See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288581606

Effect of barrier pigments on cathodic disbonding part 1: Aluminium and glass

pigments

Article in Journal of Corrosion Science and Engineering · January 1999

CITATIONS READS

2 1,030

3 authors, including:

Ole Knudsen
SINTEF
62 PUBLICATIONS 537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EU-MarTERA (BMWi) project: TAIFUN - Towards Artificial Intelligent Maintenance System (AIMS) via Predictive Failure Modelling and Numerical simulation View project

The stability of the organic coating/steel interface View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ole Knudsen on 24 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EFFECT OF BARRIER PIGMENTS ON CATHODIC DISBONDING
Part 1: Aluminium and Glass Pigments
O. Ø. KNUDSEN*, E. BARDAL* and U. STEINSMO†

*
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Machine Design and
Materials Technology, 7034 Trondheim, Norway.
†
SINTEF Materials Technology, 7034 Trondheim, Norway.

Abstract - The effect of aluminium and glass barrier pigments on cathodic disbonding of epoxy coatings
has been studied. Over a two years period, cathodic disbonding has been measured for nine model
coatings with various concentrations of aluminium or glass pigments. The binder in the model coatings
was either epoxy or epoxy mastic. The test specimens were exposed in natural seawater and polarised
to -1050 mV SCE with zinc anodes. The pigments had a large effect on cathodic disbonding. Coatings
without barrier pigments disbonded significantly during the test period. Coatings with 10% aluminium
pigments or more did not show any sign of disbonding until the end of the test. Then some samples had
about 3 mm disbonding around the damage in the coating. Coatings with 10% or more glass pigments
had a very long delay time before disbonding started, but disbonded severely after that. Possible
mechanisms of the effects are discussed.

1. Introduction
Cathodic disbonding is one of the most important mechanisms for loss of adhesion between coating and
steel. The problem has lately received new attention due to the increased use of coatings in combination
with cathodic protection of offshore oil production installations. Resistance against cathodic disbonding
is an important property of the coating systems to be used on submerged structures. E.g. the NORSOK
standard for development and operation of oil fields in the Norwegian sector use resistance against
cathodic disbonding as a criterion for pre-qualification of coatings for this application.1

The purpose with this paper is to examine the effect of flake shaped glass- and aluminium pigments on
cathodic disbonding. Model coatings with various contents of glass and aluminium pigments have been
prepared and tested for cathodic disbonding. The conditions we have used are close to the conditions
found on offshore installations in the North Sea. We have found that both glass and aluminium pigments
improve the resistance of the coatings against cathodic disbonding. The effect was found with two
different binders, which indicate that this is a general effect, independent of the binder. We have outlined
two possible mechanisms for the effect. The first possibility is that the flake shaped pigments improve
the barrier properties of the coating. Cathodic disbonding depends on transport of reactants through the
coating. The barrier pigments may then impede the transport, which may slow down the cathodic
disbonding. The other possibility we have looked at is buffering reactions with the pigments. Leidheiser
et al. have suggested that the aluminium may reduce the pH at the coating/substrate interface and thereby
decrease cathodic disbonding.2

Aluminium pigments have been widely used in engineering paints and protective coatings for many
years. The aluminium pigments are shaped as flakes in different sizes. The pigments we have used are
about 20 - 40 µm wide and 1 µm thick. This geometry, along with their metallic nature, is responsible
for most of their properties in protective paints. The aluminium pigments improve the barrier properties
of protective paints.3,4 From a corrosion protection point of view, their ability to impede the transport
of water and oxygen is the most important property. The pigments are impermeable to water and oxygen,
and the diffusion is forced to go around the particles. This may increase the diffusion path significantly
and thereby decrease the permeability through the paint.3 In addition the pigments also act as barriers to
radiation, as they reflect IR, UV and visible light.3 This increases the stability of the paint, and may also
reduce heat radiation from the substrate. Aluminium pigments are commercially available as leafing or

1
non-leafing grades. The leafing pigments float to the surface of the applied film, while the non-leafing
pigments are evenly distributed in the film after application. The different behaviour is due to surface
treatment of the pigments with different fatty acids.

