OTC 16048
Newbuild FPSO Corrosion Protection - A Design and Operation Planning Guideline
Adrian MacMillan, Karl Petter Fischer, Henning Carlsen, Øystein Goksøyr; Det Norske Veritas
Copyright 2004, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 3–6 May 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.
Abstract
Corrosion control design and management for a newbuild
Floating Production Storage and Offloading installation
(FPSO) operating in certain benign regions, such as West
Africa, China and Brazil, can provide significantly increased
challenges compared to their North Sea counter parts. This is
primarily driven by a number different environmental factors,
such as relatively high ambient temperatures, humidity and
cargo temperatures. Therefore, it is difficult to select a cost
effective corrosion control design that addresses both the
fabrication and operational aspects. This paper provides
guidance on how to address the key corrosion protection
design and fabrication issues and their corresponding impact
on inspection, maintenance and repair during operation.
Introduction
Eventhough there are over 100 FPSOs operating worldwide,
designing and implementing a cost optimal Inspection,
Maintenance and Repair (IMR) system for a 20 year service
still remains a major challenge. Primarily this is due to the fact
that there is limited information available to facilitate the
corrosion control design for a 20 year continuous service.
Newbuilding FPSOs have traditionally been purpose built
for harsh environments, such as the North Sea, with converted
FPSOs dominating the benign regions, such as Asia, Australia,
Brazil and West Africa. As a result previous newbuildings
have been designed with a major focus on fatigue and ultimate
strength. However, it is forecast that 90% of future FPSOs will
be installed in benign regions, with 60% of these being
newbuildings/1/. Although these regions may be benign from a
wave climate perspective they can impose significant
corrosion control challenges relative to their North Sea
counterparts. This is primarily a function of increased ambient
temperatures and humidity.
Many of the current newbuilding ‘mega’ FPSOs will have
production capacities in excess of 200,000 bopd and,
therefore, any lost production time can have very significant
economic consequences. Therefore, it is very important to
design, implement and manage a proper corrosion protection
design.
This paper provides some background and guidelines to
facilitate the cost effective corrosion control design for
newbuilding FPSO hulls. Specifically the focus is on:
Identifying and quantifying the dominating factors related
to corrosion control,
How to select a cost effective corrosion protection system
based on a combination of corrosion margins, coating
systems and cathodic protection,
Fabrication inspection related to the desired corrosion
protection system,
Providing an operation inspection, maintenance and repair
strategies for selected corrosion protection system,
Introducing a new RBI tool for IMR control of coated
areas.
Corrosion problems for converted vessels operating in the
same regions, e.g. Brazil and West Aftrica, are well
documented and selecting a cost-effective corrosion protection
system can be equally difficult. Although this paper does not
address converstions specifically, many of the basic concepts
are still applicable.
Basic aspects of FPSO corrosion control
For carbon and low alloy steel FPSO hulls there are three
principal types of corrosion to be considered/2/:
General corrosion,
Pitting corrosion, including “in-line pitting attack” and
“grooving corrosion”, and
Galvanic corrosion (e.g. at welds).
If the ratio of corrosion attack depth to its width is much
less than 1 then this termed general corrosion. Should the
depth of the corrosion exceed the width then this is defined as
localised corrosion.
When the ratio gets much greater than 1 then this is
defined as pitting corrosion. This typically occurs on
horizontal surfaces, such as bottom plating. Pitting corrosion
can also occur at structural intersections where water collects
or flows and may also be termed as “in-line pitting attack” or
“grooving corrosion”.
Galvanic corrosion is generated through preferential
corrosion of the weld deposit due to galvanic action, e.g.
between a weld and the base metal.
Corrosion consequences
There are a number of different consequences for each type of
corrosion.
2 OTC 16048
General corrosion can result in fatigue, buckling and
leakage at a local or global level. However, the frequency of
such failures is low to medium as it is easier to observe during
regular inspection intervals. During operation, qualified
surveyors and inspectors are able to easily identify whether
general corrosion has exceeded the acceptance criteria and if
repair is necessary.
Localised corrosion (pitting and groove) can result in
leakage of tank contents, which can lead to pollution and / or
explosion. Since pitting corrosion rates can be rapid the
frequency of occurrence is increased compared to general
corrosion. Due to the small surface extension of pits, they can
be more difficult to identify compared to general corrosion.
Structural integrity and corrosion control
The structural integrity of the FPSO hull, in relation to
corrosion, can be achieved through the following:
Corrosion allowance (for given structural members)
Corrosion protective coatings
Cathodic protection (for seawater tanks and for the
