistic assessment of future loading patterns and future structural resistance
[5]. Structural resistance means the capability of a structure to withstand, or resist,
a loading pattern. As implied, it is time-dependent. This is due to the eect of
deterioration caused by fatigue and/or corrosion. It is useful in practice to be able to
predict when, where, and to what extent, both fatigue and corrosion will aect the
structural integrity of a vessel at future times.
A reasonable understanding of fatigue and its inuence on ship structural integrity
has been documented [6]. However, a comparable understanding of the eects of
corrosion is still developing. In the case of mild steel exposed to seawater a summary
of early experimental data and a description of the main inuencing variables are
given by Schumacher [7]. An updated review is presented by Melchers [8].
Subsequently, further understanding of the relevant processes has been developed
and a non-linear model proposed to represent the behaviour [9,10]. In summary, the
main factors inuencing the progress of corrosion of mild steel in seawater are;
salinity, pH, water temperature, dissolved oxygen content, water velocity, sulphide
pollution and bio-fouling. Corrosion in ship structures also proceeds in the presence
of both open and enclosed atmospheric environment [11]. A state-of-the-art review
of atmospheric corrosion research is given by Strekalov [12]. The main inuencing
variables are; salt deposition, time of wetness (relative humidity) and temperature.
Viner and Tozer [13] describe the main types of corrosion, which can occur in ship
structures. A general analysis of ship corrosion and estimates of corrosion rates for
various types of ships was also presented by Yanamoto et al. [14] and Ohyagi [15].
Viner and Tozer [13] concluded that corrosion in ships is inuenced mainly by the
following factors; salinity of seawater, temperature, marine fouling, pollution,
corrosion lms, speed of ow, stray-current, frequency of tank washing, humidity
and oxygen availability, cargo type, cargo residues and mechanical abrasion.
Evidently, this is a formidable array of factors.
Extensive studies of corrosion in tankers have been presented by Pollard [16] and
the Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum [17,18]. These studies, and that by Loseth
et al. [19], also provide estimates of tanker corrosion rates. More recently similar
empirical studies have been published for bulk carriers. Yanamoto and Ikegami [20]
proposed a simple empirical and probabilistic model for estimating the corrosion
rates of corrugated bulkheads and bulkhead stools in bulk carriers. The model
considers a non-linear variation of corrosion with time. It is based on a limited set of
data. A similar approach was taken by Paik et al. [21] for estimating corrosion rates
of the longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers. Corrosion rates were assumed
to be constant with time, although the model was formulated to account for possible
non-linear progress of corrosion. Paik et al. [21] also discussed factors which
inuence corrosion in bulk carriers, namely; types of cargo and time in ballast,
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 549
Most metals are thermodynamically unstable in the natural environment and have
a tendency to revert to their natural ore. This instability is the driving force for
corrosion. Corrosion is an electrochemical process and consists of two partial
reactions; the anodic reaction where the metal is oxidised and metal ions and free
electrons are transferred into solution (Eq. (1)), and the cathodic reaction (Eqs. (2)
or (3)) where the electrons are reduced by an electron acceptor [25]. A medium for
the electrochemical reactions is provided by an electrically conductive uid, for
example, water.
H2 O
Fe ) Fe2 2e ; 1
2H 2e ) H2 : 3
Eq. (2) is the most common cathodic reaction associated with corrosion in bulk
carriers as it dominates when pH is greater than approximately 5 [25]. Moisture must
be present to facilitate the transfer of metal ions (Eq. (1)) and as a reactive
compound in the cathodic reaction (Eqs. (2) or (3)).
The rate of corrosion of mild steel is dependent on the rate of each partial
reaction. An electrochemical reaction involves the transfer of electric charge and the
deposition or dissolution of a mass of reacting substance [26]. A reaction is said to be
under activation control when the overall rate is dependent on the rate of charge
transfer. Alternatively, when the rate of reaction is dependent on the rate of mass
transfer, the reaction is said to be under concentration control.
