INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

E
IMO DE 49/6/3 15 December 2005 Original: ENGLISH

SUB-COMMITTEE ON SHIP DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT 49th session Agenda item 6

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PROTECTIVE COATINGS Comments on the report of the Correspondence Group Submitted by INTERTANKO SUMMARY Executive summary: This document comments on the issues outstanding from the report of the Correspondence Group by giving a brief report on current technologies used by major shipyards with regard to steel preparation and coating application. The report is aimed to assist the Sub-Committee when assessing the final standards among the alternative proposals submitted by the correspondence group in document DE 49/6. Paragraph 21 DE 49/6; DE 48/12

Action to be taken: Related documents:

1 INTERTANKO participated in the Correspondence Group and, from the outset wishes to express its appreciation for the excellent performance of Mrs. Xiang, the Chairperson of the Correspondence Group. We also appreciate the openness of the discussions and the valuable exchange of views and data brought forward by each of the participants in this correspondence groups work even though these were not always in line with the INTERTANKOs views. 2 The report of the Correspondence Group (DE 49/6) provides a list of items that still need to be agreed by the Sub-Committee. Based on the exchange of reasons and arguments within the correspondence group, INTERTANKO observed that different views were mainly based on perceptions on whether certain proposed limits and standards for steel preparation and coating application are practical, feasible or compatible with the current technologies used by shipyards. 3 In order to assist the Sub-Committee in making a final assessment, INTERTANKO submits this document with comments on the issues outstanding from the correspondence group. The document contains expert observations on the actual current standards used by shipyards in applying coating in ballast tanks. The observations are the result of visiting six shipyards in a major shipbuilding country in the Far East and are given by an expert within the INTERTANKO membership who has full qualifications and long experience on ship coating. 4 The observations on current practices and performances are on the following criteria of the proposed Performance Standards for coating: dry-film thickness, soluble salt limit, steel surface condition, surface treatment/blasting condition, surface condition after erection and dust removal.
I:\DE\49\6-3.doc
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.

DE 49/6/3 GENERAL COMMENTS

-2-

5 The overall standard of ship building including coating work is very high in the shipyards visited. Generally, the standard achieved easily meets the new proposed IMO standard for ballast tank coating application. All yards visited (except one) had in fact built quite impressive and climatically controlled painting facilities/shops. Actions taken by the shipyards indicated that in fact they do appreciate that application temperature and humidity of the environment can be the root of the problem for achieving a good coating application. In building these excellent painting facilities, there is a guarantee that the blocks move down the production line at a predictable and productive rate, regardless of the prevailing weather conditions something INTERTANKO applauds.

Impressive painting facilities/shops in several yards. Dry film thickness 6 There was one significant problem noted at all of the shipyards visited, namely over application/too thick paint applied. This is a problem in that it is aggravating the all too common premature coating cracking problem, however this problem is also known to the yards and attempts are made to address this issue. 7 Values of a typical dry film thickness reported by maker #1 in one yard were: Ballast tanks: Minimum 300 mic Average DFT Average 500-600 mic High DFT in ballast: Maximum 1200 mic
I:\DE\49\6-3.DOC

-3-

DE 49/6/3

8 These are very high values indeed! Certainly it is not in the shipyards interest to apply twice to three times the amount of paint that is asked for nor is it in the owners interest to have these thick layers. There is a strong trend in all shipyards in the country visited to use what they call Universal Primers all paint makers use one. It seems however that these primers in general have very poor flow characteristics (see picture below).

9 Coatings with such a poor flow leave an uneven texture, and of course the lowest point between the peaks is where the thickness is measured needless to say all the paint above the low point is then waste. Hence, such a poor flow tends to increase the paint thickness which results in a poor yard economy. 10 These poorly textured coatings are difficult to inspect, leading to a great degree of marking. It is not uncommon that blocks are re-sprayed several times before being accepted. The painted blocks in the pictures below show very high amounts of markings for re-spray. It can be speculated that the reason the coatings have such poor flow is that the yards require excessive sag resistance, and that the coatings therefore are full of thixotrope agents. The 1st coat on blocks in this yard looked very well sprayed but then the system apparently broke down, and the 2nd coat had to be re-sprayed several times leading close to 1 mm final thickness. It is important to state that the coating inspectors advised that the shipyards were working on improvements.

