Corrosion

Environmentally friendly coatings for ship building and ships in operation
Creation Date: 2007-01-08

Revision Date: 2007-07-18
Project Number: FP6-PLT-506491
Deliverable 3.1.2
RESULTS FROM ANTICORROSION TESTING
ABSTRACT
Deliverable 3.1.2 presents the results from the test method to evaluate coating degradation at steel
edges as a result of exposure testing in sea water / marine atmosphere. The aim of the testing was to
determine the necessary degree of rounding and the necessity for stripe coating for proper corrosion
protection on edges. Testing was therefore carried out to study any coating breakdown on panels with
different edge treatment and with different degree of stripe coating. Test panels were exposed for 2
weeks in natural seawater at 35 °C and one week in high humidity air. This cycle was repeated for the
whole exposure period of approximately 13 months.
The results from the testing show that no mechanical treatment of the test panels’ edges resulted in an
increased coating breakdown in these areas.
The results further indicate that for some coatings stripe coating increased the corrosion resistance at
the edges, while no such effect could be observed for others
18 February 2008
EcoDock
document ref.: D 3.3.2
Results from anticorrosion testing
Document Name: WP 3.1.2 – Results from anticorrosion testing

Document Author/s: Birgith Schei
Document Editors
Document Reference Number:
Circulation: Public
Keywords:
The information contained in this report is subject to change without notice and should not be
construed as a commitment by any members of the EcoDock Consortium. In the event of any
software or algorithms being described in this report, the EcoDock Consortium assumes no
responsibility for the use or inability to use any of its software or algorithms. The information is
provided without any warranty of any kind and the EcoDock Consortium expressly disclaims all
implied warranties, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
for a particular use.
 COPYRIGHT 2004 The EcoDock Consortium
This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose
without written permission from the EcoDock Consortium. In addition, to such written permission to
copy, acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright
notice must be clearly referenced.
All rights reserved.
EcoDock Consortium Contacts:

Organisation Name Phone Fax e-mail
Jos. L. Meyer Lars-Eric Etzold 0049 4961 814 329 0049 4961 819 406 Etzold@MeyerWerft.de
GmbH & Co. 90
Odense Steel Bo Rune Mikkelsen 0045 6397 1593 0045 6397 2370 brm@oss.dk
Shipyard Ltd.
Det Norske Veritas Birgith Schei 0047 55 943816 0047 6757 9911 Birgith.Schei@dnv.com
AS
Safinah Ltd Dr Lynda Speed 0044 1670 519900 0044 1670 519911 Lynda.Speed@safinah.co.uk
Newcastle Primary Gordon Smith 0044 191 2721898 0044 191 2721998 Gordon.Smith@ncht.northy.nhs.uk
Care NHS Trust
Univerty of Dr. Brigitte Behrends 0049 4421 944208 0049 4421 944199 brigitte.behrends@ncl.ac.uk
Newcastle
Blohm + Voss Jürgen Pastuch +49 40 3119 1409 +49 40 3119 3305 juergen.pastuch@tkt-
Repair GmbH bvr.thyssenkrupp.com
JAFO Technologie Dr. Patrick Kaeding +49 40 3119 4220 +49 40 3119 4209 kaeding@jafo.de
CMT e.V. Dr. Sylvia Ullmer +49 40 691 9947 +49 40 691 9973 cmt.ullmer@t-online.de
EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 2

Project co-ordinates:
FP6 - PLT - 506491 - EcoDock
Environmentally friendly coatings for ship building and ships in operation
Project Start Date: 1 February 2004

Project End Date: 30 April 2007
(Duration of the project: 3 years)
History
Version Da t e Changes f ro m Review
1 29.03.07 First version Birgith Schei All
2 08.06.07 Final version Birgith Schei
3
4
5
6

CONTENTS:
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2 OBJECTIVE................................................................................................................................................. 5
3 TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................................. 5
4 TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 8
5 COMMENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 12
6 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................... 13
7 IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 13
8 APPENDIX 1 – PHOTO DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................................... 14