The extent of activation control is a function of temperature and the constituents
of a reaction, that is, type of metal in an anodic reaction and type of oxidant in
a cathodic reaction. Concentration control is dependent on the rate at which the
product is transported away from an electrode. In terms of corrosion, the electrode
is the corroding surface, the reactant is the oxidant of the cathodic reaction, and
the product is the result of the anodic reaction. Therefore, a knowledge of the type of
metal being corroded, temperature, and conditions of a corroding environment that
can aect the rate of transport of oxidant and ionised metal, towards and away from
a corroding surface respectively, is required to obtain a mechanistic understanding of
a corrosion condition.
Corrosion may proceed uniformly across a surface (uniform corrosion) or at
localised sites (e.g., pitting corrosion). The former is also known as general
corrosion. This is considered a more appropriate term because, in the limit, a
corroding steel surface is not completely uniform. General corrosion of bulk carrier
surfaces is considered in this study. This is the most widespread form of corrosion
occurring on bulk carriers. It is associated with the average thickness loss of a
structural component and hence the overall loss of structural resistance.
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 551
Upper Stool
Sideshell
Cargo Hold
Double Bottom
Duct Keel Ballast Tank
Fig. 1. Schemcatic diagram of bulk carrier cross-section.
2.2.1.2. Lower stools. The lower bulkhead stools and lower side stools are typically
uncoated. When coatings are used they usually have a short lifetime. Based on a
sample of thickness measurements from 27 bulk carriers, Yanamoto [29] calculated
the mean coating lifetime on bulkhead stools to be 2.05 yr. Observations undertaken
for this study showed corrosion to be uniformly distributed although the surface
condition was considerably dierent to that of the tank top plating. A thick
corrosion product layer and fewer indentations were observed on all lower stools.
Evidently, less mechanical abrasion and damage from cargo impact, grab and
bulldozer operations occurs on the lower stools compared to the adjacent tank top
plating.
Characterisation of the corrosive environment was also developed by analysing
samples of corrosion product. Crystal structures of a sample of corrosion product
taken from a lower side stool were determined using X-ray powder diraction. The
main constituents were ferrous hydroxides (Fe3O4 and a-Fe2O3), oxyhydroxides
(a-FeOOH, b-FeOOH, g-FeOOH and d-FeOOH), and an iron hydrogen sulphate
compound (Fe2(SO4)H2SO42H2O). The detection of magnetite (Fe3O4) was
conrmed by visual observation. It was observed in the inner layer of the corrosion
product, adjacent to the steel. Magnetite is commonly formed in the oxygen-reduced
zone of the corrosion product layer [30]. It follows that the supply of oxygen to the
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 553
lower side stool is reduced and the corrosion rate will decrease with time, as the
magnetite layer becomes thicker and less porous.
Detection of the akaganeite form of oxyhydroxide (b-FeOOH) conrms the
presence of chloride anions in the corrosive environment [31]. Further conrmation
was obtained by measuring the soluble chloride concentration of a sample taken
from the same location using ion chromatography. A concentration of 121 ppm (part
per million) was obtained. This is expected as coal cargoes contain chlorine and the
surfaces are sometimes washed with seawater between cargoes. Similarly, the iron
sulphate compound indicates the presence of sulphate anions, most likely from the
same sources.
Average corrosion rates deduced by Paik et al. [21], for bulk carriers up to the age
of 15 yr were approximately equal to and in some cases slightly higher than from
bulk carriers up to the age of 25 yr. This was attributed to the fact that members are
often replaced after about 15 yr. In addition to this, another eect appears to be
evident. For example, the average corrosion rate deduced for bulk carriers up to the
age of 15 yr, for tank top plating is 0.14 mm/yr. The corresponding rate for the lower
stools was 0.13 mm/yr. Based on data for ships up to the age of 25 yr, the rate of
corrosion of tank top plating was 0.13 mm/yr, and for lower stools, 0.08 mm/yr. The
decrease in average corrosion rate over time for lower stools is consistent with the
presence of magnetite in the corrosion product layer-a corrosion product layer is not
formed on the tank top plating.
