materials

Article
Evaluation of Protective Coatings for
High-Corrosivity Category Atmospheres in
Offshore Applications
Ainara López-Ortega 1, * , Raquel Bayón 1 and José Luís Arana 2
1 IK4-TEKNIKER, Tribology Unit, Iñaki Goenaga 5, 20600 Eibar, Spain; [email protected]
2 Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, University of the Basque Country,
48013 Bilbao, Spain; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 27 March 2019; Accepted: 22 April 2019; Published: 23 April 2019


Abstract: The interest in renewable energies obtained from the resources availed in the ocean
has increased during the last few years. However, the harsh atmospheric conditions in marine
environments is a major drawback in the design of offshore structures. The protective systems that are
employed to preserve offshore steel structures are regulated by several standards (ISO 12944, NORSOK
M-501), which classify the corrosivity category of offshore installations as C5-M and Im2. In this
work, three coatings employed in offshore components protection have been evaluated according to
these standards by performing weathering aging tests in different climatic cabinets. The coatings
studied were a thermally sprayed carbide coating with an organic sealant (C1), a thermally sprayed
aluminum (TSA) coating with an organic topcoat (C2), and an epoxydic organic coating reinforced
with ceramic platelets (C3). The only coating that reached the higher categories in all the tests was the
C2 coating. The C1 coating presented ferric corrosion products coming from the substrate in some of
the tests, and blistering was detected in the C3 coating.

Keywords: offshore; corrosion; coatings; weathering

1. Introduction
The marine environment is a very aggressive working atmosphere, where structural materials and
components are exposed to ultraviolet radiation, a chloride-rich salty environment, frequent wetting
and drying cycles, high humidity, the attack of biological microorganisms and marine bacteria, etc. [1–5].
Furthermore, there is also abrasion and severe wear caused by sand, ocean currents, floating wastes,
and contamination [1,5–8]. As schematically depicted in Figure 1, offshore materials and structures are
exposed to five corrosion zones, with different material corrosion rates [3,6,9–11]:

• Atmospheric zone: This zone is located above the sea level, and the severity of corrosion is
related to the time of wetness, during which electrochemical processes take place. There is a direct
relationship between atmospheric salt content and corrosion rate. Materials are also exposed to
solar radiation, which deteriorates the performance of organic coatings.
• Splash zone: This section in the structure is intermittently wetted, due to tides and the wind.
The corrosion rate of metals in this zone is the highest, due to the aerated condition, which makes the
access of dissolved oxygen for electrochemical reactions easy. Since it is continuously being wetted,
chlorides can concentrate on the surface while the water films dry. Furthermore, the impinging of
seawater containing sand and other flowing matter adds a mechanical component to the materials’
deterioration in this exposure zone.

Materials 2019, 12, 1325; doi:10.3390/ma12081325 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 1325 2 of 21

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

• Tidal zone: The materials are alternately submerged and exposed to the splash zone, as the
 Tidal
tide zone: TheIn
fluctuates. materials are alternately
the submerged submerged
condition, materialsand exposed
are exposed to to
thea splash zone, as
well-aerated the tide
seawater,
fluctuates.
which In the submerged
favors attachment condition,
and growth materials are exposed
of biofouling. to a well-aerated
The corrosion seawater, by
rate is influenced which
the
favors
tidal the with
flow, attachment and growth
higher corrosion ratesof with
biofouling. Themovements.
increasing corrosion rate is influenced by the tidal
• flow, with higher
Submerged zone: corrosion
The sectionrates with
of the increasing
structure thatmovements.
is always immersed in the sea. The corrosion
 Submerged
rate zone:
in this zone The section
depends on theof availability
the structure ofthat is always
oxygen immersed into
to be transported the sea.
the The corrosion
cathodic sites of
ratematerials’
the in this zone depends
surfaces. Ason the availability
oxygen of oxygen
concentration variestowith
be transported to the cathodic
depth, decreasing sites of
with increasing
the materials’ surfaces. As oxygen concentration varies with
distance to the surface, the corrosion rate is also slower at higher depths. depth, decreasing with increasing
• distance to
Subsoil: Inthe
thesurface,
buried the corrosion
structure, therate is also
oxygen slower at higher
concentration depths.
is low, and hydrogen sulfide may
 Subsoil:
be present. In the buried structure, the oxygen concentration is low, and hydrogen sulfide may be
present.

Figure 1. Zones of corrosion and relative corrosion rate depending on the exposure zone.
zone.

The most employed structural material in offshore applications applications is steel—usually

steel—usually mild or
low-alloyed—due to its superior superior mechanical
mechanical properties
properties [1,12,13]. However, this
[1,12,13]. However, this kind of steels
possess low corrosion resistance in seawater and corrode relatively fast.
possess low corrosion resistance in seawater and corrode relatively fast. The corrosion The corrosion rate of mild
rate steel
of mild
in seawater
steel has been
in seawater hasmeasured
been measuredto be 250to µm per year
be 250 [6,14].
µm per yearIn [6,14].
order to Inavoid
orderortoprevent
avoid orpremature
prevent
failures
premature due to thedue
failures hightocorrosion rate of structural
the high corrosion steel, coatings
rate of structural have successfully
steel, coatings been used.
have successfully been
The
used.requirements of protective
The requirements coatings coatings
of protective and theirand application proceduresprocedures
their application vary significantly depending
vary significantly
on the installation
depending on thelocation, i.e., location,
installation onshore or offshore.
i.e., onshore Currently, the protection
or offshore. Currently,systems used in offshore
the protection systems
structures are regulated by several standards, among which the ISO 12944:1-8
used in offshore structures are regulated by several standards, among which the ISO 12944:1-8[15] [15] and the NORSOK
M-501
and the[16] can be found.
NORSOK The can
M-501 [16] selection of theThe
be found. protective
selectionsystem
of the deeply depends
protective system ondeeply
the location
depends of the
on
component.
the location According to ISO 12944-2
of the component. [15] andtoISO
According ISO9223 [17], there
12944-2 [15] are
andfive
ISOcorrosivity
9223 [17],categories;
there arefromfive
the C1 corresponding
corrosivity categories; to a non-corrosive
from atmosphere,
the C1 corresponding to atonon-corrosive
industrial and marine corrosive
atmosphere, categories
to industrial and
(C5-I
marine and C5-M). There
corrosive are also
categories (C5-IIM1andand IM3 categories,
C5-M). which
There are also IM1describe
and IM3 thecategories,
water and which
soil corrosivity,
describe
respectively.
the water andThe soilfirst edition of
corrosivity, the ISO 12944-9
respectively. [18]edition
The first was published
of the ISO in12944-9
January[18]2018,
wasand adds new
published in
categories
January 2018,for offshore-related
and adds new atmospheres,
categories forincluding: CX-offshore
offshore-related (atmospheric),
atmospheres, Im4 (immersion),
including: CX-offshore
and CX-Offshore/Im4
(atmospheric), for the splash
Im4 (immersion), andand tidal exposure zones.
CX-Offshore/Im4 for theISO 12944
splash and also classifies
tidal exposurethezones.
durability,
ISO
or the time for the first major maintenance of the protective coatings as:
12944 also classifies the durability, or the time for the first major maintenance of the protective
coatings as:
• Low (L): 2 to 5 years
• Low (L): 2(M):
Medium to 55years
to 15 years
• Medium (M):
High (H): 15 to 25 5 to years
15 years
 High (H): 15 to 25 years
 Very High (VH): >25 years
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 3 of 21

• Very High (VH): >25 years

The categories required for a protective system in an offshore installation are C5-M and Im2,
for non-submerged and submerged components, respectively. In order to obtain these protection
grades, the ISO 12944 standard recommends employing multilayer coatings with thicknesses between
320–500 µm for a C5-M category in the atmospheric zone, and between 480–1000 µm for the splash zone
and submerged components (Im2). According to the standard, these specifications should be enough
to ensure a durability of 15 years for a coated component [15]. On the other hand, the NORSOK M-504
standard [16] does not specify a coating thickness range, but it does specify a minimum thickness.
Therefore, a coating requiring a C5-M category should be at least 280 µm, whereas submerged
components should have a minimum of 350 µm for an Im2 category [16].
The selection of protective coatings for the marine environments strongly depends on the exposure
zone and must provide the system with specific properties to assure infrastructures’ durability.
The typical coating systems that are employed in offshore applications [19] with the desired properties
depending on the exposure zone are compiled in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical coating systems employed in offshore applications in the different exposure zones [19],
with the desired properties and corrosivity category required (ISO 12944 [15]).

