APPENDIX O

SHIPS

Oi
Oii
 APPENDIX O

SHIPS

JOSHUA T. JOHNSON1

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Corrosion Control and Prevention

The size of the shipping industry can be measured by the number of miles that ships sail and the tons of cargo
they haul (ton-miles). The U.S. flag fleet can be divided into several categories as follows: (1) Great Lakes with
737 vessels at 99.82 billion ton-km (62 billion ton-mi), (2) inland with 33,668 vessels at 473.34 billion ton-km
(294 billion ton-mi), (3) ocean with 7,014 vessels at 563.5 billion ton-km (350 billion ton-mi), (4) recreational with
12.3 million boats, and (5) cruise ships with 122 boats serving North American ports (5.4 million passengers).

The annual corrosion-related costs of the U.S. marine shipping industry is estimated at $2.7 billion (see figure
14). This cost is divided into costs associated with new construction ($1.12 billion), maintenance and repairs
($810 million), and corrosion-related downtime ($785 million). Because of the nature of the shipping industry, it is
difficult to estimate the national cost of corrosion. Most ships that serve U.S. ports do not sail under the U.S. flag,
but under those of nations with less restrictive laws and taxation. Furthermore, the shipping industry is very
diversified in terms of size, cost, and cargo. Finally, the shipping industry is primarily a commodity industry where
short-term profits are often more important than long-term savings on assets.

Opportunities for Increased Integrity, Durability, and Savings

New coatings, designed to last for the entire lifetime of the ship, have been developed. These coatings are
more expensive than the coatings that have traditionally been used; however, they require less maintenance and
repairs than other coatings. These coatings also reduce the need for repairs to the steel as the ship gets older.
Additional opportunities exist in the manufacture of double-hulled tankers. The first generation of double-hulled oil
tankers has had significant corrosion problems that were not considered before they were built (this is documented
in the case study). By studying the differences between single- and double-hulled tankers, improvements can be
made to the new double-hulled tankers to keep them corrosion-resistant for years to come.

Barriers to Progress and Effective Implementation

The nature of the shipping industry is the major barrier to implementation of additional corrosion-reduction
practices. Ships are bought and sold often enough that most original owners know that they will not be keeping the
ship long enough for corrosion to become a problem. Because of this, most ships are not built with the best
materials and coatings and will require more maintenance later in the ship’s life.

Recommendations and Implementation Strategy

Compared to other industries, the cost of corrosion in this sector is relatively small for the extent of the
industry; however, improvements can still be made. Studies showing that better coatings reduce the amount of
future repairs and extend the maintenance cycle before repairs are required may help to convince companies that
investment in coating systems is worthwhile.

1
CC Technologies Laboratories, Inc., Dublin, Ohio.

Oiii
Appendix O – Ships

Summary of Issues

Increase consciousness of corrosion costs

Total cost of corrosion in the shipping industry is $2.7 billion.
and potential savings.
Enhance the knowledge of case studies showing that using proper
Change perception that nothing can be
coatings during construction is more cost-effective than later
done about corrosion.
repairs.
Advance design practices for better Ensure that designs using high-tensile-strength steel contain
corrosion management. enough steel to allow for some corrosion.
Change technical practices to realize Use modern epoxy coatings on appropriate areas during
corrosion cost-savings. construction of new ships.
Change policies and management practices Build more corrosion resistance into new construction for lower
to realize corrosion cost-savings. repair costs and higher resale values later.
Advance life prediction models and Perform cost-benefit analyses on the long-term effects of
performance assessment methods. employing greater corrosion management.
Advance technology (research, Materials and design principles from more high-tech industries
development, and implementation). may prove to be useful for specific applications.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTOR DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................1
Background .....................................................................................................................................................1
Corrosion Modes .............................................................................................................................................4

AREAS OF MAJOR CORROSION IMPACT..........................................................................................................4

Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................................4
New Ship Construction .....................................................................................................................4
Repair and Maintenance....................................................................................................................6

CORROSION CONTROL METHODS ......................................................................................................................6

Design .............................................................................................................................................................6
Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................................8
Operation.........................................................................................................................................................8

CHANGES FROM 1975 TO 2000............................................................................................................................9

CASE STUDIES...........................................................................................................................................................9
Case Study 1. Double-Hulled Tankers ...........................................................................................................9
Differences Between Single- and Double-Hulled Carriers .............................................................10
Case Study 2. Corrosion in Cargo Tanks .....................................................................................................10
Case Study 3. First-Generation Corrosion Treatment for Cargo Tanks .......................................................11

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................12

Oiv
 Appendix O – Ships

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Percentage of the world’s fleet by class of ship, based on the number of ships.............................O1

Figure 2. Percentage of the world’s fleet by class of ship, based on gross tonnage ......................................O2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of registered ships and aggregate gross tonnage for the 20 largest merchant
fleet nations....................................................................................................................................O3

Table 2. Average corrosion cost per year due to new construction for each of the major types of ships.....O5