(1) iron ore is loaded just above the top of the lower stools in line with the lower
bulkhead plating (and lower sideshell bracket connections).
(2) the incidence of mechanical damage is likely to be higher in the lower region of
a cargo hold.
The signicance of the iron ore cargo line is related to the occurrence of increased
wear and corrosion up to and below this level. As stated, this includes the lower
section of corrugated bulkhead plating. A likely reason for the eect not being
observed on the tramp vessels is the typically longer voyage times. Longer voyages
with coal cargo, which is usually more corrosive than iron ore cargo, decrease the
554 C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566
1.6 Mid
2.4
Lower
1.4 Mid
2.0 Lower
1.2
1.6
Diminution (%)
Diminution (%)
1.0
0.8 1.2
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.2 0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.2
50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Aft Frame Number Forward (b) Aft Frame Number Forward
5.0 10.0
4.0 8.0
3.0 6.0
2.0 4.0
1.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
90 120 150 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
(c) Aft Frame Number Forward (d) Aft Frame Number Forward
eect because coal is loaded to the top of the cargo hold, thus exposing all regions to
the same condition.
It should be noted that the protective coating on the corrugated bulkhead plating
is not usually cleaned thoroughly after unloading coal cargo. Coal dust may remain
on the surface as a result. The aggressiveness of coal dust particles for corrosion has
been demonstrated by Askey et al. [33].
2.2.1.4. Sideshell framesFcorrosion rate. The sideshell frames support the sideshell
plating between the upper and lower ballast tanks (Fig. 1). They consist of a lower
bracket connection, mid frame region, and upper bracket connection (Fig. 4). Each
component of a sideshell frame is fully coated. Field observations for this study
indicate that the protective paint coating applied to the lower bracket connection
wears much more quickly than on other components. The mid and upper regions of
sideshell frames do not come into contact with iron ore cargo, regardless of the
loading condition. In contrast, the lower bracket connection is likely to come into
contact with iron ore. It follows that premature coating wear on the lower
connection appears to be associated with contact of iron ore cargo.
Similar observations can be made from data reported by the classication society
ClassNK [34], despite their overall conclusion to the contrary. Fig. 5 shows a
summary of corrosion rate data for sideshell frames of a vessel reported to carry coal
for approximately 80% of voyages and iron ore for 20%. It is apparent that
corrosion rates are higher for the lower connection. Furthermore, the increasing
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 555
7.0 Mid
Lower
6.0
5.0
Diminution (%)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(a) Aft Frame Number Forward
8.0
Mid
7.0 Lower
6.0
Diminution (%)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
material loss with depth is more evident for the anges (Fig. 5(a)) than the webs
(Fig. 5(b)). Flanges are more freely exposed to cargo and therefore this observation
is consistent with cargo induced coating wear and hence loss of protection.
Data obtained from case 3 of [34] shows a reasonably even distribution of
corrosion over the vertical section of sideshell frames (Fig. 6). This is consistent with
the conclusions presented in the report, and, is also consistent with the suggestion
regarding iron ore induced coating wear of the lower connectionFthe vessel was
reported to exclusively carry coal cargo. It appears that the conclusion that the rate
of corrosion of sideshell frames over the vertical span is even, is only applicable to
vessels primarily engaged in the carriage of coal cargo. Vessels carrying a reasonable
proportion of iron ore appear to have higher corrosion at the lower bracket
connection, most likely due to premature coating wear.
