Evaluating Protective Coatings for Ballast Tanks

By Helge Vold MARINTEK Sandefjord, Norway

he lifetime of vessels, such as tankers and bulk carriers, is determined to a large extent by the condition of their ballast tanks. In recent years, serious accidents causing total failure of the hull shell plate have been caused by corrosion damage in ballast tanks. Therefore, finding adequate methods of corrosion protection with qualifying coating systems is an important issue. In 1991, MARINTEK began a project called Corrosion Protection of Tanks and Cargo Holds. The objective was to establish guidelines and recommendations for the handling, inspection, and maintenance of tanks and cargo holds related to corrosion and corrosion protection

and to test and classify corrosion protection coating systems. As part of the project, which was designed to reduce maintenance and operating costs, a manual was developed to give shipowners, inspectors, and crews information about causes of corrosion and measures to protect tanks and cargo holds. This article presents the testing methods used and the coating classifications and test results obtained.

Wave tanks, simulating service conditions in ballast tanks, were one of two test methods used. (Photos courtesy of MARINTEK)

Test Methods
The starting point for developing and evaluating a qualification procedure for ballast tank coatings was that suitable test methods did not exist. Therefore, it was decided to find methods that could cover all the environmental conditions in a ballast tank. To evaluate and classify ballast tank coatings, two laboratory test methods were used: a wave tank (simulating real service conditions in ballast tanks) and a condensation chamber.
PCE June 1997

Wave Tank The wave tank test consists of a tank with natural seawater at 35 C and room for four test panels (Fig. 1). The test panels represent one deck panel, one side panel with cold wall effect (temperature gradient about 15 C), one side panel without cold wall effect, and one bottom panel with zinc anode. The tank has wave movement to simulate the splashing of seawater, and it can be heated by radiation on the deck panel (12 hours at 50 C/12 hours at room temperature). The test cycle is two weeks with seawater and wave movement and one week with seawater below the bottom panel and no wave movement. Condensation Chamber This test consists of a chamber in which test panels are exposed to
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

16

Table 1: Test Panel Description continuous condensation, according to ISO 6270.1 The Test Panels The coatings were tested on prerusted, blast-cleaned, zinc shopprimed, or pre-rusted/moist test panels. For uniformity, the pre-rusted panels were produced by exposure of blast-cleaned panels to four cycles of 18 hours in a salt spray cabinet and six hours drying with some light wire brushing before each exposure. Before application of the coatings, the pre-rusted panels were wire brushed and subjected to highpressure washing according to the coating suppliers recommendation. The blast-cleaned panels were grit blasted to Sa 212 (ISO 8501/1).2 The zinc shop-primed panels were shot blasted to Sa 212, coated with a 25m layer of zinc ethyl silicate shop primer, weathered outdoors for 14 days, washed with tap water, and dried. The pre-rusted/moist panels were prepared by the same pre-rusting procedure as above. One-third of each panel was coated with a coal tar epoxy. Immediately before application of the coating, the panels were dipped in distilled water and then stippled with a cotton cloth. Table 1 shows the placement of the panels for the different tests. The test duration for both laboratory methods was 60 days for coatings on pre-rusted panels and 180 days for coatings on blast-cleaned or zinc shop-primed panels. Laboratory Test Method Description of Panels for Test Deck wave tank panel with scribe Bottom wave tank panel with anode Wave tank Side wave tank panel with cooling Side wave tank panel Condensation chamber panel Condensation chamber Condensation chamber panel with scribe Condensation chamber on blast-cleaned panel Table 2: Classification of Hard Coatings (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) Hard Coatings Class B-1 Class B-2 Class B-3 Class B-4 Class B-5 Class B-6 Area Blistered No blisters Density 1-2 either on the cold wall wave tank panel or in the condensation chamber panels Density 1-2 on the cold wall wave tank panel and in the condensation chamber panels Density 3-4 either on the cold wall wave tank panel or in the condensation chamber panels Density 3-4 on the cold wall wave tank panel and in the condensation chamber panels Density 4-5 Area Rusted Ri 0 (0%) Ri 1 (0.05%) Ri 2 (0.5%) Ri 3 (1%) Ri 4 (8%) Ri 5 (40/50%) follows. Soft coating A coating that remains soft so it wears off at low mechanical impact or when only touched by hand. These coatings give temporary protection of rusted steel surfaces, but they must be maintained or recoated every year or two. Semi-hard coating A coating that dries flexible but hard enough to touch and walk on and does not wear off or erode with ballast water movement. These coatings give temporary protection of rusted steel surfaces. Hard coating Paint that cures or dries and provides long-term protection of steel surfaces. (Paint is used as a synonym for hard