external hull)
A optimal FPSO structural integrity design can be
achieved through a combination of these three measures.
Relationship between corrosion and time
The deterioration of the FPSO hull will mainly be determined
by corrosion due to seawater and the conditions in the cargo
spaces through changes in the corrosion protection system
over time. Consequently, the corrosion rate will change with
time. Typically three different corrosion-time equations can be
used:
Model A: Corrosion wastage rate decreases with time.
Model B: Corrosion wastage rate increases linearly with
time.
Model C: Corrosion wastage rate increases non-linearly
with time.
Each of these corrosion wastage models are schematically
shown in Figure 1.
Semi-empirical or analytical equations for quantitative
assessments of the corrosion rates can be established.
However, it is important to be aware that the algorithms for
determining the corrosion rate are very complex and all the
required input data may not be available. It has, therefore,
become common practice to utilise mathematical probabilistic
modelling to predict corrosion wastage.
DNV has recently developed an innovative tool (CoatInsp)
for IMR planning and follow-up of coated areas over the life-
cycle of an FPSO/FSO. CoatInsp is a Risk Based Inspection
(RBI) tool to ensure that consistent inspection plans are
developed based on all relevant design parameters of a coated
surface.
CoatInsp is divided into six main modules:
Input to coating specification,
Inspection history,
Probabilistic analysis of coating degradation,
Cost optimised inspection planning,
Time to next inspection, and
Parametric studies.
A probabilistic approach is taken where the expected
degradation rates are expressed mathematically based on the
design parameters for the coated surface and the environment.
The inspection outcome and the associated uncertainty are
included in the prediction of the future coating degradation.
Cost models with regard to patch repair, re-coating or
replacement of steel may be entered into the tool in order to
establish a cost-optimised IMR plan along the service life of
the vessel.
Figure 2 shows an example from CoatInsp on how
degradation models are updated and applied after two
sequential inspections. After the first inspection, recoating is
conducted while local repair is carried out following the
second inspection.
Figure 3 shows an example event tree used for prediction
of future inspection condition based on the repair actions
taken.
Corrosion influences and rates
The corrosion impact on an FPSO is governed by the external
environmental and the operational conditions. The importance
of the site specific environmental conditions should not be
underrated. Basic knowledge on the climatic conditions,
diurnal and seasonal variations are important as a basis for the
specification of the protection systems. In certain
environments, the required corrosion protection measures may
have to exceed the corrosion protection measure requirements
given in present standards. Such variables may be entered into
CoatInsp to assist with determining the cost-effective coating
system.
Table 1 provides some basic corrosion ranges for cargo
and ballast tanks. Specific corrosion margins for different
member types are provided later. For simplicity the corrosion
impact can be divided into three zones (see Figure 4):
Upper zone (including deck and 2-3m down into the
tanks/hold).
Middle zone (zone between the upper zone and the lower
zone).
Lower zone (including 2-3 m up from the bottom).
Table 2 summarises some of the key operational factors
that tend to significantly influence the corrosion wastage for
an FPSO. These factors cover aspects such as temperature
increases, oxygen in seawater, chlorinity, humidity,
temperature gradients, types of cargo oil, etc. For example, a
temperature increase of 10ºC can double the corrosion rate if
all other conditions are kept constant.
In order to illustrate how to use this information it is
worthwhile considering a ballast tank in a double-bottom or
side for an FPSO located in China where the viscous oil needs
to be maintained at elevated temperatures (up to 80°C). As
presented in Table 1 there is the potential for a high corrosion
rate in a basic seawater ballast tanks. However, with the
ballast tanks being adjacent to a heated cargo tank the
corrosivity impact for the internal hull will be intensified. The
high temperature of the oil tends to create a temperature
increase in the ballast tanks, particularly in the bulkheads to
the oil storage tanks. This is commonly referred to as the
“thermos bottle effect”.
To further compound the matter, the increase in the
temperature of the ballast tanks can also lead to an increased
bacterial corrosion. In this context it can also be mentioned
that bacterial corrosion can be exacerbated by the organic
OTC 16048
material. In this context it is important to remember that the
organic material could also be the protective coating.
Consequently only coating products which have been pre-
qualified should be utilised.
FPSO hull arrangement and ‘corrosion zones’
An FPSO typically consists of a number of tanks and void
spaces. The tanks may contain ballast water, stabilised oil,
unstabilised oil, slop tanks, methanol tanks and / or
combination tanks. As a result there are a number of variables
that need to be taken into consideration for each space. The
division into the three corrosion zones (upper, middle and
