Corrosion

A journal of the Institute of Corrosion

Issue 153 January/February 2020 Management

Transmission
Pipelines

See what’s The latest issues

groundbreaking in explored in our
Innovative Products Technical Article series
Page 13 Page 16
Corrosion Management

FOR ALL THE LATEST CORROSION INDUSTRY JOBS

VISIT THE ICORR JOB BOARD
For job seekers
• Over 60 jobs currently being advertised
• Set up job alerts for immediate notifications
• Upload your CV so employers can find you
• Free to use
For employers
• Place your job in front of our highly qualified members
• Over 10,000 visitors every month
• Fill your jobs quickly with great talent

For more information contact

All sustaining members Jonathan Phillips on
receive a 15% discount O 0114 273 0132
m jonathan@squareone.co.uk
2 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
Contents
Issue 153 January/February 2020

4 14 25
The President Writes Technical Article
Ask the Expert The Future of Ship Painting
4
Institute News 16 30
Technical Article Sustaining Members
10 Study of stockpiled fusion bond epoxy
Industry News coated pipe
32
12 22 Diary Dates

Fellow’s Corner Technical Article

An overview of energy pipeline integrity
13 management, a way to future asset
management strategies
Innovative Products

Published on behalf of the Institute of Corrosion Editorial copy date for March/April 2020 Tel: 01604 438222
Square One Advertising and Design Limited issue is: Email: admin@icorr.org
Neepsend Triangle Business Centre, Unit 8, 13th March 2020 Website: www.icorr.org
1 Burton Street, Sheffield, S3 8BW. Subscriptions All rights reserved Reproduction without written permission from the
Publisher and Managing Editor UK £70.00 Institute of Corrosion is prohibited. Views expressed in editorial text or
Debbie Hardwick Europe £80.00 advertising copy are the opinions of the contributors/advertisers and
Tel: 0114 273 0132 Outside Europe £90.00 airmail are not those of the Institute or the Publisher.
Email: debbie@squareone.co.uk £80.00 surface mail ISSN: 13 55 52 43
Consulting Editor Enquiries and subscriptions to the Institute of Corrosion at the address
below:
Brian Goldie
The Institute of Corrosion This publication is Recyclable.
Email: brianpce@aol.com
President
Design
Gareth Hinds
Square One Advertising & Design
Past President
www.squareone.co.uk
Sarah Vasey
Advertising Manager
Hon. Secretary
Jonathan Phillips
Dr. Jane Lomas
Tel: 0114 273 0132
Fax: 0114 272 1713
Email: jonathan@squareone.co.uk Institute of Corrosion, Corrosion House,
5 St Peters Gardens, Marefair,
Northampton, NN1 1SX
Institute News

The President Writes

ICorr President,
Gareth Hinds.
Shortly before Christmas, it was with great shock and sadness that I learned
of the passing of Bill Cox, a former ICorr President and a highly valued and
respected member of Council, at the age of just 69. Bill was a true stalwart
of the Institute and it was fitting to see such strong ICorr representation
at his funeral, where Stuart Lyon, Brian Wyatt and Wil Deacon spoke very
movingly about their memories of Bill. On a personal note, I will greatly
miss Bill’s friendship and support; he was the most honest and dependable
person you could ever wish to meet and his passing is a huge blow to us all.
By now you will have seen the results of our Institute rebranding initiative,
which has been applied to our website, magazine, documentation,
stationery and marketing material. I would like to thank everyone
who took the time to provide feedback via the online survey during
the summer. Your comments were taken very seriously and I hope
you will agree that MD Design Studio and Square One Advertising
& Design have done a fantastic job. The outcome will be to enhance
how the outside world views the Institute and to emphasise our role as a
vibrant professional society promoting excellence in corrosion science
and engineering.
It was a pleasure to attend the annual London Branch Christmas Luncheon
at the Royal Overseas League on 5th December. The guest speaker was
former cricket commentator Henry Blofeld (or ‘Blowers’), who kept us
very entertained with anecdotes from his long career covering Test cricket
all over the world. Alcohol and cake seemed to feature very strongly! As
usual, the Luncheon was very well attended and can only be described as
a resounding success; congratulations to the London Branch organising
committee for another outstanding event.
I’m delighted to say that we have signed an agreement with the Society
of Operations Engineers allowing them to take over the Registration of our
CEng, IEng and EngTech members with the Engineering Council. Huge
thanks are due to David Harvey and Bill Hedges for their efforts in securing
this seamless transition from the now defunct Society of Environmental
Engineers. If you had been holding off submitting an application while this
was being sorted, now is the time!
On a related note, if you hold CEng registration through ICorr (or any other
professional body) and would be willing to act as an applicant assessor or
professional review interviewer for new applicants, we would love to hear
from you! For more information on what this entails please contact David
Harvey (d.harvey@cathproconsult.co.uk).
It has also been a time of change for our Cathodic Protection training
courses, which have been completely revamped to align with the
requirements of the ISO 15257 standard. This is entirely due to the sterling
efforts of the Cathodic Protection Governing Board (CPGB), and in
particular its Chair, Jim Preston, and CP Training Scheme Manager, Brian
Wyatt. Jim and Brian have recently stepped down from these roles and I
would like to thank them sincerely on behalf of the Institute for the huge
amount of effort they have put in over the past few years. Their legacy is
that we now have a world-class training offering that will raise standards
in the industry, while safeguarding the financial stability of the Institute.
Finally, I would like to extend a warm welcome to new CPGB Chair, Chris
Spence, new CP Training Scheme Manager, Robin Bailey, and new Surface
Treatment Governing Board Chair, Keith Wagner. It’s great to see that our
conveyor belt of talent and dedication is still functioning in these busy times.
Your efforts are truly appreciated!

From the Editor

Welcome to the first issue of 2020, and the
first to show the new Institute logo. Also
the front cover shows the winner of the
Institute photo competition to find a new
image to reflect the industry we are in.
As has become usual, there are three
technical articles, with two covering
different aspects of pipeline corrosion
protection, and the third a look at what
the future holds for painting ships. Firstly,
an article from TC Energy in Canada about
the suitability of stored FBE coated pipe
segments to be used in a gas transmission
pipeline, and secondly, a look at pipeline
integrity management from Australia.
The third article looks at the areas where
coating technology developments will
be needed to meet the challenges of
protecting ships in the future.
There are also two new columns, which
will be a regular feature if the magazine –
a Fellow’s Corner, where senior members
of the Institute highlight their experiences
and offer practical advice, and a Question
& Answer column, where readers’
questions are answered by industry
experts.
I would appreciate reader’s comments on
these new columns, and you are invited to
submit technical (generic) questions for
consideration.
I can be contacted at, brianpce@aol.com
Brian Goldie, Consulting Editor

4 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org

 Institute News

Young Engineers
New Members Programme (YEP)
Welcome to our 216 new members and 15 Sustaining Company members
who joined the Institute in 2019.
The latest Young Engineer Programme kicked off on the 8th January and
TOGETHER WITH THE CONGRATULATIONS of the Institute to all the following was held at the same venue and time as the London branch meeting. Bill
members who have attained Professional Status in 2019.
Hedges gave an introduction to the programme, and a review of YEP
2018 was given by participants Caroline Allanach and Stephen Shapcott,
TECHNICIAN • Prakash Shanmugam all coordinated by Alan Denney. This year there are 32 young engineers
• Toni Gordon • Nigel John Owen taking part, compared with 14 in 2018. This is a clear indication that the
• Robin Isaac Wilson • Irving B Annan industry is healthy and on a growth spurt.
• Shaun Scholes • Agnieszka Knyter
• Craig McCann • Mohammad Faraz Muslim
• Matthew J Grindrod • Zuojia Liu
• David Bellfield • Gregory Brown
• John Stephen Rae
PROFESSIONAL • Ahmed Amin Abdel-
• Mahmoud Hasan Rahman Ali
Daghestani • Mahalingam Ganesan
• Keith M Wagner • Santhosh Nagarajan
• Ricardo Ocampo Ramos • Richard Barker
• Yousef Abdulrahman Obeid • Kevin Harold
• David Wright • Tamer Ibrahim Ahmed
• Bilal Ahsan Mohamed
• Mahesh Panchal • Danny Burkle
• Man Mohan Waghey • Sherif Abdel Hamid Helmy The first talk was given by Dr Jane Lomas, and dealt with the “Basics of
• Syed Umair Niaz Bukhari • Syed Sajid Ali Qadri Corrosion” as the lead into the series of nine lectures throughout the
• Tarek Hamada Farghaly • Mohamed Fawzy year. The programme will culminate on 12 November when the YEP
candidates will present their solutions to the case study at the London
• Barathkumar Krishnan Mohamed Omar
branch meeting at the Royal Overseas.
• Mohamed Saad Eldieb • Mustafa Hashim The young engineers then had time to talk to the established engineers
• Emmanuel Alenkhe attending the LB meeting over refreshments.
• Ahmed Shafik Badawy FELLOW
• Luigi Petrone • Nigel David Strike
• Alaa Attia Abdel Razek • Kuppili Prabhakhara Rao
INTERNATIONAL CORROSION CONTROL INC.
• Aqeel Ul Qadar Ahmed • Mohammed A Al-Anezi
INTERPROVINCIAL CORROSION CONTROL COMPANY LTD.
• Mohamed Mohamed • Marcello Angelo Biagioli
Industry Leaders … since 1957
Mukhtar • Emmanuel Marcus
• Nigel Ratcliffe • Basanta Kumar Lenka
• Jaison Wilson Lobo • Aftab Fakhruddin Khan
• Thamizhanban Dhanapal • Yunnan Gao
• Hugh P O’Neill • Joseph Itodo Emmanuel Rustrol Cathodic Isolator
® ®

effectively blocks the DC current

• Fahad Muhammad • David Horrocks
needed for cathodic protection,
• Ahmed Magdy Wahba • Richard Green while providing grounding path for:
Mahgoub • Sarah Vasey
• AC Fault Currents
• Naveed Hassan
• Muhammad Umer HON FELLOW • Lightning Protection
• Jonathan Wilmshurst-Smith • David W Harvey • Mitigation of Induced AC Voltages
• Power Switching Surge Currents
Cathodic Isolator features
®

electronic/electrical construction
that responds instantly, protecting

For all the latest personnel and equipment against

electrical shock hazards.

news, events and ATEX

debates join us on E-mail: Contact@Rustrol.com

Central Fax: 905-333-4313

www.Rustrol.com
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 5
Institute News

ICATS News
Mr Steve Barke, the Managing Director of CORREX (which manages the ICATS
programme), retired in December 2019 after several years at the helm. Steve
took up the reigns at CORREX during a time of change and created much
needed stability and new enthusiasm during this most important phase of
ICATS. Kevin Harold, was appointed as the new MD effective from 1st January
2020, and Steve will remain on the CORREX board and continue to help during
2020.
Towards the end of 2019, meetings were held between CORREX, IMechE and
Hodge Clemco, which culminated in the creation of a new ICATS ‘Approved
Training Centre’ in Sheffield. The ICATS courses will be delivered in Sheffield
starting early 2020, with the theoretical aspects being taught at IMechE and
the practical aspects of the courses held two miles down the road at the equally
superb facilities of Hodge Clemco.
I think you will agree as a collaboration this has the ‘hallmark’ of quality written
all over it.
ICATS Apprenticeship Update
The new Industrial Coatings Apprenticeship scheme started at the beginning
of 2019 with CORREX (ICorr) providing the technical information, DN Colleges
supplying the mandatory apprentice information and Jack Tighe would deliver
the whole package. This was the first Industrial Coating Apprenticeship ever
(in the UK).
Training continued throughout 2019, with a second wave of students started
training during the summer of 2019. The first students will complete their
apprentice training in May/June of 2020 and our industry will have the first ever
qualified, industrial coating applicators apprentices.
Corrosion and Protective Coatings
Management, CPCM course
The CPCM course (previously the ‘managers course’) was launched in 2019. It
was created for managers and engineers or anyone involved in management of
protective coating applications, but who didn’t have the best understanding
of what the Industrial Coating Applicator, ICA, was really doing. The one-day
course takes attendees on a journey of the ICA and includes, H&S, preparation
techniques, ISO standards, paint technology and paint faults. The course has
been presented a number of times during 2019, and in fact has proved so
popular that it is soon to be mandated for all trainees and apprentices at the
Sellafield Nuclear Facility, thereby bridging the gap between management and
applicators. By the time this issue goes to print the latest course would have
been delivered, exciting times.
The ICATS Family
ICATS continues to grow in the UK, with new companies joining, new trainers
teaching, many more safe applicators on our projects, plus three new approved
training centres in 2019.
ICATS has some representation overseas, but the family is about to grow with
our delivery partner, IMechE, who have global distribution of many courses that
includes Painting Inspection and NDT testing. IMechE will be expanding the
ICATS family on a global basis during 2020 under the direction of Director Mr
Chris Kirby and his team in Sheffield.
Dates for your diary
For those requiring a company trainer certification, the next ICATS Company
Trainer Course will be held on 31st March - 1st April at Corrosion House,
Northampton. This course teaches presentation skills, tests knowledge and
demonstration of the ICATS ICA, Industrial Coating Applicator course and the
ICATS Sprayer and Blaster specialist modules.
The next Supervisor course is on the 25th and 26th of February at Corrosion
House. The supervisor course is now mandated in many places/industries
including Highways.
Finally, the next Corrosion and Protective Coatings Management course
(CPCM) is on the 2nd of April, also at Corrosion House.
Up-to date course information can be found at www.icats-training.org/

Corrosion Engineering Division working day

The 2020 Corrosion Engineering Division working day meeting will
be held at the National Railway Museum Conference Centre, York,
on Wednesday 29 April 2020, on the subject of ‘Corrosion Control
in Transport and Infrastructure’. The meeting will follow the normal
format of a series of invited lectures combined with working group
meetings, and the presentation of the Paul McIntyre award to the
2020 winner. There will also be an opportunity to view the impressive
range of vintage steam engines in the museum. An information and
registration leaflet is included in this issue of Corrosion Management,
and exhibition space will be available for hire.

