Search
Filters
Close

Celebrate World Corrosion Awareness Day with 20% off eCourses and eBooks with code WCAD2024 at checkout!

The Long Term Effects Of Surface Preparation: Evaluating ISO 12944 In Offshore Coating Application With Waterjetting And Cleaning Additive

Offshore assets such as drilling rigs, production platforms, and wind turbines present challenges for corrosion prevention maintenance. The primary defense against atmospheric corrosion on structural steel in offshore saltwater environments is a protective coating system.

Several factors cause protective coatings to degrade rapidly: besides wearing and damage encountered in installation and use, ultraviolet light breaks down the organic resins and corrosive  seawater causes under creep at any breaks in the coating. Maintenance coating for offshore atmospheric systems can therefore be necessary as early as the second year.

Product Number: 51322-18021-SG
Author: Jerry Woodson, Alex Petkas
Publication Date: 2022
Industry: Coatings
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

A team assembled by a major oil company designed a test program to assess the difference in coating performance between dry abrasive blasting and Waterjetting as surface preparation methods. They were also interested in determining whether using flash rust preventing, decontamination chemical in conjunction with various applications had any effect on coating performance. A glass flake epoxy was used. Panels were treated with 262 MPa (38,000 PSI) Waterjetting, Dry Garnet Blast + Power wash, in both cases with and without a decontamination chemical. Another set of panels was sprayed with ASTM D11413 seawater salt spray after treatment and then coated.

The 300 mm X 600 mm coated panels were saw cut into smaller panels. Some were subjected to per ISO 203401 Ageing Procedure Annex A and ISO 2812-25 Seawater Immersion. Others were submitted to ASTM G 504 long-term field exposure test over 5 years. In both cases, when the decontamination chemical was used, no significant difference in coating performance was detected, including in panels exposed to light seawater mist spray before coating application. The scribed waterjetted panels exhibited more undercreep than abrasive blasted panels, but this undercreep only began to develop after two years. 

A team assembled by a major oil company designed a test program to assess the difference in coating performance between dry abrasive blasting and Waterjetting as surface preparation methods. They were also interested in determining whether using flash rust preventing, decontamination chemical in conjunction with various applications had any effect on coating performance. A glass flake epoxy was used. Panels were treated with 262 MPa (38,000 PSI) Waterjetting, Dry Garnet Blast + Power wash, in both cases with and without a decontamination chemical. Another set of panels was sprayed with ASTM D11413 seawater salt spray after treatment and then coated.

The 300 mm X 600 mm coated panels were saw cut into smaller panels. Some were subjected to per ISO 203401 Ageing Procedure Annex A and ISO 2812-25 Seawater Immersion. Others were submitted to ASTM G 504 long-term field exposure test over 5 years. In both cases, when the decontamination chemical was used, no significant difference in coating performance was detected, including in panels exposed to light seawater mist spray before coating application. The scribed waterjetted panels exhibited more undercreep than abrasive blasted panels, but this undercreep only began to develop after two years. 

Also Purchased