lower, Figure 4) as mentioned above represents a first
categorisation of the corrosion impact.
Each of these zones is further sub-categorised into
horizontal and vertical surfaces and plating and stiffening
members. Some recommended base corrosion margins are
provided in Table 4.
Recommended Corrosion Control System – Design
and Fabrication
Corrosion management for an FPSO will involve decisions
taken at various stages throughout the design and operational
phases. In this section, corrosion margins, coating systems and
cathodic protection systems are recommended along with the
corresponding decisions related to design and fabrication.
Issues related to operation are covered later.
An overview of the commercial and operational impact,
from different corrosion protection measures, is provided in
Table 3.
Selecting a corrosion model
Typically corrosion model B will be used as a basis, i.e. linear
increase in corrosion wastage over time. However, based on
the various operational influences provided in Table 2, it may
be prudent to adjust the corrosion model and select the
expected corrosion rate based on Table 1. Consequently there
is a need to evaluate the total impact of the environmental
conditions and the operational factors when establishing the
desired corrosion margin.
Design corrosion margins
Corrosion allowances for traditional ship designs are based on
10-year service and are provided in various Classification
Society standards, e.g. DNV Rules for Ships/3/.
Utilising the corrosion rates given in Table 1, the general
ballast tank corrosion allowance will be in the range from
1mm to 3.5mm for one sided corrosion exposures. For
members with two sided corrosion exposure the corrosion
allowance will be in the range of 2mm to 7mm.
To apply these corrosion rates to account for corrosion
over a 20 year service would result in twice the values for the
10-year service, which is typically an unrealistic approach.
An analytical approach to corrosion control could be as
follows:
Utilise corrosion allowance as a safety factor for critical
items,
Plan and implement a corrosion protection system to
avoid corrosion wastage, and
Develop an appropriate IMR plan to ensure correct and
consistent coating maintenance and anode retrofitting.
3
As indicated above the optimal approach to FPSO
maintenance is to ensure adequate corrosion protection and,
thereby, avoid corrosion wastage. With this approach a
corrosion allowance is not needed. However, a corrosion
allowance based on a 10-year service or any arbitrary selected
value may be used as a safety factor in the design (e.g. 2mm
for a one sided exposure). These may be used as a safety
factor for critical structural members and/or for structural
members exposed under such corrosive exposure conditions as
indicated in Table 2.
As guidance, annual corrosion rates for different zones,
orientations and structural types are provided in Table 4.
These rates can be multiplied by the corresponding time as
deemed appropriate for the project, e.g. 10 years for an FPSO
to be maintained on station for 20 years.
Selection of an average or a maximum corrosion rate
should correspond with the corrosion model, as discussed
above. For example the average corrosion rates given in Table
4 are appropriate for models A and B while the maximum
corrosion rates may be used for model C.
For evaluating other tanks, e.g. chemicals, sludge and in
void spaces, the factors mentioned in Table 2 along with the
properties for the given chemical or cargo need to be
considered.
Coating systems
Quality of the coating applied at the new building stage will be
the deciding factor for the subsequent maintenance during
operation.
A high performance coating will provide a long service life
and result in the minimum maintenance (Table 3). The high
performance coating will imply high initial costs. However,
the benefit will be the optimal life cycle cost for the operation
of the FPSO. The implication of this is that coating
maintenance requires close attention to planning logistics to
ensure adequate coating quality. The repercussions for
inadequate coating maintenance work can be an exceedingly
short service life of the corrosion protection performance
and/or rapidly increasing maintenance/repair costs.
For example, a high performance corrosion protection
system costs can be around US$4 to 8 million for a VLCC-
sized newbuilding FPSO compared to US$ 1 to 2 million for a
low quality coating system (based on surface area of 200,000
m2). The costs for re-coating only one tank (2000m2 at 3 times
the cost of work at a dockyard) during operation can be around
US$100,000 to US$200,000. If you also consider the impact
from lost production, then could easily imply $5,000,000
delayed revenue (10% of 200,000 bopd at $25/bbl for 10
days).
Some typical coating systems used by the marine industry
are listed in Table 5. In the case of the Coating I (200 µm, one
coat system), this is only expected to have a service life
between 2 and 8 years. Consequently the need for
maintenance coating will be manifested by coating breakdown
early in the service life of the FPSO and for the Coating
System I it can be expected to result in extensive maintenance
needs over a 20+ year service life.
It is important to be aware that coating of an FPSO is a
very complex process which represents a considerable
workload and logistics task in the yard. A successful coating
application work will require extensive planning before
4 OTC 16048