Table 3. Estimated average corrosion cost per year due to maintenance, repairs, and downtime for
each of the major types of ships.....................................................................................................O6

Ov
 Appendix O – Ships

SECTOR DESCRIPTION

Background

The world’s ships can be divided into five general categories based on the cargo the ships carry and the type of
work performed on the vessel. The first category is tankers and carriers, which includes oil tankers, chemical
tankers, liquefied gas carriers, and ore carriers. There are 9,321 tankers and carriers in service, which constitutes
10.8 percent of the world’s ships. The tankers and carriers have a total gross tonnage of 168,011,588 metric tons
(185,200,000 tons). While other categories of ships contain more ships by number, the size of the tankers and
carriers, particularly the oil super-carriers, cause these vessels to make up 34.8 percent of the world’s total ships by
tonnage. The second category of ships is the bulk cargo ships, which are designed to hold large amounts of loose
cargo such as grain. These ships make up 7.3 percent of the total ships by number and 29.3 percent of the ships by
tonnage. The third category of ships is the container ships, which are cargo ships designed to carry their cargos in
large packed containers. This category of ships includes 23.4 percent of the ships by number and 16.3 percent of the
ships by tonnage. The fourth category of ships is the fishing vessels, which includes both fishing ships and the
mobile fish processing ships. A considerable number of these ships exist. There are 23,711 in the world, accounting
for 27.6 percent of the world’s ships by number; however, they account for only 2.4 percent by tonnage because of
the small average size of these vessels. The fifth category consists of the remainder of the ships, including tugs, ice
breakers, scientific research vessels, ferries, and cruise ships. Figures 1 and 2 offer a graphical account of the
percentage of ships by type, with figure 1 showing the percentage based on the number of ships and figure 2
showing the percentage based on tonnage. In these figures, the categories are divided into slightly more specific
groups, such as chemical tankers.

Others/Unknown
9%
Refrigerated Cargo
2%
Chemical Tankers Fishing
3% 27%

Bulk Dry
7%

Passenger/Ferry
7%

Oil Tankers
8%

Cargo/
Roll-on/Roll-off
Supply/Tugs 22%
15%

Figure 1. Percentage of the world’s fleet by class of ship, based on the number of ships.

O1
Appendix O – Ships

Refrigerated Cargo Others/Unknown

1% 12%

Supply/Tugs
2%
Bulk Dry
Fishing 30%
2%

Passenger/Ferry
4%

hemical Tankers
6%

Cargo/Roll-on/Roll-off
15%

Oil Tankers
28%

Figure 2. Percentage of the world’s fleet by class of ship, based on gross tonnage.

The purpose of a ship is to be in transit between landmasses. Because of the international nature of the
shipping industry, it is difficult to determine which ships should be included in a study on the cost of corrosion in
the United States. A further complication is that ships do not need to be registered in the countries where they
conduct their business. It is the result of laws and regulations in both the United States and other countries that ships
are often registered in countries where they will never operate. Ships are commonly registered in nations such as
Liberia and Panama and are operated under what is known as flags of convenience. Table 1 lists the registration of
the 20 largest merchant fleets in order of gross tonnage. The table clearly shows that some very small countries,
such as Panama, Liberia, Malta, the Bahamas, and Cypress, have registered merchant fleets larger than more
industrialized, large nations. Liberia, for example, is slightly larger in area than Tennessee and has a GDP of
$2.8 billion, which is 0.0033 percent of the U.S. GDP.(1) Liberia, however, has 408 registered oil carriers, while the
United States has only 108 oil carriers. Malta is an even smaller nation, roughly twice the size of the District of
Columbia; however, Malta has 356 registered bulk dry cargo ships compared, to 15 registered in the United States.

Another reason for not considering only U.S. registered ships is based on various marine legislation, such as
the Jones Act of 1920. The Jones Act affects ships that trade between ports in the Unites States. These ships,
according to the Jones Act, must be built in the United States, be owned by citizens of the United States, and be
operated by American crews. The cost of these requirements has caused most ships traveling to the United States to
be flagged in foreign countries, even if they do the majority of their business in the United States. The cruise ships
operating in the United States out of Florida, Texas, and Alaska are good examples of this. The vast majority of the
passengers on these vessels are citizens of the United States; however, all of the ships are registered in Panama,
Liberia, Norway, or other nations. A second result of these laws is that ships flagged in the United States are often
much older and more likely to suffer from corrosion problems than ships that are registered in other countries. The
average age of a U.S.-flagged ship is 23 years old, which is older than any of the fleets in table 1 except for
Greece.(2)

O2
 Appendix O – Ships

Table 1. Number of registered ships and aggregate gross tonnage for the 20 largest merchant fleet nations.