Glass flake pigments are also used in protective coatings, but not to the same extent as aluminium flake
pigments. They are produced by breaking thin glass (about 5 µm thick) into small flakes, about 100 -
400 µm wide. Their relatively large size restricts them to be used in very thick coatings only. The shape
and impermeability to water and oxygen suggest that glass flakes will improve the barrier properties of
the coating. Glass flake pigments have received little attention in the literature. Foster et al. have
described some of the basic characteristics of glass flake filled coatings.5 El-Sawy et al. have tested the
effect of glass pigments in a scratch test and an environmental exposure test.6 However, the glass
pigments they used gave no positive effect on the performance of the coatings.

The mechanism for cathodic disbonding is not known in every detail. However, it is widely accepted in
the literature that high pH at the steel/coating interface is responsible for the disbonding.2,7,8 The high
pH is produced by the cathodic reaction on the steel surface under the coating. Structures in seawater
protected by zinc- or aluminium anodes are polarised to between -800 and -1100 mV SCE. At these
potentials the cathodic reaction can be both reduction of oxygen and hydrogen evolution:

O2 + 2 H2O + 4 e- = 4 OH- (1)

2 H2O + 2 e- = H2 + 2 OH- (2)

Leidheiser have shown that above -1000 mV SCE the oxygen reduction dominates, while below this
potential the hydrogen evolution dominates.9 However, in the cathodic areas under the coating the
potential is probably well above -1000 mV SCE, due to the high resistance between the anode and the
cathode. Leidheiser have therefore concluded that the oxygen reduction is the predominant reaction
under the coating.9

Ritter et al. have measured the pH under the disbonded coating and found that it could be as high as
14.10 The exact consequence of the alkaline water film is not known, but three theories have received
most attention. The three mechanisms are based on different locus of failure: in the iron oxide on the
steel surface,2,10 in the coating11,12 or at the interface.8,13

The transport of reactants for the cathodic reaction under the coating has also been subject to much
research. Most paint films are permeable to both oxygen and water.14 It is therefore reasonable to assume
that these reactants mainly are transported through the film. Leidheiser et al. have also shown this
experimentally.2 For cations, the conclusions are less clear. Several researchers have concluded that the
transport of cations goes laterally from the holiday under the disbonded coating.2,15 The time dependence
of the disbonding is an indication for this. The disbonded area is usually found to increase proportionally
with time, i.e. the disbonded distance from the holiday in the coating is proportional with the square root
of time.2,15-17 As the disbonded area increases, the distance for transport of ions under the disbonded film
to the disbonding front also increases. Therefore, the resistance against the transport of cations increases
and the rate of disbonding will decrease. However, there are also those who have found indications for
transport of cations through the coating. Skar measured the disbonding of coatings with film thickness
between 100 and 300 µm and found that the disbonding rate decreased linearly with increasing film
thickness.18 He also found that the transport of cations affected the disbonding rate. He therefore
suggested that the transport of cations went through the disbonded film. Jin et al.,16 Leidheiser19 and Parks
et al.20 have also concluded that cations might be transported through the coating when the specimen is
under cathodic polarisation.

Many researchers have studied the rate determining step in cathodic disbonding. Leidheiser, among
others, have shown that the transport of oxygen through organic coatings is much lower than the transport
of water.21 Oxygen may therefore for some coatings be rate limiting for cathodic disbonding. However,

2
for most coatings researchers have concluded that the transport of cations is rate limiting. When cathodic
disbonding is measured in different electrolytes (LiCl, NaCl, KCl, CsCl etc.), they have found that the
rate of disbonding is linearly proportional to the mobility of the ions in water.2,15,18,22

2. Experimental
We have used model coatings with two different binders: an amide cured epoxy and an amine cured
epoxy modified with a hydrocarbon resin (epoxy mastic). The epoxy binder was pigmented with
different concentrations of aluminium flake pigments. The epoxy mastic binder was pigmented with
either aluminium flake pigments or glass flake pigments. The aluminium pigments we have used are
about 20 - 40 µm wide and 1 µm thick. The glass flake pigments were up to 400 µm wide and 10 µm
thick. Information about composition and pigmentation of the paints is given in Table 1 and 2.

