The Domino Effect

Coating Breakdown – Corrosion – Structural Failure

Leading to Possible Design Ramifications

[Attention to coatings and corrosion at the design stage can minimize

the risk of structural failure]

By

Eur. Ing. Peter D. Contraros C.Eng, MRINA

ABS Europe LTD
Principal Engineer –Special Projects

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -1–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 1. Introduction
Modern ship design, driven by a combination of regulatory changes, technical advances
and commercial pressures, has placed an increased emphasis on the effective
maintenance of coatings within a vessel’s structure if the ravages of corrosion are to be
properly controlled.

Not only can there be significantly larger areas of steel requiring protection, for example
in the ballast spaces of a double hull tanker compared to its single hull counterpart, but
the substantially different structural response of the double hull vessel to dynamic loads,
while in service, can accelerate corrosion breakdown, particularly in light scantling
vessels.

Recently the International Maritime Organization (IMO) introduced a new requirement

whereby bulk carriers will be required to incorporate a double sided configuration in
place of the traditional single sided design. As occurred with double hull tankers, this
change can be expected to substantially affect corrosion patterns and the need for and
likely degradation of protective coatings.

In the current very competitive newbuilding market, shipyards have developed designs
that simplify the production process and optimize the amount of steel. As a result of this
approach, many new designs include areas that may be subject to high stresses and
subsequent deformation, and that may have limited access for in-service inspection and
maintenance. These parameters may allow rapid corrosion such that the structure will
degrade at a much faster rate than is anticipated by the designer. This results in a
structure where the condition has rapidly exceeded that of traditional classification
society corrosion margins.

Such high stresses cause deflection of the associated structural members. This in turn can
destroy the member’s protective coating. Localized corrosion then occurs in way of the
deteriorated coating which results in loss of section, higher stresses, higher deflections
and load re-distribution to adjacent areas that were not initially designed for these loads.
This process creates a Domino Effect of further deflection in the adjacent areas causing
continued coating breakdown, further corrosion and further structural failures.

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -2–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 2. Corrosion Prevention – Applicable International Regulations &
Recommendations
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) addressed coatings in ballast tanks,
applicable to oil tankers and bulk carriers, constructed after 1 July 1998, in SOLAS
Chapter II-1 Part A-1 Regulation 3.21 and MSC Resolution A.798(19)2. The International
Association of Classification Societies (IACS) has published specific interpretations of
the SOLAS requirements (SC 1223). These are summarized by the following table:

Table 1
SOLAS Ch. II-1 Part A-1 reg. 3-2
IMO Resolution A.798(19)
IACS SC 122
• Agreement between Owners – Coating Manufacturer & Shipbuilder/Applicator
• Coating System on each B.W.T.
• Detail of Anodes
• Coating Manufacturer Data Sheet of each Product
• Evidence of Application Procedures & Methods of Inspection
• Surface Preparation & Inspection Points
• Application Procedures & Methods of Inspection
• Format of Inspection & Reporting
• Coating Manufacturer Product Safety
• Maintenance of Coating System

The IMO MSC Resolution A.798(19) expands on to the above items and includes several
standards, such as BS70794 that address the issue of surface preparation.

The IMO requirements address the ballast tanks of the ship but make no mention of the
cargo spaces. IACS UR Z95 addresses requirements for the cargo spaces in bulk carriers
only. However, the cargo spaces of tankers and the ballast and cargo holds of other types
of vessels (e.g. gas carriers, container ships and reefers et al.) are not included in the
mandatory Rule requirements.

Coating selection and application is a critical element of the new building process as it
can determine from the outset the subsequent longevity of the structure. It is for this
reason that the agreement between the ship’s owner/oper ator, the coating manufacturer,
the shipbuilder, and the company selected to apply the coatings is of paramount
importance for a new building.

Yet, despite this importance, it is not unusual for the relevant parties to address the issue
of coatings prior to the finalization of the proposed ship’s specification. Such discussions
often precede a full structural analysis of the design, an analysis that will identify the

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -3–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 areas subject to the highest stress and deformation as they relate to the suitability of the
selected coating system.

It is also common for the structural experts to be provided with the engineering
specifications without there being any correlation of the structural arrangements and
details to those necessary for an appropriate assessment of the coating system for the new
building. Too often there is the appearance of a demarcation line between structural
expert and coating expert.