Category
Exposure Zone Coating System Desirable Coating Properties
(ISO 12944)
Zinc-rich epoxy primer (60–100 µm) Corrosion-resistant,
Atmospheric C5-M Epoxy intermediate layer (100–120 µm) erosion-resistant, anti-icing,
Polyurethane top coat (50–80 µm) UV-resistant
Two or three epoxy-based
(>1000 µm in total) Combination of atmospheric and
Splash and tidal C5-M and Im2 coats
submerged coatings´ properties
Polyurethane top-coat (50–80 µm)
Two or three epoxy-based Corrosion-resistant, antifouling,
Submerged Im2 (>450 µm in total)
coats wear-resistant

In this work, three coatings used in offshore component protection have been evaluated.
The selected coatings are commercial coatings that are currently used in the protection of steel
submerged components in mooring line systems. In a previous work, the corrosion and tribocorrosion
(wear+corrosion) behavior of the three coatings was evaluated [20]. Furthermore, the characterization
of the coatings—in terms of thickness, hardness, porosity, and microscopic analysis of the
morphologies—was included in the first part of this work [20]. In the second part of the study,
compiled within this document, the corrosion protection effectiveness of the coatings was assessed
according to the ISO 12944 and NORSOK M-501 standards by performing weathering aging tests on
different cabinets. This work was carried out before the ISO 12944-9 was published, so the conditions
and exposure times employed were those in the ISO 12944-6, for the C5-M/Im2 (high) category. On the
other hand, a combined aging test was performed in this work according to the ISO 20340 and NORSOK
M-501 standards. However, after the publication of the ISO 12944-9, where this test procedure is
recommended, ISO 20340 was withdrawn. Therefore, there are no more mentions of the ISO 20340
standard throughout the document, and these tests are referred to the new ISO 12944-9 standard.

2. Experimental Procedure

2.1. Materials and Sample Preparation

In the present work, the effectiveness of three commercial coatings for offshore structural steel
protection has been evaluated. The coatings studied in this work were the following:

• Thermally sprayed carbide (WC–CrCo) with an organic sealant (C1)

• Arc thermally sprayed aluminum (TSA) with an organic topcoat (C2)
• Epoxy-based organic coating reinforced with ceramic particles (C3)
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 4 of 21

The coatings were applied by the client in the frame of an industrial project, and the information
on the coatings composition and preparation is confidential. The three coatings are currently employed
in the protection of offshore mooring line components, which are manufactured from high-strength
low-alloy (HSLA) steels [7,8,21]. These steels are classified into different grades depending on their
ultimate strength: R3, R3S, R4, S4S . . . [22].
The three coatings evaluated in this work were applied on R4 steel grade panels of 100 × 150 mm2 ,
which were mechanized to obtain samples of 100 × 75 mm2 . The uncoated backside and edges of the
panels were isolated with an insulating wax to avoid corrosion of the steel substrate to affect the results.
The exposed area of these samples was of 71 cm2 .
The mean thickness and porosity values measured for the three coating systems in the previous
work is presented in Table 2 [20]:

Table 2. Mean thickness and porosity values measured for the three coatings [20]. C1: a thermally
sprayed carbide coating with an organic sealant; C2: a thermally sprayed aluminum (TSA) with an
organic topcoat; C3: an epoxydic organic coating reinforced with ceramic platelets.

Thickness (µm)
Coating Porosity (%)
Organic Sealant Sprayed Metal
C1 9±3 191 ± 14 1.9 ± 0.4
C2 239 ± 8 284 ± 14 4.7 ± 0.3
C3 430 ± 15 * -
* The thickness of the C3 coating corresponds to the total thickness of the epoxydic layer with ceramic platelets.

2.2. Corrosion Aging Tests

The ISO 12944 and the NORSOK M-501 standards propose several accelerated aging tests such as
immersion (ISO 2812-2 [23]), water condensation (ISO 6270 [24]), or salt fog exposure (ISO 9227 [25]);
the minimum time for the protective system to be effective depending on the corrosivity category and
durability. The NORSOK M-501 and the ISO 12944-9 also propose an accelerated test combining UV
irradiation (ISO 16474-3 [26]), salt spray (ISO 9227 [25]), and low-temperature exposure in different
chambers, to reproduce the weathering aging conditions of the marine atmosphere. The exposure
times that the coatings must fulfill without losing their protective effectiveness to achieve the C5-M and
Im2 categories, according to the ISO 12944 standard, are listed in Table 3 for the different weathering
aging tests.

Table 3. Minimum exposure time for the coatings to achieve the C5-M and Im2 categories according to
the ISO 12944 standard [15].

ISO 2812-2 [23] ISO 6270-2 [24] ISO 9227 [25]

Category Durability Ranges
(Immersion in Water) (Water Condensation) (Salt Spray Test)
Low - 240 h 480 h
C5-M Medium - 480 h 720 h
High - 720 h 1440 h
Low - - -
Im2 Medium 2000 h - 720 h
High 3000 h - 1440 h

In all the tests, visual inspections were performed periodically in order to detect the presence of
any defect such as blisters, cracks, delamination of the coating, or corrosion of the substrate. All the
samples were kept in the chambers for the maximum duration to achieve the C5-M high or Im2
categories, unless premature failure of the coating due to the appearance of defects was detected
(ISO 4628 1-5 [27]).
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 5 of 21

2.2.1. Immersion Tests (ISO 2812-2)

The resistance of the coatings to immersion was analyzed according to the ISO 2812-2
standard [23] (Table 4). The test was performed in a Julabo ED thermostatic bath (Seelbach, Germany).
The temperature of the bath was fixed at 40 ◦ C, and the circulation and aeration system of the water
was activated during the whole test duration. The total duration of the test was of 3000 h (Im2-High
category). In order to ensure the repeatability of results, three replicates of each coating were tested.
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 6 of 21

Table 4. Summary of the weathering corrosion aging test conditions in accordance with the different standards, and test duration for the C5-M and Im2 categories [15].

Cycle Duration Conditions in the Cabinet Total Duration

Standard Test Type
Relative of the Test
Test Periods Total Temperature
Humidity
ISO 2812 [23] Immersion test - (40 ± 3) ◦ C - 3000 h
Constant humidity condensation
From warm-up to end of exposure (40 ± 3) ◦ C 100% 720 h
atmosphere (CH)
ISO 6270 [24] Alternating humidity 8 h including warm-up (40 ± 3) ◦ C 100%
Alternating and air temperature 24 h 720 h
condensation 16 h including warm-up 18–28 ◦ C Ambient
(AHT)
atmosphere
Alternating air 8 h including warm-up (40 ± 3) ◦ C 100%
24 h 720 h
temperature (AT)
16 h including warm-up 18–28 ◦ C 100%
ISO 9227 [25] Salt spray - (35 ± 3) ◦ C - 1440 h
◦C
Ultraviolet radiation and condensation 4 h UV radiation (0.77 W/m2 ) (60 ± 3) -
72h
NORSOK M-501 [16] (ISO 16474-3 [26])
4 h condensation 168 h (50 ± 3) ◦ C 100% 720 h
ISO 12944-9 [18]
Salt spray (ISO 9227 [25]) 72 h (35 ± 3) ◦ C -
Low temperature 24 h (−20 ± 2) ◦ C -
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 7 of 21

2.2.2. Water Condensation Tests (ISO 6270)

A water condensation test was performed according to the ISO 6270-2 standard [24] to analyze the
resistance of the coatings to humidity under water condensation conditions. The standard describes
three water atmospheres:

• Condensation atmosphere with constant humidity (CH)

• Condensation atmosphere with alternating humidity and air temperature (AHT)
• Condensation atmosphere with alternating air temperature (AT)

The conditions of the three tests are summarized in Table 4. The test cycles were repeated until
a total duration of 720 h was completed. The test was performed in a Kesternich HK300-800 S/M
humidostatic chamber (Bielefeld, Germany). Three replicates of each coating were tested at each test
atmosphere to ensure the repeatability of results.