Cathodic disbonding for all nine model coatings was tested in a long term test. The substrate was 200 x
200 x 5 mm steel plates cut from mild steel (DIN 17100). The composition of the steel was 0.10% C,
0.10% Si, 0.52% Mn, 0.14% P, 0.014% S, 0.23% Cr and Fe to balance. They were blast cleaned with
steel grit to Sa 2½ 23 and medium roughness (Ry = 76 ± 7 µm).24 The paints were applied by airless
spraying in two coats. The first coat cured for about 24 hours at room temperature before the second
coat was applied. After that, the samples cured for 55 days at ambient temperature and humidity before
testing. Coating thickness was measured with a magnetic gauge. The accuracy of the instrument is better
than 10%. The dry film thickness is given in Table 1 and 2. The samples were given a circular holiday
in the middle, 6 mm in diameter, to start the cathodic disbonding process. They were exposed in
continuously running natural seawater at 8-13°C. Galvanic coupling to zinc anodes gave cathodic
polarisation to about -1050 mV SCE in the coating holiday. The experimental setup is shown in Figure
1A. Cathodic disbonding was measured destructively by gently lifting the disbonded paint film off the
steel substrate with a scalpel. The diameter of the disbonded circle was measured in four directions and
the disbonded distance was calculated from the average diameter.

Table 1. Amide cured epoxy: Coating composition (wt%) of wet paint and applied thickness.

Epoxy 0 Epoxy 5 Epoxy 10 Epoxy 20

Amide cured epoxy resin 36.0 34.4 32.4 31.8

Extenders 26.7 25.3 24.2 16.0
Solvent 35.9 33.7 32.0 31.0
Additives 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
Aluminium paste, non-leafing - 5.3 10.1 20.0

Density of wet paint [g/cm3] 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.21

PVC (%) 21.6 24.0 26.0 26.7
Vol % solids 51 51 50 47

Applied thickness [µm]

Blast cleaned steel 273 ± 17 277 ± 12 263 ± 34 353 ± 40
Ground steel 205 ± 4 209 ± 5 203 ± 4 207 ± 4

The amide cured epoxy was also tested in a short-term test. Steel samples of 80 x 80 x 5 mm were cut
from mild steel. The samples were ground with emery paper to roughness Ry = 5 µm. The paints were
applied with an applicator in two coats. The first coat was allowed to cure for about 24 hours at room
temperature before the second coat was applied. After that the samples cured for 34 days at room
temperature before testing. Coating thickness was measured with a magnetic gauge and is given in Table
1. Cathodic disbonding was tested in substitute seawater25 at 25°C. The samples were polarised to -1050

3
mV SCE with a potentiostat. The test setup is shown in Figure 1B. Cathodic disbonding was measured
the same way as in the long-term test.

Table 2. Amine cured epoxy mastic: Coating composition (wt %) of wet paint and applied thickness.
Pigmentation Aluminium Glass

Mastic 0 Mastic 10A Mastic 20A Mastic 10G Mastic 20G

Amine cured epoxy mod.
with hydrocarbon resin 38.0 37.2 36.5 38.4 38.8
Extenders 50.5 41.6 32.7 39.7 28.8
Solvent 10.5 10.3 10.0 10.6 10.7
Additives 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.7
Aluminium paste - 9.9 19.8 - -
Glass flakes - - - 10.0 20.0

Density wet paint [g/cm3] 1.50 1.44 1.38 1.48 1.46

PVC (%) 33 33 33 33 33
Vol.% solids 79 75 70 79 79

Applied thickness [µm] 349 ± 22 377 ± 18 337 ± 49 354 ± 45 375 ± 36

Three of the epoxy mastic coatings were analysed by Scanning Electron Microscopy: Mastic 0, Mastic
10A and Mastic 10G. Cross sections were cut with an emery disc, embedded in epoxy, ground and
coated with carbon by vapour deposition. Images were taken with element contrast at 200x
magnification.

4
 6 A
5
4 V 1 Coated sample
2 Test vessel
2
3 Zinc anode
7 4 1000 Ω resisor
1 5 Volt meter
6 Seawater in
7 Seawater out
3

3
B
C W R

6 7 5
V
10
8 9

2
1 4 1 2

1 Coated sample 5 Reference (SCE) 9 Water out

2 PVC casing 6 1000 Ω resistor 10 Rubber gasket
3 Potentiostat 7 Voltmeter
4 Pt counter electrode 8 Water inn

Figure 1. Test setup for cathodic disbonding.