The importance of the communication between the two groups is that it should lead to a
mutual understanding of the inter-relationship between coatings and structural longevity.
Open dialogue between the two can help avoid early coating breakdown and the initiation
of the Domino Effect. The manner in which this can lead to structural failures will be
outlined in the following sections of this paper.

It should be noted that Class Societies have published Guides and Classification Notes
that relate to coatings. Other forums such as The Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum6
have also issued comprehensive guidelines concerning the coatings for the ship as a
whole.

For the inspection of existing ships, IACS Class Societies, in general, have descriptive
requirements for coating breakdown, These are based on three distinct categories of
GOOD, FAIR & POOR identified as shown in Figure 1 for the Assessment Scale for
Breakdown of coatings.

Corrosion I n Double Hull T ankers

Fig. 1: Assessment Scale for breakdown Fig. 2: New Lines Extent Diagrams

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -4–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
These basic guidelines are well established. To further assist the inspector to accurately
assess the extent of the coating breakdown, a new line diagram has also been developed
as shown in Figure 2 for connections in way of welds, edges of stiffener flanges and
girders.

3. Relation of Structural Strength to Coating Degradation

It is well understood that the loading on the ship is applied primarily on the plating,
which transfers the load via the welds to the stiffeners/main supporting members. This
load transference also affects the welding and is quantified in terms of shear stress. This
creates shear deformation at these points.

There is evidence that welding behavior is one of the most important parameters in the
safety of the ship. The diligent use of the Linear Extent Diagram (Fig. 2) may help
prevent possible progressive deterioration of the structural joint and the connecting
members through early identification and repair of the coatings. By maintaining the
coatings in good condition, further corrosion related diminution of the scantlings can be
arrested.

Failure of the coatings on welds is often attributed to bad surface preparation and the
possible presence of weld process oxides unless the coating breakdown is confined to the
areas of highest stress and deformation. Figures 3 and 4 clearly show cases where hard
epoxy coating failed in high shear deformation areas. In particular Figure 4 shows the
lower bracket of the hold frame in a bulk carrier where shear buckling may also be
present:




  


Crack in coating over weld

Fig. 3: Double Hull Tanker – Lower Bracket Fig. 4: Corrosion Pattern on Weld of
of Vertical Stringer T. BHD Lower Bracket to S. Shell in Hold
Frames

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -5–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 43
,5768:9&;=<><@?!+A&<

3
   !" #%$& '!#!()+*!" #$3
, "    -  %)!" #' .!#/ " #0$)% " 1 1 !#%%+/,
32'#!* 

Fig. 5: Typical Behavior of Corrosion Fig. 6: FEM Analysis showing Shear Stress
Around a Manhole Opening with Distribution Around an Unstiffened
and without Ring Stiffeners Manhole Opening

To control steel weight, high tensile steel is often used in the most highly stressed areas
of a vessel, particularly in double hull tankers and bulk carriers. This can cause a very
pronounced form of failure due to buckling. It is often observed that members in buckling
or post-buckling deformation mode display coatings that have failed. Classification Rules
are used to examine this phenomenon to determine if combative structural requirements
may be warranted. However, no standard for testing coating formulations for their
applicability to such high stressed areas by the coating manufacturers appears in the
marine market.

Double Hull T anker

Blisters i.w.o. buckled panel located at the first hopper strake from inner
bottom

Fig. 7: Coating behaviour on Plating in Buckling

Figure 7 shows a plate panel on a relatively new double hull tanker where the lower
strake of the hopper buckled, forming a line of blisters on the compressive side of the
plate throughout the cargo tank.

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -6–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
Figures 8 & 9 outline the midship section of two ships of similar construction that are
quite dissimilar in terms of corrosion breakdown. Fig. 8 is a Double Hull bulk carrier of
160m in length and of about 22,000 tonnes deadweight. Fig. 9 is a Double Hull Suezmax
tanker of about 260m in length and of about 170,000 tonnes deadweight.