556 C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566
Upper Stool
Upper Connection
Lower Connection
Lower Stool
Gauging data from case 1 in [34] was used to compare corrosion rates between
sideshell plating and sideshell frames. The average corrosion rate of sideshell frames
is approximately twice the rate of corrosion on sideshell plating (Fig. 7). This is
expected as both sides of the sideshell frame webs and anges are exposed to the
cargo hold environment. However, only one surface of the sideshell plating is
exposedFthe outer side has a full protective coating.
0.35
0.30
Corrosion Rate (mm/yr)
0.25
0.20
Upper
0.15
Lower
0.10
0.05
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cargo Hold Number
(a) Forward Aft
0.35
0.30
Corrosion Rate (mm/yr)
0.25
Upper
0.20
Mid
Lower
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(b) Forward Cargo Hold Number Aft
Fig. 5. (a) Average corrosion of sideshell frameFange plating, data from Case 4, NKK (1992).
(b) Average corrosion of sideshell frameFweb plating, data from Case 4, NKK (1992).
temperature of seawater. This is the case for all reasonable values of sideshell
thickness. Hence the class (or size) of a bulk carrier does not inuence the frequency
or degree of sideshell sweating. The process is aected by the coal and local seawater
temperaturesFthese are a function of trading route.
0.50
0.45
Corrosion Rate (mm/yr) 0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Upper
0.15
Mid
0.10 Lower
0.05
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(a) Forward Cargo Hold Number Aft
0.50
0.45
0.40
Corrosion Rate (mm/yr)
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20 Mid
Lower
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and bulkhead plating corrode in the presence of a porous medium, and the upper
areas are exposed to an enclosed atmospheric environment. It is also important to
recognise that typically the lower stools and tank top plating are uncoated, while the
upper regions are fully coated.
0.50
0.45
Corrosion Rate (mm/yr) 0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15 Flanges
Webs
0.10
Sideshell Plate
0.05
0.00
Accelerated coating wear was evident in the aft topside tanks. The topside tanks
were also observed to have larger areas of coating breakdown and rust than double
bottom ballast tanks. Consideration of the location of the DBBT and TST makes it
clear that corrosion rates will be dierent for the two tanks, for the following
reasons:
(1) unlike DBBTs, topside tanks are not subjected to coating breakdown caused
by indentation of plating due to cargo handling procedures,
(2) it is likely that the mean temperature and its range in topside tanks is
considerably higher than in DBBTs. The reason for this is that temperature in a
TST depends both on the air temperature outside a vessel and the degree of
solar radiation on the deck plating. In contrast, in double bottom ballast tank
seawater temperature dominates the average temperature and its range.
The second point is consistent with corrosion rates calculated by Paik et al. [21]
showing that deck plating and deck longitudinal corroded faster than external
plating and longitudinal at other locations. Paik et al. [21] also noted higher
corrosion rates of sideshell plating within the cargo hold region compared to
sideshell plating within the upper and lower wing tanks, thus indicating that cargoes
are likely to be more corrosive than ballast water.
The eect of each corrosive environment is dependent on the type of corrosion
protection system installed in a ballast tank. Some operators use only protective
coatings, and some use protective coatings and sacricial anodes. If sacricial anodes
are not installed then areas of exposed steel (where protective coating
has deteriorated) will corrode both during ballast and de-ballast conditions.
However, if sacricial anodes are installed then areas of exposed steel will
be protected when a tank is ballasted and unprotected when a tank is de-ballasted
(since anodes must be fully immersed to be eective). Therefore the rate of
560 C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566
Based on the patterns noted above, it is clear that the parameters relating to the
operation and design of a bulk carrier can have an inuence on the corrosion rate.
Ballast Tank
Corrosion
Fig. 8. Inuence of corrosion protection system and ballast condition on the type of corrosion in a ballast
tank.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 561
(a) Cargo ratios: The cargo ratio may be dened for each cargo number, i; as
time with cargo typei
Cargo ratio :
age of vessel
Coal cargo has signicantly more corrosive impurities than has iron ore. It also tends
to have much higher moisture content. As noted, the cargo line is dierent for each
cargo, and hence the proportion of plating corroding due to atmospheric and porous
media exposure is also dierent. It follows that the overall progress of corrosion for a
particular vessel is a function of the relative time a vessel carries coal and iron ore.