WORLD COUNTRY OF NUMBER OF AGGREGATE

RANK REGISTRATION SHIPS GROSS TONNAGE
1 Panama 6,143 98,222,372
2 Liberia 1,717 60,492,104
3 Bahamas 1,286 27,715,783
4 Greece 1,545 25,224,543
5 Malta 1,416 24,074,712
6 Cypress 1,602 23,301,517
7 Singapore 1,677 20,370,399
8 Norway 750 19,918,331
9 Japan 8,922 17,780,396
10 China 3,214 16,503,355
11 United States 5,626 11,851,660
12 Russia 4,723 11,089,922
13 Philippines 1,726 8,508,313
14 Germany 1,158 8,083,620
15 Saint Vincent 1,317 7,875,497
16 Italy 1,329 6,818,632
17 India 947 6,777,102
18 Marshall Islands 207 6,441,843
19 Turkey 1,135 6,251,395
20 Hong Kong 391 6,170,705

Due to what is known as “flags of convenience,” as well as the various international maritime laws, it was
decided, for the purposes of this study, to assign a percentage of the total cost of corrosion of ships worldwide as the
U.S. cost of corrosion. U.S. residents pay an increased price in goods shipped into the country and U.S. companies
pay more to export their goods to make ships more corrosion-resistant and to make corrosion repairs to ships. The
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports that U.S. waterborne exports and imports accounted for
approximately 21 percent of global waterborne trade.(3) Assuming that half of the cost of the voyages can be
attributed to the United States, approximately 10 percent of the world maritime cost would be attributable to the
United States based on foreign trade.

The United States also transports almost the same amount of materials by ship in domestic trade (1,071 million
metric tons foreign versus 1,010 million metric tons domestic).(3) The size of the shipping industry can be measured
by the number of miles that ships sail and the tons of cargo they haul (ton-miles). The U.S. flag fleet can be divided
into several categories: (1) Great Lakes with 737 vessels at 99.82 billion ton-km (62 billion ton-mi), (2) inland with
33,668 vessels at 473,34 billion ton-km (294 billion ton-mi), (3) ocean with 7,014 vessels at 563.5 billion ton-km
(350 billion ton-mi), (4) recreational with 12.3 million boats, and (5) cruise ships with 122 boats serving North
American ports (5.4 million passengers).(1)

Domestic trade routes, however, tend to be significantly shorter than foreign routes (by a factor of
approximately 10); therefore, approximately 5 percent of the world’s maritime costs can be attributed to U.S.
domestic shipping. Based on foreign and domestic trading, 15 percent of the corrosion costs of the world’s ships is
assessed as the cost of corrosion for the U.S. shipping industry.

O3
Appendix O – Ships

Corrosion Modes

Corrosion of ships is the result of several different types of corrosion. The most common one is general
corrosion or wall thinning of the hull due to seawater attack. Studies have shown that the rate of this form of
corrosion is approximately 0.1 mm (4 mils) per year.(4) At this corrosion rate, it would take approximately 62 years
to have a reduction of 6.4 mm (0.25 in). Because of this slow rate, general corrosion is normally not a consideration
in a ship’s design life.

Galvanic corrosion occurs between two metals with dissimilar electrochemical potentials. In this form of
corrosion, one of the metals is more electrochemically active and corrodes, while the second metal is protected by
the corroding metal. The metals can even be of the same material if the electrochemical potential of one of the
materials has been changed due to stresses or differential aeration. Previous studies have indicated that most hull
corrosion is galvanic in nature.(5)

Salt spray and atmospheric corrosion can severely attack external ship components. Coatings provide the
primary corrosion control and maintenance of these coatings is required at regular intervals.

Direct chemical corrosion attack occurs when certain chemicals are present in the internal holds and tanks of
transport ships. Elements such as chlorine and sulfur can readily attack the steel and cause accelerated corrosion and
pitting.

Corrosion in ships can also be caused by microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). In this type of
corrosion, microbial organisms present in the environment can accelerate corrosion. For example, sulfate-reducing
bacteria (SRB), which are present in the stagnant water of many harbors, can build up on the hulls of ships. Other
corrosion-causing bacteria, such as acid-producing and anaerobic bacteria, are also present in ballast tanks as well as
in the liquid products that some tankers carry. These microbes cause a localized change in the environment, which
can promote aggressive pitting and other types of corrosion.

AREAS OF MAJOR CORROSION IMPACT

The primary cost of corrosion in the ships sector can be broken down into two major elements:

1. The cost of corrosion engineering and materials added into the cost of a new ship. These costs
include corrosion-resistant materials and coatings, as well as cathodic protection systems
installed during construction.

2. The cost of repairs, maintenance, and downtime due to corrosion. These costs include the
replacement of steel, removal and reapplication of coatings, and installation of additional
cathodic protection equipment. Also included is the revenue lost from the ship being out of
service while repairs and maintenance are being performed.

