THREE LAYER POLYOLEFIN COATINGS: FULFILLING THEIR POTENTIAL?

Dr Colin Argent
MACAW Engineering Ltd
Willington Quay
Wallsend, UK, NE28 6UL

David Norman
David Norman Corrosion Control
Crantock
Cornwall, UK, TR8 5SA

ABSTRACT

Three layer polyolefin coatings (3LPO) now dominate the world pipe coating market, but
consistent performance of these coatings is lacking, particularly in respect of long term
adhesion between the FBE first layer and the steel substrate. The first part of this paper
provides examples of problems that have been encountered with 3LPO coatings during
construction and pipeline operation. In the second part of the paper solutions to the observed
problems are discussed with particular reference to the current ISO Committee Draft coating
specifications. Proposals are made for alternative test regimes more suited to the assessment
of the long term performance of 3LPO coatings and it is suggested that an integrated approach
to coating specifications is required if the full potential of 3LPO coatings is to be achieved in
practice.

KEY WORDS

Fusion bonded epoxy, liquid epoxy, polyolefin, polyethylene, polypropylene.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Three layer polyolefin coatings (3LPO) dominate the world pipe coating market. In most areas
of the world they account for between 65% and 90% of new coating use. The exceptions are
Africa and the Middle East, where the use is between 45% and 50%, and USA, Canada and
the UK where 3LPO coatings only account for 15% of new coatings. Fusion bonded epoxy
powder (FBE) coatings make up the remainder with a few regions still using bitumen or coal tar
enamel at a rate of 5% to 20%.

With this level of market penetration it would be reasonable to expect that 3LPO coatings
offered a consistent, high quality product with exemplary performance. Unfortunately this is
not the case. In many countries the 3LPO coatings on pipelines in service are showing a
severe reduction in adhesion such that the coating can be peeled from the pipe with little or no
effort (1,2). This of course raises questions over the long term corrosion control to be expected
from such coatings but structurally significant corrosion problems have not been identified.

The main thesis of this paper is not that 3LPO coatings create an integrity risk due to poor
adhesion. The issue is that the perceived savings during construction from the use of 3LPO
must be offset against the additional monitoring and maintenance required during the
operational life of the pipeline after the coating adhesion has degraded.

The pipeline industry appears to be facing a major quandary in regard to 3LPO coatings. The
key issues that must be addressed are:
• Why do 3LPO coatings fail to consistently achieve acceptable long term adhesion?
• How is the industry to resolve this problem?

EXPERIENCE WITH 3LPO PIPE COATING

Poor adhesion has been identified on pipelines coated with 3LPO systems over the last 5
years in all the areas of the world where these coatings predominate. The symptoms of the
poor adhesion include:

• Loss of adhesion of the 3LPO coating from the metal substrate at the cut back under
atmospheric exposure (Figure 1).
• Loss of adhesion such that the coating can be easily peeled from the ‘clean’ substrate at
any location (Figure 2).
• Loss of adhesion and surface corrosion under low density PE with unacceptably high
permeability to water vapour and oxygen (Figure 3).
• Stress cracking of inappropriate grades of PE (Figure 4) with loss of adhesion and lifting
of the coating from the pipe surface.

Loss of adhesion most commonly occurs at the interface between the pipe steel and the FBE
first layer. Investigation of the causes of this poor adhesion has revealed a number of
contributory factors, all of which are known to cause problems with the adhesion of FBE
coatings. These factors include:

2
 • Rounded or dished abrasive blast profile (Figure 5).
• Incomplete abrasive blast cleaning of the substrate to leave residual mill scale on the
surface (Figure 6).
• Dirty substrate contaminated with dust, soluble salts and abrasive residues.
• No use of phosphoric acid treatment to clean the substrate, followed by de-ionised
water wash
• No use of chromate pre-treatment to condition the steel substrate.
• The use of inadequate types of FBE.
• Inappropriate application temperatures for the FBE resulting in incomplete wetting of the
substrate such that the FBE does not flow or wet the substrate properly (Figure 7).