contracting and follow up/inspection during coating work.
Normally this is not part of the Classification Society’s scope
of work, unless specifically requested as a part of the contract
or additional class notation, e.g. DNV COAT III/4/.
Quality control of the surface preparation and application
is essential to ensure that the applied coating system will
provide the expected performance. A high performance
coating can best be ensured by using an experienced third
party coating inspector during the FPSO fabrication period.
It is important be aware that a high quality coating can be
best achieved at a yard as compared to the quality which can
be expected for maintenance on the FPSO in service. This is
related to the possible complexities for the working conditions
and ability to achieve desirable climatic conditions when
executing maintenance on an FPSO in service.
Cathodic protection
Sacrificial anodes provide cathodic protection (CP) in the part
of the ballast tanks which are submerged .The design of the
CP system is done based on providing protection for a given
service life. Sacrificial can here be retrofitted during the
service life. Optimal corrosion protection can be achieved by
combining CP with a coating system.
For the external hull, the protection will be a combination
of coating and sacrificial anodes, which is necessary to
achieve a 20 year service life. For the external hull there are
two alternatives:
Sacrificial anodes, or
Impressed current protection.
The industry practice varies; some operators prefer
impressed current anodes while others prefer sacrificial
anodes. Although advantages and disadvantages exist for both
systems, the critical issue is to plan for a needed refurbishment
of the anode system at the end of the FPSO service life.
Cathodic protection: External hull
The external hull can be protected by either sacrificial or
impressed current anodes.
The service life of the FPSO will imply that the external
coating on the hull may show significant breakdown. This will
imply that the cathodic protection current demand will be
highest at the end of the service life.
It needs to be established how the sacrificial anodes and/or
the impressed current anodes shall be maintained or retrofitted
to ensure adequate cathodic protection also at the end of the
service life of the FPSO.
For the external hull, retrofitting anodes can be expected
towards the final 5 to 10 years of the service life. Independent
of the original installed cathodic protection system, sacrificial
or impressed current systems can be applied. The choice will
depend on selecting the optimal solution.
Cathodic protection: Internal hull
The ballast tanks of an FPSO will be protected by coatings and
cathodic protection in the areas submerged in seawater.
For ballast tanks the benefit for replacement of zinc
sacrificial anodes needs to be considered at every scheduled
point in the maintenance planning.
A combination of coating and cathodic protection can
ensure a 20 year corrosion protection service life.
Only sacrificial anodes are allowed in tanks with zinc
anodes primarily being in ballast tanks.
A high performance coating will reduce the depletion of
the anode by a factor of between 10 and 20, which can provide
significant weight and inspection savings. A low performance
coating system will only achieve a factor of approximately 3
to 5.
The tank bottom of a ballast tank is a critical area for
pitting type corrosion. It is important to ensure that anodes are
retrofitted in the tank bottoms to ensure full protection during
the service of the FPSO.
Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Strategies
A corrosion protection design can only be cost effective if a
corresponding IMR program is prepared and implemented. An
overview of the IMR program corresponding to the corrosion
design is presented in Table 3.
Specific aspects related to dealing with corrosion margins,
coating protection and cathodic protection are described
below.
Corrosion margins
With a good corrosion protection design the FPSO global
strength may be based on a gross thickness approach. A net
thickness (gross minus corrosion margin) approach may be
considered for local strength calculations (see /5/ for further
details).
As described above, it was recommended to use corrosion
margins as an additional level of safety should there be a
breakdown in either the coating or cathodic protection
systems.
Generally there is a poor link between what corrosion
margins were used during design and what thickness loss may
be accepted during operation. If pitting intensity is less than
20% then a localized 40% loss in thickness may be accepted.
If the pitting intensity is greater than 20% then only localized
20% loss in thickness is acceptable. For main deck and bottom
plating with 0.4L a thickness of 20% is acceptable provided
adequate buckling strength remains.
The current large newbuilding FPSO designs have
extremely large stillwater bending moments that dominate the
global strength design/6/ and so the buckling criteria can easily
govern. Therefore, it is important to develop, during the
design phase, a summary of the corrosion margins used as this
is an important reference document for IMR program. Such
information can then be loaded into a 3D graphical database,
such as DNV’s Field Lifecycle Manager, to facilitate rapid
decision making when thickness measurements are made.
Coating protection
Maintenance coating for an FPSO requires close attention to