Dk t=35mm, s=800mm Lscan=160.00

Lscan=160.00 M

Web spacing
4800 mm

t=11mm, s=750mm
Web spacing
SS t=11mm, s=750mm 2400 mm

t=25mm, s=600mm

t=32mm, s=600mm

t=14mm, s=600mm

Fig. 8: 18 year old Double Skin Bulk Carrier 100% mild Steel, L=160m, DWT=22,000tons
No Corrosion found in Ballast Tanks
Af r amax Double Hull T anker W it h W B T & COT Ar r angement s L = 250.00 - 270.00 M

Dk L ong. S pacing s= 800 mm, t = 17.00 mm

AH32

t = 16.00 t = 14, s= 800 t = 18 MS

MS
Web spacing
3800 mm

Web spacing s= 800mm, t = 16AH32

3800 mm

S = 800mm - t = 15AH32

Corrosion I n Double Hull T ankers AH32

Fig. 9: Suezmax Double Hull Tanker With WBT & COT

Arrangements L=260m

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -7–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
Both structures satisfy the Rules. As could be expected given their differing sizes, the
scantlings of the two structures are substantially different, particularly those for the deck,
inner bottom and lower hopper thickness at corresponding spacing. What is of interest is
that the larger double hull tanker has the lower scantlings at deck, inner bottom and lower
hopper due to the inclusion of high tensile steel. This example is used to highlight the
impact of the use of HTS as opposed to mild steel. What must be recognized is the
resulting magnitude of maximum stress/deflections and stress cycles/deformation on the
HTS vessel will be much higher than the mild steel vessel.

The larger vessel was relatively new when inspected (about 12 months old) and the
smaller one was about 18 years old. Both vessels had their ballast and cargo tanks coated.

The inspection showed that there was practically no corrosion or coating breakdown in
the originally coated ballast tanks of the smaller vessel, apart from areas where obviously
buckled members were found corroded. However, the one year old, lighter scantlinged
tanker exhibited coating breakdown in the under deck area under the deck crane
foundations, in the shear strake and the deck stringer.

4.0 Structural Behavior of Typical Ship Structures in High Seas

IMO and IACS require that ballast tanks shall have an efficient corrosion prevention
system, such as hard protective coatings or equivalent, preferably of a light color.
However, coatings on a ship at sea experience a wide range of stresses and deformations.
They are also subject to climatic changes and operational factors such as temperature
variations and ballast exchange among others.

Usually the coatings are not tested against all possible stresses/deformations, both in air
and sea water, as no acceptable standard currently exists. Modern ships are built with a
high percentage of high tensile steel with high manganese content (as compared with
mild steel). The HTS plates are thinner, more flexible and prone to larger deformations.
The deflection of a ship constructed with high tensile steel, while in high seas, is thereby
increased.

In addition the fatigue strength of certain structural members can become critical as the
stress amplitude and thus deformation is increased. For example, the deflection on a high
tensile inverted angle longitudinal on the hopper part of the inner skin bulkhead between
the transverse webs of a typical Aframax, maybe as high as 15mm or 15,000 microns,
while the DFT (Dry Film Thickness) of the coatings applied is perhaps of the order of
250microns. One side of the angle, where the coating may have been tested, will be in
tension and the coating may behave adequately. But the other side is in compression and
may have buckled, a mode for which the coating formulations have not been tested.

The shape of the longitudinals used in the design of the ship is also important in terms of
stress/deformation at their respective end supports and flange edges. This will also
influence the coating behavior in these areas. Coating breakdown at the flange edges and
at the welds of the non-symmetrical profiles, such as L - angle bars and, to a lesser

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -8–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
degree, one side bulb plate, is often attributed to the lack of stripe coatings, or to the
surface preparation if stripe coatings were applied at the edges and welds.

However, non-symmetrical shapes, as opposed to symmetrical ones such as T- shapes or

Two-Side Bulb Flat Bars, are more prone to torsion when subject to bending. In such
state it could be expected that corrosion would be substantially more pronounced at the
ends. In mid span, corrosion would be expected to be more pronounced at the flange
edges and welding. This can be seen in Figure 10 where a 3D FEM fine mesh analysis of
an unequal angle bar longitudinal has been analyzed. Figure 11 shows observation during
a survey of an upper wing tank of a bulk carrier where the corrosion behavior at the ends
of the unequal angle bar longitudinal is evident.