New Sustaining Member

DEV4 Online Ltd
Dev4.online have been

Visit the
working with Engineering
companies across the globe
since 2004, designing and
building bespoke software

ICATS website
applications. They are the custodians of www.CONDI.online, which is a
web application for managing corrosion on large structures, such as oil
rigs, vessels and bridges. CONDi was designed with the collaboration
of many companies in the oil and gas industry who have a wealth of
experience in external corrosion management, and was built by a team
of software developers who have worked predominantly in the corrosion
industry over the last 10 years.
www.icats-training.org
6 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org

New Sustaining Member
Hodge Clemco Ltd
Hodge Clemco Ltd is a UK based
manufacturer and supplier of blast
cleaning machines, surface preparation equipment and abrasives. They
have two manufacturing sites in Sheffield for both equipment and abrasives,
and an extensive distribution and stockist network. Hodge Clemco’s wide
manufacturing and service capability includes; portable blast machines,
expendable and recyclable abrasives, plastic and Envirasponge media
and equipment, blast room installations, grit recycling systems, bespoke The latest reports from the various branches are given below.
engineered solutions, blast cabinets, PPE and spares, servicing and
training.
Incorporated in 1959, Hodge Clemco have developed into a market
leader in the surface finishing industry. Their products are used every day in
many prestigious installations for the Ministry of Defence, Lockheed Martin,
BAE, BP, Shell and Rolls Royce, to name but a few. Part of the 110-year-old
Samuel Hodge Group, Hodge Clemco is part of a diverse engineering
group which includes Techniquip, Victor Marine and RLBS.
ICorr Photo
Competition
As has already been announced, the Institute has a new image
and this will involve rebranding of the website, stationery,
documentation and marketing material, and of course this
magazine. To help with this new image, the Institute launched a
photo competition to find images that are people-focused and
celebrate the people that make ICorr, or capture a wide range of
activities, such as people networking, working on-site, people in
labs, people inspecting, or people achieving accreditations and
awards, rather than tired-looking images of rusty components
previously used. The designers were looking for uplifting photos
of pristine, gleaming infrastructure to emphasise that our members
get things right!
The winning photo of an under-deck inspection on an offshore
wind turbine jacket, picked by a panel of ICorr judges, was
submitted by Simon Dunn, Dangle Ltd, and is featured on the cover
of this issue of the magazine. It will also feature on the landing
page backdrop of the rebranded website.
Visit the ICorr website
for all the latest news
www.icorr.org
Institute News
Local Branch News
The local branches offer a great opportunity to meet and network with
others in the corrosion protection industry, and the technical presentations
and seminars are an excellent way of keeping informed of the latest
developments in corossion mitigation, as well contributing to an individual
member’s professional development requirements, which are an essential
requisite for those seeking and maintaining chartered status. The local
branches need your support, and on this subject, North East branch is
looking for a new chair person – if you are interested in this, please contact:
icorrne@hotmail.com
Aberdeen Branch
The branch held its 4th event of the 2019/2020 session at its usual venue,
RGU, with a presentation on “The Application of bismuth based alloys to
address Oilfield challenges” by, Paul Carragher (BiSN), Lance Underwood
(BiSN) and Angus MacLeod (BP).
This was a highly successful joint presentation with IOM3 – The Institute of
Materials, Metals and Mining, which has recently celebrated its 150 year
anniversary.
The BiSN speakers discussed in detail their Wel-Lok sealing technology
which utilises a unique combination of a thermite powered chemical heater
and a bismuth based alloy to deliver an efficient down hole sealing capability,
using standard oilfield deployment methods.
The thermite heater provides the energy to melt the bismuth alloy in situ,
allowing the heavy liquid alloy to flow by gravity to the desired location. As
the bismuth alloy cools, it expands on solidification to provide a seal.
Paul Carragher started BiSN in 2010 with the insight to develop new and
innovative sealing solutions for the oil & gas industry, and explained the use
of bismuth in downhole sealing applications
Lance Underwood, Principal Engineer at BiSN Oil Tools, who has has over
30 years of experience in the industry, then provided further insights into the
development of new technologies for plugs for oil wells, covering materials
selection, downhole corrosion control and long-term corrosion testing
programmes.
He illustrated some of the rigorous testing requirements for downhole oilfield
tools including bits, mud-motors, turbo-drills, under-reamers, hammers, and
laser drilling.
Lance Underwood, explained the extensive Corrosion Testing Programme.
Angus MacLeod (Senior Intervention Engineer with BP), with 22 years Oil
and Gas industry experience, then followed this up with some actual case
histories from BP operations worldwide, where this technology has been
continues on page 8
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 7
Institute News
continued from page 7
Angus MacLeod highlighted the many practical applications for this new Downhole
Sealing Technology.
applied offshore, to shut off water production in open-hole gravel pack
completions, as well as the work being done to qualify the alloys, as a
permanent well abandonment material.
In his current role, Angus is responsible for developing new well technology
as part of BP’s Upstream Technology Group, primarily focussed on “Life of
Well Surveillance” and “Plug & Abandonment”.
The event generated a huge level of interest and many questions were
asked, which can be found, together with the answers, on the branch
website.
The Aberdeen Chair Stephen Tate, presented all speakers with Certificates of
Appreciation.
At the close of the meeting, the branch chairman, presented all speakers
with a Certificate of Appreciation from the branch.
Full details of future branch events can be found on the diary page of this
magazine and on the website, or by contacting: ICorrABZ@gmail.com.
Copies of the majority of past branch presentations can be found at:
https://sites.google.com/site/icorrabz/resource-center and a photo
gallery for these events is at, https://sites.google.com/site/icorrabz/
event-gallery
Particular attention is drawn to the 2020 Corrosion Awareness Day to
be held on Tuesday 25th August at, Petrofac Training Centre, Forties
Road, Montrose, Angus, DD10 9ET. The day will include several practical
demonstrations with teaching, this year themed on fabrication and external
corrosion management. Further Details about this can be obtained from
the branch Chair: Stephen Tate, email: Stephen.Tate@external.total.com
Visit the ICATS website
www.icats-training.org
8 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
London Branch
The 2019 branch luncheon proved to be another great success, as
the audience was bowled over by an enthralling guest appearance
from legendary cricket commentator Henry Blofeld OBE. The
unmistakable voice of the Test Match Special, regaled the crowd at
the Royal Overseas League in Mayfair with stories from his 45-year
career behind the mic, and his two books, which he happily signed
for guests after the lunch.
Before the 170 guests settled in the Hall of India and Pakistan for
the afternoon, the branch team of diligent raffle sellers had time to
mingle and raise an approximate £1,650, which will help fund the
future branch series of evening lectures.
The contribution from Henry was greatly appreciated, as was the
involvement of the event’s sponsors, which this year included Winn
and Coles, DuraPol, Corrosion Integrity Management, Correx,
and CTS.
The annual event also gave guests the opportunity to reflect on
those that the industry lost this year, and in particular the passing
of Bill Cox. Tributes to him were led by Institute President Gareth
Hinds, who gave a superb account of the excellent work that Bill
had done for the Institute during many years of service, which
culminated in a rousing applause that Bill would have undoubtedly
appreciated.
Preparation has already begun for the 2020 Luncheon, as well as
a possible summer ball in London 2021, which will celebrate the
25th anniversary of the of the change of name of the Institute from
the British Association of Corrosion Engineers (BACE) in 1966 to
the Institute of Corrosion Science & Technology , which was the
forerunner of the current Institute of Corrosion.
The first meeting of the branch on Wednesday 8th January
had 40 attendees and started with an introduction to the new
branding concepts for the Institute, which will be launched
in February this year, given by Marc Desmeules, who gave a
fascinating insight into the process behind designing a new logo
which was the start of the rebranding exercise.
The main technical meeting
followed which was a panel
discussion on the complexities
of internal linings, the selection
variables and the link to
design standards. The first
presentation was from Dr Nasa
Miskin from DuraPol who gave
a presentation on “Corrosion
Prevention in Acid Gas Treating
Units”, an extremely difficult
and complex environment for
David Mobbs thanking panels any lining system. This was
followed by a presentation
members, Nasa Miskin (left)
and Simon Daley (right). from Simon Daly of Hempel on
“Internal Linings; Selection Variables and Link to Design Standards”
which culminated in a discussion on the requirements for the new
ISO standard for the internal lining of process vessels.
Both presentations are available to view on the Institute of
Corrosion website.
It was a successful evening and fantastic to see both the young
engineers and branch members in discussion over refreshments
afterwards.
The March meeting will be the branch AGM, followed by the
chairman’s talk.
Please note the date, Tuesday 10th March.

Midland Branch
Following a very successful half day event and AGM in 2019, the
branch plans to start 2020 with a meeting at the end of Feb (date
and venue to be confirmed), with Prafull Sharma from corrosion
radar presenting ‘Corrosion Under Insulation online monitoring with
Electro-Magnetic Guided Radar (EMGR)’. CUI is a big issue for the
corrosion industry therefore any innovative monitoring system will be
William Michael (Bill) Cox
(14 Apr 1950 - 3 Dec 2019)
I first met Bill shortly after I joined the UMIST Corrosion and Protection
Centre in 1983. I had been interested in corrosion sensors for detection
of hydrogen, and had several discussions with him about the feasibility
of the various available corrosion detection methods (mine was
useless!). He always focussed on the argument that there was no point
knowing whether corrosion was happening unless you also were
prepared to intervene to manage the corrosion process. However, at
the time industry was more interested in repair after failure rather than
management of the processes leading to failure. Of course, being 10-
15 years’ ahead of the game Bill was exactly right and over his career
he became one of the leading figures in risk and asset management of
plant where corrosion is generally the dominant failure process.
Born in Keithley in Yorkshire, Bill was a boy soprano and chorister, he
played the piano and the guitar, he was a keen motorcyclist and owner of
a vintage BMW K100RS, a very devoted family man, and a serial speeder
in either of his two elderly Audis. He completed his undergraduate
studies in metallurgy on a sandwich course at the University of Aston
in Birmingham in 1975 during which time he met the ‘girl’ who was
later to become his wife. On completion of the programme he went
to work at the copper-nickel smelter in Selebi Phikwe in Botswana. He
loved working with hot metal and the problem solving involved with
developing the plant in harsh working conditions.
In 1978 he moved back to the UK to study for an MSc in Corrosion
Science and Engineering at the University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology (UMIST) and in the same year married Anna.
After completing his MSc he stayed on to undertake a PhD with John
Dawson on “Acid Dewpoint Corrosion”, a problem that was beginning
to become of significant commercial concern particularly in power
generation and steam-raising plant. Graduating in 1981, he linked
Institute News
very beneficial in the goal to mitigate corrosion. It is therefore likely to
be a well-attended meeting.
For any branch queries, please contact Bill Whittaker, bwhittaker@
cathodicengineering.co.uk, or Paul Segers, paul.segers@segcorr.
com
up with the Corrosion and
Protection Centre Industrial
Service (CAPCIS) to develop
expertise in, and to market,
the on-line electrochemically
based corrosion monitoring
methods that he had
pioneered during his PhD.
Working with John Dawson,
Steve Turgoose, Graham
Wood and Howard Stott
from the academic side and,
from CAPCIS and industry,
with Dave Geary, Dave
Eden, Jim Palmer, Bob Eden, Karel Hladky, Les Woolf, Dave Farrell, Paul
Bottomley, Barry Meadowcroft, Kevin Lawson, Wai Him, Wai Yeung Mok,
and many others. He rapidly developed a significant business based on
electrochemical noise instrumentation and sensors that enabled tight
process control to be introduced to minimise the conditions leading
to corrosion damage. This business eventually become Capcis-March
Ltd., for which Bill was managing and operations director - one of the
first successful companies to be spun out of UMIST. After 16 years at
Manchester he left to found Corrosion Management Ltd, promoting
his expertise in the application of advanced corrosion monitoring with
risk-based inspection and risk based maintenance technologies for the
process industries, as well as general failure investigation and litigation
work. His client base was worldwide with projects in Europe, North
America and Pacific East Asia.
A strong supporter of ICorr (as Member of Council and of the Training
and Certification Board for 20 years and President from 1996-98),
IOM3 (as Member of Council from 1993-2003), BINDT (as member of
the PCN Certification Board) and NACE (as both Member and Chair of
its International Relations Strategy Operations Committee) and was a
Fellow of all of these Institutions, the last being a singular Honour. As
well as attending (and organising) many conferences, seminars and
publishing more than 32 papers, Bill also found time to act as Technical
Advisory Editor for Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials for over 10
years, significantly increasing the journal’s profile.
Well known for his eponymous number plate “B111 COX”, acquired
after a nudge from Les Woolf, Bill directly launched and influenced
the careers of many people now in senior positions in the corrosion
industry. He was always generous with his time and was ever willing
to provide advice and mentoring to anyone who asked. Creditably, he
always did what he said he would do with energy and enthusiasm, he
was straight talking and importantly also straight doing. He is a huge
loss and we shall all miss him. The corrosion community has lost one of
its great characters.
Bill is survived by his wife Anna and daughter Ella.
With thanks to former colleagues, friends and family who corrected the
detail and supplied anecdotes too numerous to mention.
© Stuart Lyon, Corrosion@Manchester, Dept. of Materials, University of
Manchester. Licenced under CC-BY-NC
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 9
Industry News
Industry News
The President makes
the news Research news -
Smart Patch Can
In an article in The Times (Friday 17th January 2020) on the use of hydrogen
as an alternative fuel for cars, the ICorr President, Gareth Hinds, who works
Help Reduce Rust
on hydrogen technology at NPL, was quoted. Gareth noted that electric
vehicles alone are not a magic solution to reduce carbon emissions and
that hydrogen fuel also has a role to play. He also noted that the use of
hydrogen fuel cells is more suitable for heavy vehicles and longer distances,
making them a good option for freight transport.
Coatings technical
conference
ETCC2020 – the European Technical Coatings Congress, organised by
FATIPEC – Federation of Associations of Technicians for Industry of Paint
in European Countries, and SITPChem – Polish Association of Chemical
Engineers will take place on 2–4 September 2020 in Krakow, Poland.
ETCC2020 is one of the most prestigious and important technical and
scientific coatings events, creating a platform and a meeting point of
industry and science, represented by institutes and universities. The
congress creates the possibility of international co-operation and collecting
unique knowledge about the newest materials, products, processing,
equipment, research and testing. The Congress has 70 years of tradition
and will cover the latest scientific and technical achievements in paints,
coatings, adhesives and construction materials.
During the three days of the event there will be plenary presentations,
3–4 parallel sessions, poster presentations, and an exhibition. A “Summer
School” with lectures dedicated especially for young scientists and
students forms a separate part of the congress.
The speakers represent the largest companies, institutes, and universities
across Europe, as well from other countries world-wide.
Further information can be found on the congress website,
www.etcc2020.org
PRA Training Courses
Paint Technology course on 9th – 12th March 20209
This course is designed for newcomers to the industry who need
a firm foundation in the technology of surface coatings. The
comprehensive and intensive four day course will contain an overview
of the raw materials used, and their contribution to the final properties
of the coating.
Further details can be found at www.pra-world.com
10 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
Aarhus University, Denmark, has announced that researchers from
its Department of Engineering’s ICELab are developing a new,
intelligent and self-powered sensor to monitor rust found on steel
reinforcement within concrete infrastructures.
The project is being conducted in collaboration with IdemoLab, at
the technological service company FORCE Technology, Brøndby,
Denmark, and is being funded by Innovation Fund Denmark.
According to Aarhus University the current corrosion sensors used
for rust monitoring are “indicative” and “energy-demanding”
in addition to being dated, error-prone, and costing up to
roughly $5,500 per measuring point. In an effort to update the
aging technology, Associate Professor Farshad Moradi from the
University’s Department of Engineering has established project
DIGIMON, which aims to develop smart, self-powered patches for
updated corrosion monitoring.
The aim of this project is to develop a plaster sensor which is placed
on the reinforcement and moulded into the concrete construction.
The sensor and interfacing electronics will be powered by means of
energy-harvesting technologies to ensure continuous monitoring
of the condition of the steel.
Moradi further explained how the plaster sensors will work,
describing that once developed, the sensors would use ultrasonic
waves generated locally in the self-powered sensor inside the
concrete to monitor the corrosion. Once information is collected
from the developed plaster sensors, it would be sent to a central
computer to be processed.
Welding robot set
to ‘revolutionise’
pipeline repair
Forth Engineering, a Cumbrian engineering company is leading the
development of a welding robot to repair pipelines from the inside. It is
being described as a ‘world-first pipeline technology that will revolutionise
performance and safety in industries around the world’.
The FSWBot is a friction stir welding robotic crawler for internal repair and
refurbishment of pipelines, which is being developed by a consortium
led by Forth Engineering in Cumbria with UK government backing.
The consortium includes TWI, J4IC, Innvotek and London South Bank
University. The development project is due to be completed by end of
January 2021.
According to the company, the FSWBot is envisaged to be a five-segment
or six-segment PIG type vehicle which will be inserted at the production