I:\DE\49\6-3.DOC

DE 49/6/3 Soluble salt contamination

-4-

11 Soluble salt contamination as reported by several paint makers operating in the shipyards in the country visited indicates that this issue is not a major problem. Basically all yards were reported to easily meet the 30 mg/m2 maximum (ISO 8502-9) requirements of the new IMO ballast tank coating standard. We have a significant number of readings which can be made available but, for obvious reasons we list herewith some typical readings: Table 1. Cargo tank values received from paint maker #1 3.8 12.5 2.5 0.6 7.5 3.8 2.1 9.4 Reading before washing ISO 8520-9 Reading after washing 0.6 2.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.3 ISO 8520-9 12.5 not acceptable value; 0.6 acceptable value; 3.0 acceptable upper limit Table 2. Typical values at one larger yard from paint maker #2 Normal blocks built at XXX yard Cleanliness before steel grit blasting < 20 mg/m2 Cleanliness after steel grit blasting < 10 mg/m2 Blocks brought in from China by sea Cleanliness before washing > 200 mg/m2 Cleanliness after washing < 10 mg/m2 30 mg/m2 acceptable upper limit Table 3. Typical values at another yard (info. other paint maker #3) Blocks during assembly around shipyard : 0 ~3 ug/cm2 Blocks to be coated at yard from China : 5 ~30 ug/cm2 before wash down, Same blocks 2 ~3 ug/cm2 after wash down 12 Many of these yards use subcontractors to produce blocks. Some subcontractors are located in the same country, and some subcontractors are located in another shipbuilding neighbouring country. These blocks are brought into the shipyards on barges and, as a standard measure are washed with fresh water upon arrival. Coating manufacturers check salt contamination levels on an ad hoc basis and, in general the yards do wash when required without discussions. This means that yards are managing the pre-washing issue already and there is no reason why they will not be able to do so in the future. Steel surface condition 13 All of the shipyards visited build ships to a good standard from a steel surface point of view some better and some less excellent. All were found to be able to produce good quality steel surfaces. In fact all the yards visited met the IMO proposed (ISO 8501-3, grade P2) requirement on all ballast (and cargo) tank surfaces. Surface treatment/blasting condition 14 The standard of the grit blasting is well in compliance with the IMO proposed standard already. The standard calls for Sa 2 on all welds and damaged shop primer, and Sa 2 (70% removal) on all intact shop primer. As the below pictures from 2 yards clearly show this standard is clearly routinely met in these shipyards.
I:\DE\49\6-3.DOC

0.8

-5-

DE 49/6/3

Surface condition after erection/ block erection join up welds 15 There was a difference between the yards on how they dealt with erection join-up welds. They all taped up the erection join-up weld to minimize the amount of work required in-situ. At some of the yards the welding inside was also completed up to a point very near to the erection weld, leaving a minimum of work to be done in-situ. Other yards had not evolved to the same degree as shown on the picture below left. It goes without saying that the less work there is to be done in-situ the more economical the process.

16 One yard carried out wheel-abrator type blasting on the outside erection welds something that might be developed also for internal welds or the use of vacuum blasting, spongejet blasting, or other means of blasting. The shipyards were considering means to improve the efficiency. 17 The current standard does, however, allow power tool cleaning of the internal erection join-up welds as long as the total area does not exceed 3%. All of the yards visited easily met that criteria. The picture above right is a typical double skin erection join-up weld area, on a ship in one of the yards visited where less performance was observed. Even so, the total amount of erection weld area is far less than 3% of the total tank area. Each block is about 10 m long (or more) and the erection weld area extends 10 cm on each side of the weld only in other yards less. 18 One must, however, also admire and respect the manner in which these yards build large ships. Panel stage, followed by block stage, then super or mega block stage, followed by hull stage. Pictures below show it all!
I:\DE\49\6-3.DOC

DE 49/6/3

-6-

Dust removal 19 All yards visited use steel grit when blasting. As we all know, steel is not an inert blasting media. Hence ANY dust on top of painted blocks will stain when it rains, and such dust under paint will cause under-film corrosion. The yards are obviously very aware of this and therefore clean the blocks and other areas to be painted, very well. The yards meet and exceed the ISO 8502-3 - Level 1 with ease and this is thought to be so because they use steel grit and are aware of the staining problem from steel dust. In all the yards and places visited, the cleanliness both on blocks and in tanks during painting was nothing less than excellent! None of the paint makers or ship owner representatives regarded cleaning as a problem! They were all satisfied with the shipyards performance in this regard. Conclusion 20 Based on observations from visiting these shipyards and discussing the issues with paint suppliers and technical personnel at the shipyards' customers' site offices, INTERTANKO concludes the following with regard to the standards proposed in document DE 48/12 based on the TSCF 15 years life specification: Steel treatment criteria the proposals in DE 48/12 can be met. Blasting criteria the proposals in DE 48/12 can be met and are actually exceeded. Salt contamination the proposals in DE 48/12 can be met. Painting cells and environmental control the proposals in DE 48/12 can be met and are actually exceeded. Dry film thickness of coating the film applied is too thick and thus a waste of paint; corrections can be easily done.

Action requested of the Sub-Committee 21 The Sub-Committee is invited to consider the above information and take appropriate action. ___________

I:\DE\49\6-3.DOC