Biofouling

ISSN: 0892-7014 (Print) 1029-2454 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gbif20

A review of surface roughness in antifouling

coatings illustrating the importance of cutoff
length

Dickon Howell & Brigitte Behrends

To cite this article: Dickon Howell & Brigitte Behrends (2006) A review of surface roughness in
antifouling coatings illustrating the importance of cutoff length, Biofouling, 22:6, 401-410, DOI:
10.1080/08927010601035738

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010601035738

Published online: 11 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1209

View related articles

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gbif20
Biofouling, 2006; 22(6): 401 – 410

A review of surface roughness in antifouling coatings illustrating the

importance of cutoff length

DICKON HOWELL & BRIGITTE BEHRENDS

School of Marine Science and Technology, Ridley Building, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

(Received 15 May 2006; accepted 13 September 2006)

Abstract
Surface roughness (SR) can affect the hydrodynamic performance of antifouling (AF) coatings and influence the settlement
behaviour of fouling larvae, which makes it an important parameter in the evaluation of novel coatings. This paper reviews
the causes and consequences of SR in the shipping industry, the methodology used for measuring it, and the importance of
measuring and reporting it correctly. SR is a parameter that originates from marine engineering, but has been used
extensively by marine scientists to characterise novel coatings and to investigate microtopographies that might inhibit
settlement behaviour. One of the integral components of the SR measurement is the use of a cutoff filter. This is a short-pass
filter that lets the high wave-number components through and thus separates the waviness from the roughness. Depending
on the length of this filter, roughness at different levels of magnification can be investigated. Much of the published work on
SR of AF coatings makes no mention of cutoff length, so that the results cannot be compared. It is suggested that an
international standard is needed and that if more researchers were aware of the significance of stating cutoff length when
reporting SR, more interdisciplinary work between biologists, engineers and material scientists would be possible in this
field.

Keywords: Antifouling, surface roughness, cutoff length, surface profiler, drag

had with TBT AF coatings with new non-TBT

Introduction
Biofouling of marine structures has long been a
problem to the global shipping industry since it can
increase both economic and environmental costs
significantly. Since the early 1970s, the most
successful antifouling (AF) coatings have been those
that had a matrix based upon a copolymer with a
tributyltin biocidal pendant group and cuprous oxide
as an additional biocidal pigment. These coatings not
only had very effective biocidal properties, but were
self-polishing, meaning that as the polymer was
hydrolysed by seawater, biocides were released and
the coating polished, enabling excellent AF efficiency
and increased hydrodynamic performance. These
coatings are known as self-polishing copolymer
(SPC) systems.
The IMO Convention on Harmful Antifouling
Systems, AFS 2001 (IMO, 2003) states that TBT
will be prohibited as an AF substance from 2008.
Coating manufacturers have therefore been develop-
ing new ways to emulate the same performance they
coatings. There are two broad biocidal AF coatings
on the market today: (i) those that have hydrating
binders, also known as ablative or solid matrix
coatings, and (ii) those that have hydrolysing binders
and mimic TBT SPC coatings. The last decade has
also seen an increase in hard marine coatings that
require regular in-service cleaning, and foul-release
coatings based on silicone elastomers. Foul-release
coatings typically have very low surface energy and
lower surface roughness than traditional biocidal
coatings. Consequently, the adhesion strength of
settling marine biota is less (e.g. Burnell et al. 1997;
Berglin et al. 2001; Brady, 2001; Stein et al. 2003a;
Chaudhury et al. 2005), and the fouling breaks
away from the hull under high speeds, typically
415 knots.
In order to assess the efficiency of novel AF
coatings many parameters must be investigated
including biocide release rate, AF efficiency, self-
polishing capacity, biofouling adhesion strength,
flexibility, toughness, dry film thickness, coating