end of an oil pipeline and will travel with the oil flow to a pre-designated
spot to perform a repair. One segment will carry the FSW machine and a
steel patch dispenser, with the other segments carrying the navigation,
control system, communications, non-destructive testing (NDT) and
power storage/generation payloads.
On entering the pipe segment containing the pre-identified defects, the
robot will stop, then slowly advance until the FSW system is in place over
the defect. It will then lock itself in place and confirm that it is correctly
located to perform the repair.
An onboard turbine in a duct within the robot will harvest energy from the
oil flow within the pipe to augment any power cells carried on the system,
with the duct providing through flow in the pipe.
Once energised, the FSW unit will deploy a milling tool to cut away the
corroded area and prepare a pocket in the pipe wall into which a steel
patch will be dispensed.
The FSW unit will then weld this patch in place and deploy the milling
system again to ensure that the patch is flush with the pipe wall and will not
initiate turbulent flow, nor impede the passage of subsequent cleaning or
inspection PIGs.
FSWBot will then deploy NDT packages to inspect the weld for quality
assurance before unclamping and moving downstream to repeat the
process on any further defects.
Corrosion under SSPC
Insulation Course
This advanced training course, based on the original CUI training material
written by Stefan Winnik, and organised by Fleming Events, will held
on 12-13 May 2020 in London, and presented by Dr Clare Watt, Keafer
Isoliertechnik, and Dr Steve Paterson, Arbeadie Consultants. The key
topics will include, understanding the key characteristics of CUI and
its management, insulation and coatings, innovative technology, case
studies, and an overview of the latest guidance.
More information can be found at, https://fleming.events/corrosion-
under-insulation/
For all the latest news, events
and debates join us on
Industry News
STANDARDS UP-DATE
ISO
The following documents have obtained substantial support within the appropriate
ISO technical committees during the past two months, and have been submitted to
the ISO member bodies for voting or formal approval.
ISO/DIS 2810 Paints and varnishes — Natural weathering of coatings
— Exposure and assessment (Revision of 2004 standard)
ISO/DIS 11127-8 Preparation of steel substrates before application of
paints and related products — Test methods for non-metallic blast-cleaning
abrasives — Part 8: Field determination of water-soluble chlorides
ISO/FDIS 22426 Assessment of the effectiveness of cathodic
protection based on coupon measurements
New international standards published during the last two months
ISO 15091 Paints and varnishes — Determination of electrical conductivity
and resistance
ISO 18086:2019 Corrosion of metals and alloys — Determination of
AC corrosion — Protection criteria
ISO 19345-1 Petroleum and natural gas industry — Pipeline transportation
systems — Pipeline integrity management specification — Part 1: Full-life
cycle integrity management for onshore pipeline
ISO 28927-1 Hand-held portable power tools — Test methods for
evaluation of vibration emission — Part 1: Angle and vertical grinders
CEN
Standards published within the last two months.
EN 14901-2 Ductile iron pipes, fittings and accessories - Requirements and
test methods for organic coatings of ductile iron fittings and accessories -
Part 2: Thermoplastic acid modified polyolefin coating
This document defines the requirements and test methods for factory
applied thermoplastic acid modified polyolefin (TMPO) coatings used
for the protection of ductile iron fittings and accessories according to EN
545, EN 598, EN 969, EN 12842 and EN 14525.
SSPC, The Society for Protective Coatings, has released four new, and three revised
technical standards.
The four new standards are:
SSPC-PA 19, “Standard for Visual Evaluation of Pinholes in a Concrete or
Masonry Coating,” which is aimed toward assisting specifiers, contractors
and inspectors with determining what is acceptable in terms of a coating
applied to concrete or masonry substrates; and
Plus a group of three standards, SSPC-SP CAB 1, “Abrasive Blast Cleaning
of Concrete and Cementitious Materials – Thorough Blast Cleaning”;
SSPC-SP CAB 2, “Abrasive Blast Cleaning of Concrete and Cementitious
Materials – Intermediate Blast Cleaning”; and SSPC-SP CAB 3, “Abrasive
Blast Cleaning of Concrete and Cementitious Materials – Brush Blast
Cleaning.” All deal with levels of surface cleanliness for blast cleaned
concrete substrates, and parallels the SSPC/NACE joint blast cleaning
standards for steel substrates.
The three revised standards are:
SSPC Guide 17, “Guide to Developing a Safety Program for Industrial
Painting and Coating Companies,” which sees changes to the original
version issued in 2007;
SSPC-Paint 20, “Zinc-Rich Coating Inorganic and Organic,” which
changes the standard from a hybrid formulation/performance-based
standard to strictly performance-based.
SSPC-Paint 40, “Zinc-Rich Moisture-Cure Polyurethane Primer,
Performance-Based,” which is a revision of the 2007 standard.
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 11
Fellow’s Corner

Fellow’s Corner
This series of features in Corrosion Management intends to highlight industry wide engineering experiences, practical opinions and guidance to allow
improved awareness for the wider public, and focused advice to practicing technologists. The series is prepared by ICorr Fellows who have made
significant contributions to the field of corrosion management with superlative past industry involvements. The first contribution in this series is “ Metallic
Materials Optimisation in Hydrocarbon Production Systems”, by Bijan Kermani, FICorr.

Metallic Materials Optimisation in Hydrocarbon Production Systems

Hydrocarbon producing facilities are potentially subject to both external
and internal corrosion threats: in the case of the former, from hostile and A materials optimisation strategy requires an integration of all the above key
geographically remote operating environments, and in the latter from the parameters to allow the selection of the most suitable, safe and economical
presence of wet produced fluids and acid gases. Both of these threats material option and corrosion control procedure. The parameters in
continue to impact materials selection, engineering design and through such a strategy should take advantage of two key elements of trusted/
life integrity management. Selection and optimisation of appropriate proven methods reflecting past experience as well innovative solutions.
materials, which can tolerate given production scenarios together with Considering the above elements, the methodology described here has
effective whole life corrosion management, remain key operational adopted a stepwise process by first exploring the feasibility of using CLAS
challenges and underpin successful hydrocarbon production, economy, followed by its use in combination with corrosion inhibition (CI) and/or a
safety and security. Correct choice of materials and their optimisation in corrosion allowance (CA). If this approach is not feasible, then corrosion
such systems at the design stage is therefore an essential element of an resistant alloys (CRAs) need to be considered, all based on whole-life
effective corrosion management programme to achieve high reliability costing.
and trouble-free operation. The choice is governed by a number of
principal parameters including adequate mechanical properties, corrosion Governed by system corrosivity and the feasibility of corrosion mitigation
performance, joining integrity, availability and cost. measures, materials are selected accordingly. It is important to note that
while CLASs are chosen primarily according to their general and localised
This Fellow’s Corner gives an outline of a materials optimisation strategy metal loss corrosion resistance, with adequate resistance to different types
by combining a number of these key ingredients. It takes advantage of of H2S induced cracking, CRAs are normally selected primarily based
materials with proven track record while describing attributes essential on their resistance to environmental induced cracking. This latter threat
for such a holistic approach. It focuses on internal corrosion by produced includes sulphide stress cracking and chloride stress corrosion cracking
and injected fluids as the principal criteria in materials selection. While or a combination thereof, as affected by the operating temperatures and
descriptive, a basic of knowledge of materials and corrosion is nevertheless, conditions. The exception for CRAs is under extreme conditions - typically
highly advisable so that a fit for service solutions is achieved. a combination of high temperature, low pH, high CO2 and H2S - where
Amongst the parameters outlined above, two elements are elaborated general corrosion may also, or exclusively, have to be considered in the
further. overall selection strategy.
i. Corrosion Threats: given the conditions associated with hydrocarbon
production and that of gas/water injection, internal corrosion must always
be seen as a potential risk. The risk becomes real once an aqueous phase
is present and able to contact the material, providing a ready electrolyte
for the corrosion reaction to occur. The need to reliably handle wet
hydrocarbons arises from the increasing number of fields where significant
levels of CO2 and H2S are present under more arduous operating
conditions. In addition, the growth in the need for increased production
which invariably entails water and/or gas injection to maintain reservoir
pressure and/or enhance recovery can introduce O2 and the potential for
microbiological activity which presents a different type of corrosion threat.
While most classical forms of corrosion are encountered in hydrocarbon
production, the principal types where the majority of failures occur remains
limited. The most prevalent types of damage encountered include metal-
loss corrosion and localised corrosion manifested in the presence of CO2
(sweet corrosion) and H2S (sour corrosion) dissolved in the produced
fluids and by the presence of dissolved oxygen in water injection systems.
These three types of corrosion threat should be addressed specifically
in the material optimisation process when assessing corrosion risk. In
addition, the potential risk of environmental induced cracking needs to be
addressed effectively.
ii. Metallic Materials: The oil and gas industry sectors continue to
lean heavily on the use of carbon and low alloy steels (CLAS) which are
readily available in the volumes required and able to meet many of the
mechanical, structural, fabrication and cost requirements. The technology
is well developed and for many applications these materials represent an
economical choice. However, the inherent corrosion resistance of CLASs
is relatively low. Consequently, their successful application invariably
requires combination with one or more whole-life forms of corrosion
mitigation against both internal and external exposure conditions.

12 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org


The simple overall approach to the optimisation strategy, shown in the
figure, captures these necessary steps in finalising the materials choice.
This simplified roadmap includes several key elements taking on board
and incorporating (i) corrosion risk evaluation, (ii) operating conditions,
(iii) corrosivity assessment, (iv) erosion velocity, (v) window of application
of individual alloy, and last but no least (vi) whole life costing of potential
materials options and corrosion mitigation methods. The simple
methodology is based on utilisation of past successes and lessons learnt
in effective use of CLASs and integration of key parameters to allow the
selection of the most suitable, safe and economical material option and
corrosion control measures.
The roadmap follows a methodical route to highlighting options and the
most appropriate and cost effective materials, and outperforms similar
Innovative Products
models through the unique integration of key parameters. The strategy
is applicable to optimisation of materials for all applications including
downhole completions, surface and transportation facilities.
A distinction should be made here between materials used for subsurface
(wells), where welding and CA may not be applicable, in contrast to
materials for above surface facilities (subsea, topside or transportation)
where corrosion mitigation in the form of CI deployment, or CA, become
feasible.
Throughout the process, in the absence of reliable data, a methodical
approach to performance evaluation needs to be put in place and be
implemented. This provides a flexible structure to allow realistic testing
to enable input of complementary data to provide further confidence on
their application.

Innovative Products
A deep-reaching solution for corroding rebar
Mitigating corrosion of embedded rebar is a perennial problem for
reinforced concrete structures, requiring preventative maintenance
and repair. Topical corrosion inhibiting treatments require a clean,
properly prepared surface area to work as intended, however
according to the company, Cortec’s new MCI®-2020 Gel is designed
to work when proper surface preparation cannot be achieved, or is
economically undesirable, by delivering its “Migrating Corrosion
Inhibitor”™ technology directly to the depth of reinforcement.
The gel is an injectable corrosion inhibitor that provides a robust
dose of corrosion protection directly where it is most needed. Once
inside the concrete, the inhibitor can also move laterally through
the concrete along the embedded reinforcement via liquid and
vapour diffusion. The corrosion inhibitor molecules deposit on metal
surfaces, forming a molecular layer that acts as a barrier to corrosive
elements such as chlorides and from carbonation.
It is considered a mixed inhibitor that protects against corrosion at which together can form carcinogenic nitrosamines. It is also non-
both the anodic and cathodic areas of a corrosion cell. Unlike some flammable and non-combustible, and can be used in almost any
of its competitors, it does not contain secondary amines or nitrites, concrete repair or maintenance application, concluded the company.

FOR ALL THE LATEST CORROSION INDUSTRY JOBS

VISIT THE ICORR JOB BOARD
For job seekers
• Over 60 jobs currently being advertised All sustaining members
• Set up job alerts for immediate notifications
• Upload your CV so employers can find you
receive a 15% discount
• Free to use
For employers For more information contact
• Place your job in front of our highly Jonathan Phillips on
qualified members
• Over 10,000 visitors every month
O 0114 273 0132
• Fill your jobs quickly with great talent m jonathan@squareone.co.uk
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 13
Ask the Expert
Ask the Expert
This is a new regular column where readers can submit generic (not specific
project) questions relating to corrosion protection, to be answered by
corrosion experts. This month, the questions relate to zinc rich coatings and
the problems of monitoring CP on pipelines affected by induced AC
Question:
Zinc-rich primers are commonly used for the protection of structures
exposed to severe environments. The level of zinc dust is classified by
the weight of zinc in the dried film, and most standards and specifications
require at least > 77% to meet the performance demands. In conventional
zinc-rich epoxy primers the high levels of zinc are achieved by adding large
amounts of zinc dust particles into an epoxy matrix and the dispersion of
this is critical to ensure electrical continuity and hence galvanic protection
of steel.
I have heard of zinc epoxy primers on the market with considerably lower
zinc levels (as low as 31% by weight). Do these primers still provide good
galvanic corrosion protection and maintain good adhesion and mechanical
properties of the dried film ? PF
Answer:
Corrosion protection paints using metallic zinc dust as a protective pigment
have been used successfully for many decades. Zinc levels in coatings are
classified by various standards bodies; common examples being:
• ISO 12944 = “zinc rich” >80% (Zinc dust on dry film)
• BS5493 = “zinc rich” >95% (Zinc dust on weight of pigment)
• BS4652 = “zinc rich” >85% (Zinc metal on dry film)
• SSPC Paint 20 Specification
Type 1 – Inorganic zinc rich paints (Zinc silicates)
Type 2 - Organic zinc rich paints (Epoxy or other organic binders)
• “zinc rich” Level 1, ≥85% (Zinc dust on weight of dry film)
• “zinc rich” Level 2, ≥77% to <85% (Zinc dust on weight of dry film)
• “Reduced zinc” Level 3, ≥65% to <77% (Zinc dust on weight of dry film)
Metallic zinc can protect ferrous substrates via several mechanisms:
• Galvanic protection – Fundamental physical chemistry dictates that if
two different metals are in intimate electrical conductive contact, the more
reactive metal will form the anode in a corrosion cell and preferentially
dissolve to protect the less reactive cathodic species. As zinc sits above
mild steel (principal component being iron) in the electrochemical
series then metallic zinc in contact with steel will react preferentially, and
sacrificially, to protect the steel. In the case of zinc rich primers, the paint
is formulated with a very high pigment to binder ratio (close to or even at
the critical PVC) such that metallic zinc particles are in intimate contact with
each other within the dry film and with the steel substrate at their interface.
For a galvanic mechanism to work properly, it is important that the substrate
is blast cleaned to a high standard, (typically minimum Sa2½ ISO 8501-
1), with enough surface profile to give a good mechanical key. The zinc
salts formed as a result of the dissolution of the zinc dust at the anode of
the corrosion cell can build up and plug the gap in the coating thereby
providing a self-healing effect which can close off the corrosion cell and
give a longer-term barrier protection. For true metal-to-metal contact
within the coating, typically a level of at least 77% zinc on dry film would be
specified. These primers can be designated “Zinc Rich”.
• Barrier effect - On exposure to the atmosphere the zinc metal will react
to form zinc salts on a localised basis within the dry film which will plug any
porosity within the coating and provide excellent barrier protection.
• Local effect on pH – The zinc salts formed at a corrosion site, in addition to
providing a physical barrier to protect the substrate, are inherently alkaline
in nature thereby raising the pH at the corrosion site. High pH conditions
14 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
do not favour the electrochemical corrosion mechanism and therefore the
rate of corrosion is suppressed.
Protective primers can be formulated using lower levels of zinc dust than
those defined as “zinc rich”. These products must be carefully formulated -
as with zinc rich primers these are typically at a high pigment to binder ratio,
using a suitable combination of filler pigments so that the zinc dust particles
are not totally encapsulated by the binder and therefore still available to
react with the external environment. In the case of these reduced zinc
primers, there is insufficient zinc to give true galvanic protection or extensive
zinc salt formation and plugging of large corrosion cells, as in extremely
corrosive environments such as offshore and marine. These products can
however provide effective protection in less demanding environments by
means of their barrier and pH buffering mechanisms as described above.
There is no official minimum level of zinc in a reduced zinc primer, although
the performance levels will need to be carefully assessed to meet the
appropriate specification requirements. Very thin film (~15µ dft) inorganic
weldable primers are used on a widespread basis in production of steel
stock. These will require very low levels of zinc (sometimes around 15%)
in order to meet the required low levels of zinc fumes generated by
subsequent welding processes. These products are only designed for
temporary protection prior to fabrication.
Formulation of an effective zinc rich or reduced zinc primer requires a high
degree of effort (or luck!) on the part of the formulator – It is not just a case
of putting in a high loading of zinc and hoping for the best. The higher
the zinc loading, then various factors such as poor application properties,
weak, powdery film, poor adhesion and importantly, higher cost will have
to be considered. A good zinc rich or reduced zinc primer will provide
the correct balance of performance in the designated environment, good
spray characteristics, good film properties, compatibility with subsequent
coats of paint, all for an acceptable price – Not an easy task! MM
Question:
With the advent of high quality three layer polyolefin pipeline coatings
and liquid or heat shrink field joint coatings having similar corrosion barrier
characteristics, current densities for Cathodic Protection (CP) have been
greatly reduced. These coated pipelines when in the presence of high
voltage overhead power transmission systems tend to experience high
induced a.c. voltages as well the possibility of phase to ground faults,
which can create a ground potential rise and damage the coating and
pipe steel. To provide personnel safety and to protect pipeline integrity
induced a.c. and fault a.c. mitigation is required. When such mitigation
measures are installed they often take the form of electrical grounding
using liner electrodes of zinc or copper connected to the pipeline via
d.c. decouplers, where these decouplers proliferate due to the design
requirements they can adversely affect the operators’ ability to undertake
close interval potential surveys (CIPS) due to capacitor discharge. This
discharge supports what should be the IR free potential during the rectifier
off cycle thereby providing erroneous and misleading results.
Given this issue what can be done to ensure the pipeline is correctly
protected and can the situation be controlled such that CIPS may be
carried out, and if not what are the alternative technologies which will
prove assurance that protection has been attained? AN
Answer:
Decouplers on well-coated pipelines can affect off potential readings
during CIPS testing. The engineer measuring the results may witness
irregular OFF potential waveforms at or near to where decouplers are
installed. Most notably, the OFF values will be excessively and un-
characteristically negative, and where there are multiple decouplers, the
effect can be magnified and difficult to ameliorate. It could be incorrectly
concluded that the pipeline was well protected, however it is known that
such off potential values are in error. In some cases, such polarized values
 Ask the Expert