A: Long term test. Blast cleaned substrate, natural seawater, 8-13°C,
-1050 mV SCE. B: Short term test. Ground substrate, substitute seawater, 25°C, -1050 mV SCE.

5
3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Effect of aluminium pigments on cathodic disbonding

Figure 2 shows the disbonded distance in the long-term test as a function of time for the amide cured
epoxy coatings with aluminium pigments. 15 samples of each model paint were prepared, and cathodic
disbonding was measured during a two years period. With increasing time intervals, 1-3 samples were
removed and analysed. The aluminium pigments were highly effective in improving the resistance of
the coating towards cathodic disbonding. Epoxy 10 and Epoxy 20 had not disbonded at all after 18
months of exposure. After two years Epoxy 10 had some disbonding, and about 3 mm of the coating
around the holiday could be removed. Epoxy 5 had disbonded about 20 mm and Epoxy 0 about 65 mm
in the same period.

100
Disbonded distance [mm]

80
Epoxy 0

60

40
Epoxy 5
20

Epoxy 10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Years

Figure 2. Cathodic disbonding of epoxy coating with various concentrations of aluminium pigments.
Coatings applied on blast cleaned steel (Sa 2½). Experimental conditions: Natural seawater, 8-13°C,
polarised with zinc anodes to -1050 mV SCE.

The aluminium not only affected the rate of disbonding, but also the degree to which the coating lost
adhesion. For Epoxy 5, it was much harder to remove the disbonded coating, compared to Epoxy 0. This
was also seen when we looked at the metal surface in a microscope after removing the disbonded
coating. Under Epoxy 5 we found more "islands" where the coating still adhered to the substrate,
compared to Epoxy 0, where very little of the binder was left on the steel surface.

Figure 3 shows the amount of coating still found on the steel surface after removing the disbonded
coating on samples of Epoxy 0 and Epoxy 5. The pictures were created and analysed in an electronic
image analyser. The sample in Figure 2A was coated with Epoxy 5 and exposed for 18 months. The
radius of the disbonded circle is about 32 mm. The quantitative analysis showed that remains of the
coating covered about 18% of the disbonded area. The sample in Figure 2B was coated with Epoxy 0
and exposed for one year. The radius of the disbonded circle is about 120 mm. For this coating only 4%
of the disbonded area was covered with remains of the binder.

6
Figure 3. Pictures of the disbonded area after removing the disbonded coating, taken with an electronic
image analyser.
A: Epoxy 5 exposed for 18 months, 32mm disbonded diameter.
B: Epoxy 0 exposed for one year, 120 mm disbonded diameter.

The coatings with high aluminium concentrations had little or no disbonding after two years in the long-
term test. To get quantitative information about how much the aluminium pigments decreased cathodic
disbonding, we also tested the amide cured epoxy coatings in a short-term test on ground steel. In
general, the rate of cathodic disbonding increases when the roughness of the substrate decreases.8 Epoxy
10 and Epoxy 20 disbonded faster on ground steel. Figure 4 shows the rate of cathodic disbonding on
ground steel as function of time for the four epoxy model coatings. The disbonding rate for Epoxy 10
and Epoxy 20 is about the same, but more than two decades slower than for Epoxy 0. The time
dependence of the disbonding is different from the parabolic kinetics that usually is found, e.g. in Figure
2. This may indicate that some other mechanisms were involved, but we have not been able to investigate
this. However, the results clearly demonstrate effect of the aluminium pigments.

The surface roughness had a large effect on the disbonding rate. On ground steel substrate (Ry = 5 µm)
Epoxy 0 disbonded 25 mm in about one day. On blast cleaned steel (Ry = 76 µm) it took about three
months to get the same disbonded distance. Watts and Castle have also tested the effect of substrate
roughness on the rate of cathodic disbonding.8 They suggested that the effect of the substrate roughness
was due to a change in the diffusion path length under the coating. As the substrate roughness increased
the diffusion path length between the holiday and the disbonding front would increase. They found a
reasonable correlation between the disbonding rate and the actual length of the surface profile. The effect
may also be due to an increase in the contact area between the coating and the substrate, when the surface
roughness increases.16 When we measured cathodic disbonding on a substrate that had been abraded in
one direction only, the disbonded distance was always larger along the abrasion lines. Jin et al. found
the same.16 This observation favours the mechanism suggested by Watts and Castle.