Correspondence: Dickon Howell, School of Marine Science and Technology, Ridley Building, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK. Fax: þ44 191 222 5491. E-mail: d.j.howell@ncl.ac.uk
ISSN 0892-7014 print/ISSN 1029-2454 online Ó 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08927010601035738
402 D. Howell & B. Behrends
microstructure and surface roughness. This paper
reviews the causes and consequences of surface
roughness in AF coatings, the importance of cutoff
length in surface roughness measurement, methods
of measuring surface roughness in AF coatings,
and published values of surface roughness for AF
coatings.
Consequences of surface roughness
Hydrodynamic penalties
The total drag on a ship is the sum of all the
aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces in the direc-
tion of the external fluid flow that act to oppose
forward motion. There are two types of drag: viscous
drag, which predominates at low speeds and is
largely determined by the frictional resistance caused
by the surface roughness of a hull, and wave-making
drag, which predominates at high speed and is
determined by the length of the ship and the beam
to draft ratio. In smooth, new ships frictional
resistance accounts for 80 – 85% of the total resis-
tance in slow-speed vessels and as much as 50% in
high speed vessels (Todd, 1980).
Viscous drag occurs in the layer of fluid in the
immediate vicinity of a bounding surface, known as
the boundary layer. At high Reynolds numbers (the
Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial forces to
viscous forces) it is desirable to have a laminar
boundary layer as this imparts less friction to the
bounding surface. As a fluid flows along a surface it
inevitably becomes turbulent imparting more drag,
although a laminar sublayer remains immediately
adjacent to the surface below this turbulent boundary
layer. Extra turbulence is caused by the projection of
roughness elements through this laminar sublayer.
Schultz (2003) showed an increase in the boundary
layer thickness and the integral length scales
occurred in an unsanded, painted surface compared
to a smooth wall. If the height of the roughness
elements is small relative to the thickness of the
sublayer then the surface will behave as if it is
hydraulically smooth, and the transition to rough
behaviour will be due to the decrease in the thickness
of the laminar sublayer with increasing Reynolds
number. This is encapsulated in the critical rough-
ness height concept that comes from Nikuradse’s
roughness function for uniform sand roughness.
This concept states that there exists a critical
roughness height below which there is no increase
in drag, termed the ‘‘hydrodynamically smooth
condition’’ (Schultz, 2002).
On a ship, there are three levels of roughness,
namely i) structural roughness caused by the con-
struction process (e.g. weld spots), ii) roughness
caused by the coating application process (i.e. a
coating will be rougher when applied with a roller
than a spray method), and iii) micro-roughness that
is a function of the components and structure of the
coating system and which can often get hidden in
the laminar sublayer. When modelling the relation-
ship between ‘‘macro-roughness’’ (cutoff 50 mm),
‘‘micro-roughness’’ (cutoff 10 mm) and drag resis-
tance, Weinell et al. (2003) found that in an ideal
painted surface the coefficient attributable to micro-
roughness was an order of magnitude higher than
that attributable to macro-roughness. The coeffi-
cient attributable to macro-roughness had a nega-
tive sign at higher velocities meaning that it had a
decreasing effect on drag resistance as velocity
increased. An increase of 5 mm in micro-roughness
corresponded to a *4% increase in drag resistance.
This is not to deny the importance of large-scale
irregularities in drag. Weinell et al. (2003) also
reported that an increase of 3% coverage in a
simulated weld seam doubled the drag. However,
once structural roughness has been eliminated as
much as possible, a 4% difference in drag between
coatings is a significant saving in a highly compe-
titive market.
Having a ship hull with low drag is important
both for environmental and economic reasons. It
has been estimated that global emissions in 1996
from marine shipping were in the region of
10.12 Tg (Tg ¼ kg 6 109) of NOx per year and
8.48 Tg of SOx per year making ship engines
among the world’s highest polluting combustion
sources per ton of fuel consumed (Corbett &
Fishbank, 1997). According to the latest figures
available from the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) (2002), global
marine shipping emissions are equivalent to 450%
of the total NOx output and 459% of the total SOx
output of the USA or 47 and 8 times the total
respective outputs of the UK.
The reason for this scale of emissions is that
490% of world trade is carried by the international
shipping industry and without it, the import and
export of goods on the scale necessary for the
modern world would not be possible. The United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) estimates that the operating costs
alone of merchant ships contributes about US
$380 billion in freight rates within the global
economy, equivalent to about 5% of total world
trade (UNCTAD, 2004). In 2002, the industry
shipped around 5.5 thousand million tonnes over a
distance of about 4.6 million miles, giving roughly
23 thousand billion tonne-miles of total trade
(UNCTAD, 2004). The US Navy spends $500
million per annum on propulsion fuel, and even
with current AF technology it is estimated that
approximately $30 to $60 million a year is still