2.2.3. Salt Spray Tests (ISO 9227)

Corrosion aging tests in a neutral salt spray chamber were performed under the conditions specified
in the ISO 9227 standard [25] (Table 4) in an ASCOTT 2000S chamber (Staffordshire, Great Britain).
Six test samples were prepared for each coating. In three of these samples, an X-shaped incision that
reached the steel substrate was made (ISO 17872 [28]). No incision was made in the C1 coating due
to the high hardness of the tungsten carbide, and the six samples were introduced into the chamber
without the scribe. According to the EN ISO 12944-6 standard [15], the corrosion from the scratch in
the samples with incisions shall not exceed 1 mm, calculated as:

C−W
M= (1)
2
where W is the original width of the scratch, and C is the maximum width of corrosion across the
scratch in millimeters. In the scribed samples, adhesion tests were performed at the end of the exposure,
following the ASTM D3359 standard [29].

2.2.4. Combined Aging Test (NORSOK M-501, ISO 12944-9)

The coatings were aged by alternating the exposure to different climatic environments,
in accordance with the procedure described in the NORSOK M-501 and ISO 12944-9 standards. The test
consisted of combining the exposure to UV radiation and condensation (ISO 16474-3, A method [26]),
with the exposure to salt spray (ISO 9227 [25]) and low temperature. The test conditions and duration
of each atmosphere is presented in Table 4. The UV/condensation period was performed in an
Atlas UV Test weathering device (Illinois, USA). The UV lamps employed in the test were type II
UV lamps (UVA-340), of 340 nm (ISO 16474-3). The salt spray and low-temperature periods were
carried out in an ASCOTT 2000S chamber and in a WEISS C340/70 climatic chamber (Reiskirchen,
Germany), respectively. The UV/condensation period was started with the UV radiation and finished
with condensation. The coatings were rinsed with deionized water between the salt spray and the
low-temperature periods. The temperature of −20 ± 2 ºC of the low-temperature period was reached in
less than 30 min from the moment at which the samples were introduced into the chamber. The cycle
was repeated four times, for a total duration of 720 h. The state of the coatings was evaluated three
times per cycle, after the coated samples were removed from each chamber.

3. Results
The results of the weathering corrosion aging tests for the three coatings in the different climatic
chambers, and their categorization in accordance with the ISO 12944 and NORSOK M-501 standards
are briefly recapitulated within this section.
 3. Results
The results of the weathering corrosion aging tests for the three coatings in the different climatic
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 8 of 21
chambers, and their categorization in accordance with the ISO 12944 and NORSOK M-501 standards
are briefly recapitulated within this section.
3.1. Immersion Tests (ISO 2812-2)
3.1. Immersion Tests (ISO 2812-2)
Immersion tests were performed to evaluate the resistance of the coatings to water immersion.
Immersion tests were performed to evaluate the resistance of the coatings to water immersion.
The surface state of the coatings at different evaluation times is presented in Figure 2, in which one of
The surface state of the coatings at different evaluation times is presented in Figure 2, in which one
the three samples of each coating system is presented as representative.
of the three samples of each coating system is presented as representative.

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

that of the untested sample, in terms of color and brightness, and no presence of ferric corrosion
coming from the steel substrate was detected.
The samples of C3 coating presented a loss of brightness from the first evaluation at 168 h of
exposure, showing a considerably paler tone. After 504 h, blisters appeared in one of the three
Figure 2. 2.Visual
Visualappearance
appearance ofthe the R4-coated
R4-coated samples at
atdifferent evaluations during thethe
immersion
Figure
samples (Figure 4), which was of removed from thesamples
chamber different evaluations
thereafter. during
The microscopic immersion
analysis of the
testtest
in in accordance
accordance with
with the
the ISO
ISO 2812
2812 standard.
standard.
transversal surface of one of the blisters showed the presence of ferric corrosion products, revealing
the underneath corrosion
evaluationof the substrate by electrolyte penetration through the some
coating. In the next
InIn thefirst
the firstevaluation after
after 168 hh of
168 of immersion,
immersion, C1C1coating
coatingsamples
samplespresented
presented some decolorized
decolorized
evaluation,
zones at 672 h, some blisters were detected in the other two samples. The samples were kept in
zones in in
thethe surface.
surface. This
This could
could bebea consequence
a consequenceofofthe thepartial
partialremoval
removalofofthetheorganic
organicsealant
sealantofoffew
fewµm
the
µm chamber
(Table 2) until[20]3000 h ofon
applied immersion
top of thewere reached, andAfter the blisters weresmall
observed
ferritictopits
increase
were in
(Table 2) [20] applied on top of the sprayedsprayed
carbide.carbide.
After 336 h, two 336 h, two
small ferritic pits were detected in
both size and
detected in one number with higher
of the samples. exposure time.
The discoloration At samples
of the the end was of the
moretest, the surface
evident of the two
with increasing
one of the samples. The discoloration of the samples was more evident with increasing exposure time.
samples
exposure remaining
time. In the on the chamber
evaluation was entirely
performed covered
at 1344 h, ferricwith blisterswas
corrosion (Figure 2). Inin
observed accordance
the edges of with
In the evaluation performed at 1344 h, ferric corrosion was observed in the edges of the samples, close
the
theUNE EN-ISO
samples, 4628-2
close to thestandard
insulating [27],
wax,the which
blistering
was grade
formed of due
the three samples was
to a cavitation theand
effect, following:
by the
to the insulating wax, which was formed due to a cavitation effect, and by the possible penetration of
possible penetration of water under the wax leading to the corrosion of the underneath steel. This

water C3-sample
under the No.1: 4 (S4) to the corrosion of the underneath steel. This corrosion slightly spread
wax leading
corrosion slightly spread with time, but no corrosion sign was detected in the middle zone of the

with C3-sample
time, but noNo.2: 2 (S4) (removed
corrosion sign was from the in chamber after zone
504 hof ofthe
immersion)
surface. At the end of the test (3000 h),detected
the tone of thethetested
middle samples was surface.
a more At the
brownish endand
color, of the

test C3-sample
(3000 decolorized
several No.2:
h), the toneand 4 (S5)
of the testedzones
brighter samples werewas a more brownish
distinguished color, andof
as a consequence several decolorized
the sealant loss. Theand
brighter
corrosion zones were distinguished as a consequence of the sealant loss. The corrosion present toin the
The C1present and C2incoatings
the edgespassed
was not 3000considered as a coating
h of immersion, failure, the
achieving sinceIm2
it was
(high)observed
category be
(ISO
edges was
caused by not considered
a non-adequate as a coating
insulating failure, since it was observed to be caused by a non-adequate
12944-6), whereas the C3 coating didproperty
not pass of the
the organic
immersion wax.test,
The not
microscopic analysis2000
even reaching of theh of
insulating
surface propertysome
revealed of the organic
isolated wax.
pits along Thethe
microscopic
surface, in analysis
a density of the surface
lower than 1% revealed
of the some
total isolated
exposed
immersion required for an Im1 (medium) category (see the compilation of results in Table 8 in
pits along(Figure
surface the surface,3). in a density lower than 1% of the total exposed surface (Figure 3).
Section 4).
In the case of the C2 coating, the presence of ferric corrosion pits was detected close to the edges
in the first evaluation at 168 h. These pits corresponded to the oxidation undergone by some metallic
particles that were embedded in the surface of the coatings during machining processes, i.e.,
contaminants. After 672 h, the apparition of white salts resulting from the oxidation of the aluminum
layer beneath the organic topcoat was observed. The state of the coating remained unaltered in the
following evaluations at longer immersion times. The final surface state of the coating was similar to