7
 25
Disbonded distance [mm]

Epoxy 0

20

15 Epoxy 5

10
Epoxy 10
5 Epoxy 20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Days

Figure 4. Cathodic disbonding of epoxy coating with various concentrations of aluminium pigments,
applied on ground steel substrate. Experimental conditions: Artificial seawater, 25°C, -1050 mV SCE.

The amide cured epoxy has low commercial interest due to the high content of solvents. The epoxy
mastic binder was therefore included in the test to represent a more commercially interesting binder.
The disbonding distances for the epoxy mastic coatings are given in Figure 5. Pre-treatment, application,
curing and exposure were similar to the long-term test of the amide cured epoxy. The unpigmented
epoxy mastic (Mastic 0) gave about 8 mm disbonding in four months exposure, but then the coating
started to blister randomly all over the sample. After that, cathodic disbonding spread from the blisters,
and it became impossible to measure the disbonded distance from the holiday. After about one year the
whole sample had disbonded. We would like to emphasise that this is not a general problem with epoxy
mastics. We have tested several commercial epoxy mastics which have performed much better than this.

The blistering of Mastic 0 was independent of the initial coating holiday and was even found on the
back of the samples. Inside the blisters we found a highly alkaline liquid, which means that the blistering
was caused by the cathodic reaction under the coating. The blistering was therefore also a kind of
cathodic disbonding. It then seems that there are two different disbonding mechanisms, one mechanism
associated with a mechanical damage in the coating, and another mechanism independent of any
mechanical damage. This is in accordance with Type I and Type II failure described by Watts and
Castle.26 Type I failure was associated with transport of the cation downward through the film via
conductive pathways, corresponding to the random blistering of our coatings. Type II failure was
associated with transport of the cation under the disbonded coating from a mechanical damage in the
film. For the epoxy mastic coatings the aluminium pigments had a positive effect on both types of failure.

8
 10
Random
Disbonded distance [mm]

blistering
8
Random
initiation
6
Mastic 0
Mastic 10G
4

2 Mastic 20G
Mastic 10A
Mastic 20A

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Years

Figure 5. Cathodic disbonding of epoxy mastic coatings with various concentrations of aluminium
pigments, applied on blast cleaned steel (Sa 2½). Natural seawater, 8-13°C, -1050 mV SCE.

As for the amide cured epoxies, the epoxy mastics with 10% and 20% aluminium pigments (Mastic 10A
and 20A) had no cathodic disbonding at all after 18 months exposure. No blistering or other signs of
coating deterioration were observed either. Due to the low content of solvent, the concentration of
aluminium in the dry film was lower than for the corresponding amide cured epoxies. Since the
unpigmented coating performed so badly, the aluminium pigments had a tremendous effect on both
random blistering and cathodic disbonding.

In the amide cured epoxy coatings the pigment volume concentration (PVC) varied from 22% in Epoxy
0 to 31% in Epoxy 20 (Table 1). We could therefore suspect that the effect of the aluminium just was a
general effect of the increased PVC. However, for the epoxy mastic coatings the PVC was 33% for all
the five paints. The effect of the pigments on cathodic disbonding can therefore not just be a general
effect of the PVC.

3.2 Effect of glass pigments on cathodic disbonding

Due to spark hazard, the classification companies have set a limit to the concentration of aluminium in
marine paints to maximum 10% by weight in the dry film.27 Glass flake pigments were therefore also
tested with the epoxy mastic, as an alternative barrier pigment. The disbonding of these coatings is also
shown in Figure 5. The glass flakes inhibited the disbonding compared to the unpigmented coating, but
not as much as the aluminium pigments. After 4 months some disbonding was found on Mastic 10G.
After 9 – 10 months disbonding started from random points all over the samples, and after one year it
was impossible to measure the disbonded distance from the holiday. After 18 months about 70% of the
coating had disbonded. For Mastic 20G we first found disbonding after a year of exposure. Some random
initiation of disbonding was found after 18 months.

The random initiation of cathodic disbonding of Mastic 10G and Mastic 20G was probably due to
opening of conductive pathways through the coating, like we assumed for the blistering of Mastic 0.
The reason why Mastic 10G and Mastic 20G did not develop blisters may have been a reinforcing effect

9
of the glass flake pigments. The random initiation of disbonding for the two films was therefore probably
also a Type I failure, in the terminology by Watts and Castle.26 Since this type of failure was delayed
by the glass flake pigments may, the pigments may have delayed the process of opening conductive
pathways through the film.