wasted in hydrodynamic drag (Seligman & Zirino,
1998). A reduction in drag means less fuel burned
per mile, which means fewer atmospheric emissions
and a lower fuel cost for the operator and ultimately
the consumer.
It is assumed that all marine vessels are subject to a
certain amount of fouling and therefore are not
running as efficiently as possible, but by looking at
these figures, it can be seen that the potential
environmental and economic savings that could be
made from the development and utilisation of
effective, hydrodynamically efficient, AF paints is
very substantial.
Settlement and attachment of biofouling
The roughness of an AF coating can increase the
likelihood of biofouling, the very thing that the
coating is mitigating against. The main mechanism
whereby fouling organisms attach to a substratum
is via a bioadhesive which flows into surface
imperfections and cures to create a secure mechan-
ical lock (Berglin et al. 2001). In this way, surface
roughness can promote organism settlement in
microanfractuosities (Thouvenin et al. 2002). The-
oretically therefore, the rougher a coating surface
becomes, the more likely it is to be fouled and the
more the overall roughness will increase (Holm
et al. 2004). It has also been suggested however,
that microtopographies might influence surface
near-fluid dynamics and thus micro-hydrodynami-
cally prevent settlement (Petronis et al. 2000).
Hydrodynamic microenvironments around topo-
graphic structures may have consequences for re-
cruitment and removal of the propagules of marine
benthic organisms due to reduced water flow in
depressions and crevices offering a refuge for settling
spores and juveniles from strong hydrodynamic
forces (Granhag et al. 2004).
The potential for surface micro-topography to
influence settlement has been well-documented
(Becker & Wahl, 1996; Lemire & Bourget, 1996;
Walters & Wethey, 1996; Berntsson et al. 2000;
Petronis et al. 2000; Berglin et al. 2001; Baum et al.
2002; Callow et al. 2002; Bers & Wahl, 2004;
Granhag et al. 2004; Hoipkemeier-Wilson et al.
2004; Carman et al. 2006; Scardino et al. 2006). The
bioenergetic argument of attachment point theory
states that attachment of a sphere (spore) to a flat
substratum leads to a net increase in total surface
area which leads to an increase in work or energy
exerted on the system (Hoipkemeier-Wilson et al.
2004). Attachment therefore will be preferential in
valleys that are of similar dimension to the body size
of the spore or on surfaces that have the greatest
number of attachment points, resulting in a net
decrease in surface area and therefore a reduction
Surface roughness in AF coatings 403
in hydrodynamic stress. Marine fouling organisms
should therefore settle on substrata that have a
particular level of roughness.
It has been shown that Ulva spores preferentially
settle on surfaces that provide a topography with
dimensions of the same order as the maximum
width of the free swimming spore, ca. 5 mm (Callow
et al. 2002; Hoipkemeier-Wilson et al. 2004) and
only surface roughness within a certain scale
(Rz ¼ 25 mm [Rz ¼ ten point height roughness])
may act as an efficient refuge from hydrodynamic
forces due to stronger attachment or increased
protection (Granhag et al. 2004). Carman et al.
(2006) showed that zoospore settlement of Ulva
linza was inversely proportional to the width
(between 5 and 20 mm) of channels engineered
on artificial surfaces. Settlement was reduced by
*85% on the finer (ca. 2 mm) and more complex
Sharklet AFTM. Settlement of Balanus improvisus
was reported to be reduced as surface mean rough-
ness increased when compared to smooth controls
(Berntsson et al. 2000; Petronis et al. 2000).
Scardino et al. (2006) conducted static bioassays
on microtextured polyimide surfaces using four
diatom species, Fallacia carpenteriae, Nitzschia
cf. palacea, Amphora sp. and Navicula jeffreyi with
cell sizes ranging from 1 – 14 mm. Diatoms were
found to attach in significantly higher numbers to
treatments where the numbers of attachment points
was highest, thus corroborating attachment point
theory.
Kerr and Cowling (2003) also reported a non-
monotonic relationship between surface roughness
and bacterial fouling levels, where low fouling
occurred at very low roughness values. A local maxi-
mum in bacterial fouling build up at Rq (Rq ¼ root
mean square roughness) values of 0.01 mm was
reported, followed by a reduction in fouling at
Rq  0.016 mm. The bacterial fouling at around
0.01 mm resisted a shear stress more than one third
greater than fouling on samples with Rq  0.015 mm.
Natural surface microtopographies have also been
investigated (Ball, 1999; Baum et al. 2002; Scardino
et al. 2003; Bers & Wahl, 2004; Scardino & De Nys,
2004). It has been suggested that the AF effects of
these microtopographies are too weak, too specific
and too transitory to provide efficient protection
on their own (Bers & Wahl, 2004) and may use
secondary metabolites as potential AF biocides
(Okino et al. 1995). Surface roughness also has
consequences for biocidal coatings, as an increase in
surface roughness can increase biocide release rates,
as a roughened surface increases porosity and the
likelihood of biocide dissolution (Yonehara et al.
2001). From these studies it can be seen that scales
of roughness should be taken into consideration
when designing an AF coating, as the surficial
404 D. Howell & B. Behrends
structure of the coating itself will have specific AF
properties, thus reducing the need for biocides.
Causes of surface roughness
As has been mentioned, surface roughness has many
different scales. It is acknowledged that structural
roughness has a significant effect on drag, but as
the focus of this review is roughness caused by AF
coatings, which does not include structural rough-
ness, this will not be covered.
Application
Most current AF coatings are SPCs applied either
mechanically by spraymist, airless spray, or electro-
statically or by hand with a roller or brush. Each of
these methods leaves different levels of patterned
roughness in the finished coating. Using mechanical
application, large volumes of coating may be applied
in a short period of time and a smoother finish is
achieved, although a spray pattern will always
remain, particularly on curved surfaces. In a com-
mercial environment, the most common method of
application is airless spray and stringent work
protocols are used where dew point, humidity,
temperature and airflow are all strictly monitored
to control the ultimate finish of the coating. It has
been shown that when measuring the drag of coated
surfaces, applying a foul-release coating with a roller
instead of spraying can increase the frictional
resistance of the coating by around 2.5% (Candries &
Atlar, 2005).
Particle size distribution
Particle size distribution (PSD) controls a number of
properties important to the general paint chemist
including optical properties, tinting strength, dur-
ability, viscosity and sedimentation (Rawle, 2002).
The PSD could also indirectly affect surface rough-
ness for an SPC as the empty polymer matrix, com-
prising the leached layer, is a template of the pigment
particles which have dissolved (Kiil et al. 2001;
2002).
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of an AF coating drying after application.
As a freshly applied SPC dries, the solvent
evaporates and it constricts resulting in surficial
cuprous oxide particles causing an increase in initial
surface roughness. Upon seawater immersion, dis-
solution of these surficial particles leads to a high
initial release rate and could increase roughness on a
scale similar to the PSD (Figure 1). Although the
coating will hydrolyse and polish, this will only
reduce large-scale roughness or waviness within the
coating. PSD is not the only component of paint
systems that creates surface roughness. The inherent
structure of the coating system can also cause
differences in surface roughness. It has been shown
that foul release coatings have smoother surfaces
upon application than biocidal coatings (Candries,
2001; Candries et al. 2001; Weinell et al. 2003). It
has also been reported that for biocidal coatings,
surface roughness can also depend on the ease of
solubility of the paint binders in a solvent such as
xylenes during paint preparation (Thouvenin et al.
2003).
The importance of cutoff length
Roughness has been assumed to be a second order-
effect in physical systems and therefore not to have a
place in the engineering sciences. However, second
order effects present the major remaining challenge
in the world (Thomas, 1999). This is especially true
in the world of marine technology, where advances in
the modelling of computational fluid dynamics have
enabled accurate assessments of the stresses upon a
surface in a fluid flow. The surface of a coating can
be described by its texture, which has four essential
elements of which roughness is but one. The other
three are waviness (upon which roughness is
imposed), lay (predominant direction or pattern of
the surface texture) and flaws such as scratches in
the paint or weld marks on the hull. These four
components exist at different levels of magnification,
each imposed upon the other, and each one
important in terms of the resultant hydrodynamic
efficiency of a surface.
Roughness is reported using many parameters, the
most common of which are: (i) Rt, the maximum