Cost Estimates

New Ship Construction

The majority of the corrosion prevention cost on new ship construction results from the application of coatings
to the hulls, decks, and, most importantly, ballast and storage tanks. The actual cost of the coating is a relatively
small part of the cost for applying a coating. The largest portion of the cost of coating application comes from the
extensive surface preparation needed to prepare steel for coating. Most modern coatings require extensive surface
grit blasting to remove all of the corrosion, mill scale, and other products on the steel.(6) Without the proper surface
preparation, the coating will not properly adhere to the steel surface and corrosion problems will be much more

O4
 Appendix O – Ships

likely.(7) Another large portion of the application cost of a coating is in the labor needed to properly apply the
coating. The coating must be hand-applied to corners and other areas to ensure coverage of the edges when the
coating shrinks while drying.(8)

It has been estimated that, for most ships, the cost of applying the coatings to a ship is 7 percent of the total
cost of the ship.(7) While the cost of applying a proper coating is expensive, Weber found that it was 4 to 14 times
more expensive to replace corroded steel than to apply a coating during construction and maintain that coating.(9)
The cost for the coatings applied for oil carriers is slightly higher, at 10 percent of a ship’s construction cost. Oil
tankers require better coatings than most of the industry due to the corrosive nature of chemicals, such as the
hydrogen sulfide present in crude oils. Based on discussions with representatives of a major cruise line, the cost of
coatings for cruise ships is also approximately 10 percent. Based on discussions with industry experts, cruise ships
require better coatings for tanks that hold the wastewater from their passengers. An estimate was made that cathodic
protections systems and corrosion-resistant materials add an additional 3 percent to the new build cost of ships. For
most classes of ships, the total cost of corrosion protection for new construction can be estimated at 10 percent of the
total construction cost, with oil tankers and cruise ships having slightly higher corrosion protection expenditures at
13 percent. The exception to this general number is the class of chemical tankers, because the storage tanks in these
ships are made of stainless steel in order to be resistant to the chemicals that they transport. Because of this need,
the literature estimates that the cost of corrosion protection for a chemical tanker is 30 percent of the new build
cost.(7)

To estimate the total cost of corrosion for new ship construction, data on the number of ships in the world were
combined with an estimate of the average cost of a vessel for each type of ship and the percentage of the
construction cost attributable to corrosion protection. This information is reported in table 2. To calculate an
average cost per year, the number of ships was multiplied by the estimated vessel cost and the percentage of the
vessel cost attributable to corrosion. The sale price of several new and used vessels of various ages were used to
estimate the average cost for each class of ship.(7,9-10) This resulting value was then divided by 25 years, which is the
average design life of many ships, to obtain an average cost per year. As indicated in the table, the world cost of
corrosion from new ship construction is approximately $7.5 billion per year. If 15 percent of the world cost is
attributable to the United States, the cost of corrosion from new ship construction in the United States is estimated at
$1.12 billion.

Table 2. Average corrosion cost per year due to new construction for each of the major types of ships.

% COST OF AVERAGE AVERAGE

CONSTRUCTIO COST OF CORROSION
TYPE OF SHIP NUMBER
N DUE TO VESSEL COST PER YEAR
CORROSION ($ x million) ($ x million)
Oil Tankers 6,920 13 50 1,799
Chemical Tankers 2,471 30 50 1,483
Bulk Dry 6,252 10 20 500
Cargo/Roll-on/Roll-off 18,611 10 15 1,117
Fishing 23,711 10 5 474
Supply/Tugs 12,954 10 11 570
Refrigerated Cargo 1,441 10 6 35
Cruise 337 13 200 350
Passenger/Ferry 5,386 10 24 517
Others/Unknown 7,724 10 20 618
WORLD TOTAL $7,463

O5
Appendix O – Ships

Repair and Maintenance

The second portion of the cost of corrosion in the shipping industry is the cost of corrosion repairs and
maintenance, as well as the downtime needed to perform these repairs.(3,9) Table 3, based on literature and
discussions with industry experts, shows the average estimated cost of annual repairs for each class of ship with the
cost of the downtime associated with the cost of the repairs. To calculate the total costs, the number of ships of each
type was multiplied by the repair and downtime estimates. The total cost for repairs for the world shipping sector
was calculated at $5.4 billion, while the cost of downtime was estimated at $5.2 billion. The U.S. portion of these
costs would be estimated at $810 million for repairs and $785 million for downtime.

From the cost estimates of new construction and repair maintenance, the total cost of corrosion in the shipping
industry can be estimated. The yearly cost of increased corrosion resistance in new ship construction in the United
States was estimated at $1.12 billion, and the cost of repairs and maintenance was estimated at $810 million, with
the cost of downtime at $785 million. Therefore, the total cost of corrosion for the U.S. shipping industry is
estimated at $2.7 billion per year.

Table 3. Estimated average corrosion cost per year due to maintenance, repairs, and downtime
for each of the major types of ships.

AVERAGE AVERAGE
TOTAL TOTAL YEARLY
CORROSION CORROSION
YEARLY DOWNTIME
TYPE OF SHIP NUMBER REPAIR COST DOWNTIME
REPAIR COST COST
PER SHIP COST PER SHIP
($ x million) ($ x million)
($ x thousand) ($ x thousand)

Oil Tankers 6,920 200 1,384 140 969

Chemical Tankers 2,471 300 741 140 346
Bulk Dry 6,252 50 313 56 350
Cargo/Roll-on/Roll-off 18,611 50 931 73 1,303
Fishing 23,711 25 593 20 474
Supply/Tugs 12,954 50 648 50 648
Refrigerated Cargo 1,441 50 72 50 72
Cruise 337 200 67 1,000 337
Passenger/Ferry 5,386 50 269 56 302
Others/Unknown 7,724 50 386 56 433
WORLD TOTAL $5,404 WORLD TOTAL $5,234

CORROSION CONTROL METHODS

Corrosion control can be accomplished in the design phase, the manufacturing phase, and the operation phase
of a ship.