planning logistics to ensure adequate coating quality. The
repercussions for inadequate coating maintenance work can be
an exceedingly short service life of the corrosion protection
performance.
The maintenance strategies focus on the coating
maintenance and the basic philosophy is that corrosion
wastage (general corrosion) is not considered a problem when
the coating breakdown is in the range 3-20% (see Figure 5 for
examples of degrees of rusting on painted steel surfaces).
However, to ensure that corrosion wastage does not become a
concern, it is then necessary to plan that the coating
maintenance be carried out prior to a 20% coating breakdown
situation.
OTC 16048
Since there are many variables that can impact the
performance of the coating system it is difficult to reliably
develop accurate performance prediction models, such as
CoatInsp. However, a coating breakdown of less than 3%
within the first 2 to 3 years of operation typically indicates that
the coating will function adequately for an extended service
life.
As a part of the cost optimization of the corrosion
protection system, it is also important to understand the
relationship between coating condition and corresponding
Class survey action, as shown in Table 6. If the general
corrosion breakdown exceeds 20% then annual inspection is
required, which requires that tank to be taken off line, cleaned,
gas freed and made available for inspection. This can be an
expensive process, particularly when you consider the impact
from lost production.
The selected maintenance coating product needs to be
qualified or to have documented performance. In this context
the service life of the maintenance system needs to be
considered. The alternative systems for coating maintenance
for ballast tanks and cargo tanks are given in Table 7 and
Table 8, respectively.
For maintenance coating the following characteristics
should be documented:
Adequate corrosion protection
Need for qualification* (e.g. base system type as given in
Table 7 and Table 8)
Establish compatibility with existing coating
Requirement for surface preparation (e.g. can be applied
on humid surface?)
Application conditions (e.g. minimum application
temperature).
Curing period and curing period between coats
Number of coats to provide full coating thickness.
* sufficient.
DNV has established a qualification testing for ballast
coatings, ref. /4/.
The requirement for surface preparation (e.g. use of water
jetting or alternatives to dry blast cleaning) can represent
considerable cost savings for the execution of the maintenance
coating.
The maintenance coating systems can be hard
coatings/paints (e.g. epoxy mastic, epoxy tar, polyurethane) or
semi-hard coatings (e.g. variable chemistry). The hard
coatings will have a possible service life in the range from 5 to
20 years. Semi hard coatings may have a lower surface life
than a traditional paint. This will depend mainly on the coating
formulation and surface treatment type. However the "semi-
hard" coatings will generally require less rigorous surface
preparation.
Cathodic protection maintenance
Replacement of anodes needs to be considered as the
initial anodes approach the end of their service life. This can
be determined by measuring the potential as described in
Table 9. Colour coding for the measured potential may be
used to highlight the critical areas in a 3D graphical database,
such as DNV’s Field Lifecycle Manager.
For ballast tanks the maintenance may also be based on a
visual inspection of the empty tank. At a point where the
5
anode mass is reduced by about 80% the anode needs to be
replaced.
For the external hull the need for maintenance of the
anodes/impressed current system requires planning at the
design stage. This is necessary to ensure that anode retrofitting
can be achieved in a cost effective manner as needed during
the service life of the system
Conclusions
Corrosion design, implementation and management during
operation for a newbuilding FPSO intended for a 20 year
service life remains a major challenge. However, the key
parameters and gudinelines for achieving a cost effective
corrosion protection system has been established in this paper.
The key points are as follows:
There are many different environmental factors that
influence corrosion and these need to be understood in
order to select an appropriate corrosion control system.
A combination of coating, cathodic protection and
corrosion allowance is recommended for newbuilding
FPSOs.
High performance coating systems (COAT III) are
recommended as a cost effective solution due to their life
cycle cost advantages.
Quality control of the coating application during
fabrication and maintenance is critical to ensuring that it
functions as planned.
A coating breakdown of less than 3% within the first 5
years generally indicates that the coating system will
function adequately for an extended service life.
Corrosion allowances are primarily required as an
additional safety factor if a good quality painting system
is applied and maintained. In this case a corrosion
allowance based on a 10-year service is considered
New probabilistic methods and tools (CoatInsp) have
been developed that facilitate the development of a cost-
optimal coating protection system.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Kari Lønvik and Gudfinnur Sigurdsson for
their assistance and technical support related to materials,
probabilistic modelling and RBI.
6 OTC 16048