peak to valley height over the sample, the absolute
value between the highest and lowest peaks; (ii) Ra,
the average surface roughness, or average deviation,
of all points from a plane fit to the test part surface;
(iii) Rq, the root mean square deviation of all points
from a plane fit to the test part surface; (iv) Rz, the
ten-point height, or the average absolute value of the
five highest peaks and five lowest valleys; (v) Ku,
kurtosis, a measure of the randomness of profile
heights, and of the ‘‘sharpness’’ of a surface. A
perfectly random surface has a value of three; the
farther the result is from three, the less random and
more repetitive the surface is. Spiky surfaces have a
high value; bumpy surfaces have a low value; (vi) Sk,
the skewness, a measure of symmetry of the profile
about the mean line. Negative skew indicates a
predominance of valleys, while positive skew indi-
cates a ‘‘peaky’’ surface; (vii) Ku and Sk are
statistical descriptors that give the average behaviour
of the surface height.
Coating a surface will affect the geometry and
topography of that surface, with or without rough-
ness, and therefore will also affect the near wall
hydrodynamic features, which are usually confined
to the boundary layer flow region. Mainly this means
the wall shear stress which, in turn, determines the
friction resistance component of the total ship drag
(Kutlar & Lewcowicz, 1990).When investigating AF
coatings, surface roughness rather than waviness has
been the most common component used in com-
parative assessment as roughness measurements
incorporated with a boundary layer prediction
method can give a simple and practical solution to
the problem of calculating frictional drag (Mosaad,
1990). A rule of thumb put forward by Lackenby
(1962) is that each 10 mm of roughness adds 1% to
the frictional resistance, although further studies
have shown that this is not always necessarily the case
(Kutlar & Lewcowicz, 1990).
When calculating surface roughness, care must be
taken as waviness can be superimposed on top of the
roughness profile. A ‘‘cutoff length’’ is used as a filter
to separate out these two components and numeri-
cally specifies the wave-number band below or above
which components are extracted or eliminated. In
practical terms, it can be thought of as a sampling
distance along the surface. A cutoff length shorter
than the waviness wavelength eliminates waviness
deviations and only includes roughness deviations.
Short-pass filters (long wavelength cutoff) let the
short wavelength components through, thus extract-
ing the roughness profile and long-pass filters (short
wavelength cutoff) let the long wavelength compo-
nents through, thus extracting the waviness profile. If
no filter is applied at all, the waviness profile is likely
to dominate the roughness profile until the sampling
length is sufficiently small to eliminate larger scale
Surface roughness in AF coatings 405
waviness. The effect of increasing the long wave-
length cutoff is generally to increase the mean and
the variation of height parameters (Mosaad, 1990),
whereas variation in the short wavelength cutoff
generally affects texture parameters only (Medhurst,
1990). In stylus based roughness measurement
equipment, the short wavelength cutoff is fixed by
the ball diameter of the stylus.
A diagrammatic example of how a cutoff filter
works can be seen in Figure 2. Level 1 shows an
example of a surface profile where waviness dom-
inates. If a cutoff or sampling length is applied then
large-scale waviness is eliminated (Level 2). Different
levels of roughness can be investigated by applying a
smaller cutoff length (Level 3), until this magnifica-
tion becomes unreasonable.
Cutoff length is integral to the standardised
measurement of surface roughness. Although ISO
has introduced specified filter cutoff lengths (ISO,
1998) of 8, 2.5, 0.8, 0.25 and 0.08 mm, there is still
no international standard for measuring the surface
profile of a ship’s hull. Rt50 has become a universally
accepted parameter for measurement of hull surface
quality, mainly by virtue of the almost total mono-
poly enjoyed by the BMT Hull Roughness Analyser
(HRA) in the shipping industry for the last three
decades (Medhurst, 1990). For quality control
purposes Rt50 has, in the past, been accepted as
being good enough, although authorities agree that it
is an inadequate statistic to describe the generality of
coated hulls when a correlation is required with
their added drag (Townsin & Dey, 1990). Using a
Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of how three progressively
smaller cutoff lengths (1 – 3) can eliminate waviness in a surface
roughness profile (R ¼ roughness).
406 D. Howell & B. Behrends
one-dimensional roughness height parameter such as
Rt50 has been shown to be not detailed enough to
correlate surface roughness with its effect on viscous
drag, as it gave an incomplete, one-dimensional
representation of the surface without a texture
parameter (Chuah et al. 1990). Townsin and Dey
(1990) however, came to the conclusion that Rt50
and its averages were adequate as a characterisation
of new ship, freshly coated surfaces to correlate with
added drag but is totally inadequate for the generality
of rough marine surfaces which have suffered
damage in-service. They also point out that the best
correlation was achieved by Musker (1977) using
roughness height parameters (Rq, S, Sk and Ku) and
a cutoff of 2 mm.
Precise cutoff definition is necessary both to
establish parameters which are relevant to the
problem (Medhurst, 1990) and to ensure that
research done in different laboratories can have
comparable results. In terms of comparability, it
has been noted that roughness parameters tend to be
self-similar when scaled in one direction, and that
different scales of roughness can be related by using
fractal analysis (Candries, 2001). However, the
results of Medhurst (1990) (Figure 3), and Howell
and Behrends (unpublished data) show that this in
not always the case and a strong correlation cannot
always be found. Accurate long wavelength cutoff
definition is therefore vital for both the avoidance
of method divergence and to establish parameters
Figure 3. Roughness of 200 profiles measured on the same surface
at cutoff lengths of 2.5 and 50 mm (Medhurst, 1990).
relevant to the problem (Medhurst, 1990). Medhurst
(1990) advised that parameters should be calculated
at three nominal cutoffs of 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 mm.
These are close enough to the ISO standard
cutoffs of 8, 2.5, 0.8, 0.25 and 0.08 mm to warrant
a recommendation that while there is no cur-
rent standard measurement method for ship hull
roughness, all surface roughness measurements
of ships’ hulls should follow the ISO (1998)
standard.
The choice of a suitable cutoff length is not the
only issue. There is also the problem of which
roughness parameter to use. The downward shift in
the mean velocity profile in the inner region of the
turbulent boundary layer caused by surface rough-
ness DU þ is called the roughness function. For so
called ‘‘k-type’’ roughness, DU þ is a function of the
roughness Reynolds number, kþ, defined as the ratio
of the roughness length scale to the viscous length
scale. Once DU þ ¼ DU þ(kþ) for a given rough
surface is known the drag of any body covered with
that roughness can be predicted (Granville, 1958;
Schultz & Myers, 2003). The issue lies in the
definition of DU þ, or more importantly, the notion
that there may be a single roughness parameter
that can be used to calculate DU þ for all surfaces.
It has been shown that when testing a flat plate
covered with uniform spheres, a flat plate with finer
scale roughness, and when testing new and cleaned
AF coatings, using a single roughness parameter
DU þ does collapse well in velocity defect form
(Schultz, 2004; Schultz & Flack, 2005). However,
if trying to collapse a wide range of rough surface
types, a texture parameter is probably needed
although given that the shape of the roughness
function is different among roughness types, it would
be unlikely that even a set of roughness parameters
that includes texture can be universally applicable for
all surfaces (Schultz, 2006, personal communica-
tion). Not only is a texture parameter needed when
analysing drag, but long wavelength waviness cannot
be discounted either as it can strongly modulate the
turbulent structure of the boundary layer. Depen-
dent on the steepness of the waviness, flow separa-
tion can occur causing pressure drag on top of the
frictional drag caused by surface roughness (Kendall,
1970). It is necessary, therefore, to experimentally
determine the roughness function for a generic
surface (Grigson, 1992).
Methods of surface roughness analysis
In the literature regarding surface roughness mea-
surement of AF coatings, two main categories of
method have been used – stylus or optical. A good
practical description of these methods can be found
in Thomas (1999).
 Surface roughness in AF coatings 407