Fig. 10: Total Translation of Structure Around a Cut-Out (Slots) for Longitudinals
with collar plate and vertical stiffener. Comparison of Deflection Pattern
and Coating Break-Down

Fig. 11: Typical Coating Break Down at end of an unbalanced (L-shape) U.W.T. Longitudinal

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club -9–
Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
The structural members of the ship while in dynamic mode (stress induced cycles while
the vessel is in a seaway) have been designed for their fatigue adequacy but always with
the proviso that corrosion diminution will be controlled and within the prescribed limits.
However, it would appear that the critical coatings have not been adequately tested in sea
water for that mode of loading.

Class Societies may subject a new design to sophisticated 3D FEM analysis where the
modes of failures are examined as shown below. However, there are limited records
indicating that new coating formulations developed for shipboard application have been
fully tested to an equivalent degree.

Figures 13, 14 and 15 show 3D FEM analyses for three holds of a VLCC where
compressive stresses and deflections are shown. It should be noted that the deflections on
the deck of a VLCC may reach well over 50,000 microns although the DFT (Dry Film
Thickness) of the coating maybe no more than 250 microns.

VLCC 3D FEM
VLCC Compressive stresses on deck
L oad Case 1

S agging

Fig. 12: Typical ABS SafeHull 3D FEM Analysis indicating

Compressive Stresses on Main Deck in Head Seas

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 10 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 VLCC 3D FEM
Deflections of side shell and deck stringer (compression)

L oad Case6

Hogging B eam S eas

Fig. 13: Deflection of S.Shell and Deck stringer in Beam Seas

VLCC 3D FEM
Deflections - main deck plating (compression)

L oading Case 7
S agging Quar ter ly S eas

Fig. 14: Deflection of Deck (Compression) in Quarterly Seas

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 11 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
It is well understood that fatigue-testing methodologies when applied to accelerated
ageing of coatings specimens (by elevated temperatures)8 does not simulate accurately
the behavior of coatings in the ship structure. The ductility of the coating in its aged form
should be simulated, together with the deformation of substrate to assure some relation of
the two media with that encountered in ship structures on the high seas.

5. Corrosion due to Ship Operation

The latest IMO9 and IACS10 requirements for Ballast Water Management Practices,
introduced to limit the migration of unwanted aquatic organisms and pathogens in ship’s
ballast water and sediment discharges, may require a ship to exchange ballast in the open
ocean. This process can adversely affect coatings, and thus the extent and pace of
corrosion, due to the imposition of a new range of increased stress/deformation behavior
and the introduction of new oxygen into the tanks, which then acts as a corrosion catalyst.

Ship operators traditionally carry out maintenance of coatings while at sea by the crew.
Studies have shown that this type of maintenance has limited efficacy as shown in Figure
15. This has been attributed to a variety of practical reasons including dirty surfaces, non-
performance of coatings, inability to provide even coatings and others. These reasons
ignore the critical performance issue: the structure is in working mode (in stress cycles
and corresponding deflections) and as such the coating cannot perform as it cannot
properly cure due to the disturbances introduced by the vessel’s motion.

Fig. 15 Typical few months old touch up where corrosion shows through

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 12 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
 In many cases, when extensive repairs have been undertaken that have introduced new
steel into the tank, the operators coat only the new steel. The result is that the new steel
will act as a cathode and the old adjacent steel, which has been subject to coating
breakdown will act a sacrificial anode. The most severely loaded areas such as the welds
joining the new steel with the old will be directly affected by the stress/deformation
redistribution on the new steel, and by electrolytic action.

Another operational issue that is often overlooked is when ships take on water ballast
when operating in rivers and shallow waters where sand is drawn into the ballast tanks.
Failure to remove the sand after each deballasting sustains the accumulation of sand for
prolonged periods of time producing deoxygenation under the sand for the growth of
microbes and thus producing microbiologically influenced corrosion. The complete
drainage of the tanks is a function of the effectiveness of the drainage openings in the
internal bottom longitudinals, bottom girders and transverses.

It therefore follows that the operation of the vessel may affect the pattern of corrosion
displayed by two sister ships on different trading patterns.

6. Design Ramifications for structural details to Prevent Coating Breakdown

Fatigue is one failure mode in which corrosion can be a very influential factor. The basis
of fatigue assessment of the structure is the S-N curve methodology. The capacity of the
ship structure to resist fatigue is given in terms of a permissible stress range to allow the
designer the maximum flexibility.