This may be dened by the cargo ratios.
(b) Ballast ratios: The corrosion of ballast tank and cargo hold spaces depends
on the overall time a vessel is in the ballast condition. The ballast ratio denes
the total time the lower region of a cargo hold is exposed to an enclosed atmos-
phere condition. It also partially denes the exposure condition for the upper region
of a cargo hold (the upper region is also exposed when loaded with iron ore). The
total time the ballast tank surfaces are exposed to seawater (as opposed to an
enclosed atmosphere) is also dened by the ballast ratio. The ballast ratio may be
dened as
time with ballast
Ballast ratio :
age of vessel
The ballast ratio can be related to the cargo ratio as follows:
X
in
Ballast ratio 1:0 Cargo ratioi ;
i1
The potential for coal to leach sulphate anions is dependent on the form of sulphur
in the coalFit can exist in three forms; organic, sulphate and pyritic. The rst two
forms are bound to the coal and do not leach out [38]. Hence, the pyritic sulphur
(and not the total sulphur) content is important when comparing the relative
corrosiveness of dierent coals.
Generally, the potential for dierent coal types to leach corrosive impurities
such as chloride and sulphate anions is variable. Analysis of published data indi-
cates that a salt (sulphate plus chloride) concentration range of 501000 ppm appears
to be reasonably consistent, although values up to 7000 ppm are possible [23].
(e) Frequency of cargo changes: As noted previously, breakdown of coating and
subsequent corrosion on the under-surface of tank top plating can occur at locations
of plate indentation caused by cargo handling procedures. It is therefore reasonable
to assume that the frequency of cargo changes also has an inuence on the rate of
corrosion.
(f) Corrosion protection system: It is evident from the discussion of ballast tank
corrosion (Fig. 8) that the rate of corrosion is dependent on the type of corrosion
protection system.
(g) Structural member location and orientation: The location of a structural
member determines to what extent it is exposed to ballast or dierent types of cargo,
and wear and mechanical damage from cargo handling. However, for the purposes
of comparing corrosion rates of similar structural members from dierent vessels,
location is not an issue because all single skin bulk carriers are built to the same
structural conguration. A direct comparison is not possible, in general, for double
sided bulk carriers.
corrosion product morphology and hence, corrosion rates between the two
components.
3. Discussion
In 1992 the IACS Council, in response to the high loss rates of the time,
introduced an enhanced survey program for bulk carriers [39]. This became
mandatory for ships classed with non-members of IACS when it was incorporated
into the SOLAS Convention in 1995 by the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO). This has lead to greater vigilance in inspection strategy and a larger quantity
of survey thickness data than previously. Following from these change classication
societies began to develop computer databases of survey data. The following
references provide relevant discussion of some approaches; Lloyds Register of
Shipping [40], ClassNK [41], Det Norske Veritas [42], Bureau Veritas [43], American
Bureau of Shipping [44]. Most systems contain data relating to original structural
scantlings, repair history, voyage history, minimum allowable thickness, measured
thickness and condition of coating. This should now make it possible to assess
measured corrosion in terms of maintenance history and vessel operation.
Previously, it was dicult to obtain all the relevant information to investigate the
progress of coating deterioration and corrosion in relation to voyage and
maintenance history [16,45]. This is important in terms of future eorts to predict
corrosion rates of ship structures.
As noted earlier, the ability of an empirical model to represent corrosion progress
is dependent, amongst other factors, on the quality of the data used to determine the
empirical model parameters. The available corrosion data shows that corrosion rates
of bulk carriers are highly variable. It is consequently dicult to estimate corrosion
Table 1
Parameters aecting corrosion in bulk carriers
4. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
[1] IACS (International Association of Classication Societies). Bulk CarriersFGuidelines for Surveys.