3.3 Mechanism for the effect of the pigments

Figure 6, 7 and 8 show SEM micrographs of cross sections of Mastic 0, Mastic 10A and Mastic 10G.
Immediately after application, the flake shaped aluminium and glass pigments mainly orient themselves
parallel to the substrate. In Figure 7 and Figure 8 they therefore appear as needles aligned parallel with
the substrate. The irregular shaped particles in all three films is the filler. The aluminium and glass flakes
are assumed to improve the barrier properties of the coating by increasing the diffusion pathway through
the coating.3 The diffusing species (oxygen, water and ions) are forced to go around the impermeable
particles, and this may increase the diffusion distance several times. The use of barrier pigments can
therefore be seen as an alternative to increasing the film thickness. However, the aluminium and glass
flakes may also increase the diffusion through the coating. If some pigment flakes are aligned
perpendicular to the substrate they may introduce effective pathways for diffusion through the coating.
This is extra risky with the glass pigments since they are so large that one pigment flake may penetrate
the whole film. Coatings with such pigments must therefore always be applied thicker than the diameter
of the largest pigments.

Figure 6. SEM micrograph of cross section of an epoxy mastic coating without barrier pigments.
Element contrast, 200x magnification.

10
 Figure 7. SEM micrograph of cross section of an epoxy mastic coating with 10 wt% aluminium
pigments. Element contrast, 200x magnification.

Figure 8. SEM micrograph of cross section of an epoxy mastic coating with 10 wt% glass flakes.
Element contrast, 200x magnification.

Pigments in general, and flake shaped pigments in particular, may also affect the curing of the binder.
If the pigments impede diffusion, the curing agent may not be able to diffuse to the reactive sites on the
binder chains around the pigment particles. This may then leave a partly cured resin around the pigment
particles, which may serve as preferred routes for diffusion. If the resin does not adhere properly to the
pigments small voids may be formed around the particles. This may also increase the diffusion through
the coating.

The glass flake pigments may have caused the random cathodic disbonding of Mastic 10G and Mastic
20G. They were wider than the film thickness, and some of them may have been aligned perpendicular
to the substrate as described above. However, the films were applied in two coats, which should reduce
the chance for pigments to penetrate the film. Since the unpigmented film performed so badly, it is more
likely that the random initiation was due to the binder.

11
The barrier effect of the glass and aluminium flake pigments is the most obvious explanation for their
effect on cathodic disbonding. The effect of the barrier pigments can be compared to the effect of
increasing the film thickness, which also has been shown to decrease cathodic disbonding.2,16,18 The
effect of the aluminium pigments can also involve another mechanism. Leidheiser et al. have suggested
that the oxide on the surface of the pigments may act as a buffer.2 The Pourbaix diagram for aluminium
shows that aluminium corrodes at pH higher than about 9.28 The oxide on the surface dissolves in high
pH environment and cannot protect the metal. The reaction removes hydroxide from the electrolyte, and
this may reduce the pH at the steel/coating interface:

Al2O3 + 2 OH- = 2 AlO2- + H2O (3)

Since cathodic disbonding has been attributed to the build-up of hydroxide at the steel coating interface,
this reaction may therefore decrease the rate of disbonding. Another possibility for the effect of
aluminium pigments is that they act as an oxygen scavenger. The corrosion of the aluminium pigments
may consume the oxygen before it reaches the steel surface. Since the aluminium is not passive, due to
the high pH, the corrosion of the pigments (4) is not inhibited:

4 Al + 3 O2 + 4 OH- = 4 AlO2- + 2 H2O (4)

Glass is also known to be unstable in highly alkaline solutions, but this requires very high pH, and will
probably not affect the pH under the paint film significantly. The fact that the glass pigments also
decreased the disbonding weigh against the active pigment theory. However, the two mechanisms may
work in combination. Both aluminium and glass pigments may act as barriers. The aluminium pigments
were more effective than the glass pigments in decreasing cathodic disbonding, which may be due to
the buffer effect in addition to the barrier effect. Both the barrier mechanism and the buffer mechanism
will be investigated for aluminium pigments in detail in Part 2.