Mechanical methods Optical methods

Stylus-based equipment will not have the same
resolution as optical equipment, due to the mechani-
cally limiting nature of the approach. The most
common piece of equipment used is the BMT HRA,
although it has been suggested that this method
needs to be modified so that it can record digital
roughness profiles and that the single amplitude
parameter is insufficient to characterise the rough-
ness of coating surfaces (Candries et al. 2003). As
discussed, the BMT HRA can only measure at a
cutoff length of 50 mm, over 6 times higher than the
highest cutoff length suggested by the ISO standard
(ISO, 1998). There is a known problem in using the
BMT HRA on foul release coatings where the stylus
tends to stick in the silicone coating. It has been
found that the use of a mechanised traverse appears
to reduce this problem (Mutton, personal commu-
nication) therefore the only other way to get around
this completely is to wet the coating, which can then
cause the stylus to skid.
Weinell et al. (2003) used the BMT HRA to
measure ‘‘macro-roughness’’ (cutoff 50 mm) and
the Handysurf E-35A, a more sensitive stylus-based
device, to measure ‘‘micro – roughness’’ (cutoff
10 mm). Thouvenin et al. (2002) used a Mahr
Perthometer M2 hand-held roughness analyser that
works on the same principles as the BMT HRA, but
with a vertical resolution of 0.012 mm. Candries et al.
used the BMT HRA to measure AF coatings at
50 mm cutoff length.
A new advance on the stylus methods is that of
using mechanical profilometry (Stein et al. 2003b;
Osterhold, 2005) that can give a vertical resolution
of 0.01 mm and can depict the surface structure
pseudo three-dimensionally, and contact atomic
force microscopy (CAFM). Stein et al. (2003b)
studied the effect of filler loading on surface rough-
ness of hydrosilylation cured silicone coatings using
CAFM.
Optical systems have a much higher resolution than
stylus systems and can measure three-dimensional
profiles directly rather than indirectly as in mechan-
ical profilometry. Even though optical methods have
greater resolution than stylus-based methods, there is
very little information in the literature regarding
measurement of roughness at cutoff lengths less
510 mm.
There are many studies that use optical methods
to measure surface roughness (Lackenby, 1962;
Urban et al. 1996; Candries, 2001; Kiil et al. 2001;
Candries et al. 2003; Kerr & Cowling, 2003;
Schultz, 2004). Some methods are not satisfactory
for in situ measurement or for measurements taken
halfway through immersion testing as they involve
taking slices of the coating that are examined with an
optical measurement system, such as laser pro-
filometry (LP), or a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) to determine both roughness and dry film
thickness.
Candries et al. (2003); Candries & Atlar (2005)
used a UBM Microfocus Measurement System that
had a linear spot diameter of 1 mm, a measurement
range of +500 mm, and a vertical resolution of
0.01 mm. Kerr and Cowling (2003) measured Rq
values of 0.01 mm using an optical interferometer.
Akhremitchev et al. (2003) used apertureless near-
field scanning infrared microscopy (ANSIM) and
AFM to investigate the adhesion and structural
properties of novel polymer surfaces at the nano-scale,
but did not report any quantitative roughness values.
Kiil et al. (2001) report an absolute error margin of
5 – 10 mm or more when measuring dry film thickness
using an optical microscope.
Reported roughness values
Table I shows reported roughness values that have
quoted a cutoff length. There are many reported

Table I. Reported roughness values for SPC and foul release antifouling coatings that have a quoted cutoff length.