Design

There are several elements of design that can reduce the amount of corrosion that a ship will undergo in its
lifetime. The first of these elements is the basic structural design of a ship. Designing a ship to have minimal
surface discontinuities, such as sharp corners, will reduce the surfaces where coatings are most likely to fail.

O6
 Appendix O – Ships

Designs can also be made to minimize locations with stress concentrations, which can act as crack initiation sites,
and locations where coatings can crack. It is also important to design a ship so that all surfaces of the tank interior
can be accessible so that later coating and surface inspections can be performed. Crevices that can collect dirt and
form corrosion cells should also be avoided during the design phase.

Another element of design that can influence corrosion prevention is the design of the welds. Proper sizing of
the welds and planning the sequence of the welds can reduce stress concentrations and distortions of the hull. Past
experience has shown that lap joints have been prone to failure on older ships; therefore, butt welded joints should
be used whenever possible. Designs should also avoid intermittent spot welding since this form of weld is more
prone to corrosion.

The most important element of corrosion protection is a proper coating selection. A coating should be selected
during the design phase based on the function of the ship, the type of tanks used, and the expected life of the ship.
Due to the high cost of coating application, care should be taken in choosing the proper coating. Possible coating
choices include:(10)

• Epoxies:
° Coal tar epoxy
° Silicone-modified epoxy
° Electrodeposition epoxy
° High solids epoxy over a waterborne epoxy zinc primer
° Pure amine epoxy
° Epoxy amides
° Epoxy amino/amides
° Hydrocarbon (wax) -modified epoxy amides and epoxy amines
° High solids (low molecular weight epoxy resins) epoxy
• Thermoplastics:
° Thermal-spray thermoplastics
° 100 percent solids rust-preventive wax
• Others:
° Coal tar polyurethanes
° Polyurethane (aliphatic polyol) topcoats
° Zinc silicates
° Alkyd paints
° Calcium sulfate alkyd

Solvent-free epoxies are much more expensive coatings than the coal tar epoxies or the solvent-borne epoxies
previously used in ship construction. Solvent-free epoxy costs, on average, $6.60 per square meter for the epoxy,
compared to coal tar epoxies and solvent-borne epoxies that cost, on average, $1.80 and $2.80 per square meter
respectively. For the amount of coating needed to coat a ship, it is approximately $150,000 more expensive to use
solvent-free epoxy over coal tar epoxy and $120,000 more expensive to use solvent-free epoxy over solvent-borne
epoxy. On vessels that cost $70 million to $80 million, the use of solvent-free epoxy would be a very small increase
in terms of percentage cost. Most of the cost in a coating application is in the cost of grit blasting the steel and
applying the coating, which generally costs about the same for any type of epoxy coating.

However, the additional $150,000 during construction can pay major dividends during the operational life of
the ship. If the cheaper coal tar epoxy coating is used during construction, the coating will have to be reapplied two
or three times during the life of the tanker. To perform the re-coating, the tanks would first have to be cleaned and
grit-blasted before the coating is applied. The total cost of such a job on a large tanker would be approximately
$3 million.

O7
Appendix O – Ships

If cathodic protection systems or other corrosion prevention equipment are going to be used on a ship, it should
be incorporated in the design phase. A cathodic protection system is a secondary defense against corrosion when
holidays or cracks form in the coating. Cathodic protection systems use either sacrificial zinc anodes or
impressed-current systems to mitigate corrosion that occurs. If cathodic protection is applied properly, the steel on
the ship will be the cathode and corrosion will be mitigated. Other corrosion prevention equipment and materials
include inert gas systems (to keep corrosive gases out of holds) and corrosion inhibitors.

Manufacturing

There are several elements of ship fabrication and manufacturing that will affect the corrosion performance of
a ship. The first of these elements are the structural tolerances of construction. The ship classification societies,
such as Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, the American Bureau of Shipping, and Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, have published
tolerance standards with which ships built according to their classification systems must comply. These tolerances
permit gaps up to a certain width (3 mm) and misalignments up to one-half of the plate thickness.(11) Keeping the
gaps and misalignments under this level will help reduce the possibility of stress concentrations and other possible
causes of structural failure. Adherence to good painting practices in terms of application and curing, not adherence
to the least proper temperatures to ensure a good solvent release in the wet stage, will ensure that the coatings have
as low an internal stress level as possible and this will ensure a longer service life.