· FAST · REP

PIN

re
EA Elc
om

asu
PO HOL

TA
BL
Me

E ·
RO E &
SIT

AC C
Y

U
AT

R
E
· D
URABL E

Make holiday detection safer, easier and more

reliable with the Elcometer 280 Holiday Detector.
elcometer.com

Corrosion Management 280.indd 1 15/01/2020 10:00:41

are not actually possible on a protected pipeline and instead of having a

clean on/off potential waveform it is observed that the OFF potential is
supported at a much more negative value.
In the past several tests have been undertaken on well coated pipelines to
improve the response during the IR cycle including, capturing the reading
later in the cycle, setting the on/off interruption cycle for longer periods or
removing the decouplers from the system. These measures were not in all

TO ADVERTISE
cases successful, and in the latter case, removing the decoupler can result
in an unsafe situation as the induced voltage could rise above the 15V ac
safe level established by NACE SP-0177 2014.
Given that disconnecting the decouplers in the presence of induced and
fault a.c. is a high-risk strategy from a personnel and livestock perspective
other methods of providing IR free potential measurements need to be
IN CORROSION
relied upon. Such measurements can be provided by means of coupons
using a magnet and a reed switch, to provide potential measurements
which can be relied upon to provide an indication of present and ongoing
MANAGEMENT
protection. IR free coupons represent a low-cost option for obtaining
polarized potentials because they avoid measurement errors due to
current flow in the soil and are independent of the pipeline readings and
please contact
the effects of decoupler capacitor discharge. Coupons may be used for
any application where an independent reading is required. In addition,
CIPS is not the only method in which pipeline integrity can be established
Jonathan Phillips or
as a DCVG survey may be carried. DCVG is an important and reliable
survey method in pipeline construction and in the past has provided an Debbie Hardwick at:
accurate method of locating and recording the severity of line pipe coating
defects which expose bare steel. Where indications have been located Square One
with DCVG they can be exposed and any damage repaired. DCVG
provides a tool which allows the greater majority of coating defects to be
located, excavated and repaired thereby limiting the CP current demand
O +44 (0) 114 273 0132
and improving pipeline protection. TCO
Readers can submit questions for possible inclusion in this column. Please
m enquiries@squareone.co.uk
email the editor on, brianpce@aol.com
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 15
Institute News
Technical Article
Figure 1. Stockpiled pipe in the USA.

Study of stockpiled fusion

bond epoxy coated pipe
Keith Coulson FICorr, James Ferguson, TC Energy, Calgary, Canada and David Milmine, DM Professional Services Ltd, Calgary, Canada.

TC Energy is a pipeline owning and operating company based in Canada,
and has been in business for over 65 years, delivering energy solutions to
millions of North Americans. Their natural gas systems operate over 93,000
km of pipeline transporting more than 25% of North America’s supply. In
addition, it has nearly 5,000 km of liquid pipeline system providing over 2
billion barrels of oil daily, and it was as part of this liquids system that a major
new oil pipeline project was designed to secure an even larger reliable
energy infrastructure within Canada and the USA. The project comprised
of some 530 km in Canada, while the USA systems added just over 1,400
km of pipeline to connect with the US refining hubs in Illinois, Oklahoma,
and the Gulf Coast of Texas. Pipe for the project was originally procured,
manufactured and coated in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. The pipe was
then stockpiled in large quantities at several sites throughout Canada and the
USA at locations close to the pipeline right-of-way. Once stockpiled, most of
the pipe remained un-used until an inspection and remediation programme
was started in August 2018.
The majority of the pipe stored in the outer layers of the stockpiles was coated
with a whitewash acrylic resin coating to reduce or eliminate the effects of UV
degradation. The inner piping at the stockpiles was not protected, as it was
determined that the overlaying whitewashed coated pipe would eliminate
the influence of UV degradation. The only exception being the overhanging
pipe ends.
This article describes the short- and medium-term testing programme
developed to assess the integrity of the coating on the pipe stored at one
16 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
site in the USA, and to determine its fitness for purpose as a pipeline coating.
The assessment programme was carried out on pipes with the applied UV-
resistant paint, as well as evaluating any degradation due to environmental
exposure on pipe with little or no UV exposure.
Effects of Ultraviolet Exposure on Fusion
Bond Epoxy Coatings
When exposed to ultraviolet rays, FBE coatings undergo polymer
degradation, commonly referred to as chalking. Previous studies of exposed
weathering of FBE coating had identified that this UV exposure could have a
serious deleterious effect on the inherent physical properties of the coating
(1,2). This phenomenon is common to all FBE coatings that are primarily
designed only for below ground service. Kehr (3) stated that, if undisrupted,
this layer of chalked FBE will protect the underlaying FBE and enable the
coating to retain most of its original properties. However, if this protective
layer of chalked coating is removed by rain, wind or intense periods of UV
exposure, then the new surface starts to suffer from the repeated process of
chalking. As this breakdown and delamination of the outside layers continue,
it is accompanied by a noticeable reduction in the coating thickness (2). Work
by Cetiner and Kehr concluded that this coating thickness reduction could
average between 10 to 40 microns per year. The actual degree and effects of
chalking depend upon the following factors:
lSusceptibility of the FBE’s formulation to resist UV breakdown (in other
words, not all FBE coatings perform the same when exposed to UV).
 Technical Article
l The amount of exposure to UV, for example, the 12 o’clock position on a This piping was generally stored four or five high with 19 mm ropes used as
pipe generally suffers more coating breakdown than the less-exposed 3 or 6 separators, see Figure 1.
o’clock positions.
l The intensity and duration of direct exposure to the elements. For instance,
UV intensity in areas of the southern USA would be far greater than those in
Canada, and hence lead to quicker and more rapid breakdown and chalking
of the coating (4).
l Availability of water due to rain and morning dew.

Previous studies also demonstrated that when exhibiting chalking and

reduced coating thickness, some FBE coatings would exhibit a reduction of
their resistance to cathodic disbondment (5). But common to all FBE coatings
is their struggle to retain their original flexibility when examined in accordance
with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z245.20 cold temperature
flexibility test method (6). This aesthetic change of gloss and chalking clearly
is accompanied by an embrittlement of the coating, as exhibited by loss of
adhesion through the dry adhesion testing (DAT), and reduction of flexibility
performance. Any form of reduction in the interaction of UV and the coating
via tarping, whitewashing or any other means would therefore be clearly
beneficial in reducing or eliminating the UV damage to the polymeric
structure of the FBE. Figure 2

Pipe Data
Specific pipe sections representative of the pipe stocks were subjected to
evaluation, namely;
i. 36-in. OD × 0.465-in. WT., API Spec 5L (44th Edition), PSL 2 PSL Grade X70
SAWH pipe coated externally with FBE to the requirements of CSA Z245. 20
System 1A4, but noted as without any evidence of the application of an acrylic
UV deterioration mitigation system (herein referred to as whitewash).
ii. Same pipe and FBE coating but exhibiting the presence of a post coating
applied whitewashed UV deterioration mitigation acrylic paint on all exposed
areas, exclusive of the pipe ends.
In total, the whitewashed pipe in the storage facility was estimated to
constitute at least 20% of the approximately 24,000 joints of 24m pipe
lengths. This pipe had been stored for approximately 18 to 24 months before
the application of the acrylic whitewash. That whitewash UV protective
coating had been reapplied once after a period of about 4 to 5 years. In all
cases, the last few feet at both ends were left bare, so as not to overcoat the
stencil and pipe identification markings on each pipe end. However, even
after replenishing, the whitewash acrylic resin coating appeared to have
significantly faded, as shown in Figure 2. This fading potentially denotes that
the effectiveness of this whitewash to resist UV degradation had gradually
been reduced during its UV exposure over a 4 to 5 year period.

Figure 3 Coated pipes from inside of stockpile

removed for assessment.

www.icorr.org January/February 2020 17

Institute News
Technical Article
Protocol for Assessment
The objective of this refurbishment assessment was, firstly, to determine the
effects that weathering had on the pipe underneath the faded whitewash
and to ascertain the quality of that FBE coating. Secondly, to establish a
benchmark performance criterion for the coating on pipes that were stored
internally in the stockpile and not exposed to UV.
An inspection and test plan (ITP) was prepared to assess the integrity of the
pipe coating. The examination consisted of the following:
l FBE coating that had been coated with whitewash acrylic UV protective
coating.
l FBE coating from pipes stored in the internal segments of the stockpile that
was not exposed to UV (refer to Figure 3).
l FBE coating on the pipe ends or overhanging pipe that was not whitewashed
but was exposed to some UV.
The ITP stipulated the following testing activities:
l Documentation of pipe numbers and correlation to location in the stockpile
for selected pipe piles.
l Measurement of dry film thickness (DFT) on selected pipe. Frequency and
location on pipe to be determined and documented, for example. 12 and 6
o’clock positions.
l Measurement of DAT in accordance with ISO 21809-3: Annex Q: Adhesion
Test (7).
l Holiday detection inspection on selected pipes.
l Submission of selected pipe for laboratory testing at laboratories in the USA.
Objective of the Assessment
1) To enumerate the correlation between DFT and DAT with the integrity
assessment evaluations stipulated by the Canadian Standards, and 2) by
conducting. a series of laboratory testing, establish to the regulators that
the dry adhesion and dry thickness testing does quantify the quality of FBE
coatings being held at the stockpiles.
3) To confirm the expected conclusion that the non-UV-exposed FBE coating
was still fit for purpose as a below ground anti-corrosion coatings.
Results of the Field Assessment Programme
Initially, 12 joints of pipe that had been whitewashed and stored on the
outside layers of the stock piles were removed. These 12 pipe joints, along
with three joints from the interior of the stockpile, were assessed as specified
in the ITP defined in the above protocol for assessment.
Figure 4 illustrates the configuration of the whitewashed and non-
whitewashed pipe in the stockpiles. All pipes were identified via the stenciling
or barcodes.
The results of the DAT and DFT testing are given in Table 1. With a few
exceptions, the FBE coating on the piping that was whitewashed still had
acceptable coating thickness measurements. The company’s coating
specification stipulated a requirement of 406 to 457 microns of FBE coating
Figure 4. Configuration of stored pipes.
18 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
during manufacture. A range of 404 to 468 microns was recorded on this
whitewashed coating, putting it completely in the range originally stipulated
for this coating. However, the DAT’s performed on those white washed pipes
no longer consistently met the minimum requirements expected of this
coating. Table 1 illustrates that eight out of the 10 test joints failed to attain
the acceptable DAT ratings of 1 or 2. On the other hand, the pipe that was
not whitewashed and was exposed to UV continuously during storage (ie
the overhanging exposed pipe ends) exhibited complete failures in DAT
evaluations. In addition, this UV-exposed non-whitewashed FBE coating
had a remaining coating thickness in the range of 162 to 215 microns. In
comparison to the company specified coating thickness, it was apparent that
an average coating loss of approximately 25.4 microns per year occurred on
UV exposure. This coating deterioration was generally within the accepted
industry range of 10 to 40 microns for FBE coating loss per year, when
exposed continuously to UV (3).
Initial testing on non-whitewashed coated pipe that had been stored in the
interior of the stock piles provided excellent results and showed they were
clearly fit for purpose (Table 1).
In addition, two additional non-whitewashed joints from the interior of the
stockpiles were more comprehensively examined at the stockpile site, and
the results of that assessment are given in Table 2. Basically, each joint was
quarantined and tested at three separate locations along each pipe. At each
location DAT and DFT testing was completed at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock
positions. All coating on those pipes provided excellent results. The DAT test
results were of the highest standard, with each test producing a prefect rating
of 1. Also, the average coating thickness was within the range of 450 microns,
which was totally comparable with the original factory recorded average
thickness readings of 430 microns.
Two test rings from each of these two pipes were then deemed as the focus
for further laboratory testing. Each test ring was of sufficient size to allow for
specimen preparation to perform the range of applicable tests according
to Table 4 of CSA Z 245.20-14 and Clause 7.3.3.3 of the company’s
specification TES-CO-FBE-GL Revision 09. One test ring from each pipe was
shipped to a 3rd party lab in Texas, USA, and the other test ring from each
pipe remained for testing at coating laboratory at the storage site.
Laboratory Assessment Programme
The non-whitewashed coated pipe that had not been exposed to the
elements, and the whitewash-coated pipe, were assessed according to CSA
Z245.20-14 Table 3 criteria for the following properties:
1. 2.5°degree flexibility testing at −30°C
2. 24-hour cathodic disbondment test at 3.5 V and 65°C
3. 24-hour water soak adhesion test at 75°C
4. Additional 1.5° flexibility at −30°C (three specimens, in accordance to
Clause 7.3.3.3 of TES-CO-FBE-GL Revision 09), was included to examine and
check for any stress, strain or pigment migration markings
The use of differential scanning calorimetry was not considered for this
programme due to the deleterious moisture absorption effects on the
interpretation of those thermal tests (8).