Cutoff Roughness (mm)

Length
Method Coating (mm) Ra Rt Rq Sk Ku Author

UBM Microfocus Tin-free SPC 5 3.24 19.61 4.04 0.35 4.39 Candries et al. (2001; 2003)
Tin-free SPC 2.5 2.71 14.86 3.38 0.15 5.59 Candries et al. (2001; 2003)
Foul release 5 3.28 18.85 4.20 4.82 67.12 Candries et al. (2001; 2003)
Foul release 2.5 1.92 10.71 2.47 12.68 243.30 Candries et al. (2001; 2003)
BMT HRA Tin-free SPC 50 53 – 86 Weinell et al. (2003)
BMT HRA Foul release 50 53 – 58 Weinell et al. (2003)
Handysurf E-350 Tin-free SPC 10 13 – 21 Weinell et al. (2003)
Handysurf E-350 Foul release 10 5–6 Weinell et al. (2003)
Cyber-optics laser profilometer Tin-free SPC 50 15 – 20 97 – 129 18 – 24 Schultz (2004)
Cyber-optics laser profilometer Foul release 50 12 – 14 66 – 85 14 – 17 Schultz (2004)
408 D. Howell & B. Behrends
values of studies mentioned in this review that do not
quote cutoff lengths making comparison impossible.
Schultz (2004) measured the frictional resistance of
the coatings tested as well as the surface roughness.
He found that although the foul release coatings
tended to have lower frictional resistance than the
other AF surfaces tested, these differences were
within experimental uncertainty. The foul release
roughness was populated by longer wavelengths than
the other AF surfaces and the wave-number spectra
showed a greater contribution to the roughness from
the low wave-number scales when compared to the
other AF surfaces.
Some of these reported values fall into the pre-
ferential roughness scale for Ulva settlement
(Granhag et al. 2004). The values reported by
Stein et al. (2003b) for foul release coatings fall
outside the optimum Rq for bacterial settlement
reported by Kerr and Cowling (2003) of 0.001 mm
although these are not in the Table as no cutoff
length was reported. In all published studies that
report cutoff lengths, they are 42.5 mm and many
are 410 mm. None of these studies used any of
the cutoff lengths as specified by the ISO standard
(ISO, 1998).
Conclusions
The causes and consequences of surface roughness
in AF coatings have been discussed. Surface rough-
ness has three different scales, structural roughness,
roughness caused by application techniques and
micro-roughness caused by the composition and
structure of the coating itself and should not be
assumed to be a second order effect in marine tech-
nology and coatings development in particular.
Advances in the modelling of computational fluid
dynamics have enabled accurate assessments of the
stresses upon a surface in a fluid flow and how these
stresses can be minimised, meaning that in an
increasingly tight and competitive marketplace, con-
trol of surface roughness is important to alleviate the
significant environmental and economic penalties
that can be imposed and create a competitive AF
product.
The issue of establishing parameters that are
relevant to a particular problem is especially
pertinent in the field of AF coatings. Due to the
interdisciplinary nature of the field, roughness
measurements are taken by biologists investigating
settlement of marine biota, chemists interested in
how the coating is degrading in seawater and by
fluid dynamicists dealing with ship drag, all of whom
will be interested in a different scale of roughness.
Due to the critical roughness height concept it is
apparent that there will be scales of roughness that
fluid dynamicists will not be interested in whilst
there may be scales of roughness of less interest to
biologists or chemists. However, this does not negate
the need for an accurate depiction of the roughness
in question. As has been discussed, much of the
research that has been carried out in the field of AF
coatings, particularly with reference to biological
settlement, does not fully characterise surface rough-
ness. There has been difficulty in measuring low
levels of surface roughness that has led many
experimenters to concentrate on roughness values
which are orders of magnitude too high (Kerr &
Cowling, 2003) and to ignore roughness at lower
cutoff lengths. Modern, digital, optical surface
profilers however, are very simple to use and can
give a wealth of information not just on roughness
height at lower cutoffs, but also on the texture and
spacing of a particular surface at the level of
nanometres. This type of information could be
highly beneficial not only in replicating work, but
also in the characterisation of natural surfaces and
the fine-tuning of artificial surfaces to enhance AF
capabilities.
The importance of specifying cutoff length has
been discussed. Even though there is an ISO
standard (ISO, 1998) that recommends using cutoff
lengths of 8, 2.5, 0.8, 0.25 and 0.08 mm, there is
surprisingly little mention of cutoff lengths in the
literature, especially those studies that are less
focused on fluid dynamics. It is recommended that
all roughness results are quoted using the ISO
standard cutoff lengths, thus solving the problem of
replication and comparison. Methods of surface
roughness measurement have also been discussed.
Stylus-based equipment has been the industry
standard for many years, but has problems measur-
ing foul-release coatings and cannot measure
cutoff lengths 50.25 mm. Optical equipment can
measure roughness at cutoff lengths 50.25 mm
and is also capable of giving three dimensional
characterisations of the coating surface but is not
as portable as certain stylus-based equipment
and is currently only suitable for laboratory-based
work.
Surface roughness has long been an integral part of
mechanical engineering and is very important at
the interface between marine science and marine
technology that exists in the field of AF coatings. It is
just as important therefore, that the measuring
techniques and the methods of reporting surface
roughness are standard across all marine coatings
research.
Acknowledgements
This work was done as part of a PhD funded by
NERC and the EU project ECODOCK (www.
ecodock.net).