References
/1/ Westwood, John.; “The Prospects for the World
Deepwater Market”, DOT 2002
/2/ Paik, J. K., Lee J. M., Hwang, J. S.; “A Time-
Dependent Corrosion Wastage Model for the Structures
of Single and Double Hulled Tankers and FSOs and
FPSOs”, Marine Technology, Vol. 40, No.3, July 2003,
pp. 201-217
/3/ DNV Rules for Ships, “Part 3 Chapter 1 Section 2 Table
D1”, January 2003.
/4/ DNV Classification Notes 33.1, “Corrosion Prevention
Of Tanks And Holds”, July 1999.
/5/ MacMillan, A., “Effective FPSO/FSO Hull Structural
Design”, OTC 13212, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April – 3
May, 2001.
/6/ Terpstra, T. and MacMillan, A., “FPSO Design and
Conversion: A Designer’s Approach”, OTC 13210,
Houston, TX, USA, 30 April – 3 May, 2001.
/7/ DNV Technical report BGN-R3600197 , 29 May 2000
OTC 16048 7

Coating Degradation Models Including Inspection findings (Best Estimats)

100 %

Q =1 - Coating brakedown (%)

98 %

96 %

94 % Initial Model
Updated Model Coating Quality
92 % Updated Model Coating Quality
'Measured Model'
Model for repaired area
90 % Updated Model for intact area
Measured Coating Quality
88 %
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years from Installation

Figure 1 A simplistic model of corrosion wastage as a function of

Figure 2 Coating Degradation Models
time

Target PoF = 1.0E-01 T_3 | N1_N2

(failure = Re-Coating)
T_2 | N1 T_3 | N1_R2
2011
T_3 | N1_C2

T_3 | R1_N2

Coating Year Planning Year T_1 T_2 | R1 T_3 | R1_R2

2000 2000 2009 2013
T_3 | R1_C2

T_3 | C1_N2

T_2 | C1 T_3 | C1_R2

2014
T_3 | C1_C2

Figure 3 Event Tree used for prediction of condition based inspection intervals. Alternatives are dictated by inspection result leading to
alternative N (no action), R (Repair) or C (reCoat).

Upper
Zone

Middle
Ballast Cargo Cargo Cargo Ballast Zone
Tank Tank Tank Tank Tank

Lower
Zone

Figure 4 Corrosion zones for a typical double side / single bottom FPSO cargo region
8 OTC 16048

Figure 5 Evaluating the degree of rusting on painted steel surfaces (ASTM D 610-85)
OTC 16048 9

Table 1 General reference corrosion rate ranges for ballast and cargo tanks
Types of corrosion Effect on the general corrosion rate of low alloy steel
Average range in seawater ballast tanks (upper to lower zone): 0.08 to 0.35 m/year
General corrosion rates
Average range in cargo tanks (upper to lower zone): 0.04 to 0.12 mm/year
Average pitting rates can be from 0.5 to more than 1.0 mm/year in ballast tanks
Pitting corrosion rates often in conjunction with bacterial corrosion. (typically in the lower zone)
Pitting rates can be between 0.1 and 0.5 mm/year in cargo tanks.