Materials 2019, 12, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Optical
Optical microscopies of the
microscopies of the C1
C1 coating
coating surface
surface showing
showing isolated
isolated ferric
ferric corrosion
corrosion pits.
pits.
coming from the steel substrate was detected.
The samples of C3 coating presented a loss of brightness from the first evaluation at 168 h of
exposure, showing a considerably paler tone. After 504 h, blisters appeared in one of the three
samples (Figure 4), which was removed from the chamber thereafter. The microscopic analysis of the
transversal
Materials 2019, surface
12, 1325 of one of the blisters showed the presence of ferric corrosion products, revealing 9 of 21
the underneath corrosion of the substrate by electrolyte penetration through the coating. In the next
evaluation, at 672 h, some blisters were detected in the other two samples. The samples were kept in
In the case
the chamber untilof3000
the C2
h ofcoating,
immersionthe presence of ferric
were reached, and corrosion pits
the blisters werewasobserved
detectedtoclose to the
increase in
edges
both size and number with higher exposure time. At the end of the test, the surface of thesome
in the first evaluation at 168 h. These pits corresponded to the oxidation undergone by two
metallic
samples particles
remaining that
onwere embedded
the chamber wasinentirely
the surface of thewith
covered coatings during
blisters (Figuremachining processes,with
2). In accordance i.e.,
contaminants. After 672 h, the apparition of white salts resulting from the oxidation
the UNE EN-ISO 4628-2 standard [27], the blistering grade of the three samples was the following: of the aluminum
layer beneath the organic topcoat was observed. The state of the coating remained unaltered in the
• C3-sample
following No.1: 4at(S4)
evaluations longer immersion times. The final surface state of the coating was similar
• C3-sample No.2: 2sample,
to that of the untested (S4) (removed
in termsfrom the chamber
of color after 504and
and brightness, h ofnoimmersion)
presence of ferric corrosion
• C3-sample No.2: 4 (S5)
coming from the steel substrate was detected.
The samples
C1 and C2 of C3 coating
coatings presented
passed 3000 ah loss of brightness
of immersion, from the
achieving thefirst
Im2evaluation at 168 (ISO
(high) category h of
exposure, showing a considerably paler tone. After 504 h, blisters appeared
12944-6), whereas the C3 coating did not pass the immersion test, not even reaching 2000 h ofin one of the three samples
(Figure
immersion 4), which was removed
required for an Im1 from the chamber
(medium) thereafter.
category (see The
the microscopic
compilationanalysis of the
of results in transversal
Table 8 in
surface
Sectionof 4).one of the blisters showed the presence of ferric corrosion products, revealing the underneath
corrosion of the substrate by electrolyte penetration through the coating. In the next evaluation, at 672 h,
some blisters were detected in the other two samples. The samples were kept in the chamber until
3000 h of immersion were reached, and the blisters were observed to increase in both size and number
with higher exposure time. At the end of the test, the surface of the two samples remaining on the
chamber was entirely covered with blisters (Figure 2). In accordance with the UNE EN-ISO 4628-2
standard [27], the blistering grade of the three samples was the following:

• C3-sample No.1: 4 (S4)

• C3-sample No.2: 2 (S4) (removed from the chamber after 504 h of immersion)
• C3-sample No.2: 4 (S5)
Figure 3. Optical microscopies of the C1 coating surface showing isolated ferric corrosion pits.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Surface
Figure Surface state
stateofofsample
sampleNo.2
No.2ofofthe
theC3
C3coating showing
coating showingblisters after
blisters 504504
after h of
h immersion (a)
of immersion
andand
(a) micrograph
micrographof the ferric
of the corrosion
ferric products
corrosion formed
products under
formed thethe
under blister (b).(b).
blister

The C1Condensation
3.2. Water and C2 coatings passed
Tests 3000
(ISO h of immersion, achieving the Im2 (high) category (ISO 12944-6),
6270)
whereas the C3 coating did not pass the immersion test, not even reaching 2000 h of immersion required
The resistance of the coatings to humidity under water condensation conditions was evaluated
for an Im1 (medium) category (see the compilation of results in Table 8 in Section 4).
under three atmospheres, i.e., constant humidity (CH), alternating temperature and humidity
(AHT),
3.2. and
Water alternating
Condensation temperature
Tests (ISO 6270) (AT). The evolution of the coatings surface at different
evaluation times is presented in Figures 5–7 for the CH, AHT, and AT tests, respectively. Table 5
The resistance of the coatings to humidity under water condensation conditions was evaluated
under three atmospheres, i.e., constant humidity (CH), alternating temperature and humidity (AHT),
and alternating temperature (AT). The evolution of the coatings surface at different evaluation times is
presented in Figures 5–7 for the CH, AHT, and AT tests, respectively. Table 5 summarizes the results
obtained after the condensation tests, expressed as the surface percentage covered by ferric corrosion
(FC), white salts (WS), and blistering grade.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

summarizes the
Materials 2019, 12, results obtained after the condensation tests, expressed as the surface percentage
1325 10 of 21
covered by ferric corrosion (FC), white salts (WS), and blistering grade.

Figure 5.5.Visual
Visual appearance
appearance ofcoatings’
of the the coatings’
surfacessurfaces at evaluations
at different different evaluations during the
during the condensation
condensation tests
tests at constant at constant
humidity (CH)humidity
according(CH) according
to the to the
ISO 6270-2 ISO 6270-2 standard.
standard.

Figure 6.6.Visual
Visual appearance
appearance ofcoatings’
of the the coatings’
surfacessurfaces at evaluations
at different different evaluations during the
during the condensation
condensation tests
tests alternating alternating
humidity humidity and
and temperature (AHT)temperature
according to(AHT)
the ISOaccording to the ISO 6270-2
6270-2 standard.
standard.
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 11 of 21
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

Figure
Figure 7. Visual
7. Visual appearance
appearance of theofcoatings’
the coatings’
surfacessurfaces at evaluations
at different different evaluations
during the during the
condensation
condensation
tests tests with
with alternating alternating
temperature temperature
(AT) according(AT) according
to the to the
ISO 6270-2 ISO 6270-2 standard.
standard.

Table 5. Summary
In the of the oxidation
three exposure and blistering
atmospheres, the C1 grade of the
coating coatingssome
presented after the condensation
decolorized tests
zones ininthe
accordance with the ISO 6270-2 standard [24] regarding the percentage of damaged surface.
surface after several hours in the cabinet, which was a consequence of the partial elimination of the
sealant applied on top of the sprayed carbide.
Oxidation GradeThis was observed after 110 inBlistering the CHGrade
test, and after
Coating
278 h in the AHT and ATCH tests. Furthermore,
AHT ferric corrosion
AH was observed
CH to appear
AHT inAHall the
samples close to edges.
Sample 1 As(*E)
3% previously 2% explained
(E) for
3% (E) the samples of 0% the immersion
0% tests,
0% this
corrosion
C1 phenomenon arose from the 2% (E) + 1% effects in the edges of the insulating wax, and was
cavitation
Sample 2 3% (E) 2% (E) 0% 0% 0%
(**C)
not considered as a coating
Sample 3
failure. In the
3% (E)
three test atmospheres,
1% (E) -
the color
0%
of the0% coating changed
-
with increasing exposure,
Sample 1
which was a consequence
1% (***WS) 0%
of
0%
the sealant degradation,
0%
acquiring0%
0%
a more
reddishC2 tone (Figures
Sample 2 5–7).
1% (WS)In the AHT 0% test, some
1% (WS)characteristic red/brown-colored
0% 0% corrosion
0%
Sample 3
products were observed 1% in(WS)
the center of0% -
one of the samples, but the 0% 0%
surface coverage by-
these
Sample 1 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0%
corrosion products did not exceed 1%, so the coating was considered to pass the three tests
C3 Sample 2 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0%
successfully, Sample
with a3 C5-M (high) 0% category (ISO0% 12944-6).- 30% 0% -
In the case of the C2 coating, all the samples presented some red spots
* E: ferric corrosion at edges; ** C: ferric corrosion at the center; *** WS: white salts. on the surface,
corresponding to ferric oxides. However, these oxides did not come from substrate corrosion, but
rather from
In the theexposure
three corrosionatmospheres,
of metallic particles that were
the C1 coating embedded
presented somein the coating surface
decolorized zones induring the
the surface
sample machining process. No significant changes were observed in the coating during the exposure
after several hours in the cabinet, which was a consequence of the partial elimination of the sealant
to any of the three condensation atmospheres in terms of ferric corrosion, blistering, cracking, or
applied on top of the sprayed carbide. This was observed after 110 in the CH test, and after 278 h in
color change. In the CH test, the presence of white salt deposits arising from the oxidation of the
the AHT and AT tests. Furthermore, ferric corrosion was observed to appear in all the samples close to
aluminum layer was detected after 614 h. In the case of the AHT tests, the three coated samples were
edges. As previously explained for the samples of the immersion tests, this corrosion phenomenon
intact after 720 h of exposure, even without the presence of white salts. Finally, in the AT test, white
arose from the cavitation effects in the edges of the insulating wax, and was not considered as a coating
salt deposits appeared after 336 h in one of the three samples. Therefore, considering the minor
failure.
changes In undergone
the three test atmospheres,
at the three testingthe color of the
atmospheres, thecoating changed
C2 coating passedwith increasing
the three exposure,
condensation
which was a consequence of the sealant
tests, achieving a C5-M (high) category (ISO 12944-6). degradation, acquiring a more reddish tone (Figures 5–7).
In the AHT test, some
The samples characteristic
of the C3 coatingred/brown-colored corrosion loss
showed color and brightness products were observed
after several hours of in the center
exposure,
of but
onenoof presence
the samples, but the surface coverage by these corrosion products did
of ferric corrosion, cracks, or other defects was detected during the evaluations. Thenot exceed 1%, so the
coating was considered
only defects appearedtoinpass the the
CHthree tests successfully,
test samples, with a C5-M
which presented (high) category
a significant part of (ISO 12944-6).
the surface
covered by blisters. However, in the AHT and AT tests, no blister appeared in any of the coated
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 12 of 21