References
Akhremitchev BB, Bemis JE, Al-Maawali S, Stebounova L,
Walker GC. 2003. Application of scanning force and near field
microscopies to the characterisation of minimally adhesive
polymer surfaces. Biofouling 19(Suppl.):99 – 104.
Ball P. 1999. Engineering: shark skin and other solutions. Nature
(Lond) 400:507 – 509.
Baum C, Meyer W, Stelzer R, Fleischer LG, Siebers D. 2002.
Average nanorough skin surface of the pilot whale (Globice-
phala melas, Delphinidae): considerations on the self-cleaning
abilities based on nanoroughness. Mar Biol (Berl) 194:
653 – 657.
Becker K, Wahl M. 1996. Behaviour patterns as natural anti-
fouling mechanisms of tropical marine crabs. J Exp Mar Biol
Ecol 203:245 – 258.
Berglin M, Larsson A, Jonsson PR, Gatenholm P. 2001. The
adhesion of the barnacle, Balanus improvisus, to poly(dimethyl-
siloxane) fouling-release coatings and poly(methyl methacry-
late) panels: the effect of barnacle size on strength and failure
mode. J Adhes Sci Technol 15:1485 – 1502.
Berntsson KM, Jonsson PR, Lejhall M, Gatenholm P. 2000.
Analysis of behavioural rejection of micro-textured surfaces and
implications for recruitment by the barnacle Balanus improvisus.
J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 251:59 – 83.
Bers AV, Wahl M. 2004. The influence of natural surface
microtopographies on fouling. Biofouling 20:43 – 51.
Brady RF. 2001. A fracture mechanical analysis of fouling re-
lease from nontoxic antifouling coatings. Prog Org Coat 43:
188 – 192.
Burnell TB, Carpenter JC, Carroll KM, Cella JA, Resue JA,
Rubinsztajn G, Serth-Guzzo J, Stein J, Truby KE, Webb KK,
Schultz M, Swain G, Zimmerman R. 1997. Advances in nontoxic
silicone biofouling release coatings. New York: General Electric.
pp 1 – 10.
Callow ME, Jennings AR, Brennan AB, Gibson A, Wilson L,
Feinberg A, Baney R, Callow JA, Seegert CE. 2002. Micro-
topographic cues for settlement of zoospores of the green
fouling alga Enteromorpha. Biofouling 18:229 – 236.
Candries M. 2001. Drag, boundary layer and roughness char-
acteristics of marine surface coated with antifoulings. PhD
Thesis. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle Upon
Tyne. 278 p.
Candries M, Atlar M. 2005. Experimental investigation of the
turbulent boundary layer of surfaces coated with marine
antifoulings. J Fluids Eng 127:219 – 231.
Candries M, Atlar M, Weinell CE, Anderson CD. 2001. Low
energy surfaces on high speed craft. In: Bertram V, editor.
Proc 2nd Euroconference on High-performance Vehicles
HIPER ’01. Hamburg: TUHH Technologie GmbH. pp
119 – 127.
Candries M, Atlar M, Mesbahi E, Pazouki K. 2003. The measure-
ment of the drag characteristics of tin-free self-polishing co-
polymers and fouling release coatings using a rotor apparatus.
Biofouling 19(Suppl.):27 – 36.
Carman ML, Estes TG, Feinberg AW, Schumacher JF,
Wilkerson W, Wilson LH, Callow ME, Callow JA, Brennan AB.
2006. Engineered antifouling microtopographies – correlating
wettability with cell attachment. Biofouling 22:11 – 21.
Chaudhury MK, Finlay JA, Chung JY, Callow ME, Callow JA.
2005. The influence of elastic modulus and thickness on the soft
fouling alga Ulva linza (Enteromorpha linza) from polydimethyl
siloxane (PDMS) ideal networks. Biofouling 21:41 – 48.
Chuah KB, Dey SK, Thomas TR, Townsin RL. 1990. A digital
hull roughness analyser. London: Royal Institute of Naval
Architects. March 1990. 3 p.
Corbett JJ, Fishbank F. 1997. Emissions from ships. Science
278:823 – 824.
Surface roughness in AF coatings 409
Granhag LM, Finlay JA, Jonsson PR, Callow JA, Callow ME.
2004. Roughness dependent removal of settled spores of the
green alga Ulva (syn. Enteromorpha) exposed to hydrodynamic
forces from a water jet. Biofouling 20:117 – 122.
Granville PS. 1958. The frictional resistance and turbulent
boundary layer of rough surfaces. J Ship Res 2:52 – 74.
Grigson CWB. 1992. Drag losses of new ships caused by hull
finish. J Ship Res 36:182 – 196.
Hoipkemeier-Wilson L, Schumacher JF, Carman ML,
Gibson AL, Feinberg AW, Callow ME, Finlay JA, Callow JA,
Brennan AB. 2004. Antifouling potential of lubricious,
micro-engineered, PDMS elastomers against zoospores of
the green fouling alga Ulva (Enteromorpha). Biofouling 20:
53 – 63.
Holm ER, Schultz MP, Haslbeck EG, Talbott WJ, Field AJ.
2004. Evaluation of hydrodynamic drag on experimental
fouling-release surfaces, using rotating discs. Biofouling
20:219 – 226.
IMO. 2003. Antifouling systems: International Convention on
the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001
(AFS 2001) and Guidelines for Survey and Certification of
Antifouling Systems on Ships (Resolution MEPC.102).
London: IMO. 39 p.
ISO. 1998. ISO 4288:1996/Cor 1:1998. Geometrical Product
Specifications (GPS) – Surface texture: profile method – rules
and procedures for the assessment of surface texture. London:
International Standards Organisation. Report No BS 3900-
K2:2001.
Kendall JM. 1970. The turbulent boundary layer over a wall with
progressive surface waves. J Fluid Mech 41:259 – 281.
Kerr A, Cowling MJ. 2003. The effects of surface topography
on the accumulation of biofouling. Philos Mag 83:
2779 – 2795.
Kiil S, Weinell CE, Pedersen MS, Dam-Johansen K. 2001.
Analysis of self-polishing antifouling paints using rotary
experiments and mathematical modelling. Ind Eng Chem Res
40:3906 – 3920.
Kiil S, Weinell CE, Pedersen MS, Dam-Johansen K. 2002.