4. Conclusions
Aluminium and glass barrier pigments decreased cathodic disbonding substantially for two different
epoxy coatings. After exposure in natural seawater for two years, coatings with 10% aluminium
pigments gave about 3 mm disbonding, while the coatings without the aluminium pigments disbonded
about 65 mm. Glass flake pigments were less effective than aluminium pigments in decreasing cathodic
disbonding, but still they improved the performance of the coating significantly. The aluminium- and
glass pigments probably act as barriers to diffusion of oxygen and water through the film. For the
aluminium pigments, a mechanism where the aluminium acts as a buffer that reduces the pH at the
steel/coating interface is possible.

Acknowledgements - We gratefully acknowledge the following companies and institutions for

supporting the project: Kværner Rosenborg, Aker Engineering, Statoil, Hydro, Saga, Conoco, Scana
Offshore, Carboline, Jotun, International, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, The Norwegian
Research Council.

5. References
1. NORSOK M-CR-501, Surface Preparation and Protective Coatings, Norwegian Technology
Standards Institution, Oslo (1994).
2. H. Leidheiser, W. Wang and L. Igetoft, Prog. Org. Coat. 11, 19-40 (1983).
3. C. H. Hare, Protective Coatings - Fundamentals of Chemistry and Composition, Technology
Publishing Company, Pittsburgh, PA (1994).
4. W. Funke, J. Coat. Technol. 55, 31-38 (1983).
5. H. Foster and O. Vonen, U.K. Corrosion, Wembley (1984).
6. S. M. El-Sawy and N. A. Ghanem, J. Oil Colour. Chem. Assoc. 67, 253 (1984).
7. U. R. Evans, Trans. Electrochem. Soc. 55, 243 (1929).

12
 8. J. F. Watts and J. E. Castle, J. Mat. Sci. 19, 2259-72 (1984).
9. H. Leidheiser Jr, Corrosion 38, 374-383 (1982).
10. J. J. Ritter, J. Coat. Technol. 54, 51-57 (1982).
11. R. S. Dickie, J. S. Hammond and J. W. Holubka, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 20, 339 (1981).
12. M. R. Horner and F. J. Boerio, J. Adhes. 2, 141-56 (1990).
13. E. N. Kohler, Corrosion 40, 5-8 (1984).
14. N. L. Thomas, Prog. Org. Coat. 19, 101-121 (1991).
15. M. Stratmann, R. Feser and A. Leng, Electrochim. Acta 39, 1207 (1994).
16. X. H. Jin, K. C. Tsay, A. Elbasir and J. D. Scantlebury, In Advances in Corrosion Protection by
Organic Coatings, D. Scantlebury, M. Kendig Eds.,p. 37-47, The Electrochemical Society,
Pennington, NJ (1987).
17. M. Kendig, R. Adisson and S. Jeanjackuet, In Advances in Corrosion Protection by Organic
Coatings, D. Scantlebury, M. Kendig Eds., p. 2-4, The Electrochemical Society, Pennington, NJ
(1989).
18. J. I. Skar, Thesis: Cathodic Disbonding of and Transport of Charge through Paint Films,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim (1990).
19. H. Leidheiser, J. Adhes. Sci. Tech. 1, 79 (1987).
20. J. Parks and H. Leidheiser Jr, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 25, 1-6 (1986).
21. H. Leidheiser, D. J. Mills and W. Bilder, In Corrosion Protection by Organic Coatings, M. W.
Kendig, H. Leidheiser Eds., p. 23-36, The Electrochemical Society, Pennington, NJ (1987).
22. J. D. B. Sharman, J. M. Sykes and T. Handyside, Corros. Sci. 5, 1375-83 (1993).
23. ISO 8501, Visual assessment of surface cleanliness, The International Organization for
Standardization (1988).
24. ISO 8503-3, Surface roughness characteristics of blast-cleaned steel substrates, The International
Organization for Standardization (1988).
25. ASTM D1141-90, Standard Specification for Substitute Ocean Water, American Society For
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (1990).
26. J. F. Watts and J. E. Castle, J. Mat. Sci. 18, 2987-3003 (1983).
27. DNV Guidlines No. 8, Corrosion Protection of Ships, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo (1996).
28. M. Pourbaix, Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions, Pergamon Press, London
(1966).

13

View publication stats