CYCLIC HEATING 12 HOURS 50 C 12 HOURS 20 C

TEST PANELS COOLING TEMP. GRADIENT

SEAWATER SEA WATER 35 C

HEATING

Categories of Coatings
Depending on their properties, the coatings used in the tests were divided into three categories: soft coatings, semi-hard coatings, and hard coatings, which are defined as
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

WAVE MOVEMENT

Fig. 1: Wave tank with four test panels in simulated real service conditions

PCE June 1997

17

Table 3: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint) Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) Coating Type Coating No. Blisters on Panel Wave tank side panel with cooling Coal tar epoxy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Solvent-free epoxy High-solids epoxy 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Surface-tolerant epoxy 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Others (non-epoxy) 25 26 27 28 29 30 0 0 0 3 (S4) 3 (S3) 3 (S5) 3 (S3) 4 (S5) 4 (S4) 3 (S2) 0 0 2 (S3) 3 (S5) 4 (S4) 3 (S3) 4 (S4) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (S5) 3 (S3) 0 2 (S3) 4 (S5) 4 (S2) 3 (S3) 0 Condensation chamber Rust On Wave tank deck panel Undercutting from Scribe Wave tank deck panel (mm) 2 2 1 4 6 5 2 0 4 4 5 2 2 0 2 5 5 9 4 2 6 8 1 0 4 Pull-off Adhesion Wave tank deck panel (Ref)1 (MPa) 1.0 (2.4) 6.1 (4.6) 5.0 (3.9) 3.8 (4.0) 4.6 (6.3) 0.2 (1.7) 1.1 (1.6) 1.6 (1.6) 2.7 (2.2) 3.6 (3.9) 6.1 (4.0) 3.5 (3.9) 4.5 (4.5) 2.7 (3.8) 3.5 (3.2) 9.0 (7.9) 1.8 (2.9) 3.5 (2.6) 3.3 (2.7) 3.2 (3.1) 3.2 (2.2) 4.1 (3.2) 2.4 (3.0) 0.9 (0.9) 0.7 (0) 4.0 (3.8) 2.5 (1.6) 0.3 (0.7) 0 (0) B2 B2 B3 B3 B4 B5 B5 B5 B4 B5 B2 B3 B3 B4 B4 B4 B5 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B5 B5 B2 B3 B4 B5 B5 B6 Class

0 1 (S3) 4 (S3) 2 (S4) 4 (S3) 3 (S5) 4 (S5) 4 (S5) 4 (S4) 4 (S2) 3 (S4) local 2 (S4) 2 (S2) 2 (S4) 4 (S4) 4 (S3) 4 (S4) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (S5) 4 (S3) 0 2 (S2) 4 (S5) 4 (S2) 3 (S4) 5 (S5)

Ri 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ri 1 Ri 3

1) In In brackets: brackets: pull-off pull-off adhesion of unexposed reference reference panel. panel. First number number is is blister blister density; density; number numberin inparenthesis parentheses blister size. isis blister size.

coating in this article). These definitions contain some evaluation of the coating lifetime, which is reflected in the classification. Similar products are ranked according to their performance. When comparing products between the groups, a low-classified hard coating may still give better protection than a high-classified semihard coating. Similarly, a low-classified semi-hard coating may still give better protection than a high-

classified soft coating.

Evaluation and Classification of Hard Coatings

At intervals during the exposure and after the test was completed, the coatings were evaluated for degree of blistering and degree of rusting according to ISO 4628/1-3.3 Before exposure, one small (15x15 cm) and one large (20x40 cm) panel were tested for pinholes with a low voltage pinhole detector
PCE June 1997

at 90 volts. The number of pinholes was recorded. After the tests, adhesion was tested using the pull-off method (ISO 4624).4 The effect of waves, heat, and temperature gradients were evaluated visually. Disbonding of the coating from the scribe was evaluated and recorded. Flexibility was tested according to ASTM D4145.5 Three pieces from the deck panel of the wave tank and an unexposed control panel
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