Table 2 Operational factors and their influence on general corrosion rates

Operational Effect on the general corrosion rate of low alloy steel
Influence Factor
A temperature increase of 10°C will double the corrosion rate if other conditions are constant (e.g. based on an ambient
Temperature
temperature of 20ºC)
The corrosion rate will increase linearly with the oxygen content. However the oxygen solubility in seawater decreases with
Oxygen in the seawater
increasing temperature.
7.9 to 3.9 ml/l
Corrosion rate (µm/year) = 21.3 + 25.4 (O2 ,ml/l) + 0.356 (temp. °C)
Salinity of the seawater Marginal or no effect on corrosion. (Oxygen solubility in seawater is reduced slightly with increasing salinity. While
0
32 to 36 /00 increasing salinity will reduce seawater resistivity).
0 Chlorinity is related to the salinity by:
Chlorinity, /00
Salinity = 0.03 + 1.805 * chlorinity
Increasing flow rate will increase the corrosion rate. For a constant flow velocity V, m/s the corrosion rate will have a
Flow effect relationship:
0.6
Corr. Rate (µm/year)= constant + constant * V
Tank sloshing or wave Increased corrosion rate. The increase will depend on the tenacious/protective effect of the rust deposit on the steel
action surface.
Sulfides in small amounts (ppm –level) can cause dramatic increase in the general corrosion effects. The presence of
Sulfide pollution in the in
sulfides may also indicate microbiological corrosion (Sulphate Reducing Bacteria)
the seawater
NOTE : Sulfides may also initiate more insidious corrosion forms e.g. sulfide cracking corrosion mechanisms
Residual chlorine in The presence of residual chlorine (0.5 to 1 ppm) in the ballast water will increase the general corrosion by about 100%.
ballast water
In a tank with no free water the corrosion of steel will be negligible at humidity values below 60%.
Humidity The amount of water in the atmosphere increases with increasing temperature. For high temperatures, e.g. 30°C and
0 to 100% above, the humidity will lead to condensation in diurnal cycles in tropical and sub-tropical climates as the humidity will
become higher than 100% at least during the night.
Rust deposits Rust can effect the progressive corrosion in basically the three ways: Models A, B and C (Figure 1).
Coating will mitigate the corrosion in the areas were it acts as a barrier to water. The corrosion rate in an area with coating
Coating damage damage exposing bare steel will be as for the corrosion rate on any bare steel. Consequently exacerbated corrosion at
coating damaged areas may occur, but is not the common effect.
A temperature increase of 10°C will double the corrosion rate, if other conditions are constant. This can result in corrosion
Temperature gradients
rates of around 0.4 mm/year.
(e.g. due to hot
Corrosion mitigation require adequate coating, which implies a coating system which is qualified for such high temperature
bulkheads)
service (cyclic temperatures up to about 60°C).
Properties of the oil in the The oil may contain a separate water phase. This water phase may be acidic. An acidity in the water phase (pH < 5) needs
storage tanks: water cut to be considered as this will cause serious corrosion of bare steel.
“Sour oil” contains sulphides that may initiate localized corrosion forms, particularly in the tank bottom. Sulphides can also
Oil: “Sour”
lead to the insidious corrosion forms which leads to cracking (e.g. hydrogen induced cracking)
Oil: “Sweet” “Sweet” oil contains CO2 which results to increased acidity in the water phase.
The practice and procedures for cargo washing should be considered also in relation to the possible effect on the corrosion
Cargo washing
and corrosion protection measures status of the tank.
Sludge tanks The accumulation of sludge/deposits in tanks can be expected to exacerbate bacterial corrosion in the tank bottom

Table 3 Basic consideration for corrosion protection design and management for an FPSO hull
Corrosion protection design
High performance
Standard performance
IMR approach Commercial implications
Low inspection volume for 20 years.
Predictable and reliable behaviour. Imply higher initial costs.
Low maintenance Low costs of inspection and maintenance
No steel repair
High inspection volume for 20 years.
Increasing inspection frequency with time
Predictable behaviour.
High maintenance costs after about 10 years
Extensive maintenance after 10 years
10 OTC 16048

Table 4 Corrosion rates: General experience values for structural members

Structural member Ballast tanks Cargo holds
(Vertical r= v) Avg. rate Max. rate Avg. rate Max. rate
(horizontal= h) (mm/year) (mm/year) (mm/year) (mm/year)
Longitudinal elements
Deck plating (h) 0.30 0.40 0.08 0.28
Deck ,longitudinal web (v) 0.20 0.30 0.12 0.30
Side shell, upper 2m (v) 0.35 0.40 - -
Side shell , middle zone (v) 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.18
Side shell lower 2m (v) 0.20 0.25 - -
Stringer /side long. web (h) 0.35 0.40 0.04 0.18
Longitudinal bhd, upper 2m(v) 0.25 0.35 -
Longitudinal bhd ,middle zone (v) 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.22
Longitudinal bhd ,lower 2m (v) 0.20 0.25 - -
Longitudinal bhd, web (h) 0.35 0.40 0.04 0.21
Bottom plating (h) 0.20 0.25 0.08 0.53
Bottom long. web (h) 0.30 0.35 0.04 0.11
Transverse bulkheads
Transverse bhd plating (v) upper 2m 0.4 0.45 0.10
Transverse bhd vertical stiffener web 0.4 0.45 0.05
(v),middle zone
Transverse bhd horizontal stringer web 0.3 0.35 0.1
(h),lower 2m