The stress range for each structural member (joint) under consideration is calculated
based on a NET Value using a nominal corrosion diminution value. This is usually based
on a mean value corresponding to 20 years life expectancy. For example in Figure 16 the
nominal values are given for a tanker structure. Similar values are included practically in
all IACS Class Societies Rules for most of the commercial ship types:

Nominal Design
Corrosion Values
(1995)

Fig. 16: Net Scantling concept –

Nominal Design Corrosion
Values used as Inputs for
Structural and Fatigue Analysis

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 13 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
If it was to be assumed that the structural members under consideration are of HTS
material and the corrosion levels are much more severe than the above, then the stress
range levels will be substantially higher for the as-corroded structure. Use of the S-N
Curves (i.e. Stress Range versus Endurance cycles in Log – Log Curves) indicates that
the resultant fatigue life is reduced rapidly and certainly not linearly.

It therefore follows that, if the coating is not suitable to resist fatigue orientated
deformations in the marine environment (in sea water) and air, early failures of the
coating may occur, leading to the formation of corrosion that will reduce the scantlings
and increase the probability of failure.

To prevent this from occurring and/or to compensate for the deficiencies in the onboard
maintenance practices, owners when contracting for new tonnage may resort to the so-
called “Owners Extra” (increased thicknesses of structural members over and above the
Rule Requirements). This approach also means increases in the weld sizes. This is
perhaps an additional initial expense that may be included in the vessel’s mortgage. But
this approach may produce a longer trouble-free life for the vessel, with fewer repairs,
lower off hire time and a higher initial investment recovery.

Design of various details for easy and complete drainage of the tanks may prove to be an
equally effective means for increasing the design life expectancy of the vessel, as no, or
less, stagnant water will accumulate in the tank bottom where coating breakdown is more
likely. An example of currently used drainage holes compared with the preferable
configuration is shown in Figure 17:

B) Preferable Practice for last transverse

A) Common Practice bay of the tank

(1) (2)

Fig. 17: Arrangement of Drainage Holes

An example of current, widely used drainage hole locations compared with the preferable
siting is shown in Figure 17, provided there is structural adequacy for the location.

However, the preferred details may prove more expensive in their construction as in (2)
where some accurate manual welding may be required at the bottom of the opening.
Alternatively in (1) the gap between the lower end of the opening and horizontal plate
shown maybe as small as possible and glass fiber resin (or similar material) maybe used
to fill the gap and ensure that complete drainage is achieved. This process may again be

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 14 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
proven expensive but a complete stripping of the tanks may be achieved thus avoiding
coating breakdown.

Ring stiffening may be adopted in high stress areas around manhole openings in lieu of
vertical buckling stiffeners so that the smooth transmission of forces to avoid corrosion as
shown in Figures 5 and 6 can be enhanced.

Void areas, like those shown in Fig. 18, are to be particularly designed to assure that no
corrosion has accumulated behind these shedders. Typically they cover a very important
part of the deck in way of the hatch corner of the main deck hatch openings of a bulk
carrier/cargo ship/combination carrier. The shedder in this area is considered a non-
structural member and is fitted purely to shed the cargo and avoid cleaning these areas
after unloading. However, it creates a void that cannot be maintained, inspected or even
coated. Any repair is a very expensive and time consuming exercise.
Crack on Deck

Corrosion in Welding & plating

Crack on deck & coaming

Void Space
Fig. 18: Corrosion in typical void Spaces in way of Hatch Corner

The inner bottom plating, longitudinals, double bottom girders and floors of bulk carriers
are often severely affected by the impact of grabs, bulldozers and other mechanical
devices used for unloading cargo. As a consequence, the associated coatings can be
severely damaged as even today’s hard epoxy coatings cannot withstand such impacts. In
the process, the coatings of the ballast lines can also be severely affected which can lead
to premature cracking or holes in the ballast lines.

Access to the double bottom structure of bulk carriers is restricted. It is common to find
that the coatings in these tanks have not been properly maintained due to the physical
restrictions of these congested areas. Many operators resort to fitting anodes in these
spaces. The position of these anodes should be close to the member that they are
intending to protect, as opposed to members that are already corroded. In the latter case
the anode may attack the heavily corroded affected area faster and damage it sooner than
is anticipated.