The inappropriate application temperature of the first layer FBE is a symptom of the use of
‘stand alone’ FBE coating formulations in 3LPO systems. A typical optimum application
temperature for a ‘stand alone’ FBE is in the range 230 – 240oC. When used as the first layer
in a 3LPO coating a more typical application temperature is in the range 190 – 200 oC to
ensure no degradation of the second layer adhesive, and optimum inter-action and bonding
between the first layer FBE and the second layer adhesive. At this application temperature a
typical ‘stand alone’ FBE will not develop optimum adhesion or cure properties.

The initial adhesion of such a poorly applied FBE first layer is usually sufficient for the un-aged
coating to pass a cross cut adhesion test and a simple peel test or a pull off test. Accelerated
24 hour or 48 hour cathodic disbonding tests on 3LPO coatings are not reliable predictors of
long term adhesion loss. Longer test periods are essential, for example a 28 day hot water
soak test, is a more reliable indicator of long term adhesion loss but even this test is not fail
safe.

Loss of adhesion of the 3LPO coating at the cut back in the pipe dump (Figure 1) is a symptom
of poor adhesion of the FBE layer. The thermal expansion or contraction of PE is
approximately ten times greater than that of steel so some degree of thermally induced stress
would be expected in coatings subjected to temperature fluctuations. Cold overnight
temperatures appear capable of producing sufficient stress in a 3LPO coating to break a weak
adhesive bond between the FBE and steel substrate. Residual stress in the polyolefin outer
layer may also exacerbate this problem.

ENGINEERING A MORE RELIABLE 3LPO COATING

A number of possible solutions are available to resolve the poor adhesion problems of 3LPO
coatings.

If ‘stand alone’ coating grades of FBE are used as the first layer the FBE must be applied to
the optimum standards defined in the specifications for FBE coatings, such as CSA (3),CW6 (4),
and the FBE must be applied at the optimum temperature for that material. Any relaxation of
these provisions will impair the adhesion.

Typical application conditions required by FBE coatings specifications include:

3
 • An angular blast profile with a minimum peak to trough height of 50 microns
• A surface finish equivalent to Sa21/2
• A dust free surface
• A phosphoric acid wash to remove contamination
• A surface cleanliness of less than 2 micro g per sq. cm of soluble salts
• A chromate pre-treatment to stabilize the surface oxide layer, but this treatment is
considered to pose health and safety problems in some countries.
• A steel soaking temperature of 230 – 240 oC, not a skin temperature

If this solution to the adhesion problem is unacceptable, for example because the application
temperature is too high for the adhesive second layer or the chromate pre-treatment is
considered a health risk, then alternative FBE coating formulations are required.

3LPE coatings were introduced in the late 1970’s utilizing liquid primers, and then in the 1980’s
specific FBE formulations were developed to optimize the performance of the coating. These
systems relied on the use of special grades of FBE formulated for use with second layer
adhesives and third layer PE. These FBE grades have been used extensively as ‘primers’ at
thicknesses around 50 microns but loss of adhesion of the FBE first layer from the metal
substrate has also occurred with these materials.

Some FBE suppliers have now recognized the adhesion problem with 3LPO coatings and are
developing ‘low temperature’ FBE formulations that are designed to develop optimum adhesion
at an application temperature of 190 – 200 oC. These new materials are intended for
application at a thickness between 150 microns and 350 microns.

FBE is not an absolute requirement in the first layer of a 3LPO coating. Liquid formulations are
available and have been used in Italy, Russia and Japan. Suppliers of multi-component liquid
pipeline coatings have also developed new formulations specifically for use as the first layer in
a 3LPO coating system. Testing data for 3LPE systems with three different primer / first layer
materials is shown in Table 1.

Copolymer adhesives are usually composed of ethylene-acrylic units with reactive sites in the
backbone. Their structure is similar to LDPE and they are therefore compatible with it. Grafted
adhesives are usually based on linear types of PE and have similar reactive groups making
them more compatible with MDPE and HDPE and they provide a strong bond with these
materials. However, the application process is critical in achieving the optimum bond
regardless of the combination of adhesive and polyolefin outer layer. In addition to the use of
extruded adhesives some powdered adhesive formulations are now being used.

3LPE coatings are perceived to exhibit greater resistance to handling and backfill damage than
FBE but other aspects of the long term performance of the PE outer layer are also important.
For example the PE layer must be resistant to UV embrittlement (Figure 8) and stress cracking
(Figure 4) and minimize water vapour and oxygen permeation. In recent years the use of
MDPE and HDPE have become standard for most applications.

4
3LPP coatings can exhibit greater damage resistance but are most commonly selected for high
temperature operation, typically up to 130oC. This is well beyond the Tg of a normal ‘stand
alone’ FBE first layer.

THE 3LPO COATING SYSTEM

3LPO coatings can only be applied to standard pipe lengths so a compatible coating system
has to be used on the girth welds and pre-fabricated components such as bends, tees and
valves. Various coating solutions have been developed for the field joints and generic systems
are listed in Table 2 for 3LPE and 3LPP coatings.

Field experience with these coating systems has shown that compatibility and integrity
problems can occur particularly if incorrect application methods are used, for example:
• Soil loading deformation of mastic adhesive heat shrinkable materials on large diameter
pipe (Figure 9)
• Variable adhesion of heat shrinkable materials (Figure 10) with the risk of microbial
corrosion (Figure 11) and CP shielding.
• Cracking (5) of multi component liquid epoxies at the PE chamfer on the cut back (Figure
12)

The challenge in designing a field joint coating system for 3LPO coatings is to find a material
that bonds to the pipe steel, the weld and to the PE or PP outer layer, in variable and harsh
field environments. Heat shrinkable systems have been developed that show excellent
adhesion to the polyolefin but problems can occur with uniformity of application and adhesion
across the field joint, particularly with relatively inexperienced field crews. Heat shrinkable
systems that use a 2-pack epoxy primer and a hot melt adhesive offer superior performance to
mastic type heat shrinkable systems.

Multi-component liquid coatings (MCL) provide excellent adhesion and long term protection
when applied over steel but lack equivalent adhesion when applied to polyolefins. Various
treatments have been proposed to enhance MCL adhesion to polyolefins including sweep
blasting, ‘torching’ or the use of special primers but the reproducibility of these treatments on
joint after joint in site conditions is questionable.

The solution of machining back the polyolefin and adhesive layers to leave an FBE ‘tail’ at the
edge of the cut back has been used to minimize the long term risk of adhesion loss between
MCL field joint coatings and the polyolefin outer layer. The FBE tail provides an overlap area
for the MCL field joint coating and, in essence, this provides a field joint with comparable
integrity to MCL field joint coatings on FBE coated pipe. However the concept behind this joint
configuration only has merit if the FBE layer of the 3LPO system is thick enough to cover 100%
of the blast profile on the pipe. Typically 200 – 350 microns is recommended and this should
provide an effective corrosion protection first layer on both the pipe and the field joint.
However, complete removal of the adhesive layer can be difficult during routine site operations
and where sweep blasting is used some reduction in the thickness of the FBE tail must be
expected. This design concept is not applicable to 3LPO systems with an FBE layer applied
as a primer to only 50 – 100 microns total thickness.

5
 TESTING REGIMES TO ACHIEVE THE POTENTIAL

A discussion of the testing regimes required to achieve the potential of 3LPO coatings is not
sensible without first defining what the potential for these coatings should be. The
requirements include:
• Long term corrosion protection with low monitoring and maintenance costs
• Resistance to handling and backfill damage during construction
• Long term resistance to penetration by the largest diameter rocks in the backfill

A new suite of ISO specifications (6) are being developed for 3LPO, FBE and field joint coatings
(FJC) so the testing criteria will be discussed with respect to these Committee Draft
Specifications.

Figure 3 shows active corrosion under a LDPE coating system after less than 2 years in the
ground. This coating equates to Coating Class 2A in ISO/CD 21809-1 which is defined as an
LDPE system for use at temperatures up to 60oC. Class A coatings are for light duty “when
the water / humidity barrier is not a major issue”. Since water is the primary factor in the
initiation of corrosion on buried pipes and pipe coatings are required to control corrosion this
definition seems inappropriate.

Good adhesion is most commonly assumed to be a necessary pre-requisite for long term
corrosion control by a pipeline coating. This is not an absolute requirement because field
experience has shown that a pipeline coating with minimal residual adhesion can provide long
term protection, for more than 20 years, provided the coating remains intact and in situ and
prevents the movement of moisture to the steel substrate. Indeed, one body of opinion in the
pipeline industry claims that adhesion is not necessary for a 3LPO coating to control corrosion
but this view does not provide a satisfactory assurance of corrosion control if the coating
suffers from damage, stress cracking or failure at the interface between the 3LPO coating and
the field joint coating.

The adhesion testing requirements for 3LPO (ISO/CD 21809-1) and field joint coatings
(ISO/CD 21809-3) is summarized in Tables 3 & 4 and cathodic disbonding requirements are
summarized in Table 5. Broadly similar adhesion tests are specified for un-aged coating but
28 day water soak testing is specified for field joint coatings and stand alone FBE (ISO/CD
21809-2) but not the 3LPO. It should be noted that the coating shown in Figure 6 passed
standard peel tests (DIN 30670 Method II) in both the coating plant procedure qualification test
and production.

3LPO coatings are promoted as having better resistance to impact damage during handling
and backfilling when compared to single layer FBE. The impact test requirements for 3LPO
and field joint coatings are summarized in Table 6 and all materials show greater impact
resistance than FBE for which the equivalent test limit is 1.5 J minimum.

Practical trials have been carried out (7) to investigate the tolerance of both pipe and field joint
coatings to impact and abrasion damage during construction and backfilling. These trials have
relevance to construction but do not simulate the in ground, indentation requirements for a

6
pipeline coating. Figure 13 shows cracking in a coal tar enamel coating. This coating showed
alternating areas of stone damage at the 6 o’clock position (high points in the pipe bed) and
cracking at the 12 o’clock position (low points in the pipe bed). None of these defects were
detected in the post construction Pearson survey at 6 months from backfilling because the time
frame for their development was longer than 6 months.

Indentation tests required by the current ISO draft coating specifications are summarized in
Table 7 from which it is clear that broadly similar tests are required for all materials but the
acceptance criteria lack continuity across the coating types.

There is a precedent in the water industry for long term testing of liquid epoxy liners to
determine the expected performance, and collapse, of different materials taking into account
the effect of water uptake on mechanical properties. Typical results of the creep modulus for
aged liquid epoxy liners are shown in Figure 14.
The ISO codes for external pipeline coatings only consider the indentation resistance of un-
aged material over 24 hours. A more realistic test regime should consider longer term
penetration and deformation and the potential for softening, or changes in the mechanical
properties, of water saturated materials. Pre-conditioning by UV exposure would also be
appropriate.

It should be clear from this discussion that the current draft ISO specifications are, in essence,
stand alone documents. This is reasonable but, if the pipe coating industry is to be dominated
by 3LPO coatings, there is a need for guidance on the achievement of the full performance
potential of the 3LPO pipe coatings and in the selection of an integrated suite of coatings to
include field joints, fittings and repairs.

What would this mean in practice?

Adhesion

Assessment of the “as coated” adhesion in the pipe mill or the laboratory can identify mis-
application problems but these tests are not a reliable indicator of long term performance. The
adhesion of 3LPO systems measured in the coating plant often bear little resemblance to the
adhesion values measured in-ground or even in the pipe dump. This change in adhesion is
attributed to moisture uptake as the coating comes into equilibrium with the prevailing
conditions in the soil or the atmospheric conditions at the construction site.

Both the Committee Draft ISO Specifications for FBE and FJC coatings call for a 28 day,
elevated temperature water soak test and this has been shown to give a reasonable indication
of long term adhesion performance. A standardized version of this test should be adopted for
3LPO coatings and the associated field joint, fittings and repair coatings to ensure that coating
performance in the water saturated condition is assessed.

The “so called” accelerated water immersion or cathodic disbonding tests do not give a true
indication of long term performance particularly for thick 3LPO coatings.

7
Thermal cycling has a direct impact on the adhesion of 3LPO coatings at the cut back if the
FBE to substrate adhesion is deficient. Type testing of coating systems and PQT trials is
recommended. The elements of such a testing regime should include:
• Exposure of specimens at ambient temperature in a humidity cabinet
• Cooling to 0oC on a daily basis for a minimum of 5 cycles
• A final heating cycle to the maximum operating temperature of the proposed pipeline

Currently many factory applied 3LPO coatings would show failures under such a testing
regime. The potential solutions to this problem include:
• Correct application of the FBE first layer to the full standard applied to FBE stand-alone
coatings
• Adoption of low temperature FBE formulations developed for use in 3LPO coating
systems
• Adoption of specialized liquid coatings for the first layer

Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties required of a pipe coating include:

• Resistance to impact and abrasion during handling and construction
• Resistance to impact damage from stones and crushed rock during backfilling
• Long term resistance to penetration and creep.

Impact testing across the suite of the Committee Drafts of the ISO specifications (6) is
comparable and various studies have been carried out to assess backfill damage from rocks of
various diameters (IT etc). In essence this test data has been generated on “un-aged”
coatings but this is reasonable if the requirement is to assess handling and backfilling damage.

The reporting limits for penetration resistance do vary with coating material and the tests are
carried out on “as-coated” samples. Ideally penetration resistance, and associated
measurements such as hardness, should be repeated on coating samples at the conclusion of
the 28 day, elevated temperature water soak test to look for progressive changes in
performance.

Cure

The assessment of cure can be problematic because cure as such is not a performance
requirement. In the development of the original CW6 specifications for FBE cure was
calibrated with respect to the degree of flexibility required to ensure that coated pipe could be
“cold bent” on site without failure. This provides a valid precedent for assessing cure on the
basis of a performance characteristic most likely to be affected by over-cure or under-cure.

Cure of the FBE first layer can be assessed on the same criteria as FBE stand alone coatings.
Cure of liquid systems that are an integral part of a total 3LPO coating regime can be assessed
in the laboratory by looking at un-reacted components. Cure assessment on site usually relies
on an indirect measurement such as hardness, appearance, or film consistency. All of these
indirect measurements will show variation with temperature and the level of moisture uptake.
Type testing of indirect measurements of cure is required for each coating material to define

8
the appropriate tolerance bands and to define the likely changes in measured values with
progressive moisture uptake,

Flexibility

Flexibility has not emerged as a problem in the field.

DISCUSSION

The objective for this paper has been to identify the areas of weakness in the current use of
3LPO coatings in the pipeline industry. These weaknesses have emerged during site
investigations of operational pipelines and pipelines under construction where a common
problem has been poor adhesion. Poor adhesion does not necessarily constitute an integrity
risk to an operational pipeline but, once identified, poor adhesion requires more expensive
monitoring to prove the integrity of the pipeline has not been compromised. Put at its simplest
economies in the selection and application of pipe coatings carry a financial penalty in terms of
monitoring and maintenance during the operational life of the pipeline.

The current development of new ISO specifications for pipe and field joint coatings do not
appear to address the issues that contribute to poor coating performance, particularly
adhesion. Furthermore, the proposed specifications are being developed as stand alone
documents with no practical guidance on the optimum procedures for ensuring that 3LPO
coatings and the associated field joint, fitting and repair coatings meet a common standard.

There is a continuing trend in the pipeline industry to rely on short term tests, the so-called
“accelerated” tests, on “as coated” samples. We view this as an undesirable trend that fails to
reveal the true nature of long term coating performance. We strongly advocate testing over an
extended period that ensures coating performance is assessed in the saturated condition and
propose that type testing of this kind should be an integral part of coating selection and coating
application PQT procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years many 3LPO coatings have failed to achieve the performance potential of the
coating system particularly in regard to long term adhesion and this problem has occurred on
many large scale pipeline projects.

The testing regimes currently advocated in industry specifications, including draft ISO
specifications are not capable of giving a reliable indication of long term coating performance.

Critical properties such as adhesion, hardness and penetration resistance should be assessed
on “aged” coating samples during coating selection and PQT testing.

Water soak and thermal cycling tests should be applied to all 3LPO coatings over a minimum
period of 28 days.

9
Stand alone FBE coatings do not provide an effective first layer in 3LPO coatings due to the
application restrictions that prevent development of optimum adhesion.

Greater attention should be given to the use of specially formulated liquid epoxy or FBE first
layer materials designed for low temperature application.