In the case of the C2 coating, all the samples presented some red spots on the surface,
corresponding to ferric oxides. However, these oxides did not come from substrate corrosion,
but rather from the corrosion of metallic particles that were embedded in the coating surface during the
sample machining process. No significant changes were observed in the coating during the exposure
to any of the three condensation atmospheres in terms of ferric corrosion, blistering, cracking, or color
change. In the CH test, the presence of white salt deposits arising from the oxidation of the aluminum
layer was detected after 614 h. In the case of the AHT tests, the three coated samples were intact after
720 h of exposure, even without the presence of white salts. Finally, in the AT test, white salt deposits
appeared after 336 h in one of the three samples. Therefore, considering the minor changes undergone
at the three testing atmospheres, the C2 coating passed the three condensation tests, achieving a C5-M
(high) category (ISO 12944-6).
The samples of the C3 coating showed color and brightness loss after several hours of exposure,
but no presence of ferric corrosion, cracks, or other defects was detected during the evaluations.
The only defects appeared in the CH test samples, which presented a significant part of the surface
covered by blisters. However, in the AHT and AT tests, no blister appeared in any of the coated
samples after 720 h in the chamber. According to the UNE EN-ISO 4628-2 standard [27], the blistering
grade of the three samples of the CH test was the following:

• C3-sample No.1: 2 (S3)

• C3-sample No.2: 2 (S4)
• C3-sample No.2: 2 (S4)

Consequently, the C3 coating was classified within the C5-M (high) category for the AHT and
AT tests, and with a C4 (high)/C5-M (medium) category for the CH test, corresponding to an optimal
surface condition of the coating for 480 h of exposure to constant humidity (ISO 12944-6) (see Table 8 in
Section 4 for the compilation of results).

3.3. Salt Spray Tests (ISO 9227)

The coatings were exposed to neutral salt spray conditions to evaluate the resistance to a saline
corrosive environment. The evolution of the surface state of the three coatings without incision during
the exposure to salt spray atmosphere at different evaluation times is depicted in Figure 8. The final
appearance of the scribed samples after 1440 h in the chamber is shown in Figure 9 for the C2 and C3
coatings. Table 6 summarizes the degradation observed in the coatings for the different evaluations,
in terms of the surface percentage covered by ferric corrosion or white salts in the samples without
incision, and the progression of the ferric corrosion on the scribed coatings.
detected
detected in in two
two of
of the
the three
three samples
samples without
without incision,
incision, but
but the
the apparition
apparition ofof new
new blisters
blisters or
or other
other
defects
defects was not observed in the following evaluations. The third sample remained unaffected until
was not observed in the following evaluations. The third sample remained unaffected until
the
the end
end of
of the
the test.
test. The
The samples
samples with
with incision
incision showed
showed the
the progression
progression of of ferric
ferric corrosion
corrosion from
from the
the
first
first evaluation
evaluation at at 504
504 h.
h. Ferric
Ferric corrosion
corrosion spread
spread with
with exposure
exposure time,
time, exceeding
exceeding 22 mmmm inin two
two ofof the
the
three
three samples
Materials 2019, 12,after
samples 1325 1370
after 1370 h.
h. Furthermore,
Furthermore, aa blister
blister was
was detected
detected in
in one
one of
of these
these samples.
samples. The
The adhesion
13 of 21
adhesion
results were 5A grade for two of the samples, and the third was
results were 5A grade for two of the samples, and the third was 4A grade. 4A grade.

Figure 8. Visual
Figure 8. Visual appearance
appearance ofof the
the coatings’
coatings’ surfaces
surfaces without
without incision
incision at
at different evaluations during
different evaluations during
1440 h of exposure to salt spray,
spray, according
according to
to the
the ISO
ISO 9227
9227 standard.
standard.
1440 h of exposure to salt spray, according to the ISO 9227 standard.

9. Visual
Figure 9.
Figure Visual appearance
appearance of of the
the coatings
coatings surface
surface without
without incision
incision at
at different
different evaluations
evaluations during
during
1440 h of exposure to salt spray,
spray, according
according to
to the
theISO
ISO9227
9227standard.
standard.
1440 h of exposure to salt spray, according to the ISO 9227 standard.

Considering
Considering the
the high
high amount
amount of of ferric
ferric corrosion
corrosion inin the
the C1
C1 coating,
coating, and
and the
the presence
presence of
of aa blister
blister
in
in the
the C3
C3 coating
coating and
and the
the corrosion
corrosion exceeding
exceeding 11 mmmm fromfrom the
the scratch
scratch on
on the
the scribed
scribed samples,
samples, the the
failure of these two coatings was estimated at 504 h and 672 h, respectively. Therefore,
failure of these two coatings was estimated at 504 h and 672 h, respectively. Therefore, they were they were
classified
classified as
as belonging
belonging to to the
the C4
C4 (medium)/C5-M
(medium)/C5-M (low) (low) categories
categories (ISO
(ISO 12944-6).
12944-6). However,
However, thethe C2C2
coating overcame the 1440 h of exposure to salt spray, showing no ferric corrosion coming
coating overcame the 1440 h of exposure to salt spray, showing no ferric corrosion coming from the from the
steel
steel substrates,
substrates, and
and proving
proving an an effective
effective protection
protection inin such
such an
an aggressive
aggressive atmosphere.
atmosphere. Thus,
Thus, the
the C2
C2
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 14 of 21

Table 6. Degradation observed in samples with the three coatings with and without incision at different evaluation times during exposure to a salt spray chamber (ISO
9227 [25]) and the adhesion test results of the samples with incisions (ASTM D3359 [29]).

Exposure Time (h) Adhesion

Coating Incision Sample No.
Test (ASTM
504 672 840 1008 1178 1370 1440
D3359)
No 1 ~15% FC (*) 25% FC 25% FC 25% FC 25% FC 25% FC 25% FC -
No 2 ~5% FC 5% FC 5% FC 5% FC 5–10% FC 5–10% FC 5–10% FC -
No 3 15-20% FC 25% FC 25% FC 25% FC 25–30% FC ~30% FC ~30% FC -
C1
No 4 15% FC 20% FC ~20% FC ~20% FC ~30% FC ~30% FC ~30% FC -
No 5 Isolated pits <5% FC <5% FC <5% FC <5% FC <5% FC <5% FC -
No 6 10–15% FC 15–20% FC 20–25% FC 20–25% FC 20–25% FC 20–25% FC 20–25% FC -
No 1 Unaltered Ws (*) + P (*) Ws + P Ws + P <5% Ws <5% Ws 5-10% Ws -
No 2 Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered Ws + P <5% Ws <5% Ws 5% Ws -
No 3 Unaltered Ws + P Ws + P Ws + P <5% Ws <5% Ws 5–10% Ws -
C2
Yes 4 Ws + Np (*) Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np 5A
Yes 5 Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np 4A
Yes 6 Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np Ws + Np 5A
No 1 Unaltered Unaltered 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister -
No 2 Unaltered Unaltered 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister 1 blister -
No 3 Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered Unaltered -
C3
0.4-mm PFC
Yes 4 0.6-mm PFC 0.6-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 2-mm PFC 2-mm PFC 4A
(*)
Yes 5 0.5-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 0.8-mm PFC 1.2-mm PFC 1.2-mm PFC 5A
2.6-mm PFC 2.6-mm PFC
Yes 6 0.5-mm PFC 0.9-mm PFC 0.9-mm PFC 1-mm PFC 1-mm PFC 5A
+ 1 blister + 1 blister
(*) FC = Ferric corrosion; Ws = White salts; P = Pits; Np = No progression of ferric corrosion; PFC = progress of ferric corrosion.
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 15 of 21

The C1 coating remained unaltered for the first 504 h of exposure, after which corrosion was
observed to spread in all the samples. After 1440 h in the chamber, four of the six samples presented
with 25–30% of the surface covered by ferric corrosion. The color of the coating changed significantly
with exposure time, acquiring a purple tonality. The surface analysis by means of a magnifying glass
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20
revealed the presence of ferric pits that were homogeneously distributed along the whole exposed
surface (Figure 10). The oxidation grade of the coating was Ri4 (S2), in accordance with the designation
coating was classified as belonging to the C5-M (high) category (ISO 12944-6) (see Table 8 in Section
of the UNE-EN ISO 4628-3 standard [27] for a rusted area of around the 8% of the exposed surface.
4 for the compilation of results).