Assessment and Repair of the Hull Structure, 1994.
[2] Lloyds Register of Shipping, Marine Division. Bulk Carriers, 1995.
[3] Mortensen NB. Bulk carrier safetyFthe view and role of an industry organisation. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Design and Operation of Bulk Carriers. Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, London, UK, 1998. Paper 1.
[4] Lloyds Register of Shipping, Marine Division. Bulk CarriersFan update, 1998.
[5] Melchers RE. Structuralreliabilityanalysis, prediction. 2nd ed. England, Chichester: Wiley, 1999.
[6] Capanoglu CC. Fatigue technology assessment, strategies for fatigue avoidance in marine structures.
US Department of Commerce, June 1992.
[7] Schumacher M, editor. Seawater corrosion handbook. NJ: Noyes Data Corporation, 1979.
[8] Melchers RE. Modeling of marine corrosion of steel specimens, corrosion testing in natural waters.
In: Kain RM, Young WT, editors. vol. 2. Philadelphia: ASTM STP 1300, 1997. p. 2033.
[9] Melchers RE. Corrosion uncertainty modelling for steel structures. J Construct Steel Res
1999;52(1):320.
C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566 565
[10] Melchers RE. Factors inuencing the immersion corrosion of steels in marine waters. Proceedings of
the 14th International Corrosion Congress, Cape Town, South Africa. September 1999. Paper 98.
[11] Gardiner CP, Melchers RE. Enclosed atmospheric corrosion in an unloaded bulk carrier cargo hold.
Proceedings of the Corrosion and Prevention 99. Australasian Corrosion Association, Manly,
Australia, 1999. Paper 45.
[12] Strekalov PV. The atmospheric corrosion of metals by adsorbed polymolecular moisture layers.
Protect Met 1998;34(6);50119.
[13] Viner AC, Tozer DR. Inuence of corrosion on ship structural performance. Hull New Construction
Division No. 85/29, Lloyds Register of Shipping, 1985.
[14] Yanamoto N, Kumano A, Matoba M. A study on life assessment of ships and o-shore
structuresF2nd report: eect of corrosion and its protection on hull strength. J Soc Nav Architects
Japan 1994;176:2819 [in Japanese].
[15] Ohyagi M. Statistical survey on wear of ships structural members. NK Techn. Bull. 1987. p. 7585.
[16] Pollard RR. Evaluation of corrosion damage in crude, product carriers. Report No. SMP-1.
Department of Naval Architecture and Oshore Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
1991. 67pp.
[17] Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum (TSCF). Condition evaluation and maintenance of tanker
structures. London: Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1992.
[18] Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum (TSCF). Guidance manual for tanker structures. London:
Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1997.
[19] Loseth R, Sekkesaeter G, Valsgaard S. Economics of high-tensile steel in ship hulls. Mar. Struct.
1994;7:3150.
[20] Yanamoto N, Ikegami KA. Study on the degradation of coating and corrosion of ships hull based on
the probabilistic approach. Proceedings of the International Oshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering Symposium (OMAE96) vol. 2, 1996. p. 15966.
[21] Paik KP, Kim SK, Lee SK. Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal strength
members of bulk carriers. Ocean Eng 1998;25(10):83760.
[22] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y. Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-
linear corrosion and compressive loads. Mar Struct 1999;12:42545.
[23] Gardiner CP. Corrosion analysis of bulk carriers. Ph. D thesis, Department of Civil, Surveying and
Environmental Engineering, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 1999.
[24] Gardiner CP, Melchers RE. Corrosion analysis of bulk carriersFPart II: Modelling of cargo hold
corrosion, to be submitted.
[25] Tomashov ND. Theory of corrosion and protection of metals. New York, USA: The MacMillan
Company, 1966.