Table 5 Typical coating system for marine service

Coating No. Typical coating system Coating thickness Expected service life
Nominal Dry Film Thickness
(number of coats)
I Epoxy based 200 microns (1) 5 ± 3 years
II Epoxy based 300 microns (2) 10 ± 3 years
III Epoxy based * 300 – 400 microns (2-3) ≥ 15 ± 3 years
* Require a surface with a measure salt content of less than 50mg/m2 on the substrate before coating

Table 6 Impact of coating condition on Class surveys

Coating breakdown Rating Class inspection consequence
Minor spot rusting Good Intermediate/renewal survey
Light rusting over > 20% Fair Intermediate/renewal survey
General breakdown > 20% and hard scale > 10% Poor Annual survey required
OTC 16048 11

Table 7 Maintenance coating and service life for ballast tanks (ref. /7/)
Service life Pre-treatment Coating system Comments
(years) Alternatives
Removal of mud, oil and grease.
Apply as:
Fresh water hosing - Epoxy mastic (surface tolerant)
1x stripe coat
5±3 High pressure hydro-jetting - Epoxy tar
2 x coats
Drying - Semi hard coating
= 300 µm DFT
Surface treatment to Sa 2
Removal of mud, oil and grease.
Fresh water hosing - Epoxy high build Apply as:
Removal of water - Epoxy mastic 1x stripe coat
Drying by means of dehumidifiers (surface tolerant) 1 coat
10 ± 3
Climatic control -Epoxy tar 1x stripe coat
Blast cleaning to Sa 2 ½ -Poly urethane tar 1x coat
The chloride content on surface to be coated shall be within the = 300 µm DFT
limits set by the coating manufacturer.
Removal of mud, oil and grease. Apply as:
Fresh water hosing -Epoxy high build 1x stripe coat
Removal of water -Epoxy mastic 1 coat
Drying by means of dehumidifiers (surface tolerant) 1x stripe coat
15 ± 3
Climatic control -Epoxy tar 1x coat
Blast cleaning to Sa 2 ½ -Poly urethane tar 1x stripe coat
The chloride content on surface to be coated shall be less than 50 1x coat
mg/m2 according to the Bresle method. = 450 µm DFT
Apply as:
-Epoxy high build 1x stripe coat
-Epoxy mastic 1 coat
As for 15 ± 3 years ,but pre-treatment and environmental control
(surface tolerant) 1x stripe coat
> 15 should by optimal and in full compliance with the requirement to
-Epoxy tar 1x coat
Sa 2 ½ for a surface with minimal pitted areas
-Poly urethane tar 1x stripe coat
1x coat
= 450 µm DFT

Table 8 Maintenance coating and service life for cargo holds (ref. /7/)
Service life Pre-treatment Coating system Comments
(years) Alternatives*
-Vinyl Epoxy’s applied:
Removal of mud, oil and grease.
-Chlorinated rubber 1x stripe coat
Fresh water hosing
-Epoxy mastic 1x coat
5±3 High pressure hydro-jetting
(surface tolerant) 1x stripe coat
Drying
-Polyurethane 1 x coat
Brushing to St 3 or blast cleaning to Sa 2 ½
-Epoxy HB = 300 µm DFT
Epoxy’s applied:
-Vinyl 1x stripe coat
Removal of mud, oil and grease.
-Chlorinated rubber 1x coat
Fresh water hosing
-Epoxy mastic 1x stripe coat
10 ± 3 High pressure hydro-jetting
(surface tolerant) 1x coat
Drying
-Polyurethane 1x stripe coat
Blast cleaning to Sa 2 ½
-Epoxy HB 1 x coat
= 450 µm DFT
Glass flake
Removal of mud, oil and grease. As for 10 ±3 years or:
applied:
Fresh water hosing -Epoxy glass flake
1x coat
> 10 High pressure hydro-jetting -Polyester glass flake
1x stripe coat
Drying Zinc epoxy
1 x coat
Blast cleaning to Sa 2 ½ Zinc silicate
= 400 µm DFT
*
Coating selected to be appropriate for the given cargo to be carried

Table 9 Anode replacement decision table

Measured Potential (mV) Colour code Action
Ag/AgCl
More negative than-900 Green Leave
More positive than -900 Amber Monitor and plan for retrofit
more positive than -800 Red Replace immediately