One phase of the manufacturing process that greatly affects corrosion performance is the surface preparation
prior to the coating application. Almost all coatings used in the marine industry adhere to the metal by mechanical
adhesion; thus, it is important to have a surface that readily bonds with the coating in order to protect the metal.
There are two important elements to surface preparation. The first element is that the surface preparation must clean
the surface thoroughly by removing all salt, dirt, and chemicals on the steel surface. The second element is to create
a textured or anchor-pattern surface so that the coating can mechanically adhere to the surface. The preferred
method of surface preparation is grit blasting. The coating manufacturer will provide information regarding the
degree of surface profile that must be achieved by blasting.

Once the surface has been prepared, the coating can be applied to the metal. The quality of the coating
application can have a lasting effect on the corrosion performance of a ship; therefore, the directions of the coating
manufacturer must be closely followed. One of the most important parts of the coating application is hand-finishing,
where a painter with a brush coats the corners, angles, and edges. This must be done because surface tension causes
drying coatings to draw away from sharp edges. Because of this, coatings are thinner in the corners, angles, and
edges; therefore, extra coating must be applied by stiping to ensure proper coating thickness. Care must also be
taken to ensure that the coating is not too thick. This can lead to solvent and thinner retention, film cracks, and gas
pockets.

Operation

The last element of corrosion control are the actions of the owner and the crew during the operation of the ship.
The coating represents the most important part of corrosion control on a ship, so maintaining the integrity of the
coating during operation is vital to corrosion control. Damage to coatings can be caused in many different ways,
including:

• Wear caused by crew members and equipment moving through the tank.
• Wear caused by water sloshing in partially filled ballast tanks.
• Wear caused by mud silt and other debris that accumulate in the tanks.
• Aggressive corrosion caused by high-temperature cargos.
• Abrasion of the ballast tanks caused by sloshing sand.

O8
 Appendix O – Ships

To ensure that a ship operates through its design life, it is essential that the operator does everything possible to
keep the coatings intact. It is also essential to inspect the coating on a regular basis so that repairs can be made
when needed, while the damage is minimal.

CHANGES FROM 1975 TO 2000

Several major changes in corrosion control technologies, environmental legislation, and ship design have led to
dramatic changes in corrosion control approaches in the marine industry over the past 25 years.

The most important change over the past 25 years has been the change in coatings for marine use. There have
been two primary driving factors in these changes over the past decades including, changes in environmental laws
limiting the use of lead, chromates, and certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the formulation of better
performing multi-part epoxies and other coatings. These factors have led to high solid epoxies of different types
being the number one choice for coatings in marine applications. These coatings are both more effective and more
expensive, than the coatings used 25 years ago. These coatings also require more extensive surface preparation than
earlier coatings greatly increasing the costs of application and repair.

Another major change over the past few decades is the switch to high-strength steel and other materials with
higher strength-to-weight and thickness ratios than the standard carbon steel. This change has allowed the structural
elements of ships to be made thinner, allowing ships with the same size hull to have more internal room to hold
cargo. The downside to this development is that less corrosion is needed to reduce the structural integrity of
elements made of thinner high-strength materials than when the elements were made from carbon steel.
High-strength steels often have corrosion rates that are the same as or higher than those of carbon steels; therefore, it
is more important to protect high-strength steel elements, otherwise, the risk of corrosion failure can be high. This
was revealed by several failures of structural components in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

Another change has been the increased use of double-hulled tankers over the single-hulled variety. Double-
hulled tankers are designed to essentially have a ship inside of a ship to reduce the risk of a ship sinking or a loss of
cargo. Due to well-publicized failures, such as the Exxon Valdez, regulations in the United States have led to the
exclusive use of double-hulled tankers in coastal waters. While leaks into the water should not occur with doubled-
hulled tankers, these ships have been found to have their own corrosion problems. The space between the inner and
outer hulls of these tankers is often used for ballast water to balance the tankers. These areas often have coating
damage and corrosion problems due to the conditions in these tanks. Moreover, these areas are difficult to inspect
due to several hull supports and other structures between the inner and outer hulls. Operators have also noticed
increased corrosion damage to the actual oil tanks due to what is referred to as the thermos effect. Corrosion is a
temperature-sensitive process. For each 10 °C increase in temperature, the corrosion rate can be estimated to
double. Oil is pumped into tankers at relatively warm temperatures [approximately 46 °C to 55 °C (115 °F to
130 °F) or hotter]. In single-hulled tankers, the ocean water surrounding the oil would lower the temperature
quickly to the local water temperature. On double-hulled tankers, however, the hull acts as insulation and the ballast
tanks stay in the high-temperature condition longer, which results in higher corrosion rates.

CASE STUDIES

Case Study 1. Double-Hulled Tankers

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, causing 42 million L
(11 million gal) of crude oil to be spilled. The clean-up cost billions of dollars and, in the hope of avoiding a similar
accident, the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act in 1990. This law required all new tankers operating in the

O9
Appendix O – Ships

United States to be built with a double hull. Most other industrial nations passed similar laws so that today almost
all carriers are built with a double hull.