Figure 5. Cathodic disbondment test results for the non-whitewashed pipe ends exposed to ultraviolet.
Results of Laboratory Testing of
Whitewashed Piping and Exposed Pipe
Ends
The CD results of the non-whitewashed pipe ends exposed to UV were
deemed total failures (Figure 5). Whereas the whitewash protected coatings
fared much better with cathodic disbondment testing (CDT) results of
approximately 5 mm disbondment, and water soak adhesion ratings of 2.
However, this whitewash FBE coating demonstrated a serious deterioration
in its flexibility performance.
The flexibility tests were all deemed failures on the UV-exposed pipe ends and
whitewashed piping. The testing degree per pipe diameter length of pipe
was reduced from 2.5 degrees to 2 degrees and then 1.0 degree, however
all of which demonstrated similar results of cracking within the coating.
Results of Laboratory Testing of Non-
Ultraviolet Exposed Pipe
Overall, the laboratory test results on non-ultraviolet exposed pipe proved to
be excellent. The results are given in Tables 3 and 4, and clearly demonstrate
the coating that was not exposed to UV or weathering was still totally fit for
purpose and retained most of the properties it exhibited at its production.
Observations
All non-whitewashed pipe that was exposed to continuous UV at the storage
site, such as pipe ends and stenciled areas, were deemed no longer fit for
purpose. Coating loss was approximately 25.4 microns per year.
All coated pipe that was tested from the internal areas of the stockpile, and
thus not exposed to weathering, was deemed to be totally fit for purpose by
passing all the required CSA tests. The only exceptions were the pipe ends
that may have been exposed to UV due to overhang in the stockpile.
All whitewashed coating exhibited good retention of coating thickness
and cathodic disbondment and hot water soak adhesion characteristics.
However, the flexibility of the underlaying FBE had been adversely affected to
the point where the coating was no long acceptable. This depression of the
flexibility levels of the coating could have been caused by the combination of
Technical Article
moisture absorption and elevated temperatures. When the faded whitewash
coating no longer acted as a reflective mechanism, the surface temperature
of the coating increased during the prolonged periods of exposure to intense
sunlight. A future study is required to understand if pigment migration,
plasticiser effects or changes in mechanical properties due to moisture
absorption were the actual root causes of the phenomenon, whereby only
the flexibility properties of the coating were affected in such a deleterious
fashion.
The whitewashed protective coating was originally applied some 18 to 24
months after the pipe was coated. In the intervening years, there was only one
other application of this whitewash coating. From the results gathered in this
programme, it can be inferred that if the whitewash coating had been applied
on a more regular basis; for example, every two years, this deterioration of the
coatings’ flexibility may have been prevented.
Conclusions
The non-protected FBE coatings exposed to UV for periods of up to 9
years completely failed to retain their original properties and attributes.
Conversely, coatings that were completely protected from any UV exposure
still possessed all their original coating thickness and physical traits.
Even after nearly a decade, the use of whitewash UV protective coatings
proved to be extremely successful in preserving and retaining the original
DFT thicknesses of the FBE coating. Apart from the elasticity of the coating,
UV protective coatings conserved many of the physical characteristics of
the underlaying FBE coating. A more frequent application of non-faded
whitewash coating to potential UV-exposed coatings, could possibly have
also maintained the elastic characteristics of the FBE coating.
References
1. K.E.W. Coulson and D.G. Temple. An Independent Laboratory Evaluation
of External Pipeline Coatings. 5th International Conference on Internal and
External Protection of Pipes, BHRA Innsbruck, Austria, October 1983.
2. Matt Cetiner, J. Abes and A Gilroy-Scott. Stockpiled FBE Coated Line Pipe
Can Be Subjected to UV Degradation. Oil and Gas Journal, April 16, 2001.
3. J. Alan Kehr. Fusion Bonded Epoxy, A Foundation for Pipeline Corrosion.
NACE International, Houston, Texas, 2003.
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 19
Institute News
Technical Article
4. J. Ben Liley and Richard L. McKenzie. Where on Earth has the highest 8. J. Dunn et al. Moisture Affects Bonded Epoxy Line Coating. Oil and Gas
UV? National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). Lauder, Journal, February 24, 1986.
Central Otago, New Zealand, 2006.
5. Keith Coulson and Dale Temple. Impact, Cathodic disbondment line
Acknowledgements
Coating Test Results Vary with Surface and Coating Conditions. Oil and Gas The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Snehal M. Patel,
Journal, March 10, 1986. Vice President, Welspun Tubular LLC and P.N. Mahida, Associate VP Quality
and Technical Services, at Welspun Tubular LLC Little Rock, to the success of
6. Canadian Standards Association. Plant-Applied External Fusion Bond
this program.
Epoxy Coating for Steel Pipe. CSA Z245.20-14. Toronto, Canada.
A thanks also to Casey Bajnok of TC Energy for supplying background details
7. International Standards Organization ISO 21809-3. Petroleum and natural
of the project, and to Heather Traub and Kat McTavish of TC Energy for
Gas Industries – external Coatings for Buried or submerged Pipelines Used
graphic and editorial support.
in Pipeline Transportation Systems- Part 3: Field Joint Coatings: Annex Q:
Adhesion Test – Resistance to Removal. ISO Switzerland, March 1, 2016.

Tables
Table 1: Dry film and dry adhesion test results September 19-20, 2018 on US stockpile pipes, stockpiled for 9-10 years.

Dry Adhesion Test Rating Dry Adhesion Test Thickness of Non- Thickness of
on Non-Whitewashed Rating on Whitewashed Whitewashed Fusion Whitewashed Fusion
Pipe Number
Fusion Bond Epoxy Fusion Bond Epoxy Bond Epoxy Bond Epoxy
Exposed to Ultraviolet Exposed to Ultraviolet (microns) (microns)

A1009A26216 5 4 165 - 206 412 - 457

A1009A22997 5 3 124.5 - 188 416 - 546

A1009A22998 5 2 157.5 - 200 409 - 526

A1009A26247 5 2 142 - 162.5 396 - 434

A1009A25692 5 4 124.5 - 142 396 - 450

A1009A25343 5 4 190.5 - 208 391 - 429

A1009A26360 5 4 145 - 231 409 - 444

A1009A25787 5 4–5 206 - 234 424 - 485

A1009A26356 5 3 142 - 213 381 - 450

A1009A26853 5 3 180 - 260 412 - 465

A1009A41511 5 5 157.5 - 234 290 - 368

A1009262078 5 5 129 - 292 292 - 348

A1009A05252 1 (see note 1) Internal pipe 388 - 452 -

A1009A05256 1 (see note 1) Internal pipe 370 - 450 -

A1009A05238 1 (see note 1) Internal pipe 404 - 450 -

Notes: 1. Signifies an excellent pass. Specification required a coating thickness of 406 to 457 microns of FBE

Table 2: Dry adhesion testing on non-ultraviolet exposed pipe at US storage site on December 10, 2018.

Average Fusion
Dry Adhesion Test Test Temperature Dry Adhesion Bond Epoxy Intersect Angles
Test Pipe
No. (C) Test Rating Thickness (degrees)
(microns)

34189 1 15.5 1 422 40

34189 2 11 1 423 40
34189 3 14.5 1 471 40
34192 4 19.5 1 476 40
34192 5 10.5 1 449 40
34192 6 16.5 1 450 40

20 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org

 Technical Article

Table 3: Laboratory test results for non-ultraviolet exposed pipe at US storage site on December 11, 2018.

Canadian Standards
TC Energy
Test Pipe No. Fusion Bond Epoxy Results Association
Specification
Z245.20-14

24 water adhesion at
34189 3M6233-11G 1 1-3 1-3
75°C
24 water adhesion at
34192 3M6233-11G 1 1-3 1-3
75°C
24 CDT at 65°C 34189 3M6233-11G 3.3 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm
24 CDT at 65°C 34189 3M6233-11G 3.8 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm
24 CDT at 65°C 34192 3M6233-11G 3.3 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm
24 CDT at 65°C 34192 3M6233-11G 3.5 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm
2.86-degree bend at
34189 3M6233-11G Two cracks NR NR
−30°C
2.86-degree bend at
34192 3M6233-11G Pass (no stress marks) NR NR
−30°C
2.47-degree bend at
34189 3M6233-11G Pass (no stress marks) Pass Pass
−30°C
2.47-degree bend at
34192 3M6233-11G Pass (no stress marks) Pass Pass
−30°C
DAT Test at 16°C 34189 3M6233-11G 1 NA 1-2
DAT Test at 17°C 34192 3M6233-11G 1 NA 1-2

Notes:
CDT = cathodic disbondment testing, DAT = dry adhesion testing, mm = millimetres, NA = not applicable, NR = not recorded

Table 4: Laboratory test results for non-ultraviolet exposed pipes at the 3rd party Laboratories in Texas, January 10, 2019.

Test Pipe No. Fusion Bond Epoxy Results ACSA Z245.20-14 TC Energy

24 water adhesion
34189 3M6233-11G 1 1-3 1-3
at 75°C
24 water adhesion
34192 3M6233-11G 1 1-3 1-3
at 75°C
24 cathodic
disbondment test 34189 3M6233-11G 3.5 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm
(CDT) at 65°C

24 CDT at 65°C 34189 3M6233-11G 3.6 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm

24 CDT at 65°C 34192 3M6233-11G 3.4 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm

24 CDT at 65°C 34192 3M6233-11G 4.6 mm 11.5 mm 5.5 mm

3.03-degree bend Pass (no stress

34189 3M6233-11G NR NR
at −30°C marks)
3.03-degree bend Pass (no stress
34192 3M6233-11G NR NR
at −30°C marks)
2.51-degree bend Pass (no stress
34189 3M6233-11G Pass Pass
at −30°C marks)
2.55-degree bend Pass (no stress
34192 3M6233-11G Pass Pass
at −30°C marks)
Dry Adhesion Test
34189 3M6233-11G 1 NA 1-2
(DAT) at 16°C

DAT at 17°C 34192 3M6233-11G 1 NA 1-2

Notes: CDT = cathodic disbondment test, DAT = dry adhesion testing, mm = millimetres, NA = not applicable, NR = not recorded

www.icorr.org January/February 2020 21

Institute News
Technical Article

An overview of energy pipeline

integrity management, and future asset
management strategies
Muhammad Hussain, Tieling Zhang, University of Wollongong, Australia, Shahid Ali
AMCO Integrity Pty Ltd, Australia, and Abrar Hussain, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, P.R. China.

Pipelines are one of the most important energy transportation arteries and it
is assumed they will continue to be a secure tool for energy transmission for
many more decades. Among the different pipeline systems, gas pipelines
are most important and vital. Due to the requirements for higher safety and
reliability, integrity management has become an important programme to
manage risk and develop proper inspection planning. This article gives a
review of pipeline integrity management processes used in the industry, and
based on this, recommendations for using these are given that will provide a
guide for pipeline operators and managers to improve their practices.
Recently, pipeline integrity has seen the introduction of many advanced
technologies to detect anomalies, enhance the efficiency of pipeline
Pipeline networks are undeniably superior to other transportation systems,
for instance, truck, train, etc., due to their cost effectiveness, security, higher
reliability, safety and environmental friendliness over long distances. With all
these aspects, pipeline infrastructures represent a high capital investment and
due to this, pipelines must be free from the risk that could cause potential
threats to life, or harm environment. Pipeline integrity design, monitoring and
management become crucial to their operation (see, Figure 1). For example,
improper maintenance of natural gas pipelines may cause explosion and fire
resulting from pipeline leaks or perhaps rupture (e.g., References 2 and 3).
Identifying and collecting relevant data

operation and reduce failures. Pipelines and accessories are valuable assets,
generally owned, operated, and maintained by pipeline companies. In most
countries around the world pipelines are an irreplaceable core of a gas or Periodic or ongoing safety management study
other materials transportation system, and a means by which gas or fluids are Monitoring of
pipeline integrity
delivered from the source of supply to the customer. management
activities and Pipeline integrity management review
Gas pipeline integrity management is needed to a gas pipeline is free from threats
incident in its operation, and also to ensure that any anomaly or defect does
not have an effect on health, safety, environment, business loss, company No
Pipeline integrity issues identified?
reputation, or production and financial loss.
Yes
According to DNV-RP-F116, pipeline integrity is the system’s ability to operate
safely and withstand the loads imposed on it during its lifecycle. If a system Revision and adjustment of pipeline management system
and pipeline integrity management plan
loses this ability, a failure can occur.
Figure 1: Pipeline Integrity Management System (reference 1).

22 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org


Asset integrity management has been described as the continuous
assessment process applied throughout the design, construction, installation
and operation phases, to assure that the facilities are, and remain to be, fit for
purpose. The aim of the asset integrity management process is to provide a
framework for the following:
l Compliance with company standards, regulatory and legislative
requirements
l Assurance of technical integrity by the application of risk based or risk
informed engineering principles and techniques
l Delivery of the required safety, environmental and operational performance
l Retention of the License to Operate
l Optimisation of the activities and the resources required to operate the
facilities whilst maintaining system integrity
l Assurance of the facilities’ fitness for purpose
Different energy pipeline asset management systems have been developed.
Reference 4, for example, provides a holistic approach for energy pipeline
asset management where the asset management system, asset management
lifecycle activities and asset management procedures are presented and
discussed in detail. It provides a guideline for energy pipeline owners and
operators to manage their pipelines for safe operation.
Pipeline Integrity Threats
According to ASME B31.8S (Reference 5), there are twenty one threats, nine
categories of failure types, and three time-related defect types that could
compromise the integrity of a natural gas pipeline. These nine classifications
of failure types are:
l Manufacturing defect
l Materials and construction defects
l Stress corrosion cracking
l Internal corrosion
l External corrosion
l Equipment and related defects
l Third-party perpetrated damage
l Incorrect operations, maintenance and procedures
l Weather-related, earth-related and other outside unforeseen forces
The incidents reported can be broken down according to category, for
example, gas leaks (40%), fire (14%), un-approved installation (13%), pipe
damage, but no rupture (13%, other (20%), and by cause, 3rd party (60%),
network integrity failure (20%), non-compliant installation (17%) and operator
error(3%).
Gas pipeline metal loss due to corrosion is the biggest threat to pipeline
integrity programmes. Corrosion constitutes to the first three threats to liquid
and gas pipeline systems highlighted above. It has been reported that about
thrity three of the reported cases of hazardous gas transmission incidents
are due to corrosion. Common forms of corrosion on transmission gas
pipelines are;
a. Uniform corrosion,
b. Pitting corrosion,
c. Cavitation and erosion corrosion,
d. Stray current corrosion,
e. Microbiologically influenced corrosion.
Pipeline Integrity Management System
(PIMS)
PIMS are basically programmes describing a company’s approach to pipeline
integrity, and driven by the organisation’s engineering functions to ensure the
defined integrity goals, objectives and targets are met, while ensuring the
safety of public and environment (Reference 6).
Pipeline integrity requirements
Pipelines are of an effective means of gas transportation, but if a failure occurs,
Technical Article
it can be expensive, involving loss in production, business loss, damage to
reputation and environments. Pipeline integrity management is something
that can help to optimise the operational costs and control the risk, by
providing enhanced pipeline integrity through inspection, testing and
analysis.
In the pipeline integrity management process, parameters related to pipeline
performance assessment, inspection, defects, and repair and maintenance,
are all considered in building a successful PIMS. Different pipeline systems
have different requirements and a programme may contain:
l A process for identifying the pipeline segments that could have high
consequences if failure occurred
l A baseline assessment plan
l An analysis that integrates all available information about the integrity of the
entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure
l Criteria for repair actions to address integrity issues raised by the assessment
plan and information analysis
l A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain pipeline
integrity
l Identification of preventive and mitigation measures for protecting against
failure in the areas of high consequence
Integrity Management Process
As stated above, gas pipeline integrity management is a process to avoid
any failures through activities like inspection and repair, and to assist pipeline
operators in enhancing their assets with longer service life and higher
reliability. With entire economies built on reliable pipelines, their integrity is
receiving more and more attention in management.
Any integrity management process should include the following steps:
1. Identify potential pipeline impact by threat
2. Gathering, reviewing, and integrating data
3. Risk assessment
4. Integrity assessment
5. Responses to integrity assessment, mitigation (repair and prevention), and
setting inspection intervals
6. Update, integrate, and review data
7. Re-assess risk
By completing the above steps, a detailed integrity management plan can
be developed. Such plans will address prevention, detection, and mitigation
practices to avoid failures on pipelines. Improvements in asset management
can bring huge benefits by possibly reducing the maintenance cost through
proper planning, selecting the right inspection tool, using qualified people,
and maintenance and refurbishment of existing infrastructure to extend
its economic and safe life. One of the major concerns with the integrity of
a pipeline is the risk associated with leakage and explosion which must be
kept as low as possible. The importance of asset performance in terms of its
capability to transport gas may be less of a management issue than ensuring
the integrity of the pipeline.
Risk-based management of gas pipeline
Risk is defined as the probability of an event that causes a loss and the potential
magnitude of that loss. Risk changes with changes in either the probability
of the event, or the magnitude of the potential loss. To perform risk-based
management, an analysis of the causes of the risks and an estimation of the
failure probabilities need to be carried out, as well as a consequence analysis
performed (Reference 7).
A key outcome of the pipeline’s asset management plan is to ensure that
pipelines are managed effectively and efficiently in the long term by striking
an optimum balance between performance, cost and risk, which is the
strategy adopted in the new international asset management standard,
ISO 55001. For pipeline integrity management, probabilities typically
refer to the probability of pipeline failure due to certain defect growth. The
consequences are related to the costs incurred by activities like inspection
and maintenance, loss of productivity, rehabilitation and investigation,
damage to the environment and community, environmental cleaning up, etc.
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 23
Institute News
Technical Article
When considering the threats on pipelines, a number of barriers can be
constructed to ensure the threat will not cause an incident in piping system.
Most systems have multiple barriers that prevent a threat from causing an
incident or failure.
Pipeline inspection management
Pipeline inspection is an integral part of pipeline integrity management
system. Detailed inspection is the key to safe and reliable pipeline operations.
Most common inspection techniques used for pipeline integrity assessment
are:
l Pigging,
l Hydro-testing,
l External corrosion direct assessment (ECDA),
l Internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA),
l Advanced NDT techniques like Air Drones etc.
Conclusion and Discussion
Pipeline owners or operators around the world have as their primary objective
to transport commodities in a safe and reliable manner. There has been high
investment by regulators, operators, and vendors to detect and mitigate
any risks and develop robust preventive measures. This article has given a
general overview of an energy pipeline integrity assessment/management
process. Pipeline integrity can be achieved and managed efficiently through
the analysis of different threats or hazards that might cause risks to pipelines.
FOR ALL THE LATEST CORROSION INDUSTRY JOBS
VISIT THE ICORR JOB BOARD
For job seekers
• Over 60 jobs currently being advertised
• Set up job alerts for immediate notifications
• Upload your CV so employers can find you
• Free to use
For employers
• Place your job in front of our highly
qualified members
• Over 10,000 visitors every month
• Fill your jobs quickly with great talent
Visit the ICATS website
www.icats-training.org
24 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
Based on hazard identification, risk assessment techniques can be applied,
and appropriate pipeline integrity monitoring and assessment methods
can be conducted both internally and externally. A knowledge structure
and process engineering approach are proposed for pipeline integrity
management.
References
1. AS2885 (2008). Australian Standard: Pipelines-Gas and Liquid Petroleum.
2. ‘Natural Gas Pipeline and Infrastructure Explosions Nationwide’, Available:
https://www.greenamerica.org/natural-gas-pipeline-and-infrastructure-
explosions-nationwide (accessed in January 2020).
3. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Pipeline
Incident 20 Year Trends, Available: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-
statistics/pipeline/pipeline-incident-20-year-trends (accessed in January
2020).
4. Khaled El-Akruti, Tieling Zhang, Richard Dwight, Maintaining Pipeline
Integrity through Holistic Asset Management, European Journal of Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2016, pp. 618-638.
5. ‘Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines’, ASME B31.8S 2001.
Supplement to ASME B31.8, ASME International, New York, USA. See also K
Leewis, ‘Integrity Management of Pipelines’, International Pipeline Congress,
Mérida, Mexico, 2001.
6. Rafael G. Mora, Phil Hopkins, Edgar I. Cote, Taylor Shie, Pipeline Integrity
Management System, A Practical Approach, ASME Press 2016, USA.
7. W. Kent Muhlbauer, Pipeline Risk Assessment  The Definitive Approach and
Its Role in Risk Management, Clarion Technical Conference LLC, Feb. 2015.
All sustaining members
receive a 15% discount
For more information contact
Jonathan Phillips on
O 0114 273 0132
m jonathan@squareone.co.uk