18

Table 4: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint) Tested on Pre-rusted and Moist Substrate (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) were cut out. The pieces were bent 180 degrees at 5, 20, and 40 mm diameter, and the result was reported as minimum diameter of no paint fracture. If paint fracture was seen even at 40 mm diameter, the degree of bend at fracture was reported. Pull-off and flexibility tests were done a minimum of two weeks after exposure. For the panel with sacrificial anodes (Table 1), the current demand was calculated and the effect of cathodic protection was evaluated visually. The panels were evaluated mainly on the density of blisters and the area rusted. From the evaluation, coatings were classified from B1 to B6, with B1 being the best rating (Table 2). From 15 different producers, 30 hard coatings were tested on prerusted substrates. The pre-treatment of the pre-rusted panels was according to the producers recommendations. As shown in Table 3, only four products were classified B1. All four were surface-tolerant epoxy coatings. Coal tar epoxy coatings, which were believed to provide the best corrosion protection for ballast tanks, showed different performances in this study from producer to producer. Only two solvent-free products were tested on a pre-rusted substrate, and they were classified B4 and B5. In the high-solids group (more than 80 percent volume solids), only one product was classified B2. Blisters on the cold wall panel in the wave tank and on the panels in the condensation test chamber (temperature gradients) resulted in the largest deterioration of the coating systems. Salt contamination on the pre-rusted panels and poor wetting properties of the coatings were probably the main reasons for blisCopyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

Coating No.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Class Pull-off Undercutting Adhesion from Scribe Wave tank Wave tank Condensation Wave tank Wave tank deck side panel chamber deck panel deck panel (Ref)1 (MPa) panel with cooling (mm) 5.9 (5.9) 0 0 6 B1 0 6.1 (7.2) 0 0 9 B1 0 8.0 (8.3) 0 0 3 B1 0 8.9 (7.4) 0 0 4 B1 0 6.1 (7.2) 0 1 (S4) 9 B4 4 (S3) 6.6 (10.4) 0 0 11 B4 3 (S2) Rust On

Blisters on Panel

1) In brackets: pull-off adhesion of reference panel not exposed. First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.

ter formation. Six hard coatings from five different producers were tested on prerusted/moist substrates. Table 4 shows that four products were classified B1. These products included a solvent-free epoxy, a high-solids epoxy, a surface-tolerant epoxy, and a urethane-based coating. Deterioration of the coating systems occurred in the form of blisters on the cold wall panel in the wave tank and on the panels in the condensation test chamber (temperature gradients). Again, salt contamination on the pre-rusted panels and poor wetting properties of the coatings were probably the main reasons for the formation of blisters. From 12 different producers, 44 hard coatings were tested on zinc shop-primed or blast-cleaned substrates. The highest classification, B1, was given to 29 products, as shown in Table 5. Surface-tolerant epoxy coatings and coal tar epoxy coatings performed best in this test. Also, in the solvent-free epoxy and the high-solids groups, 50 percent of the products were classified B1. Blisters on the cold wall panel in the test tank and on the panels in the condensation test chamber caused the largest deterioration of the coating systems. Poor wetting
PCE June 1997

properties were probably the main reason for the formation of blisters.

Evaluation and Classification of Semi-hard Coatings

At intervals during exposure and at the end of the test, the semi-hard coatings were evaluated for degree of blistering and degree of rusting according to ISO 4628/1-3. The degree of rusting in the pictures of the standard is based on hard paint coatings, which flake during rusting. Because of their softness and good adhesion, semi-hard coatings do not flake off, and this should be remembered when comparing the exposed panels with the pictures in the standard. For all coating systems, evaluation of the degree of rusting according to the standard is done without scraping off the coating. However, the coating must be scraped off in order to see underrusting on pre-rusted, blast-cleaned, or shop-primed panels. Semi-hard coatings may develop blisters that disappear later. Development of blisters was recorded during the test period and after the exposure. Because under-rusting often develops under blisters of semi-hard coatings, this must be regarded as a defect even if the blisters disappear when the exposure is