Because of the limited experience with doubled-hulled carriers before 1990, the first double-hulled carriers
were very similar to their single-hulled predecessors. Owners and operators of the new tankers found much more
serious corrosion after the first 5 years of operation than expected from their experiences with single-hulled carriers.
This has caused a re-evaluation of the causes of corrosion in these ships, as well as a re-evaluation of the methods
for corrosion protection.

Differences Between Single- and Double-Hulled Carriers

As the name implies, a double-hulled ship is built with an additional inner hull. The area between the two
hulls can be used for ballast, but not for cargo. The purpose behind the double hull is that if the outer hull is pierced,
the cargo will still not leak out of the ship.

Adding an additional layer of steel also increases the size of the tanker, the weight, and the amount of steel
needed to create a ship that will carry the same amount of oil. Because of volume and weight concerns, naval
architects often decided to use more high-tensile strength (HT) steel in the design of the new double-hulled tankers.
HT steel has mixed results because the higher strength, thinner steel plates can be used to maintain the standards of
the classification societies; however, corrosion becomes more of a concern since there is less steel to corrode before
a leak or other failure occurs. Another problem with HT steel is that the thinner plates tend to flex more with natural
water waves and other sea motions. This flexing can cause the surface rust and scale to fall away and expose new
bare steel to the corrosive conditions. If this process is repeated many times, rapid wall loss can occur. Owners
have reported double the usual corrosion rate on some HT steel plates, which has some owners and operators
concerned.

Along with the dimensional differences between single- and double-hulled tankers, operators have found
differences between the environments in the cargo tanks. The main difference in the environment is that the cargo
tanks in double-hulled tankers are often warmer due to what has been called the thermos effect. Many of the leading
oil-producing regions, including the Middle East, West Africa, the Gulf of Mexico, and the South Pacific, are in
high-temperature areas. When the oil is loaded into a tanker, it generally cools over the voyage to the temperature
of the surrounding water. This temperature change often only takes a couple of days for a single-hulled tanker;
however, for a double-hulled tanker, the outer hull can act as an insulator and it may take 20 to 30 days for the
temperature of the cargo to reach sea temperature. The temperature may never reach sea temperature on short
voyages. These higher temperatures are a problem for two reasons. First, corrosion rates often follow an Arrhenius
behavior, where the corrosion rate doubles for every 10 °C increase in temperature; therefore, if the average
temperature of the tank is 20 °C warmer, then the average corrosion rate is quadrupled. A second problem with
higher temperatures is that many of the coatings, particularly tar epoxies, do not handle high temperatures well and
will degrade more rapidly.

Case Study 2. Corrosion in Cargo Tanks

Most of the corrosion on the bottom of crude cargo tanks is in the form of pitting. Similar corrosion is found in
crude cargo tanks on single-hulled tankers, double-hulled tankers, and refinery storage tanks. Crude oil contains a
small percentage of water that will settle over time to the bottom of a storage tank. If the crude oil contains H2S or
other chemicals, acid will be formed from the water and the acid will attack the bottom of the tank.

The water on the bottom of the tank can also lead to corrosion because of the various microbes in the water.
Several types of bacteria exist in the water and the crude oil product, including acid-producing bacteria (APB) and
sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). The APB and other forms of bacteria can lead to corrosion; however, their most
harmful effect is often the creation of ideal conditions in which the SRBs may attack. Under proper conditions, the
SRBs can multiply rapidly and concentrate in colonies on the bottom of the tank. The SRB damage steel by

O10
 Appendix O – Ships

removing sulfates from the crude oil and reducing the sulfates to sulfides that concentrate underneath the SRB and
attack the steel, causing pits in the areas under the SRB colonies. Microbiologists have found that the SRB generate
the highest level of sulfides at 37 °C to 41 °C (99 °F to 106 °F). This finding, along with the thermos effect noted
above, might explain why more rapid pitting has been found on the first generation of double-hulled tankers.

The other areas in crude storage tanks where considerable corrosion occurs are at the top of the tank or the
ullage space. The corrosion in these areas tends to be in the form of a general attack rather than pitting; however,
the difficulty of inspecting and repairing these regions makes the corrosion of these areas a major concern. The top
portions of the crude tanks are often made of HT steel and the flexing/descaling problem discussed previously is a
concern in these areas.

Two different corrosion mechanisms affect the top of tanks, depending on whether the tank is filled with cargo
or is empty for the ballast voyage. While the tank is filled with crude, the ullage space is filled with inert gas that
should limit corrosion. The crude, however, will release different gases, including hydrogen sulfide, which can
combine with minute traces of water and oxygen to form concentrated sulfuric and sulfurous acids. These acids will
attack the steel of the tank and cause the general corrosion of the steel.

During the ballast voyage, the entire tank is filled with inert gas, which tends to be saturated with water vapor.
This water vapor will often condense during the voyage and absorb any remaining sulfur-containing compounds, as
well as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides, to form various acids that attack the steel.