The Future of Ship Painting
A. Hopkinson, R. Mihaylova, R. Kattan, Safinah Group, UK
The process of applying coatings to ships, the associated surface preparation
and inspection activities (the coating process) for new construction, dry-dock
repair and maintenance has hardly changed over the last 50 years. However,
regulations in the meantime have resulted in changes to paint formulation,
and increased pressure on ship owners and shipyards to consider more
environmentally friendly solutions that would reduce waste and impact
on health, safety and the environment. Inspection regimes have gradually
become stricter resulting in additional work to rectify poor workmanship
While limited attempts were made in the 1970’s [1], to consider how
vessels may be painted in the future, little has since been done to look at
the future possibilities. Currently, the industry is exploring the concepts of
the unmanned ship operation and increased automation in ship building
and repair. This two part article aims to highlight the areas where significant
changes and technology developments will be required to meet the
challenges of building, repairing and operating ships in the future, and to
identify technologies that may offer solutions to some of these problems
against the background of increased regulatory and environmental concerns.
Introduction
The marine coating market is estimated to consume about 900 million litres
of coatings per year, and in total is worth about £20 billion (this includes
paint, application and cost of failure (insurance claims and litigation) [2]. This
should be compared against the estimated £2 trillion the world spends on
combating corrosion in general [3] and the estimated £160 billion it spends
on all coating types [4].
Hence, for many of the paint manufacturers participation in the marine market
is a relatively small revenue generating activity compared to other sectors
such as the decorative and the broader protective coatings sectors. Thus,
development of new technologies specifically for marine applications may
not always attract the required investment, as both the products and methods
of application are generally valued at the commodity level.
Furthermore, many paint companies increasingly focus their investment
into related services such as hull performance monitoring, vessel tracking,
underwater hull cleaning and other “smart solutions” and initiatives that can
be broadly “wrapped around the paint in the can”.
Like any other engineering system on board a vessel, the goal of a coating
system is to deliver predictable performance and allow costs to be managed
in service. A bulk carrier designed with the required corrosion allowances
stipulated in the IACS Common Structural rules would fail to comply with
Technical Article
classification rules after 5 years in service were it not coated with suitable
anti-corrosion paint [5], also the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (1974 as
amended) (SOLAS) mandates the need for ballast tank and crude oil tank
coatings through the Performance Standards for Protective Coatings.
PSPC [6,7]. In addition, classification societies provide verification and type
approval services for a range of coating types and activities (e.g.shop primer,
anti- corrosives, anti-fouling, crude oil tanks and ballast tanks), however this
focus is mainly on the coating process once new construction starts.
The importance of design is referenced in the PSPC, ISO12944, and the
Marine Paint Forum Guide amongst other standards and industry guidelines.
Although the existence of these standards and industry guidelines has
resulted in few significant changes in methods and practices, and in certain
aspects such instruments may have inadvertently hindered innovation [6].
At new construction, coating work is the production bottleneck that limits
shipyard capacity and results in the highest levels of re-work, while the
chemical, cargo and ballast tank, and anti-fouling coatings regularly cause
problems in operation:
The cost of the paint is typically less than 0.5% - 2% of the new build cost of
the ship and less than 1% of the annual operating budget, with a peak at dry-
docking when the anti-fouling is renewed.
The coating process is still relatively labour intensive although attempts to
automate work and access have been made; see Figure 1. According to the
authors own analysis, coating work can account for somewhere between 10-
15% of the total cost of building a ship.
Figure 1: Example of semi-automation in surface preparation.
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 25
Institute News
Technical Article
Figure 2: Causes of coating failure (%) based on the authors’ investigation.
In addition, tank refurbishment (ballast or cargo tanks/holds) can incur
significant cost penalties in terms of off-hire costs, and while some owners use
the option of riding squads for some of this work, the cost of access and H&S
issues make this a difficult process whether the ship is underway or alongside.
At new building, and in dock, the costs can include considerable amounts
of repair and touch up of the newly applied coating that has been damaged
because of poor scheduling (this can account for up to 30% of total coating
man-hours at new construction [8].
The increased concern over Health and Safety will also need to see a step
change in how coatings are inspected, and while the IMO has issued
guidance on Permanent Means of Access [9], there have been considerable
concerns from major operators, class societies and insurers, regarding loss of
life in enclosed spaces, in particular because of the inspection requirements
[10].
During ship repair it is estimated that almost 75% of the waste stream
generated from a dry-docking is from the coating process and associated use
of consumables and coatings [9]. There is a clear need for improved methods
of surface preparation and application to reduce the environmental impact of
the coating process.
This article reviews the coating process and identifies the areas where change
is needed, and where possible identifies technologies that show promise
(possibly near to market, or being used in other markets), or suggests where
research and development should be carried out.
It will be published in two parts, and this first part will concentrate on the
influence various parties have on the coating process and how the design
phase affects this.
The current viewpoint
In any gathering of paint experts one of the regular laments is that coatings
fail because of poor surface preparation and poor application. However, data
from the authors’ work over 20 years has indicated that this is not necessarily
the case, and that while these may be symptoms of failure, they are not in
most cases the root cause of the failure. This conclusion does counter the
long-held industry belief that it is poor surface preparation and application
that are the cause of coating failure, however given the required inspection
regimes, then if this long-held belief is true, the implication is that certified
coating inspectors are not able to carry out their task properly.
An analysis of the failures investigated by the authors is summarised by
root cause in Figure 2 which shows how important factors such as design,
specification and product selection, could affect a coating’s performance.
While the authors accept that there may be considerable variability in the
experience of coating inspectors/technical service personnel, factors which
determine a coating’s performance are decided well before any coating
inspection takes place. The determination of the suitability of a surface
preparation for coating, is usually based on visual standards e.g. surface
cleanliness, which can make an objective determination very difficult. This
raises a cause for concern and a need for a change in approach.
Also, decisions made on site can result in a change to surface preparation
and/or application methods which can result in premature coating failure,
e.g. “cosmetic coats” to cover up repairs without considering the impact on
the intended performance, or paint company recommendations. Changes
in surface preparation method/quality due to lack of available equipment or
skills, result in poor in service performance.
For new building work, it is clearly in the interest of the shipyard to “get it right
first time” as this minimises the overall cost and time of a project. In dry-dock,
26 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
contractors are usually rewarded based on man-hours and so potentially the
incentive to improve the process is lower, with time and competitor pressures
tending to drive quality down to ensure profitability. On-board maintenance
by the crew has huge variability in terms of quality and quantity of work carried
out, however it is a relatively low proportion of the overall operating budget
and this tends to relegate it well down the list of operational priorities for most
of ship owners.
Standards are readily referred to within specifications or on technical data
sheets but without understanding the implications for specific tasks [11]. It
is a common misconception that all standards were written with ships in
mind rather than for a broad range of coating activities covering a range of
structures (from buildings to rail cars).
Therefore, standards must be subject to scrutiny and discussion before
any project starts to agree how they should, and will be, applied. It is more
common that standards are only considered once a problem arises and a
dispute is well underway, only to then be interpreted differently by the parties
involved. There is an urgent need to make these standards more relevant
to the shipping industry and improve the technical integrity of some (e.g.
IMO PSPC).
The decision-making process of the various
parties
The ship owner
There are different kinds of owners, and ownership patterns, which can impact
coating selection, expenditure, and ultimately performance, irrespective of
the quality of the work at new build or during repair, or the level of experience
of the inspectors. Owners can be broadly divided into four categories,
private, public, state, and financial [12].
The period of ownership of individual vessels differs on average by company
type, for example financial companies (banks, funds, etc) tend to keep assets
for significantly shorter periods of time, whereas state owned companies
tend to hold on to them for much longer. Also different companies have
different investment horizons, and the time frames to realise the return on
their investment could be significantly different, and hence the willingness to
invest in the longevity of the vessel can also vary considerably.
Vessels can have as many as 5 to 8 owners over their lifetimes depending on
type. Bulk carriers tend to have more owners on average than both tankers
and container vessels. It was also found that the first owner tends to keep
the asset the longest which usually covers the first and second special surveys
[12].
However, ships’ economic lives are finite, and on average this is about 25
years. When strict regulations are enforced that require costly retrofits, many
owners tend to scrap older tonnage, so the average economic life of vessels
shortens. For vessels with multiple owners, this results in frequent changes of
ownership and very short periods of ownership. For shipowners whose main
priority is to generate profit based on the market fluctuations, and who tend
to buy and sell vessels speculatively, there is little incentive to spend on the
coating process and general maintenance.
All these factors make the management of coatings problematic, as every
change of owner can result in a change in coating specification and coating
company, making the coating process unique among the various engineering
systems on board the ship, which otherwise generally last the life of the ship,
or rarely see a change in supplier.