1 Introduction
This document describes the performed testing for the work package 3.1; Test methods for
anticorrosive coatings.
2 Objective
The objective of the work package was to develop a test method to evaluate coating degradation at
steel edges as a result of exposure testing in sea water / marine atmosphere. The aim of the testing was
to determine the necessary degree of rounding and the necessity of stripe coating for proper corrosion
protection on edges.
3 Test procedures
DNV received 20 150 x 150 x 3 mm shop primed steel panels from JLM for the testing (shop primed
with 20 µm Lindocote EP-Shopprimer, Art.-No. 381-8132). The edges of the steel panels were
mechanically treated as sketched in Figure 1 by JLM before reception. The rear sides of the test
panels (the side with JLM identification) were coated with a B1 classified ballast tank coating. The
other sides were coated with test coating according to the instructions in the data sheets from the paint
suppliers.
A sketch of the test panels with different edge treatment is given in Fig. 1 and the paint application
operation in Fig. 2. Table 1 gives an overview of the coating / coding of the different test panels.
The panels were exposed for 2 weeks in natural seawater at 35 °C and one week in high humidity air.
This cycle was repeated for an exposure period of approximately 13 months (Exposure from 24.10.05
– 22.11-06)
Visual inspection was performed during and after testing. Studies of cross sections through the edges
of the test panels were performed by termination of the exposure test.
no treatment
1 – No treatment
burr removal rounding Note: Burr removal

means that only the
sharp edge is
2 – Burr removal 4 – Rounding
removed. Chamfer
on rear side means a one pass
grinding at 45 °
angle.
3 – canfer onedges
Chamfer on edges
Fig. 1 A sketch of the received test panels – test side

Stripe coating of test sample, performed by a brush
Paint from spraying

equipment
Test sample, spraying step 1
Test sample, spraying step 2
Fig. 2 Application details

Coating no. Code no. Stripe coating Exposure

3-0 No
3 3-1 Before application of 1st coat 13 months
3-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

11 11-0 No
11-1 Before application of 1st coat 13 months

12-0 No

13-0 No

14-0 No
All the coating systems were 2 pack epoxy based ballast tank coatings.

4 Test results
The results from the testing are schematically given in Table 2, 3 and 4. Photos of the test panels are
given in Appendix 1.
Table 2 Test results

Test sample Sample side Blistering Corrosion Comments
1
3-0 2 On corner Ref.
Fig. 4
3 On corner Ref.
Fig. 4
4
1 Cracking on edge
3-1 Ref. Fig. 17
2 Ref. Fig. 7 Cracking on edge
Ref. Fig. 18
3
4
1
3-2 2
3
4
1 Size 2 - 3 Nearly no coating on
11-0 edge Ref. Fig 25
2 Size 2 - 3 Nearly no coating on
edge Ref. Fig 26
3 Size 2 - 3
4 Size 2 - 3
1 Size 2 - 3 Cracking on edge
11-1 Ref. Fig. 29
2 Size 2 - 3 Ref. Fig. 7 Cracking on edge
Ref. Fig. 30
3 Size 2 - 3 Ref. Fig. 8
4 Size 2 - 3
1 Size 2 - 3
11-2 2 Size 2 - 3
3 Size 2 - 3
4 Size 2 - 3

Table 2 continued
Test sample Sample side Blistering Rusting Comments
1
12-0 2 Ref. Fig. 10
3
4
1
12-1 2
3
4
1 On corner Ref. Lack of adhesion on
12-2 Fig. 10 edge Ref. Fig. 45
2 On corner Ref.
Fig. 10
3
4
1
13-0 2
3
4
1 On corner Ref.
13-1 Fig. 11
2 On corner Ref.
Fig. 11
3
4
1 Cracking on edge
13-2 Ref. Fig. 57
2
3
4