Case Study 3. First-Generation Corrosion Treatment for Cargo Tanks

The first double-hulled tankers’ cargo tanks were protected in the same manner as the cargo tanks on single-
hulled tankers. Most often this involved not using a coating to line the crude oil cargo tanks and using only a
single-layer tar epoxy coating on the water ballast tanks. In the many years of carrying crude oil in single-hulled
tankers, the corrosion rate was found to be somewhat constant, and owners treated tank corrosion as an operating
expense. It was known that repairs and steel replacement would have to be performed after the third special survey
when the ship was 12 years old; however, owners of the early double-hulled tankers found significant corrosion and
pitting at the first special survey after only 5 years. The owners of these tankers, assuming that they would be
similar to single-hulled tankers, had not budgeted for such extensive maintenance so early in the life of the tanker.
This led to new interest in understanding and controlling the corrosive environment in double-hulled tankers.

Knowledge of the conditions that led to increased corrosion in the first generation of double-hulled tankers
allowed naval architects to design protection systems to reduce this level of corrosion. Several options for reducing
corrosion could be implemented, such as building the tanks of stainless steel or removing the water vapor from the
inert gas. These options, however, would be incredibly costly; therefore, the only cost-effective option would
involve coating the bottom and top surfaces of the cargo tanks, as well as using better coatings on the ballast tanks.

These coatings should have certain characteristics to increase their effectiveness and longevity in preventing
corrosion and malfunction for the entire design life of the tanker. High-temperature resistance is one of the most
important characteristics for a coating for use in crude tanks. A coating should be able to be resistant to
temperatures of at least 70 °C (158 °F) and resistance to 90 °C (194 °F) may be advisable as further deepwater
exploration increases, since the deeper the oil, the hotter the oil reservoir. Another important coating characteristic
is resistance to bacteria and MIC. The coating used must be able to resist the acid waste products of the APB and
the sulfide waste products of the SRB. If these bacteria are not allowed to reproduce on the surface of the tank, MIC
should be minimal. Another characteristic of the proper coating is that it should resist the acid attack that occurs in
the ullage spaces during voyages. Because of the flexing of the HT steel, it is important that the coating used be
very flexible and does not become brittle and break off over time as the ship flexes. The final characteristic for a
proper tank coating is that the coating should have a service life greater than 20 years. Solvent-free epoxies have
been found to have all of these characteristics and are now becoming the coating of choice for Japanese and Korean
shipyards when building tankers.

O11
Appendix O – Ships

Some owners quickly realized the need for coatings with these characteristics and had their tankers built with
these coatings; however, the use of coatings did not become nearly universal until 1998. The most common
coatings used by shipbuilders are normally modified epoxies, coal tar epoxy, or solvent-borne epoxy. These
coatings have been used by the majority of shipbuilders for 30 years, so when coatings were needed for the inside of
the crude tanks, these products were often used. The problem with these coatings is that they are products with a
medium life span designed to provide protection for only 8 to 10 years, which is considerably shorter than the design
life of these vessels. They also are not resistant to the temperatures often seen in double-hulled tankers. Another
concern is that these coatings are not very resistant to the bacteria that lead to pitting corrosion on the bottom of the
tanks.

The mandated use of double-hulled tankers led to many ships being constructed before there was knowledge of
the service conditions that the ships would see. The industry has realized in only the past few years the differences
between single- and double-hulled tankers and the modifications to the crude tanks that must be made to minimize
the repairs needed during the design life of a ship. The use of solvent-free epoxy on the top and bottom of a crude
tank should lead to a significant decrease in the amount of corrosion detected in the first and additional special
survey inspections performed on these vessels. The improvement in the understanding of the corrosion conditions
experienced in the crude tanks and ballast tanks of oil tankers should lead to safer and longer lasting ships in the
future.

REFERENCES

1. Lloyd’s Register, World Fleet Statistics, 1999, 1999.

2. Central Intelligence Agency, World Fact Book, 1999.

3. Maritime Trade and Transportation, 1999, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, 1999.

4. K. Stambaugh and J.C. Krecht, SSC-348, “Corrosion Experience Requirements,” Ship Structure
Committee, 1991.

5. SNAME O-23 Paint Panel Fundamentals of Cathodic Protection for Marine Service, Technical & Research
Report R-21, SNAME, 1976.

6. S. Chand, Coating Systems: A Guidance Manual for Field Surveyors, American Bureau of Shipping, 1995.

7. S. Chand, and J. Evangelista, “Protecting the Unseen,” Surveyor Magazine, American Bureau of Shipping,
June 1995.

8. Y. Ollivier, “Coatings of Water Ballast Tanks of LNG Tankers,” Royal Institute of Naval Architects
International Conference on Marine Corrosion Prevention: A Re-Appraisal for the Next Decade,
October 1994.

9. P. Weber, “Structural Surveys of Oil Tankers” Transactions IME, 1984.

10. J. Parente, J. Daidola, N. Basar, and R. Rodi, SSC-397, “Commercial Ship Design for Corrosion Control,”
Ship Structure Committee, 1997.

11. Standard Guide for Steel Hull Construction Tolerances, ASTM F1053-87, American Society for Testing
and Materials, October 1997.

O12