Figure 10. Surface

Figure 10. Surface estate
estateof
ofthe
theC1
C1coating
coatingafter
after 1440
1440 h exposure
h of of exposure to neutral
to neutral salt salt
sprayspray showing
showing a
a high
high density of ferric corrosion pits along the whole exposed
density of ferric corrosion pits along the whole exposed surface. surface.

In the case of the C2 coating, the presence of white salts was detected after 672 h in the chamber.
These salts were observed in the form of small deposits, which increased in size with exposure time.
The surface percentage covered by white salts was 5% after 1178 h and increased, reaching the 5–10% at
the end of the test. The samples that had a C2 coating with an incision did not present ferric corrosion
in any evaluation. White salts were observed from the first evaluation at 504 h. The adhesion test
results obtained for the scribed samples at the end of the aging test was of 5A grade for two of the three
samples, corresponding to the higher grade of the scale, with no detachment of the coating. The third
sample was classified as 4A, since a small trace of the coating was removed with the adhesive tape.
The C3 coating remained unaltered for 840 h, at which point the presence of one blister was
detected in two of the three samples without incision, but the apparition of new blisters or other defects
was not observed in the following evaluations. The third sample remained unaffected until the end of
the test. The samples with incision showed the progression of ferric corrosion from the first evaluation
at 504 h. Ferric corrosion spread with exposure time, exceeding 2 mm in two of the three samples after
1370 h. Furthermore, a blister was detected in one of these samples. The adhesion results were 5A
grade for two of the samples, and the third was 4A grade.
Considering the high amount of ferric corrosion in the C1 coating, and the presence of a blister in
the C3 coating and the corrosion exceeding 1 mm from the scratch on the scribed samples, the failure
of these two coatings was estimated at 504 h and 672 h, respectively. Therefore, they were classified as
belonging to the C4 (medium)/C5-M (low) categories (ISO 12944-6). However, the C2 coating overcame
the 1440 h of exposure to salt spray, showing no ferric corrosion coming from the steel substrates,
and proving an effective protection in such an aggressive atmosphere. Thus, the C2 coating was
classified as belonging to the C5-M (high) category (ISO 12944-6) (see Table 8 in Section 4 for the
compilation of results).

3.4. Combined Aging Test (NORSOK M-501, ISO 12944-9)

In the combined aging test, the coatings were exposed to different atmospheres, so as to reproduce
the climatic conditions of the marine environment. The samples were subjected to UV radiation,
water condensation, salt spray, and low temperature. The evolution of the surface state of the three
3.4. Combined Aging Test (NORSOK M-501, ISO 12944-9)
In the combined aging test, the coatings were exposed to different atmospheres, so as to
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 16 of 21
reproduce the climatic conditions of the marine environment. The samples were subjected to UV
radiation, water condensation, salt spray, and low temperature. The evolution of the surface state of
coatings
the three at different
coatings at exposition times is depicted
different exposition times isindepicted
Figure 11.
in The degradation
Figure degree in terms
11. The degradation of the
degree in
ferric of
terms corrosion
the ferriccoverage
corrosionof the samples
coverage andsamples
of the blistering areblistering
and summarized in Table 7. in Table 7.
are summarized

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Visual
Visualappearance
appearanceofofthe
the coatings’
coatings’surfaces
surfacesafter
after 720
720 hh of
of exposure
exposure to
to combined
combined aging
aging
according
according to
to the
the ISO
ISO 12944-9
12944-9 and
and NORSOK
NORSOK M-501M-501 standards.
standards.

Summarywas
Table 7.corrosion
Ferric of theobserved
oxidationinand blistering
the samples grade of thewith
coated coatings after the
C1 from thecombined aging
end of the test in to
exposure
accordance with the ISO 12944-9 [18] and NORSOK M-501 [16] standards.
salt spray in the first test cycle, which covered 1% of the total exposed surface in the three specimens.
This corrosion appeared close to the edges of the samples,
Coating as a consequence
Oxidation Grade of the cavitation
Blistering Grade effects
of the insulating wax that was employed. The three samples lost their initial brightness, which was a
Sample 1 16% 0%
consequence of the C1 degradation and elimination
Sample 2 of the organic
4% sealant. Ferric corrosion
0% increased
during the second test cycle, and theSample entire 3surface of the samples
12% acquired a more0% reddish tone. This
tonality change undergone by the coating Sample 1 was found to be the consequence
2% (Inclusions) of the0%presence of ferric
corrosion pits thatC2were evenly distributed Sample 2 along the whole exposed
2% (Inclusions) surface of the
0% samples (Figure
12), which exceeded 10% of the exposed Sample 3 in two of 3%
area the(Inclusions)
three samples. 0%
In the case of the C2 coating, oxides coming
Sample 1 from metallic
0% impurities were observed,
0% which was
similar to the samples employed in the previous tests. Some white salts arising from aluminum
C3 Sample 2 0% 0%
oxidation were detected in one of the Sample 3 during the second
samples 0% cycle, but no further 0% changes were
observed in any of the samples during the remaining tests cycles. Neither significant color and
appearance alterations,
Ferric corrosion wasnorobserved
the apparition of ferric corrosion
in the samples coated withor C1
other
fromdefects were
the end of observed
the exposure at the
to
end
salt of the test.
spray in the first test cycle, which covered 1% of the total exposed surface in the three specimens.
ThisThe C3 coating
corrosion showed
appeared closediscoloration
to the edgesand a significant
of the samples, loss
as a of brightness from
consequence of thethe first exposure
cavitation effects
to
of UV
the radiation,
insulating especially
wax that was at the center of The
employed. the samples. The color
three samples change
lost their to abrightness,
initial paler tone which
was morewas
a consequence of the degradation and elimination of the organic sealant. Ferric corrosion increased
during2019,
Materials the 12,
second
x; doi: test cycle,REVIEW
FOR PEER and the entire surface of the samples acquired a more reddish tone.
www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
This tonality change undergone by the coating was found to be the consequence of the presence of
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 17 of 21

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

ferric corrosion pits that were evenly distributed along the whole exposed surface of the samples
noticeable with increasing exposure to weathering conditions, but no other defects such as blisters or
(Figure 12), which exceeded 10% of the exposed area in two of the three samples.
ferric corrosion were observed in any sample.

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Micrographs
Micrographs at
at different
differentmagnifications
magnificationsofofthethesurface
surfaceestate
estate
ofof the
the C1C1 coating
coating after
after 720720 h
h of
of exposure
exposure to combined
to combined aging
aging presenting
presenting ferric
ferric pitspits along
along thethe whole
whole exposed
exposed surface.
surface.