In terms of vessel integrity, the Classification Societies have a key role as they
are often the recognised authority to assess coatings in ballast and crude oil
cargo tanks.
Ship owners also change Classification Societies for a variety of reasons,
for example, usually when a ship is sold. The change of ownership and
Classification Society can lead to a lack of continuity in terms of an intimate
knowledge of how the coatings perform in service, and similarly when a
change of paint supplier occurs this also limits the extent to which any lessons
learned about performance can be put into practice. This has generally
limited attempts to draw meaningful data about coating performance across
from different manufacturers and coating types.
The Equipment supplier
The marine market for surface preparation and coating application equipment
is limited, and small compared to the needs of other manufacturing industries,
such as the car industry, which has many more customers and therefore can
generate greater sales than the marine market. Consequently, development
of surface preparation and application technology tends to dominate in these
markets where mass production readily justifies investment in automation.
The coating process technology used in the shipping industry is very mature
and is at the phase where every possible benefit is being squeezed out of the
existing technology to keep pace.
The coating contractor/manager
Because of the mature level of technology used in coating application,
there are very low barriers to entry for a new company, and this has led to
the existence of numerous small coating contractor companies that are often
used by ship yards and by ship repair companies as a way of balancing the
labour demand during the build or repair process. The market is therefore
competitive, for example more than 40 coating contractor companies are
present in Singapore alone. There are a few companies that have tried to
establish themselves as international players, but they then generally suffer
from a cost disadvantage, and the market does not offer much scope for them
to increase prices to reflect the “superior” service or technology they may be
able to provide.
Drawing a comparison between the welding process and the coating process
can highlight one of the major problems. Welding work is usually carried
out under the supervision of a welding engineer, which generally implies
that the “Engineer” is university educated at least to a bachelor’s degree
level. The coating department however is often under the supervision of a
coating “Manager”, who in most cases does not have a university education
but has usually risen through the ranks based on experience and craft skills.
The more likely qualification held will be that of a coating inspector e.g.
FROSIO, ICorr,NACE or equivalent. In many of the leading shipyards there
are a growing number of qualified chemists/corrosion engineers who either
undertake this role or support the Manager.
Also, the typical welder will have undertaken training and certification testing
which must be regularly renewed and reviewed, while for surface preparation
and coating work, the type of training available is generally of a lower grade
and traditionally the requirements are informal. In most cases for coating work
there is training but no certification, and turnover of personnel in the coating
process tends to be high, however this is slowly changing in some industry
sectors with such as ICATS from the Institute of Corrosion.
This simple comparison serves to indicate the challenges that the coating
process must overcome to increase productivity and provide cost savings
through life of the vessel.
The shipyard
In the same way that there are different types of owners there are also different
types of shipyards, those that are high volume producers of a range of vessels
(e.g. S.Korea) and those that are specialist builders of fewer vessels e.g.
cruise ship or naval ship builders. Some build in the open air and some build
in enclosed facilities. The production needs of these yards varies in terms
of speed of build and throughout which are important factors in coating
selection e.g. drying times, over-coating intervals, and key features of shop
primers such weathering, cutting and welding.
Coating product development is often driven by the needs of the major
shipbuilders e.g. China, Japan and South Korea, where most of the marine
Technical Article
coatings are sold, and hence these markets become key targets for the
coating company product development programmes. This tends to result
in performance solutions for these major facilities, requiring that the many
smaller facilities or specialists’ builders have to adapt products to their specific
needs.
Local regulations and environmental concerns are increasingly playing a key
role in this area e.g. the use of abrasive blasting in some shipyards can be
restricted, or the need to limit Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (VOCs)
can adversely affect the production performance of a facility.
The current challenges and possible
solutions for the coating process in future.
The present-day imbalance
One of the key problems is the lack of coordination between the new build
and in-service requirements. At new build, the team is mainly focused on the
delivery of the vessel on time and on budget, and in many cases show little
thought or concern about the in-service operational costs/needs.
In terms of the paint supplier, the ability to follow a vessel throughout its life
is hampered by the varying patterns of ownership, often resulting in new
owners switching paint supplier, and in short-term interests, that tend to lead
to lower cost, rather than best practice.
The shipyard’s interest in a vessel is only over the 12 month warranty period.
The paint company has the shipyard as the client initially, and then the owner,
who may only keep the vessel with the same paint company until the next dry-
dock. Thus, there is often little consideration of through-life performance and
how best to measure it.
It is often said today that the major new build yards wield too much influence,
and the price pressure on owners to accept standard designs can often
result in an increase in through-life operating costs. Until this is resolved by
proper feedback mechanisms, then new build designs and selected coating
schemes will always compromise future operating costs.
The situation is being compounded by the fact that few ship owners employ
coating experts directly, and who are often recruited to be part of the site
team for a new build, while in the technical departments at head office or in
the management companies, there are very few companies that can claim to
have genuine in-house expertise with respect to corrosion and coating.
Vessels being managed suffer even more because of the competitive nature
of the industry and natural owner resistance to pay for “enhanced” services
when they are considered to be the responsibility of the ship manager. As
an extreme example, a ship management company could be dis-incentivised
from adopting novel solutions that could save the client money but increase
their own costs, which they may not be able to recoup.
This implies that there is a need in the market for a “Total Coating Management”
service, which can consider the through life engineering requirements of the
coating system, tied to the ship itself rather than the owner, and provide each
owner with round-the-clock support for the coating needs including longer
term behaviour analysis, and provide the specialist support to owners/
managers/charterers and others.
Process variability
One of the key challenges facing the coating process is that of variability or
predictability. When coating a complex space such as a ballast tank using the
IMO PSPC regulation and good practice guides as provided by many paint
companies, a manual surface preparation process is required to provide
a Sa2.5 cleanliness finish. The profile of this finish is in the range 30 – 75
microns, whereas the coating to be applied is in the range of 280 to 640
microns, typically two coats of paint in areas of complex geometry. Thus,
the manual application process must deliver a tolerance of 360 microns.(the
difference between the minimum and maximum thicknesses).
Variability of the application performance has been assessed [13] and current
processes are not capable of meeting these tight tolerances, resulting in
elevated paint thickness and/or inadequately prepared surfaces.
Design Problems
The way in which ships are designed, including their structural configuration,
has been optimised over many years to ensure efficiency and consider
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 27
Institute News
Technical Article
key parameters such as cargo carrying capacity and speed. Very little
consideration has been given to the concept of design for coating, and
rarely (if ever) have the authors seen reference to ISO 12944-3 in any paint
specification with its emphasis of design for coating detailed features like
scallops and welding configurations.
Standard access holes in tanks are generally too small for workers to easily
access with the required equipment and lighting, and make the process of
ventilation and curing much harder. Work with a Dutch yard [5] showed that
where additional effort is made then designs can be modified to reduce the
number of edges (a regular source of coating breakdown and corrosion),
improve access with bigger holes, and reduce total surface area for coating
that could lead to considerable cost savings for the ship yard.
Yet it is still common today to see designs that, while they may provide
productivity savings in steel work or weight, create significant problems in
service by using dissimilar metals, complex geometrical design, or provide
tight spaces which make it impossible to properly prepare and coat with the
technology that is available today.
Design today has its limitations; classification rules require key structural
inspections to be carried out at arm’s length and hence result in considerable
expense in the provision of temporary means of access.
Many of the issues that arise are repeated across a range of designs because
CAD systems have over the years developed a library of standard parts/
pieces that are simply used from one design to another. However, the blame
cannot rest with the designers as there is no reason to change anything if
there is no feedback from in-service performance. While shipyards do carry
out a 12-month end of warranty survey there is often no real direct route for
feedback and even major owners are rarely able to impact on the shipyard
design process, which is optimised for steel production rather than coating
and in-service performance.
Future Design Solutions
The use of mild steel will likely prevail for the immediate future, but the potential
use of ‘Graphene’ to allow different structural configurations to replace the
stiffened flat panel, as has been often envisaged with corrugated core laser
welded panels, could be realised [14]. Such a change would allow increased
structural efficiency and offer different options for corrosion protection and
smooth flat surfaces for functional coatings to be applied.
Design improvements can be also made by upgrades to standards such as ISO
12944-3 to address specific issues related to marine structures. Furthermore,
such standards should be referenced in design and coating specifications.
Access for work and inspection is critical to the through-life performance of
the coatings and the operating cost of the vessel. The considerable amount
of effort being placed in the development of Drone technology to carry
out surveys, which the authors believe will have a considerable impact on
vessel design in the future. In addition, technologies for underwater hull
cleaning/surveying and paint removal will also evolve and need designs to
be developed to take their requirements into account.
Other key areas are naturally cargo tanks and holds and chemical cargo tanks.
For cargo holds issues of abrasion and cargo handling damage need to be
investigated and new design configurations considered. Attempts to use
stainless steel for chemical cargo tanks have found some success but this in
turn raises the issue of dissimilar metals being used in the ballast tanks, and
in addition, stainless steel is not without its maintenance needs in the form of
re-passivation.
Any design should thus aim to minimise the coating challenge over the life
of the vessel, with the desired outcome a coating friendly design, which can
be defined as one that is not only well suited to enhance the productivity of
the new build yard by having simpler structural configuration that minimises
complexity and hence access and ease of coating, but also is both optimised
for the operational requirements and the likely adopted maintenance regime,
and provide asset integrity through-life.
One of the most significant issues for coatings over the last 30 years in terms of
structural design of vessels has been the rise in the number of designs that are
provided directly by a shipyard which tend to focus on optimising production
time and efficiency during the build cycle, rather than the through-life needs
of the asset/owner.
28 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
Figure 3: A combination of mild/galvanised and stainless steel on a modern naval
vessel.
Material selection today
Once the design of the vessel has been finalised, the single most important
factor to longevity is material selection. Steel is the dominant material for
the hull structure and at present much hope is being placed on the use of
unconventional materials. Stainless steel is not uncommon (in chemical
tankers) and even titanium has been considered by the US Navy. .
It is still not uncommon today to see vessels mixing a range of metals in one
space or on one assembly against best practice (see Figure 3).
Material selection in the future
Graphene is increasingly referred to as the wonder material of the future,
however it should be noted that while the term corrosion is most often related
to steel, many other materials corrode or degrade over time by processes
other than corrosion (UV exposure for example in the case of rubber).
However, while researchers are looking into the possible applications [Ref
15], we are still quite away from realising this dream. In fact, while the strength
of pure Graphene is substantial, when it is incorporated into resins to make it
useful as a material, its strength properties are dramatically reduced, making it
unlikely to be a source of an alternative material suitable for large construction
projects.
In the meantime, developments in corrosion resistant steel continue [16]. This
technology has also been used in the bottom plate of crude oil tanks and
underdeck areas, and a 50% reduction in corrosion loss has been reported.
All these developments could ultimately influence the required performance
from coatings.
The potential for new processes and materials also offers promise of a step
change in the use of materials for building ships. A key process could be
additive manufacturing and and materials such as Graphene could indeed
become a key material of the future. Although at present potential use and
its application is very limited, but the pace of technology development is
believed to be increasing.
Coating strategy
Every world class shipyard has a well-defined build strategy that is often very
detailed for steel and outfit work but can be lacking in how the coating activity
can best be integrated into it. The lack of application of any coating strategy
is often reflected by the relatively high levels of re-work that are required in
coating activities because of poor integration of the coating process with
other activities.
A key issue has been the increased levels of productivity in shipbuilding
in general against a set of technologies (surface preparation and coating
application) that have not progressed in terms of productivity, and struggle to
provide consistent/predictable performance in terms of surface cleanliness
and application (a fully automated shop primer line being a general exception
to this rule).

Current coating strategy
The building strategy of today generally affords little space for the coating
activities despite them often being a bottleneck process [17]. Many
shipyard designs and developments often create imbalanced processes by
underestimating the needs of the coating process either in the form of too
few workshops, insufficient transport capability or (as in most shipyards), the
subsequent need to repair the freshly applied coating. If coating technology
does not change then more effort has to be put into developing coating
strategies that accept the limitations of current technologies.
Coating strategy in the future
If technology does not change then coating strategies will have to be better
integrated into the production process and even simple things such as
allowing more cycle time for coating work in winter compared to summer
will be required. However, technology opportunities continue to emerge in
the form of coatings that are more resistant to hot work damage, or hot work
technology that is more forgiving to existing coating systems. Low heat input
technologies for cutting and welding such as using high-power lasers could
provide such solutions, while current technology limits the “self-healing”
capability of high build coatings often used on ships.
The next part of this article will cover in detail the coating specifications and
standards used today, and what will be necessary in the future. It will also
consider the needs of coating technologies in the future.
References
1. Dr Kiyoshi Terai, Tatsumi Kurioka; Future Shipbuilding Methods;
Shipbuilders Association of Japan, 20th Anniversary Commemoration Prize
Essay; August 1969; BSRA Reference 30,593
2. In house data; Safinah-Group 2019.
3. National Association of Corrosion engineers international (NACE)
International Measures of Prevention, Application and Economics of
Corrosion Technology (IMPACT)” , NACE Corrosion Conference Vancouver
2016.
4. Statista 2018 https://www.statista.com/statistics/745160/global-paint-
and-coatings-industry-market-value.
Visit the ICorr website
for all the latest news
www.icorr.org
Technical Article
5. Dr Broderick D; A structural design methodology to reduce structural
complexity to improve coating application and performance in water ballast
tanks; Ph.d. Thesis; University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 2015
6. IMO Performance Standard for Protective Coatings for Dedicated
Seawater Ballast Tanks; Resolution MSC.215(82) and MSC.215(84). As
adopted; December 2006.
7. IMO Performance Standard for Protective Coatings for Crude Oil Tanks;
Resolution MSC.288(87). As adopted May 2010.
8. Kattan M.R.; Marine Coatings: Interference or Integration; DSc.
Submission; University of Newcastle upon Tyne 2016.
9. IMO; Guidelines on the means of access to structures of inspection of oil
tankers and bulk carriers; MSC/Circular.686, resolution A.744(18); adopted
June 1995
10. https://www.steamshipmutual.com/loss-prevention/enclosed-spaces--
-guide-to-good-practice.html
11. Kattan M.R.; Cure or Curse – marine coating standards and specifications;
Marine Technology (SNAME), July 2017.
12. Mihaylova R; periods of Ownership in Shipping: patterns and influences.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2017.
13. Kattan R, Fletcher J; The problem with meeting paint specifications; SPPC
Annual Conference, USA, 2015.
14. Hoare. J, Kattan M R; Laser welding and steel sandwich construction for
merchant ships; NEWBUILD 2000 Conference, Royal Inst of Naval Architects,
London 1995.
15. Navalia Int. Shipbuilding Exhibition 2015 – Graphene extends to the naval
industry for “unsinkable” ships: https://www.navalia.es/en/news/sectors-
news/1493-graphene-extends-to-the-naval-industry-for-unsinkable-ships.
html
16. Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Meal Corporation: NSGPTM-3, Highly
Corrosion Resistant Steel Plate from NSSMC, substantially reduces corrosion
in cargo holds for coal and is applied to the first commercial vessel; Aug 4
2015press release.
17. Baldwin L, Kattan M R, Townsin R; Painting and ship production –
Interference or integration ? RINA Corrosion Conference, London Oct 1994
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 29
Sustaining Members
The Institute values the support of the companies and organisations who are Sustaining Members.
A detailed listing of these members is published annually as a stand-alone supplement to the January/February issue of Corrosion
Management, in addition a regularly up-dated searchable listing is published on the Institute’s website.
CATHODIC PROTECTION
CONSULTANCY SERVICES
BEASY
Tel: 02380 293223 www.beasy.com
CESCOR UK LTD
Tel: 0208 996 5111
Email: Dimitrios.mamalopoulos@cescor.co.uk
CORROSION CONTROL LTD
01785 711560 Fax: 01785 711561
www.controlcorrosion.co.uk
ECHEM CONSULTANTS LIMITED
Tel: 01225 650103 www.e2chem.co.uk
CORROSION ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS LTD
Tel: 01442 767 899 www.corrosionengineering.co.uk
PRO-TECH CP LTD
Tel: 01684 298679 www.protechcp.com
SEGCORR LTD
Tel: 07484838232 Email: paul.segers@segcorr.com
SGK
Technoparkstr 1, Zurich 8005, Switzerland
Tel: +41 44 2131590 Email: sgk@sgk.ch
CATHODIC PROTECTION
AND MONITORING
AQUATEC GROUP LIMITED
Tel: 01256 416010 Email: inquiry@aquatecgroup.com
BAC
Stafford Park 11, Telford TF3 3AY, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1952 290321 Email: sales@bacgroup.com
www.bacgroup.com
CATHELCO
Tel: +44 (0) 1246 457900 www.cathelco.com
CATHODIC PROTECTION CO LIMITED
Venture Way, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 7XS,
United Kingdom
Tel: 07399607344 Email: cpc@cathodic.co.uk
CATHODIC PROTECTION ENGINEERING LTD
Tel: 07399607344
Email: awhittaker@cathodicengineering.co.uk
CCSL
Tel: 01952 230900 www.corrosioncontrolservices.co.uk
CORROCONSULT UK LIMITED
Tel: 01952 740234 www.corroconsult.com
3C CORROSION CONTROL COMPANY AB
Box 324, 23 Landskrona, Sweden
Tel: +46 418 411 900 Fax: +46 418 411 935
Email: info@3ccc.se Website: www.3ccc.se
CORROSION CONTROL INCORPORATED
494 Fairplay Street, Rutledge, Georgia 30663, USA
Tel: +706 557 9624 Email: engineering@
corrosioncontrolinc.com
CORROSION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
EUROPE LTD
11 & 12 Merlin Park, Mildenhall, Suffolk IP28 7RD
Tel: 01638 711955 Fax: 01638 711953
Email: enquirieseu@ctsonline.com www.ctsonline.com
CORRPRO COMPANIES EUROPE LTD
Adam Street, Bowesfield Lane, Stockton On Tees, Cleveland
Tel: 44(0) 1642 614 106 Fax: +44(0) 1642 614 100
Email: ccel@corrpro.co.uk www.corrpro.co.uk
30 January/February 2020 www.icorr.org
DAIRYLAND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES
P.O. Box 187, Stoughton, WI 53589, USA
Tel: (608) 877 9900 Email: marketing@dairyland.com
www.dairyland.com
DEEPWATER EU LTD
Tel: +44 (0) 1483 600482 www.stoprust.com
DUVINE
Tel: +44 (0)1440 706777 www.duvine.co.uk
INTERPROVINCIAL CORROSION CONTROL
CO. LTD
930 Sheldon Court, Burlington, Ontario L7L 5K6, Canada
Tel: 905-634-7751 Email: contact@rustrol.com
www.rustrol.com
ICR INTEGRITY LTD
Tel: 01224 822822 www.icr.world.com
IMPALLOY LTD
Tel: 01922 714400 www.impalloy.com
MAPEI UK LTD
Mapei House, Steel Park Road, Halesowen B62 8HD
Tel: 0121 5086970 Email: info@mapei.co.uk
www.mapei.co.uk
METEC CATHODIC PROTECTION LIMITED
Tel: 0191 7316010 714411
Email: Robert.forsyth@metecgroup.com
MGDUFF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
1 Timberline Estate, Gravel Lane, Quarry Lane, Chichester,
West Sussex, PO19 2FJ
Tel: +44 (0) 1243 533336 Fax: +44 (0) 1234 533422
Email: sales@mgduff.co.uk www.mgduff.co.uk
MME GROUP
Tel: +31 (0) 180 482 828 www.mme-group.com
OMNIFLEX UK LTD
Tel: 0161 491 4144 www.omniflex.com
PENSPEN
Corrosion Engineering and Cathodic Protection
Field Services
Tel: 0800 0328210 / 0191 2606200
Email: b.kelly@penspen.com /
l.jones@penspen.com www.penspen.com
PHOENIX CPC LTD
Tel: 07486076800 www.phoenixcpc.com
R&R CORROSION LTD MCL COATINGS LTD
Tel: 01358 729644 www.rrcorrosion.com
SAITH LTD
Tel: 01425 207555 www.saithlimited.com
SILVION LIMITED
Tel: 01476 590932 www.silvion.co.uk
SPECIALIST CASTING LTD
Tel: 0191 5108843 www.specialistcastings.com
VECTOR CORROSION TECHNOLOGIES
Tel: 01384 671400 Email: davids@vector-corrosion.com
VOLKERLASER
Tel: 0800 022 3292 www.volkerlaser.co.uk
COATING APPLICATORS
ALFRED BAGNALL & SONS LTD
Tel: 01274 714800
Email: info@bagnalls.co.uk www.bagnalls.co.uk
APB CONSTRUCTION (UK) LTD
1st Floor, Grange Business Centre, River works, Grange Lane,
Sheffield S5 0DP
Tel: 01709 541000 Email: gary.bentham@apbcon.co.uk
APB GROUP LIMITED
Tel: 01538 755377 www.apbgroup.co.uk
BRIDGECOAT LTD
Tel: 02392 666161 Email: info@bridgecoat.co.uk
CORROSERVE
Tel: +44 (0) 113 2760 760 www.corroserve.com
DENHOLM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
Tel: +44 (0)141 445 3939
Email: Damian.O’Brien@denholm-industrial.com
D.F. COATINGS LTD
Tel: 02380 445634 Email: info@dfcoatings.co.uk
DYER & BUTLER LTD
Tel: 02380 742222 www.dyerandbutler.co.uk
F A CLOVER & SON LTD
Tel: 020 89486321 Email: ian@cloverpainting.com
FIRESAFE SERVICES (NE) LIMITED
Tel: 01670 351666 Email: info@firesafelimited.com
FOUNTAINS (PART OF THE OCS GROUP)
Tel: 07876 556197
Email: Donovan.gosher@fountainsgroup.co.uk
HANKINSON PAINTING GROUP
Tel: 0870 7892020
Email: Stephen.hankinson@hankinson.co.uk
HDM TUBES LTD
Tel: 07710080845 www.hdmtubes.co.uk
HERRINGTON INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD
Tel: 0191 516 0634 www.herringtonltd.co.uk
HRS RAIL LTD
Tel: 01797 329421 www.hrsrail.co.uk
INDUSTRIAL COATING SERVICE
Tel: 01543 450167 www.industrialcoatingservices.co.uk
JACK TIGHE LTD
Tel: 01652 640003 Email: sales@jacktighe.com
JPV (PAINTERS) LTD
Tel: 01277 201515 Email: enquiries @jpvpainters.co.uk
KAEFER LIMITED
Tel: 01642 371850 www.kaeferltd.co.uk
KUE GROUP LIMITED
Tel: +44 (0)1274 721188 www.kuegroup.com
Tel: 0151 423 6166 Fax: 0151 495 1437 www.mcl.eu.com
MCL SITE PROJECTS LTD
Tel: 0151 423 6166 Email: info@mclcoatings.com
NUSTEEL STRUCTURES
Email: scott.arnold@nusteelstructures.com
www.nusteelstructures.com
ORRMAC COATINGS LTD
Tel: 0114 2461237 www.orrmac.co.uk
PAINTEL LIMITED
Tel: 01752 719701 www.paintel.co.uk
PIPELINE TECHNIQUE
Deveronside Works, Steven Road, Huntly,
Aberdeenshire, AB54 4PS
Tel: 01466 795888
Email: coatingsenquiries@pipeline-technique.com
PIPERCREST LTD T/A HALLS SPECIALISED
SERVICES
Tel: 01375 361408 www.hallsspecialisedservices.co.uk
OWENS CORNING FOAMGLAS® INDUSTRY
31-35 Kirby Street, Hatton Garden, London, EC1N 8TE
Tel: 07789 507094 Email: kevin.bauld@owenscorning.com
R & W RAIL LTD
Tel: 02380 845379 www.rwcivilengineering.co.uk