Table 2 continued
Test sample Sample side Blistering Rusting Comments
1 Size 4 - 5 Cracking on edge
14-0 Ref. Fig. 61
2 Size 4 - 5
3 Size 4 - 5
4 Size 4 - 5
1 Size 5
14-1 2 Size 5 On corner Ref.
Fig. 12
3 Size 5 On corner Ref.
Fig. 12
4 Size 5
1
14-2 2
3
4 Lack of adhesion on
edge Ref. Fig. 72
Table 3 Overview of the degradation of the coatings on the different edge treatments
Test sample Sample side Degradation
(number of panels with rusting / blistering/cracking at the edges)
All panels Panels with no Panels with Panels with
included stripe coating one stripe two stripe
coating coatings
1 9 2 4 3
(no treatment)
2 10 4 4 2
(burr removal at
All samples the rear side)
/ coatings
3 6 3 2 1
(chamfer
treatment)
4 6 2 2 2
(rounding)

Table 4 Overview of the degradation of the coatings on the different edge treatments
Test coating Sample side Degradation
(rusting / blistering/cracking at the edges)
Panels with Panels with Panels with
no stripe one stripe two stripe
coating coating coatings
1(no treatment) X
2 (burr removal at the rear side) X X
3
3(chamfer treatment) X
4 (rounding)
1 (no treatment) X X X
11 2 (burr removal at the rear side) X X X
3 (chamfer treatment) X X X
4 (rounding) X X X
1 (no treatment) X
12
3 (chamfer treatment)
4 (rounding)
1 (no treatment) X X
2 (burr removal at the rear side) X
13
3 (chamfer treatment)
4 (rounding)
1 (no treatment) X X
14
3 (chamfer treatment) X X
4 (rounding) X X X

5 Comments
Due to the fact that the burr removal was carried out at the rear side of the test panels and not the test
side, it is assumed that side no. 1 and 2 have similar edge treatment. As can be seen from Table 3 the
coating degradation was generally higher at these two edges than at the other edges.
As can be seen from Table 2 and 4 test coating no. 11 showed degradation at all edges and at all film
thicknesses (different thickness as a result of stripe coating) by termination of the exposure testing.
Test coating no. 14 showed degradation at all edges without stripe coating and with one coat of stripe
coating. 2 stripe coatings improved the corrosion performance of the coating at the edges. However,
the coating flaked off from parts of the rounded edge.
Coating no. 3 had only a spot of rust on the corner between side no. 2 and 3 for the panel with no
stripe coating. Cracking was observed on the two untreated edges (1 and 2) for the panel with one
stripe coating. No degradation was found on the panel with two stripe coatings.
A corrosion attack was observed on the coating no. 12 panel with no stripe coating and likewise on the
corner between side 1 and 2 of the panel with two stripe coatings. In addition lack of adhesion was
observed on the cross section of edge no. 1 for this test panel. No degradation was found on the panel
with one stripe coating. As shown in the photos of the cross sections of the tested samples, this coating
showed relatively satisfactory build up at the edges even without stripe coating.
A corrosion attack on the corner between side 1 and 2 was observed on the coating no. 13 panel with
one stripe coating. Cracking was found on the edge no. 1 on the panel with two stripe coatings. No
degradation was observed on the panel with no stripe coatings. Also this coating showed relatively
satisfactory build up at the edges even without stripe coating.

6 Conclusions
The results from the testing generally show that no treatment of the edges of the test panels resulted in
an increased coating breakdown in these areas.
The results further indicates that for some coatings (coating no. 3 and 14) stripe coating increased the
corrosion resistance at the edges, while no such effect could be observed for the remaining coatings
(11, 12 and 13). However, it must be noted that coating no. 12 and 13 built up better at the edges than
the remaining tested coatings.
Generally the performed testing showed that the test method is a simple way to evaluate the necessary
degree of rounding and to evaluate the necessity of stripe coating for proper corrosion protection on
edges.
7 Improvements
Test samples with cubic form rather than 5 mm test panels would have been easier to coat. Future
work should take such geometries into consideration.
More aggressive environments should be considered to reduce the exposure time.