[26] Walsh FC. The overall rates of electrode reactions: Faradays laws of electrolysis. Trans Institute Met
Finishing 1991;69(4):15562.
[27] Panchenko YM, Strekalov PV. Corrosion kinetics of metals by coastal atmospheres in a semienclosed
site. Protect Met 1990;26:58993.
[28] Wo DW. Microstructure of rust layers on carbon and low-alloy steels due to atmospheric corrosion in
tropical regions of Vietnam. Protect Met 1984;20(1):625.
[29] Yanamoto N. Probabilistic corrosion model of ship structural members. Proceedings of the IMAS 97:
ShipsFThe Ageing Process, The Institute of Marine Engineers, London, UK, 1997. Paper 1.
[30] Johansson J, Gullman J. Corrosion study of carbon steel and zincFcomparison between eld
exposure and accelerated tests. Atmospheric Corrosion, ASTM STP 1239. In: Kirk WW, Lawson
HH, editors. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1995. p. 24056.
[31] Misawa T, Hashimoto K, Shimodaira S. The mechansim of formation of iron oxide and
oxyhydroxides in aqueous solutions at room temperature. Corros Sci 1974;14:13149.
[32] IACS (International Association of Classication Societies). UR Z9FUnied Requirement:
Corrosion Protection Coatings For Cargo Hold Spaces on Bulk Carriers, 1992.
[33] Askey A, Lyon SB, Thompson GE, Johnson JB, Wood GC, Sage PW, Cooke MJ. The eect of y
ash particulates on the atmospheric corrosion of zinc and mild steel. Corros Sci 1993;34(7):105581.
[34] NKK (Nippon Kaiji Kyokai). Study Report on Bulk Carriers Loss, 1992.
566 C.P. Gardiner, R.E. Melchers / Marine Structures 16 (2003) 547566
[35] Coll G. Safety of bulk carriersFare two skins better than one? Spring Meetings, Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, 1996. Paper 5.
[36] Rawat NS. Corrosivity of underground mine atmospheres and mine waters: a review and preliminary
study. Br Corros J 1976;11(2):8691.
[37] Industry Science ResourcesFEnergy Minerals BranchFDepartment of Industry Science and
Resources, Commonwealth of Australia. Australias Export Coal Industry, 5th ed., 1999.
[38] Garrett A, Ahmed N. Corrosion in the Newcastle coal loading facilities. Proceedings of the Corrosion
and Prevention 95, Australasian Corrosion Association, Perth, Australia, 1995. Paper 26.
[39] IACS (International Association of Classication Societies). UR Z10.2FUnied Requirement: Hull
Surveys of Bulk Carriers, 1992.
[40] Brook AK. Shipright HCMFa graphics based survey planning, reporting and vessel evaluation
system. Lloyds Register Technical Association, 1996. Paper No. 4, Session 199596.
[41] Emi H, Arima T, Umino M. A study on developing a rational corrosion protection system of hull
structures. NK Techn Bull 1994;12:6580.
[42] Andreassen E, Valsgard S, Kim SK. Development of ultimate hull girder capacity. Proceedings of
International Conference on the Design and Operation of Bulk Carriers. London, UK: Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, 1998. Paper 13.
[43] Benoit J. Preventing corrosion of dedicated water ballast tanks on all ships, and cargo holds on bulk
carriers: prospects for current and future classication society rules and international regulations.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Marine Corrosion Prevention. London, UK: Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, 1994.
[44] Anon. ABS campaigns for safer bulk carrier design. Int. Bulk J. 1995;15(6):405.
[45] Bea RG, Pollard R, Schulte-Strathaus R, Baker R. Structural maintenance for new and existing ships:
overview, fatigue cracking and repairs. Proceedings of the Marine Structural Inspection,
Maintenance, and Monitoring Symposium, Virginia, USA, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, 1991. p. II-A-III-A-26.