19

Table 5: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint) Tested on Zinc Shop-primed or Blast-cleaned Panels (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) Coating Type Coating No. Blisters on Panel Wave tank side panel with cooling Coal tar epoxy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (S3) 2 (S5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (S2) 4 (S4) 4 (S5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (S2) Condensation chamber Rust On Wave tank deck panel Undercutting from Scribe Wave tank deck panel (mm) 3 6 7 6 10 3 7 10 10 6 14 13 8 9 10 10 6 12 10 9 19 6 3 8 7 13 22 19 12 11 8 14 11 8 8 3 33 4 6 15 14 0 7 10 Pull-off Adhesion Wave tank deck panel (Ref)1 (MPa) 4.2 (2.5) 2.0 (1.9) 4.6 (4.7) 2.5 (2.9) 4.3 (5.1) 2.2 (2.4) 4.5 (4.3) 3.2 (4.8) 4.2 (3.7) 2.9 (4.6) 5.9 (2.8) 1.6 (1.7) 4.0 (5.0) 4.0 (5.1) 3.4 (3.4) 3.0 (3.7) 2.5 (1.2) 4.6 (4.0) >5 (7.3) 3.2 (4.3) 3.3 (3.9) 3.3 (5.3) 5.0 (5.4) 3.1 (3.2) 8.5 (6.5) 4.9 (4.2) 2.4 (1.9) 3.0 (1.7) 5.6 (2.7) 4.3 (2.9) 3.1 (1.9) 2.9 (1.8) 4.3 (3.9) 5.6 (5.1) 5.6 (5.5) 3.9 (4.0) 2.2 (3.7) 4.5 (2.6) 3.6 (2.9) 2.1 (3.1) 4.9 (4.1) 2.7 (1.4) 3.0 (5.1) 4.6 (4.2) B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B4 B1 B1 B3 B3 B1 B1 B3 B3 B3 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B3 B3 B5 B5 B6 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B1 B2 B3 Class

Bleached tar epoxy

Solvent-free epoxy

High-solids epoxy

Surface-tolerant epoxy

Others (non-epoxy)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 (S4) 0 0 3 (S4) 4 (S3) 0 0 4 (S3) 4 (S3) 4 (S4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 (S4) 3 (S2) 5 (S4) 5 (S4) 5 (S5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (S3) 2 (S3)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1) In brackets: pull-off adhesion of unexposed reference panel. First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.

finished. The reported size and density of the blisters is the highest level recorded during exposure. The effect of the blisters on the substrate is studied by scraping off the coating down to the steel substrate. Before exposure, one small panel (15x15 cm) and one large panel

(20x40 cm) were tested for pinholes with a low-voltage pinhole detector at 90 volts. The number of pinholes was recorded. After the tests, the effect of the waves, heat, and temperature gradients again were evaluated visually. Undercutting from scribe was evaluated and recorded. For the
PCE June 1997

panel with anodes (Table 1), the current demand was calculated and the effect of cathodic protection on the coating (disbonding/blistering) was evaluated visually. As with hard coatings, classification of semi-hard coatings was based mainly on the degree of rusting and/or the density of blisters. If
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

20

Table 6: Classification of Semi-hard Coatings (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) Semi-hard Coatings Area Rusted Area Blistered

Summary and Conclusions

The test results show that only Density 0-1 Ri 0 to Ri 1 (0-0.05%) on all panels Class C-1 four paints of 30 tested on pre-rusted substrates received the best clasDensity 2-3 Ri 2 to Ri 3 (0.5-1%) on deck and side wave Class C-2 tank panels, other panels maximum Ri 2 (0.5%) sification. All four were surface-tolerant epoxies. On zinc shop-primed Ri 3 to Ri 4 (1-8%) on deck and side wave tank Density 3-4 Class C-3 or blast-cleaned steel, 29 of 44 panels, other panels maximum Ri 3 (1%) paints tested received the best clasDensity 4-5 Ri 4 to Ri 5 (8-50%) on deck and side wave Class C-4 sification. tank panels, other panels maximum Ri 4 (8%) After testing more than 90 products on different substrates, the folDensity 5 Ri 5 (40-50%) on all panels Class C-5 lowing conclusions can be made. Density 5 Class C-6 More than 50% of area rusted on all panels The testing and classification system described in this article under-rusting was revealed by gives shipowners and shipscraping off the coating, the classiyards a procedure to select fication was lowered. From the coating systems for protecevaluation, the products were clastion and maintenance of sified from C1 to C6, with C1 ballast tanks. being the best rating (Table 6). The accelerated ballast Seven semi-hard coatings from tank test can be used by five different producers were testcoating suppliers as a preed. As shown in Table 7, no semiqualification test for testing hard coatings were classified C1, new and existing products. and only one was classified C2. Results of the testing Four coatings were classified C3. are being used by Det Blisters and rust formation on sevNorske Veritas classification A view of the test panels in the wave tank eral panels caused deterioration of society as part of its docuthe panel with anodes (Table 1), the coating systems. Salt contamimentation for approval of coatings the current demand was calculated nation on the pre-rusted panels for corrosion protection of ballast and the effect of cathodic protecand poor wetting properties probatanks. tion was evaluated visually. bly were the main reasons for blis As a result of the testing and Six soft coatings from five differter formation. classification system, coating manuent producers were tested. No soft facturers have developed new coatcoatings were classified A1, but Evaluation and Classification ing systems and reformulated others three soft coatings were classified of Soft Coatings to improve them. A2, as shown in Table 9. Soft coatDuring exposure, the coatings Coating specifications can be ings with good penetrating properwere evaluated visually. After the written to define performance in ties and low water solubility tests were completed, the coating accordance with the criteria, guide(meaning they are difficult to wash on each panel was evaluated and lines, and recommendations proaway) performed best in this test. rated according to the following duced by the study. Seawater wave movement partly scale: 0all coating remains; 5 washed off some soft coatings no coating remains. Ratings of 1 to References from the splash zone and above. 4 were used to describe intermedi1. ISO 6270-1980, Paint and The heat (50 C) on the reverse side ate degrees of remaining coating. VarnishesDetermination of of the test steel panel simulating From the evaluation of individResistance to Humidity (Continuous the tank top (deck) decreased the ual panels, the products were clasCondensation). viscosity of some of the soft coatsified from A1 to A6, with A1 2. ISO 8501/1-1988, Preparation of ings and thus increased their wear. being the best rating (Table 8). For Steel Substrates Before Application
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