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 15 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
Material of piping fitted on deck, and in cargo and ballast tanks is often dissimilar to that
of the hull. In addition the pipe behavior relative to the ship’s movement is also different.
It therefore follows that attachments to the hull should be a focus of attention. Such
connections should be specifically addressed at the early stages of design with regard to
appropriate coating, both of the lines and the protective medium between the securing
devices and the pipe.

In general, coated areas in the after peak tank area and in the fore end of the vessel
including the forward cargo holds and ballast tanks, where the structure becomes very
complex due to the shape of the vessel, are prone to lack of maintenance. Unfortunately
these areas experience high loads due to slamming such that corrosion may have a
disproportionate impact as the vessel ages.

Areas in the fore peak can be difficult to maintain, as the crew cannot reach structural
members for onboard maintenance of the coating without staging. If taken into
consideration early in the design process, such difficulties may be averted. Any
modification to the design to accommodate structural provisions for improved inspection
and maintenance may incur additional cost for the owner but this initial capital outlay
may be counterbalanced by future savings on repairs.

The issue of appropriate access for close-up survey of the vessel’s structure in cargo and
ballast tanks has also been addressed at IMO and new requirements have been developed
that will require an extensive permanent combination of ladders and walkways in future
bulk carrier and tanker designs.

Monitoring of the coating barrier’s behavior in ballast tanks is an area that is subject to
analysis with a view to further improvement. Some tanker operators have adopted a
monitoring system to check on the usage of sacrificial anodes in tanks and to use the data
to plan replacement of the anodes before steel loss can occur. In these systems the voltage
of the anodes is measured and controlled so as not to fall below a level where corrosion
may take place.

Conclusion:

A greater awareness of coating behavior at the design stage such that stress deformation,
especially in the buckling and shear modes, is limited, would minimize coating
breakdown and increase the likelihood that the applied coating would perform to
specification.

Coating formulations could be improved if tested in a manner that more closely simulates
the deformation and fatigue to which a vessel is subject in service.

Sharp edges and complex joints should be avoided to reduce stress

concentrations/deformation that can lead to faster breakdown in the coating barrier8.

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 16 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion
These steps are considered critical if the Domino Effect of coating breakdown, leading to
accelerated corrosion, which reduces scantlings and can ultimately lead to structural
failure, is to be minimized or avoided.
Further research, development and testing of methods for the continuous monitoring of
the coating barrier in ballast tanks may be a reasonable and economically viable option
for a ship operator seeking better control of corrosion.

IMO and IACS now require the application of hard epoxies or equivalent coatings for
very large areas of the ship that are to be maintained in a reasonably good condition.

Improvement of the structural details and coating quality will incur a higher cost. The
size of the expense is a function of the type of protection specified. This can be offset by
fewer repairs, a longer effective service life, reduced off hire time and less crew
overtime.

References:

1. SOLAS Ch. II-1 Part A Reg. 3.2 – Corrosion Prevention of Seawater Ballast Tanks
2. MSC Resolution A.798(19) – Guidelines for the Selection, Application and
Maintenance of Corrosion Prevention Systems of Dedicated Seawater Ballast Tanks –
November 1995
3. IACS Interpretation of the International Convention SOLAS SC122Corrosion
Prevention in Seawater Ballast Tanks
4. British Standard BS 7079 Part A – 1989 – Preparation of Steel Substrates before
Application of Paints and Related Products
5. IACS Z9 – Corrosion Protection Coatings for Cargo Hold Space on Bulk Carriers
6. The Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum – “Guidelines for Ballast Tank Coating
Systems and Surface Preparation” – 2002
7. Presentation – NACE Committee Vessel Corrosion STG-44 March 2001 –
“Corrosion in Double Hull Tankers”.
8. M. Molin – Chalmers University of Technology – Strain Capacity of Aged Polymeric
Coating on Ship Structure – 1999
9. IMO MSC Res. A.774(18 – Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted
Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens from Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediment
Discharges
10. IACS UR S1A.3 h) – Additional Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading
Manuals and Loading Instruments for Bulk Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combinations
Carriers

23rd April 2003 Lloyds List Events - Marine Corrosion Club - 17 –

Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion