Use GIVING24 at checkout to save 20% on eCourses and books (some exclusions apply)!
Details of a new protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of coatings to reduce corrosion of steel structures is presented in this paper. Basic concepts of accelerated testing specified in American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards and recent research investigations were used to develop a procedure that can provide conclusive results within 2400 hours of exposure as compared to more than 5000 hours in current practices.
Details of a new protocol for evaluating the effectiveness of coatings to reduce corrosion of steel structures is presented in this paper. Basic concepts of accelerated testing specified in American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards and recent research investigations were used to develop a procedure that can provide conclusive results within 2400 hours of exposure as compared to more than 5000 hours in current practices. Growth of corrosion from a location where the coating is damaged, thinning of coating, color changes and influence of weld and bolt holes were the parameters used for evaluating the performance of the coatings. The major differences between the proposed method and the current practice are: a circular shaped scribe for creating artificial damage instead of X shape, use of adhesion strength of the coating to obtain corrosion-creep growth at various stages of corrosion and addition of deep-freezing cycle as part of accelerated corrosion to enhance creep growth. The adhesion strengths are much easier to measure as compared to measuring few millimetres of creep growth that are typically fuzzy. The proposed test method was evaluated by comparing the performance of 6 coating systems. These 6 systems were chosen using the results of a 20 -year field study, in which, 2 coatings provided very good corrosion protection while 2 others were found to be very weak. The results show that the proposed protocol provides clear difference between strong and weak coatings and simulates the field behavior well.
Currently, Ships’ Force (SF) conduct maintenance and repair painting during pier-side periods as well as while ships are underway. SF commonly use epoxy primers, such as MIL-DTL-24441, Type IV, for maintenance painting and in some cases, chloride contamination and surface profile is not adequately controlled. The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) conducted a study to verify the efficacy of replacing the current epoxy primers commonly used by SF with more “user friendly” high-build, high-solid primers.
We are unable to complete this action. Please try again at a later time.
If this error continues to occur, please contact AMPP Customer Support for assistance.
Error Message:
Please login to use Standards Credits*
* AMPP Members receive Standards Credits in order to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store
You are not a Member.
AMPP Members enjoy many benefits, including Standards Credits which can be used to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store.
You can visit the Membership Page to learn about the benefits of membership.
You have previously purchased this item.
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store profile to find this item.
You do not have sufficient Standards Credits to claim this item.
Click on 'ADD TO CART' to purchase this item.
Your Standards Credit(s)
1
Remaining Credits
0
Please review your transaction.
Click on 'REDEEM' to use your Standards Credits to claim this item.
You have successfully redeemed:
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store Profile to find and download this item.
Blistering is a common failure in marine coatings that can be caused by both physical, such as osmotic pressure and temperature gradients, and electrochemical forces like cathodic or anodic polarization. This paper/presentation will start by discussing the various mechanisms that lead to coating blistering, how blisters form, and how to prevent them.
Mineral abrasives such as glass bead and aluminum oxide have been traditionally used in the surface finishing industry. The general perception is that they offer acceptable cleaning at a low operating cost. Often dismissed is the potential of metallic alternatives that though seemingly higher in initial procurement cost, offer several differentiating advantages in terms of recyclability, consistency of finish, repeatable results and ultimately resulting in overall, reduced operating costs.