LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Melancon, M; Hunter, P; Hourcade, S; Al-Borno, A; Liskiewicz, T; Rao, S; Salamah, B; Dhoke, S; Cortes, J; Chen, X (2014)
Publisher: National Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers International
Languages: English
Types: Other
Subjects:
External coatings used for corrosion protection often have to perform under severely corrosive environments. One major concern regarding coating performance is the negative effect of soluble salts on the steel substrate at the time of coating application, particularly for marine maintenance coating applications. These salts impact the ability of the applied coating systems to protect the steel in several ways including osmotic coating blistering, promotion of under-film metallic corrosion and coating disbondment. This paper focuses on removal of soluble salts contamination by commercially available decontamination processes in relation to external coating systems. We directly compare the effectiveness of four cleaning methods with the performance of ten coating systems. The methodology of surface contamination and preparation of test panels is discussed. After cleaning, sample evaluation for chloride ion contamination levels was carried out using Field method (commercial chloride ion test kit for surfaces) and Ion Chromatography method. Additionally, Scanning Electron Microscopy Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) and elemental surface mapping analysis were carried out. Laboratory testing of coating systems included Adhesion, Porosity, Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) analysis and cyclic UV/Salt Fog exposure. The performance of the ten coatings on all the substrates was good, but there were differences in gloss retention and on the degree of checking of the different coatings. The only significant difference in performance of the coatings compared to the method used for cleaning the substrate was higher undercreep observed for most of the coatings applied to the ultra-high pressure water jetted system. This shows the importance of substrate preparation due to the sensitivity of the coatings to even low levels of salt. Two coatings did not show increased undercreep and these may be more applicable for offshore maintenance applications where dry abrasive blasting is sometimes not used. The chemical treatment cleaning method used prior to coating application did not show any significant positive or negative effect on the performance of the applied coatings. The fact that the only differences in performance for the coatings applied to the differently prepared substrates was seen for undercreep suggests that the difference may be exacerbated for immersion situations. A follow up study to this one will examine the performance of internal coatings using immersion tests, and it will be interesting to see if these show increased effect on coating performance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 10. Epoxy Primer-sealer / Elastomeric Pure Polyurea Two-coat System: All cleaning methods had similar effect on the coating performance with no change in DFT, no blistering, no rusting, no cracking and no change in color. Checking and some loss of gloss were noted for all test samples. The coating showed some tendency to undercreep (0.9 - 1.6 mm) and checking. 2007 (Denver, CO: NACE, 2007), p. 1.
    • 3. Resolution MSC.215 for Protective Coatings for Dedicated Seawater Ballast Tanks in All Types of Ships and Double-Side Skin Spaces o Maritime Organization, 2006.
    • 4. NSRP/ASE Surface Preparation and Coatings Panel (SPMitigation as related to the Accuracy of the Measurement and C Prepared by L.M. Frenzel, 2011.
    • 5. ASTM B117 Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article