8 APPENDIX 1 – PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

Fig. 1 An example of the received test panels (rear side) before application of test coating

Corrosion
Fig. 2 Panels with coating system no. 3 after exposure

Fig. 3 Panel with coating system no. 11 and no stripe coating after approximately 5 months of
exposure
Fig. 4 As Fig. 5 after approximately 11 months of exposure

Corrosion
Fig. 5 As Fig. 5 after exposure – Close up photos of blistering along the edges

Corrosion
Fig. 6 Panel with coating system no. 11 and one stripe coating after exposure – Close up photos
of blistering along the edges

Fig. 7 Panel with coating system no. 11 and two stripe coatings after exposure – Close up
photos of blistering along the edges

Corrosion
Corrosion

Corrosion

Corrosion

Fig. 11 Cross section through the test panel with coating system no. 3, no stripe coating -
The edge with no treatment, 16 X magnification
Fig. 12 Cross section through the test panel with coating system no. 3, no stripe coating -
The edge with burr removal at the rear panel side 16 X magnification

Fig. 13 Cross section through the test panel with coating system no. 3, no stripe coating
The edge with chamfer treatment , 16 X magnification
The edge with rounding, 16 X magnification

Fig. 15 Cross section through the test panel with coating system no. 3, 1 stripe coating
The edge without treatment, 16 X magnification
The edge with burr removal on the rear side (top corner) 16 X magnification

The edge with chamfer treatment, 16 X magnification

Fig. 19 Cross section through the test panel with coating system no. 3, 2 stripe coatings
The edge without treatment, 16 X magnification
The edge with burr removal on the rear side (top corner), 16 X magnification


The edge with burr removal on the rear panel side, 16 X magnification


The edge with burr removal at the rear panel side (bottom corner), 16 X magnification


The edge with burr removal on the rear panel side (top corner), 16 X magnification






Fig. 44 Cross section through the test panel with Coating system no. 12, 2 stripe coatings




The edge with no treatment , 16 X magnification


The edge with burr removal on the rear panel side (bottom corner), 16 X magnification


The edge with burr removal on the rear panel side(top corner), 16 X magnification







Corrosion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmentally friendly coatings for ship building and ships in operation

Creation Date: 2007-01-08

RESULTS FROM ANTICORROSION TESTING

Document Name: WP 3.1.2 – Results from anticorrosion testing

EcoDock Consortium Contacts:

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 2

Environmentally friendly coatings for ship building and ships in operation

Project Start Date: 1 February 2004

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 3

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 4

burr removal rounding Note: Burr removal

Fig. 1 A sketch of the received test panels – test side

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 5

Stripe coating of test sample, performed by a brush

Paint from spraying

Test sample, spraying step 1

Test sample, spraying step 2

Fig. 2 Application details

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 6

Coating no. Code no. Stripe coating Exposure

3-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

11-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

12-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

13-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

14-2 Before application of 1st and 2nd coat

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 7

Table 2 Test results

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 8

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 9

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 10

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 11

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 12

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 13

8 APPENDIX 1 – PHOTO DOCUMENTATION

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 14

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 15

Fig. 2 Panels with coating system no. 3 after exposure

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 16

Fig. 4 As Fig. 5 after approximately 11 months of exposure

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 17

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 18

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 19

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 20

Fig. 8 Panels with coating system no. 12 after exposure

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 21

Fig. 9 Panels with coating system no. 13 after exposure

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 22

Fig. 10 Panels with coating system no. 14 after exposure

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 23

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 24

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 25

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 26

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 27

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 28

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 29

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 30

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 31

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 32

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 33

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 34

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 35

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 36

EcoDock – Document Reference D 3.1.2 37