Mathematical modelling of a self-polishing antifouling paint
exposed to seawater: a parameter study. Trans IChemE 80(A):
45 – 52.
Kutlar AI, Lewcowicz AK. 1990. Investigation of a paint coat on
the turbulence near a rough flat plate. London: Royal Institute
of Naval Architects. March 1990. 14 p.
Lackenby H. 1962. Resistance of ships, with special reference to
skin friction and hull surface condition. Proc Inst Mechanical
Engineers 176:981 – 1014.
Lemire M, Bourget E. 1996. Substratum heterogeneity and
complexity influence micro-habitat selection of Balanus sp.
and Tubulariacrocea larvae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 137:77 – 87.
Medhurst JS. 1990. Outline of a draft international standard for
the measurement and characterisation of roughness topography
in fluid flow. London: Royal Institute of Naval Architects.
March 1990. 9 p.
Mosaad MA. 1990. Experiments and applications on the effects of
propeller surface roughness. London: Royal Institute of Naval
Architects. March 1990. 10 p.
Musker AJ. 1977. Turbulent shear flows near irregularly rough
surfaces with particular reference to ships’ hulls. PhD Thesis.
University of Liverpool, UK.
OECD. 2002. OECD Environmental data compendium 2002.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
Okino T, Yoshimura E, Hirota H, Fusetani N. 1995. Antifouling
kalihinenes from the marine sponge Acanthella cavernosa.
Tetrahedron Lett 36:8637 – 8640.
Osterhold M. 2005. Characterising physical surface properties.
Eur Coat J 9:34 – 41.
410 D. Howell & B. Behrends
Petronis S, Berntsson K, Gold J, Gatenholm P. 2000. Design and
microstructuring of PDMS surfaces for improved marine
biofouling resistance. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 11:1051.
Rawle A. 2002. The importance of particle sizing in the coat-
ings (paints, pigments) industry. Malvern, UK: Malvern
Instruments. pp 1 – 16.
Scardino AJ, De Nys R. 2004. Fouling deterrence on the
bivalve shell Mytilus galloprovincialis: a physical phenomenon?
Biofouling 20:249 – 257.
Scardino AJ, Harvey E, De Nys R. 2006. Testing attachment point
theory: diatom attachment on microtextured polyimide biomi-
mics. Biofouling 22:55 – 60.
Scardino AJ, De Nys R, Ison O, O’Connor W, Steinberg P. 2003.
Microtopography and antifouling properties of the shell surface
of the bivalve molluscs Mytilus galloprovincialis and Pinctada
imbricata. Biofouling 19(Suppl.):221 – 230.
Schultz MP. 2002. The relationship between frictional resistance
and roughness for surfaces smoothed by sanding. J Fluids Eng
124:492 – 499.
Schultz MP. 2003. Turbulent boundary layers over surfaces
smoothed by sanding. J Fluids Eng 125:863 – 870.
Schultz MP. 2004. Frictional resistance of antifouling coating
systems. J Fluids Eng 126:1039 – 1047.
Schultz MP, Myers A. 2003. Comparison of three roughness
function determination methods. Exp Fluids 35:372 – 379.
Schultz MP, Flack KA. 2005. Outer layer similarity in fully rough
turbulent boundary layers. Exp Fluids 38:328 – 340.
Seligman PF, Zirino A. 1998. Chemistry, toxicity and bioavail-
ability of copper and its relationship to regulation in the marine
environment. San Diego: Space Naval Warfare Systems Center.
Report No. 3044. 51 p.
Stein J, Truby K, Darkangelo Wood C, Stein J, Gardner M,
Swain G, Kavanagh C, Kovach B, Schultz M, Wiebe D,
Holm E, Montemarano J, Wendt D, Smith C, Meyer A. 2003a.
Silicone foul release coatings: effect of the interaction of oil and
coating functionalities on the magnitude of macrofouling
attachment strengths. Biofouling 19(Suppl.):71 – 82.
Stein J, Truby K, Darkangelo Wood C, Takemori M, Vallance M,
Swain G, Kavanagh C, Kovach B, Schultz M, Wiebe D,
Holm E, Montemarano J, WSendt D, Smith C, Meyer A.
2003b. Structure-property relationships of silicone biofouling-
release coatings: effect of silicone network architecture on
pseudobarnacle attachment strengths. Biofouling 19:87 – 94.
Thomas TR. 1999. Rough surfaces. London: Imperial College
Press. 278 p.
Thouvenin M, Peron J-J, Charreteur C, Guerin P, Langlois J-Y,
Vallee-Rehel K. 2002. A study of the biocide release from
antifouling paints. Prog Org Coat 44:75 – 83.
Thouvenin M, Langlois V, Briandet R, Langlois J-Y, Guerin P,
Peron J-J, Haras D, Vallee-Rehel K. 2003. Study of erodable
paint properties involved in antifouling activity. Biofouling
19:177 – 186.
Todd JH. 1980. Resistance and propulsion. In: Comstock J,
editor. Principles of naval architecture. New York: The Society
of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. pp 288 – 462.
Townsin RL, Dey SK. 1990. The correlation of roughness drag
with surface characteristics. London. Royal Institute of Naval
Architects. March 1990. 14 p.
UNCTAD. 2004. Review of maritime transport. New York and
Geneva: United Nations.
Urban C, Codolar SA, Elbro HS, Schultz AC. 1996. Antifouling
paint composition. Denmark, WIPO.
Walters LJ, Wethey DS. 1996. Settlement and early post-
settlement survival of sessile marine invertebrates on topogra-
phically complex surfaces: the importance of refuge dimensions
and adult morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 137:131 – 171.
Weinell CE, Olsen KN, Christoffersen MW, Kiil S. 2003.
Experimental study of drag resistance using a laboratory scale
rotary set-up. Biofouling 19(Suppl.):45 – 51.
Yonehara Y, Yamashita H, Kawamura C, Itoh K. 2001. A new
antifouling paint based on a zinc acrylate copolymer. Prog Org
Coat 42:150 – 158.