REFERENCES

1. C J Argent, D Norman, “Fitness for Purpose Issues Relating to FBE and 3LPE
Coatings”; NACE Corrosion 2005, Paper 05034

2. D Norman, “Pipeline Protective Coatings – Failures and Solutions”; NACE India,

CORCON2004

3. CSA Standard Z245.20-02, “External Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating for Steel Pipe” &
“External Polyethylene Coating for Pipe”

4. Transco CW6, “Technical Specification for the External Protection of Steel Linepipe and
Fittings Using Fusion Bonded Epoxy Powder and Associated Coating Systems:
Part 1: Requirements for Coating Materials and Methods of Test
Part 2: Factory Applied Coatings”

5. W Hodgins, “Field Joint Challenges in Remote Pipeline Construction”; 5th. Annual Oil
and Gas Pipeline Conference, Abu Dhabi, 2005

6. ISO/CD 21809; “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – External Coatings for Buried or
Submerged Pipeline Transportation Systems:
Part 1: Polyolefin Coatings (3-layer PE and 3-layer PP)
Part 2: Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coatings (FBE)
Part 3: Field Joint Coatings (FJC)”

7. I Thompson, R Espiner, J Barnett; “Coating Backsill Interactions on High Pressure

Transmission Pipelines – Technical and Financial Issues”, NACE Corrosion 2003,
Paper 03046

10
 Table 1: Sample test data for two-pack and single component liquid primers

Test Two-pack Primer A Two-pack Primer B One-component

100% solids Primer

Initial adhesion 15.31 36.29 25.88

(Kg/cm width)

Adhesion after 1000 11.35 17.96 24.98

hr water soak at
20oC (Kg/cm width)

Adhesion after 1000 1.82 0.96 28.42

hr water soak at
60oC (Kg/cm width)

Adhesion after 1000 17.66

hr water soak at
80oC (Kg/cm width)

CD at 20oC 0.2 – 0.6 cm2 0.2 – 0.6 cm2 0.4 – 0.6 cm2
(Area of disbonding)

CD at 40oC 1.5 – 3.5 cm2 3.0 – 4.5 cm2 0.8 – 1.0 cm2
(Area of disbonding)

CD at 60oC No adhesion No adhesion 3.5 – 4.0 cm2

(Area of disbonding)

Table 2: Field joint coatings compatible with 3LPO pipe coatings

Field Joint Coatings Compatible with 3LPE Parent Coatings

Multi component liquids
Hot melt type PE heat shrinkable materials with a 2 pack primer
PE injection moulding
FBE / adhesive / PE hot tape system
Cold applied laminate tapes
Field Joint Coatings Compatible with 3LPP Parent Coatings
Multi component liquids
Hot melt type PP heat shrinkable materials with a 2 pack primer
PP injection moulding
FBE / adhesive / PP hot tape system
Flame sprayed PP
Co-extruded PP sheet system
Cold applied laminate tapes

11
 Table 3: Adhesion test requirements

3LPO Coatings
o
Temperature ( C) Peel Strength Peel Strength Peel Strength
Class A (N/mm) Class B (N/mm) Class C (N/mm)
23 >/= 10 >/= 15 >/= 25
50 >/= 2
80 >/= 3
110 >/= 4
MCL Coatings (Liquid Epoxy and Urethane)
Temperature (oC) Adhesion to Pipe Adhesion to 3LPO
(Mpa)
23 >/= 10 Rating 1
Heat Shrinkable Coatings
Temperature (oC) Peel Strength Peel Strength Peel Strength
Type 2A-1 (N/mm) Type 2A-2 (N/mm) Type 2A-3 (N/mm)
23 To Pipe >/= 0.4 >/= 1.0 >/= 2.5
50 To Pipe >/= 0.05
80 To Pipe >/= 0.05
110 To Pipe >/= 0.2
23 To 3LPO >/= 0.4 >/= 1.0 >/= 2.5
50 to 3LPO >/= 0.04
80 To 3LPO >/= 0.05
110 to 3LPO >/= 0.2

Table 4: Water soak test requirements

3LPO Coatings
Temperature Duration Class A Class B Class C
(oC) (Days)
65 1 No adhesion loss
MCL Coatings (Liquid Epoxy and Urethane)
Temperature Duration Adhesion to Adhesion to
(oC) (Days) Pipe 3LPO
(Mpa)
Maximum 28 >/= 7.0 Rating 2
operating
temperature
Heat Shrinkable Coatings
Temperature Duration Type 2A-1 Type 2A-2 Type 2A-3
(oC) (Days) (N/mm) (N/mm) (N/mm)
50 28 >/= 0.4 >/= 1.0 >/= 1.5
50 28 >/= 0.2 >/= 0.5 >/= 1.5