RailX UK LTD
Tel: 07961764943 www.railxuk.com
SCA GROUP LIMITED
Tel: 01202 820820 www.sca-group.com
SPECIALIST PAINTING GROUP LTD
Tel: 01733 309500 www.specialistpaintinggroup.co.uk
SHUTDOWN MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED
Tel: 01634 256969
www.shutdownmaintenanceservices.co.uk
SPECIALIST BLASTING SERVICE LTD
Tel: 023 8044 4455
STANDISH METAL TREATMENT LTD
Tel: 01695 455977 Email: stuart.croft@standishmetal.co.uk
SURFACE TECHNIK (OLD HILL) LIMITED
Tel: 1384 457610 www.surfacetechnik.co.uk
TAZIKER INDUSTRIAL Tel: +41 44 2131590 Email: sgk@sgk.ch
Tel: 0844 8800 385 www.ti.uk.com
WEDGE GROUP GALVANIZING LTD
Tel: 0845 271 6082 www.wedge-galv.co.uk
WESCOTT INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LTD
Tel: 0191 497 5550 www.wescottis.com
W G BEAUMONT & SON LTD
Tel: 01708 749202
Email: tom.costello@wgbeaumont.co.uk
WILLIAM HARE LTD
Tel: 0161 609 0000 www.williamhare.co.uk
CONSULTING TESTING
AND INSPECTION
AW CORROSION SOLUTIONS LTD
Tel: 01732 700924
Email: info@awcorrosionsolutions.co.uk
CAN
Tel: 01224 870100 Fax: 01224 870101 www.cangroup.net
CLIENT INSPECTION SERVICES LTD
Tel: 0191 4477730 www.clientinspectionservices.co.uk
EQUILIBRANT LTD
Tel: 02890 767227 www.equilibrant.co.uk
ERIMUS INSULATION
Tel: 07968828825 www.erimusi.com
HELVETICA TECHNICAL CONSULTING SAGL
Piazza Indipendenza 3, 6830 Chiasso, Switzerland
Tel: +41 768307656 www.htc-sagl.ch
HYDROCOMM LTD
Tel: 07779333781 Email: hydrocomm@btinternet.com
HYDROSAVE UK LTD
Tel: +44 (0) 1536 515110 www.hydrosave.co.uk
INTECSEA
Tel: 01483 795300 Email: Tasos.kostrivas@intecsea.com
OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD
Tel: 01224 758500
PAINT INSPECTION LIMITED
Tel: 0845 4638680 www.paint-inspection.co.uk
PIPELINE TECHNIQUE
Deveronside Works, Steven Road, Huntly,
Aberdeenshire, AB54 4PS
Tel: 01466 795888
Email: coatingsenquiries@pipeline-technique.com
PLANT INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT LTD
Tel: 01224 798870
Email: info@pim-ltd.com www.pim-ltd.com
RAWWATER ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
Tel: 01925 767990 www.rawwater.com
SAFINAH LTD
Tel: 01670 519900 Email: enquiries@safinah.co.uk
SCALED SOLUTIONS LTD
Email: enquiries@scaledsolutions.co.uk www.
scaledsolutions.co.uk
SGK
Technoparkstr 1, Zurich 8005, Switzerland
SONOMATIC LTD
Tel: 01925 414000 www.sonomatic.com
STEEL PROTECTION CONSULTANCY LTD
Email: Wil.deacon@steel-protection.co.uk
www.steel-protection.co.uk
TOPLINE LIMITED
Tel: 084 46238 www.toplinelimited.net
SPECIFIERS
SSE LTD
Tel: 01738 456000
SUPPLIERS COATINGS
CARBOLINE Tel: 01224 772694 Email: Rennie@presserv.com
Tel: +44 (0) 116 2697777 www.carboline.com
CHEMCO INTERNATIONAL LTD
Tel: 01236 606060 www.chemcoint.com
CORROCOAT Tel: 01469 574715
Tel: +44 (0) 113 2760 760 www.corrocoat.com
DENSO (WINN & COALES DENSO LTD)
Denso House, Chapel Road, London SE27 0TR RECIPROCAL
Tel: 0208 670 7511 Fax: 0208 761 2456
Email: mail@denso.net www.denso.net
HEMPEL UK LTD
Berwyn House, The Pavillions, Cwmbran, Torfaen, South
Wales, NP44 3FD, United Kingdom
Tel: 01633 874024 Fax: 01633 489012
Email: sales@hempel.co.uk www.hempel.com
HEXIGONE INHIBITORS LTD
Tel: 01792 606494 www.hexigone.com
INDESTRUCTIBLE PAINT LTD
Tel: 0121 7022485 www.indestructible.co.uk
JOTUN PAINTS (EUROPE) LTD
Stather Road, Flixborough, Scunthorpe,
North Lincolnshire DN15 8RR
Tel: 01724 400 125 Fax: 01724 400 100
Email: enquiries@jotun.co.uk Web: www.jotun.co.uk
PPG PROTECTIVE & MARINE COATINGS
Huddersfield Road, Birstall, Batley, West Yorkshire,
WF17 9XA
Tel: 01924 354700
Email: PMCcustomerservice@ppg.com
www.ppgpmc.com
TO ADVERTISE IN CORROSION MANAGEMENT
please contact Jonathan Phillips or Debbie Hardwick at:
Square One O +44 (0)114 273 0132
m enquiries@squareone.co.uk
Sustaining Members
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS PROTECTIVE & MARINE
COATINGS
Tower Works, Kestor Street, Bolton, BL2 2AL, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1204 521771 Email: enquiries.pm.emea@
sherwin.com sherwin-williams.com/protectiveEMEA
SPECIALTY POLYMER COATINGS INC
LTD
Contact our UK based stockist & certified distribution centre
Tel: +44 (0) 7748 993326 Email: jglynn@beanny.co.uk
www.spc-net.com
SUPPLIERS GENERAL
CORRODERE ACADEMY
Tel: 01252 732220 www.protectivecoatingseurope.com
FISCHER INSTRUMENTATION (GB) LTD
Tel: 01590 684100 Email: mail@fischergb.co.uk
FUTURE PIPE LIMITED
Tel: 0207 8388660 www.futurepipe.com
GMA GARNET (EUROPE) GMBH
Tel: 01606 836233 www.gmagarnet.co.uk
HODGE CLEMCO
Tel: 0114 2540600 sales@hodgeclemco.co.uk www.
hodgeclemco.co.uk
LAKE CHEMICALS & MATERIALS LTD
Tel: 01527 594630 Email: philip.collier@lakecm.co.uk
MILLER FABRICATIONS LTD
Overtown Road, Waterloo, Wishaw, Scotland, ML2 8EW
Tel: 01698 373 770 www.millerfabrications.com
LLEWELLYN RYLAND LTD
Tel: 0121 4402284 Email: research@llewellyn-ryland.co.uk
PRESSERV LTD
RENTAJET GROUP LIMITED
Tel: 02380 817160 Email: sales@rglservices.co.uk
SCANGRIT
Email: sales@scangrit.co.uk www.scangrit.co.uk
ORGANISATIONS
ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
Tel: 01865 843000
INSTITUTE OF METAL FINISHING
Tel: 0121 6227387 www.uk-finishing.org.uk
QUALITY CONTROL
ELCOMETER
Tel: +44 (0) 161 371 6000 www.elcometer.com
DEV4 ONLINE LTD
Tel: 0795 2203531 https://condi.online
TRAINING AND COATING
INSPECTORS
CORRODERE ACADEMY
Tel: 01252 732220 www.corrodere.com
IMECHE ARGYLL RUANE
Tel: 0114 245 0600 www.hodgeclemco.co.uk
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 31
Institute Events
DIARY DATES 2020
BRANCH CONTACT
DIRECTORY
ABERDEEN:
Stephen Tate (Chairman)
Email; icorrabz@gmail.com
LONDON:
Paul Brooks (Chairman)
Mobile: 07880 791087
Steve Barke (Secretary)
George Winning (Speakers)
icorrlondon@gmail.com
MIDLANDS BRANCH:
Bill Whittaker (Chairman)
Email:
bwhittaker@cathodicengineering.co.uk
NORTH EAST:
Email: icorrne@hotmail.com
NORTH WEST:
Michael Leahy (Chairman)
michael.stash.leahy@gmail.com)
YORKSHIRE:
Nigel Peterson-White
BRANCH DATES 16th March 2020
Insulation and Fireproofing Inspector course
10th March 2020
IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
16th March 2020
London Branch
1800-2100
Venue: Lancaster Hall Hotel, 35 Craven Terrace,
Cathodic Protection Buried – Level 3
IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
London, W2 3EL 18th March 2020
Branch AGM, and the Chairman’s talk. ICorr Coating Inspector Level 3, Workshop &
Bee Technical - a light hearted insight into the
Assessment, Corrodere, Newcastle
realm of keeping Honey Bees, by Paul Barnes
23rd March 2020
31st March 2020 Painting Inspector course - Level 3
Aberdeen Branch IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
1800-2100
Industrial visit 23rd March 2020
Venue: Oceaneering, Aberdeen AB21 0BR Cathodic Protection Buried – Level 1
IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
2nd April
London Branch 30th March 2020
1800-2100 Paint Inspector course - Level 1
Venue: Lancaster Hall Hotel, 35 Craven Terrace, IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
London W2 3EL
Speaker and title to be confirmed 30th March 2020
Cathodic Protection Marine, Level2
28th April 2020 Venue to be confirmed
Aberdeen Branch
Venue: Palm Court Hotel, Seafield Rd Aberdeen, 14th-15th April 2020
ICorr Coating Inspector Levels 1&2,
AB15 7YX
Joint ICorr/MCF event Workshop & Assessment
Corrodere, Surrey
Sustainability of Corrosion Management
Speaker: Dr Muhammad Ejaz of Plant Integrity 20th – 24th April 2020
Management Ltd The Fundamentals of Corrosion Course,
Institute of Corrosion, Corrosion House, 5 St Peters
ADDITIONAL Gardens, Marefair, Northampton, NN1 1SX

Tel: 07793 710559

Email: nigel@pretreat.co.uk DIARY DATES 21st –24th April 2020
Paint Expo Trade Fair, Karlsruhe, Germany
2nd March 2020 12th -13th May 2020
CSD DIVISION: Painting Inspector course – Level 1 Corrosion under Insulation course, London
Julian Wharton IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
19th – 20th May 2020
J.A.Wharton@soton.ac.uk 9th March 2020 Oilfield Corrosion Science and Engineering
Painting Inspector course – Level 2 course, University of Leeds
CED DIVISION: IMechE Argyll Ruane, Sheffield
8th – 12th June 2020
Nick Smart 11th-12th March 2020 Fundamentals of Corrosion for Engineers course,
Tel: 0118 913 7752 ICorr Coating Inspector Levels 1 &2, Workshop & Northampton
Assessment, Corrodere, Aberdeen
17th-18th June 2020
15th March 2020 ICorr Coating Inspector Level3, Workshop &
NACE Corrosion Expo, Houston, Texas Assessment, Corrodere, Newcastle

Visit the ICATS website

www.icats-training.org
Visit the ICorr
website for all the To advertise contact
latest news Jonathan or Debbie at Square One

www.icorr.org O +44 (0) 114 273 0132

m enquiries@squareone.co.uk
www.icorr.org January/February 2020 32