In the case of the C2

Considering coating, oxides
significant number coming fromcorrosion
of ferric metallic impurities were
pits present onobserved, which
the surface of was
the
similar to the samples employed in the previous tests. Some white salts arising
samples, the C1 coating did not pass the combined aging test. On the other hand, the C2 and C3 from aluminum
oxidation were detected
coatings passed the test, in one of the
showing justsamples during the second
some discoloration cycle, butloss
and brightness no further changes
in the case were
of the C3
observed in any
coating, which of the
does samples during
not compromise the remaining
the protective tests cycles.
performance of theNeither
coating significant
(Table 7). color and
appearance alterations, nor the apparition of ferric corrosion or other defects were observed at the end
of theTable
test. 7. Summary of the oxidation and blistering grade of the coatings after the combined aging test
in accordance
The C3 coating with the ISOdiscoloration
showed 12944-9 [18] and
andNORSOK M-501loss
a significant [16] of
standards.
brightness from the first exposure
to UV radiation, especially at the center of the samples. The color change to a paler tone was more
noticeable with increasing Coating Oxidationconditions,
exposure to weathering Grade but Blistering Grade such as blisters or
no other defects
ferric corrosion were observed in any
Sample 1 sample. 16% 0%
Considering C1 the significant
Samplenumber
2 of ferric 4%
corrosion pits present on 0%the surface of the samples,
the C1 coating did not passSample the combined
3 aging test.
12% On the other hand, the
0%C2 and C3 coatings passed
the test, showing just someSample discoloration
1 and2%brightness
(Inclusions)loss in the case of0% the C3 coating, which does
not compromise the C2
protective performance
Sample 2 of the coating
2% (Inclusions) (Table 7). 0%

4. Discussion Sample 3 3% (Inclusions) 0%

Sample 1 0% 0%
After performing
C3
theSample
different
2 weathering tests,
0% with the durations0% for the C5-M (H) and Im2
(H) categories specified in the ISO 12944-6 standard corresponding to high corrosivity atmospheres,
Sample 3 0% 0%
the results obtained for the three coating systems evaluated in this work is summarized in Table 8.
4. Discussion
After performing the different weathering tests, with the durations for the C5-M (H) and Im2
(H) categories specified in the ISO 12944-6 standard corresponding to high corrosivity atmospheres,
the results obtained for the three coating systems evaluated in this work is summarized in Table 8.
The thermal sprayed carbide layer with a thin organic sealant of few nanometers (C1) was
found to present ferric corrosion pits in some of the testing atmospheres. Coherently with the results
obtained for the C1 coating in a previous work, in which the electrochemical corrosion response of
the coating was evaluated in synthetic seawater [20], the organic sealant was found to deteriorate,
losing its protective ability in a relatively short period of exposure to the corrosive environment. In
this work, the loss of the sealant was observed in most of the weathering atmospheres, after which
the brightness of the samples and/or their color changed. After the sealant degradation took place,
the underneath sprayed layer was exposed to the corrosive atmosphere. Sprayed coatings usually
present a morphology containing pores and other defects, which is a consequence of the
solidification of the sprayed material between successive splats and the thermal stresses that might
generate during the spraying process [30–32]. The morphological characterization of the carbide
sprayed layer composing the C1 coating (which was evaluated in the previous work [20]) revealed a
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 18 of 21

Table 8. Summary of the corrosivity categories of the ISO 12944-6 [15] standard obtained for the three
coatings in all the weathering aging tests performed.

Coating Category (ISO 12944-6)

Test/Standard
C1 C2 C3
Immersion (ISO 2812) Im2 (High) Im2 (High) No pass (Blistering)
C4 (High)/C5-M
CH C5-M (High) C5-M (High)
Condensation (Medium)
(ISO 6270) AHT C5-M (High) C5-M (High) C5-M (High)
AT C5-M (High) C5-M (High) C5-M (High)
C4
C4 (Medium)/C5-M
Salt spray (ISO 9227) (Medium)/C5-M C5-M (High)
(Low)
(Low)
Combined aging
No passed Passed Passed
(ISO 12944-9, NORSOK M-501)

The thermal sprayed carbide layer with a thin organic sealant of few nanometers (C1) was found to
present ferric corrosion pits in some of the testing atmospheres. Coherently with the results obtained for
the C1 coating in a previous work, in which the electrochemical corrosion response of the coating was
evaluated in synthetic seawater [20], the organic sealant was found to deteriorate, losing its protective
ability in a relatively short period of exposure to the corrosive environment. In this work, the loss of the
sealant was observed in most of the weathering atmospheres, after which the brightness of the samples
and/or their color changed. After the sealant degradation took place, the underneath sprayed layer
was exposed to the corrosive atmosphere. Sprayed coatings usually present a morphology containing
pores and other defects, which is a consequence of the solidification of the sprayed material between
successive splats and the thermal stresses that might generate during the spraying process [30–32].
The morphological characterization of the carbide sprayed layer composing the C1 coating (which
was evaluated in the previous work [20]) revealed a structure with pores and cracks. These defects
constitute ion-conducting paths across the coating, which allow the migration of water and aggressive
species to the coating/substrate interface, eventually leading to the corrosion of the steel underneath.
In the weathering aging tests, this was observed as the apparition of ferric corrosion pits in some of
the test samples. In the tests in which the isolated corrosion pits were detected, the coatings were
considered to provide enough protection to the steel substrate overcoming the test conditions, as in the
case of the immersion tests and the condensation tests at the three atmospheres (CH, AHT, and AT).
In the cases that presented a higher density of corrosion pits, with a considerable coverage of the
exposed surface, the coating was not considered to reach the maximum time specified for the C5-M
(H)/Im2 (H) category, e.g., the salt spray and the combined aging tests.
In the case of the arc thermally sprayed aluminum with an organic topcoat (C2), this was the
only protective system that overcame all the weathering tests successfully. In this coating system,
the thickness of the organic topcoat of several nanometers acted as an adequate barrier against the
aggressive environments evaluated. In some of the tests, e.g., the immersion tests, the condensation
tests (CH and AT), and the salt spray tests, white deposits corresponding to aluminum oxides were
detected. In these tests, which constituted high humidity atmospheres during the whole exposure
period, water penetrated through the conductive paths generated in the organic coating. Once the
humidity reached the sprayed layer, the aluminum reacted to form aluminum oxides or hydroxides in
the form of white salts. These results are in coherence with those observed in previous works in which
the thermally sprayed aluminum layer with [20] and without [21] the organic topcoat was immersed
in synthetic seawater for several weeks to perform the electrochemical corrosion tests. In this works,
aluminum hydroxides were identified to form on the surface of the aluminum layer once this layer was
exposed to the corrosive atmosphere. Nevertheless, the corrosion of the aluminum was not a sign of
the degradation of the coating, but rather constituted an improvement as a barrier against aggressive
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 19 of 21

species, by blocking both the pores and defects present in the sprayed layer as well as the conductive
paths in the organic topcoat [20,21]. Therefore, considering the appearance of white salts in the coated
panels tested in this work, but the absence of ferric corrosion coming from the substrate degradation,
the two-layered coating provided the steel substrate with an adequate protection against corrosion
in the different weathering atmospheres evaluated in this work. Furthermore, the current use of
aluminum coatings in submerged components is related to the sacrificial corrosion undergone by the
metal in contact with steel due to the galvanic coupling generated in seawater. Consequently, in view
that the C2 coating resisted the highest test duration in all the weathering atmospheres, this coating
system can be expected to last for high periods of exposure to the marine environment thanks to the
sacrificial protection provided by the aluminum layer.
Finally, the organic coating reinforced with ceramic platelets (C3) presented blistering in the tests
comprising the highest humidity atmosphere during the whole test duration, i.e., the immersion,
condensation (CH), and salt fog tests. The formation of blisters is closely related to the delamination
of organic coatings on the coating/substrate interface as a consequence of a low adhesion of the
coating allowing the penetration of water. In the electrochemical corrosion tests performed in the
previous work for this coating [20], the corrosion resistance of the coating decreased with higher
immersion times in synthetic seawater, which was a consequence of the penetration of seawater into
the coating/substrate interface. Organic coatings have been so far the best protective solution against
the corrosion of structural steel in marine atmospheres, due to their organic nature with low electrical
conductivity, which constitutes an effective barrier to corrosive species [33,34]. However, the low
adhesion of the coating can lead to the quick penetration of water and delamination of the coating
due to the underneath corrosion of the substrate. In this work, the optical evaluation performed
in the transversal surface of one of the blisters revealed the presence of ferric corrosion products.
Therefore, the unexpected poor results obtained for the organic coating in some of the weathering tests
might be related to a low adherence of the coating due to the inadequate surface cleanliness of the
metallic substrate prior to the coating application.