12
 Table 5: Cathodic disbonding test requirements

3LPO Coatings
o
Temperature ( C) Duration (Days) Potential (V) Radius of
Disbonding (mm)
23 28 1.5 </= 7
65 1 3.5 </= 7
Class A 60 28 1.5 </= 15
Class B 80 28 1.5 </= 15
Class C 110 28 1.5 </= 15
Liquid Epoxy MCL Coatings
Temperature (oC) Duration (Days) Potential (V) Radius of
Disbonding (mm)
23 28 1.5 </= 8
Maximum Operating 28 1.5 </= 15
Temperature
60 2 ? </= 8
Urethane MCL Coatings (J/mm)
Temperature (oC) Duration (Days) Potential (V) Radius of
Disbonding (mm)
23 28 1.5 </= 10
Maximum Operating 28 1.5 </= 20
Temperature
60 2 ? </= 10
Heat Shrinkable Coatings
Temperature (oC) Duration (Days) Potential (V) Radius of
Disbonding (mm)
23 28 1.5 Type 2A-1 </= 10
23 28 1.5 Type 2A-2 </= 10
23 28 1.5 Type 2A-3 </= 15

13
 Table 6: Impact test requirements

3LPO Coatings
o
Temperature ( C) Class A (J/mm) Class B (J/mm) Class C (J/mm)
23 >5 >7 >10
Liquid Epoxy MCL Coatings
Temperature (oC) (J/mm)
23 3
-5 1.5
Urethane MCL Coatings (J/mm)
Temperature (oC) (J/mm)
23 5
-5 2
Heat Shrinkable Coatings
Temperature (oC) Type 2A-1 Type 2A-2 Type 2A-3
(J/mm) (J/mm) (J/mm)
23 >/= 5 >/= 5 >/= 5

Table 7: Impact test requirements

3LPO Coatings
Temperature Penetration Penetration Penetration Load (N/mm2)
(oC) Class A (mm) Class B (mm) Class C (mm)
23 </= 0.3 </= 0.2 </= 0.1 10
60 </= 0.4 10
80 </= 0.4 10
110 </= 0.4 10
MCL Coatings (Liquid Epoxy and Urethane)
Temperature Penetration Load (N/mm2)
(oC) % dft)
Maximum </= 30 10
operating
temperature
Heat Shrinkable Coatings
Temperature Penetration Penetration Penetration Load (N/mm2)
(oC) Type 2A-1 Type 2A-2 Type 2A-3
Residual Residual Residual
Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm)
23 >/= 0.6 1
>/= 0.6 >/= 0.6 10
50 >/= 0.6 1
80 >/= 0.6 10
120 >/= 0.6 10

14
 Figure 1: Loss of adhesion from the cut back during above ground storage

Figure 2: 3LPE coating with negligible residual adhesion after 2 years service

15
Figure 3: Lack of adhesion and active corrosion beneath an LDPE coating

Figure 4: Stress cracking and lifting of 3LPE coatings

Figure 5: Rounded blast profile under production 3LPO coating

16
Figure 6: Residual mill scale and active corrosion under production 3LPO coating

Figure 7: Incomplete wetting of the steel substrate by the FBE first layer

Figure 8: UV embrittlement and cracking of 3LPO coating

17
 Figure 9: Wrinkling of mastic backed heat shrinkable field joint coating under soil
loading

Figure 10: Void under heat field joint coating at the 6 o’clock position due to incorrect
application

18
Figure 11: Microbial corrosion under faulty heat shrinkable field joint coating, Pit
growth rate 2.0 – 2.5 mm per year.

Figure 12: Crack in a liquid field joint coating at the chamfer of the outer layer of a
3LPO coating

19
 Figure 13: Cracking of coal tar enamel coating due to backfill loading

Epoxy Liners

160

140
50 Yr Creep Modulus - MPa

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
-10 0 10
Variation on Recommended Hardener - %

Figure 14: Creep modulus of aged liquid epoxy liners

20