PCE June 1997

21

Table 7: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Semi-hard Coatings Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate (Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33) Coating No. Blisters on Panels Wave tank side panel with cooling 0 4 (S4) 4 (S2) 3 (S3) 0 5 (S5) 0 Condensation chamber 2 (S5) 4 (S3) 4 (S2) 5 (S4) 0 5 (S5) 4 (S4) Wave tank deck panel Ri 1 Ri 4 0 Ri 1 Ri 2 Ri 3 Ri 4 Rust on Panels Wave tank Condensation side panels chamber Ri 1 Ri 2 Ri 3 Ri 3 0 0 Ri 1-2 Ri 1-2 Ri 1 0 Ri 4-5 Ri 3 60-95% Ri 2-3 Current Demand (mA/m2) Wave tank bottom panel 46 26 0 21 62 34 81 Class

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C2 C3 C3 C3 C3 C4 C5

First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.

Table 8: Classification of Soft Coatings Soft Coats Class A-1 Class A-2 Class A-3 Class A-4 Class A-5 Class A-6 Evaluation 0 on all panels tested (all coating remains) 1-2 on all panels tested 3 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 2 or better 4 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 3 or better 5 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 4 or better 5 on all panels (no coating remains) Rusting. 4. ISO 4624-1978, Paints and VarnishesPull-off Test for Adhesion. 5. ASTM D4145-83, Standard Test Method for Coating Flexibility of Prepainted Sheet.

Table 9: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Soft Coatings Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate Coating No. Remaining Coating on Panels1 Wave tank deck panel 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 1 3 4 5 Wave tank side panels 1-3 2 1-3 1-3 3-4 3-4 Condensation chamber 1 1 1 1 2 2 Current Demand Class (mA/m2)2 Wave tank bottom panel 48 104 1.6 74 34 38 A2 A2 A2 A3 A4 A5

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the cooperation of 22 shipowners, 22 coating producers, and other participants in the project. The participants contributed both technical information and financial support to the project.

About the Author

Helge Vold is a senior research engineer at MARINTEK, Laboratory of Materials Application, Sandefjord, Norway. He has a M Sc. in chemical engineering from the Norwegian University of Technology, Trondheim, and 20 years of experience in corrosion protection in marine environments, including field and laboratory testing of coatings.

1) The coatings were evaluated according to the following scale: 0all coating remains, 5no coating remains. The rating 1 to 4 is used to describe the intermediate degrees of coating remaining. 2) The current demand for a good protective coating is below 10 mA/. For bare steel, the current demand is from 60 to 100 mA/m2, depending on temperature and seawater flow velocity.

of Paints and Related Products Visual Assessment of Surface CleanlinessPart 1: Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel Substrates After Removal of Previous Coatings. 3. ISO 4628/1-3, 1992, Paint and

VarnishesEvaluation of Degradation of Paint Coatings Designation of Intensity, Quantity and Size of Common Types of DefectPart 1: General Principles and Rating Schemes; Part 2: Designation of Degree of Blistering; Part 3: Designation of Degree of
PCE June 1997

22

Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company