5. Conclusions
In the present work, the effectiveness of three coatings for the corrosion protection of offshore
structural steel has been evaluated, according to the ISO 12944 and NORSOK M-501 standards.
The corrosivity category of the coatings was determined for each aging test condition (ISO 12944).
The conclusions of this work were the following:
• From the immersion tests (ISO 2812-2), the only coating that did not reach 4000 h of immersion
was the C3 coating. Blisters were detected to appear after 504 h in one of the samples, and after 672
h in the other two samples. The C1 and C2 coatings were classified as IM2 (high), overcoming the
4000 h of exposure without the appearance of any defect.
• Regarding the water condensation tests (ISO 6270), the C1 and C2 coatings obtained the C5-M
(high) category in the three water atmospheres. However, C3 was classified as C5-M (high) in the
AHT and AT atmospheres, and as C4 (high)/C5-M (medium) for the CH test due to the apparition
of blisters after 614 h of exposure.
• In the case of the salt spray tests (ISO 9227), C2 was the only coating reaching the C5-M (high)
category. The C1 and C3 coatings were classified as C4 (medium)/C5-M (low), after the detection of
ferric corrosion (480 h) in the C1 coating and blisters (972 h) in the C3 coating. The adherence that
was measured for the C2 and C3 coatings in the samples with incision was 4A/5A, according to
the ASTM D3359 standard. The adherence of the C1 coating was not measured, since the incision
could not be made in the hard carbide layer.
• With respect to the combined aging tests (NORSOK M-501, ISO 12944), the C1 coating did not
pass the test, since the surface of the samples was covered by a considerable amount of ferric
corrosion at the end of the last test cycle. On the other hand, the C2 and C3 coatings passed the
test, showing just some discoloration and loss of brightness, maintaining the protective properties.
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 20 of 21

• Finally, the only coating that reached the higher category and overtook all the test atmospheres was
the C2 coating. The combination of both the aluminum layer and the organic topcoat providing
a two-layered protection by means of a sacrificial aluminum anode and the high corrosion
resistance of the organic layer.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.L.-O. and R.B.; methodology, A.L.-O. and R.B.; validation, A.L.-O.
and R.B.; formal analysis, A.L.-O. and R.B.; investigation, A.L.-O.; resources, A.L.-O. and R.B.; writing—original
draft preparation, A.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, A.L.-O., R.B., and J.L.A.; visualization, A.L.-O., R.B.,
and J.L.A.; supervision, R.B., and J.L.A.; project administration, R.B.; funding acquisition, A.L.-O. and R.B.
Funding: This work was performed with the support of the FRONTIERS IV project (ELKARTEK 2018,
KK-2018/00108) financed by the Basque Country. Authors would also like to acknowledge the Education,
Linguistic Politics and Culture Department of the Basque Government for its support through the grant
“Programa Predoctoral de Formación de Personal Investigador No Doctor (PRE_2017_2_0088)” awarded to the first author.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical support provided by the co-workers of the
Tribology Unit of IK4-TEKNIKER, Spain.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dhanak, M.R.; Xiros, N.I. Springer Handbook of Ocean Engineering; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016;
ISBN 978-319-16648-3.
2. Revie, R.W. Corrosion and Corrosion Control—An Introduction to Corrosion Science and Engineering, 4th ed.;
John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-471-73279-2.
3. Baboian, R. ASTM Corrosion Tests and Standards. Application and Interpretation, 2nd ed.; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006; ISBN 0-8031-2098-2.
4. ASM Handbook. Volume 13. Corrosion; ASM International: Russell Township, OH, USA, 1987;
ISBN 0-87170-007-7.
5. Melchers, R.E.; Moan, T.; Gao, Z. Corrosion of working chains continuously immersed in seawater. J. Mar.
Sci. Technol. 2007, 12, 102–110. [CrossRef]
6. Momber, A.; Plagemann, P.; Stenzel, V. Performance and integrity of protective coating systems for offshore
wind power structures after three years under offshore site conditions. Renew. Energy 2015, 74, 606–617.
[CrossRef]
7. López, A.; Bayon, R.; Pagano, F.; Igartua, A.; Arredondo, A.; Arana, J.; González, J. Tribocorrosion behaviour
of mooring high strength low alloy steels in synthetic seawater. Wear 2015, 338, 1–10. [CrossRef]
8. López-Ortega, A.; Bayón, R.; Arana, J.L.; Arredondo, A.; Igartua, A. Influence of temperature on the corrosion
and tribocorrosion behavior of high-strength low-alloy steels used in offshore applications. Tribol. Int.
2018, 121, 341–352. [CrossRef]
9. Santos, D.; Brites, C.; Costa, M.; Santos, M. Performance of paint systems with polyurethane topcoats,
proposed for atmospheres with very high corrosivity category. Prog. Org. Coat. 2005, 54, 344–352. [CrossRef]
10. Kutz, M. Handbook of Environmental Degradation of Materials, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2012; ISBN 978-1-4377-3455-3.
11. Baboian, R. NACE Corrosion Engineer’s Reference Book, 3rd ed.; NACE International: Houston, TX, USA, 2002;
ISBN 978-1-57590-127-5.
12. Iannuzzi, M.; Barnoush, A.; Johnsen, R. Materials and corrosion trends in offshore and subsea oil and gas
production. npj Mater. Degrad. 2017, 1, 2. [CrossRef]
13. Weng, Y.; Dong, H.; Gan, Y. Advanced Steels. The Recent Scenario in Steel Science and Technology; Springer:
Berlin, Germany, 2011; ISBN 978-3-642-17664-7.
14. Ault, J.P. The use of coatings for corrosion control on offshore oil structures. J. Prot. Coat. Linings 2006, 23, 42–47.
15. ISO 12944:1-8. Paints and Varnishes—Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
16. NORSOK M-501. Surface Preparation and Protective Coating, 6th ed.; Standard No.: Lysaker, Norway, 2012.
17. ISO 9223. Corrosion of Metals and Alloys—Corrosivity of Atmospheres—Classification, Determination and Estimation,
2nd ed.; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
Materials 2019, 12, 1325 21 of 21

18. ISO 12944-9. Paints and Varnishes. Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems. Part 9:
Protective Paint Systems and Laboratory Performance Test Methods for Offshore and Related Structures, 1st ed.;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
19. Mühlberg, K. Corrosion protection of offshore wind turbines—A challenge for the steel builder and paint
applicator. J. Prot. Coat. Linings 2010, 20, 29.
20. López-Ortega, A.; Arana, J.L.; Bayón, R. Evaluation of protective coatings for offshore applications.
Corrosion and tribocorrosion behaviour in synthetic seawater. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2018, 349, 1083–1097.
21. López-Ortega, A.; Arana, J.L.; Rodríguez, E.; Bayón, R. Corrosion, wear and tribocorrosion performance of
a thermally sprayed aluminum coating modified by plasma electrolytic oxidation technique for offshore
submerged components protection. Corros. Sci. 2018, 143, 258–280. [CrossRef]
22. Offshore Standard DNVGL-OS E302. Offshore Mooring Chains; DNV GL: Bærum, Norway, 2018.
23. ISO 2812-2. Paints and Varnishes—Determination of Resistance to Liquids, 2nd ed.; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
24. ISO 6270. Paints and Varnishes—Determination of Resistance to Humidity, 2nd ed.; International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
25. ISO 9227. Corrosion Tests in Artificial Atmospheres—Salt Spray Test, 4th ed.; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
26. ISO 16474-3. Paints and varnishes. Methods of Exposure to Laboratory Light Sources—Fluorescence UV Lamps;
International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
27. ISO 4628 1-5. Paints and Varnishes—Evaluation of Degradation of Coatings—Designation of Quantity and
Size of Defects, and of Density of Uniform Changes in Appearance, 4th ed.; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
28. ISO 17872. Paints and Varnishes—Guidelines for the Introduction of Scribe Marks through Coatings on Metallic Panels for
Corrosion Testing, 1st ed.; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
29. ASTM D3359-17. Standard Test Methods for Rating Adhesion by Tape Test; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
30. Lee, H.S.; Singh, J.; Ismail, M.; Bhattacharya, C. Corrosion resistance properties of aluminum coating applied
by arc thermal metal spray in SAE J2334 solution with exposure periods. Metals 2016, 6, 55. [CrossRef]
31. Deshpande, S.; Kulkarni, A.; Sampath, S.; Herman, H. Application of image analysis for characterization of
porosity in thermal spray coatings and correlation with small angle neutron scattering. Surf. Coat. Technol.
2004, 187, 6–16. [CrossRef]
32. Fauchais, P.; Vardelle, A. Thermal sprayed coatings used against corrosion and corrosive wear. In Advanced
Plasma Spray Applications; InTech: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0349-3.
33. Sun, X.; Huang, D.; Wu, G. The current state of offshore wind energy technology development. Energy
2012, 41, 298–312. [CrossRef]
34. Alam, M.A.; Sherif, E.S.M.; Al-Zahrani, S.M. Fabrication of various epoxy coatings for offshore applications
and evaluating their mechanical properties and corrosion behavior. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2013, 8, 3121–3131.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).