Evaluating
Protective
Coatings for
Ballast Tanks
By Helge Vold
MARINTEK
Sandefjord, Norway
T he lifetime of vessels, such as
tankers and bulk carriers, is deter-
mined to a large extent by the con-
dition of their ballast tanks. In
recent years, serious accidents
causing total failure of the hull
shell plate have been caused by
corrosion damage in ballast tanks.
Therefore, finding adequate meth-
ods of corrosion protection with
qualifying coating systems is an
important issue.
In 1991, MARINTEK began a pro-
ject called Corrosion Protection of
Tanks and Cargo Holds. The objec-
tive was to establish guidelines and
recommendations for the handling,
inspection, and maintenance of
tanks and cargo holds related to
corrosion and corrosion protection
16
and to test and classify corrosion
protection coating systems.
As part of the project, which was
designed to reduce maintenance
and operating costs, a manual was
developed to give shipowners,
inspectors, and crews information
about causes of corrosion and mea-
sures to protect tanks and cargo
holds.
This article presents the testing
methods used and the coating clas-
sifications and test results obtained.
Test Methods
The starting point for developing
and evaluating a qualification pro-
cedure for ballast tank coatings was
that suitable test methods did not
exist. Therefore, it was decided to
find methods that could cover all
the environmental conditions in a
ballast tank. To evaluate and classi-
fy ballast tank coatings, two labora-
tory test methods were used: a
wave tank (simulating real service
conditions in ballast tanks) and a
condensation chamber.
PCE June 1997
Wave tanks, simulating service conditions
in ballast tanks, were one of two test meth-
ods used. (Photos courtesy of MARINTEK)
Wave Tank
The wave tank test consists of a
tank with natural seawater at 35 C
and room for four test panels (Fig.
1). The test panels represent one
deck panel, one side panel with
cold wall effect (temperature gradi-
ent about 15 C), one side panel
without cold wall effect, and one
bottom panel with zinc anode. The
tank has wave movement to simu-
late the splashing of seawater, and
it can be heated by radiation on
the deck panel (12 hours at 50
C/12 hours at room temperature).
The test cycle is two weeks with
seawater and wave movement and
one week with seawater below the
bottom panel and no wave move-
ment.
Condensation Chamber
This test consists of a chamber
in which test panels are exposed to
Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company
 Table 1: Test Panel Description

continuous condensation, according Laboratory Test Method Description of Panels for Test
to ISO 6270.1 Deck wave tank panel with scribe

The Test Panels Bottom wave tank panel with anode

Wave tank
The coatings were tested on pre- Side wave tank panel with cooling
rusted, blast-cleaned, zinc shop-
Side wave tank panel
primed, or pre-rusted/moist test
panels. Condensation chamber panel
For uniformity, the pre-rusted pan- Condensation chamber Condensation chamber panel with scribe
els were produced by exposure of
Condensation chamber on blast-cleaned panel
blast-cleaned panels to four cycles
of 18 hours in a salt spray cabinet
and six hours drying with some Table 2: Classification of Hard Coatings
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)
light wire brushing before each
exposure. Before application of the Hard Coatings Area Blistered Area Rusted
coatings, the pre-rusted panels were
wire brushed and subjected to high- Class B-1 No blisters Ri 0 (0%)
pressure washing according to the
Class B-2 Density 1-2 either on the cold wall wave tank Ri 1 (0.05%)
coating suppliers recommendation.
panel or in the condensation chamber panels
The blast-cleaned panels were grit
blasted to Sa 212 (ISO 8501/1).2 The Class B-3 Density 1-2 on the cold wall wave tank panel Ri 2 (0.5%)
zinc shop-primed panels were shot and in the condensation chamber panels
blasted to Sa 212, coated with a 25- Density 3-4 either on the cold wall wave tank Ri 3 (1%)
Class B-4
m layer of zinc ethyl silicate shop panel or in the condensation chamber panels
primer, weathered outdoors for 14
days, washed with tap water, and Class B-5 Density 3-4 on the cold wall wave tank panel Ri 4 (8%)
dried. and in the condensation chamber panels
The pre-rusted/moist panels were Class B-6 Density 4-5 Ri 5 (40/50%)
prepared by the same pre-rusting
procedure as above. One-third of follows.
each panel was coated with a coal Soft coating A coating that
tar epoxy. Immediately before appli- remains soft so it wears off at low
cation of the coating, the panels CYCLIC HEATING mechanical impact or when only
were dipped in distilled water and 12 HOURS 50 C
touched by hand. These coatings
12 HOURS 20 C
then stippled with a cotton cloth. give temporary protection of rusted
Table 1 shows the placement of steel surfaces, but they must be
TEST PANELS
the panels for the different tests. COOLING maintained or recoated every year
The test duration for both laboratory TEMP. GRADIENT
or two.
methods was 60 days for coatings Semi-hard coating A coating
on pre-rusted panels and 180 days SEAWATER
SEA WATER 35 C
that dries flexible but hard enough
for coatings on blast-cleaned or zinc HEATING to touch and walk on and does not
shop-primed panels. wear off or erode with ballast
water movement. These coatings
Categories of Coatings WAVE MOVEMENT
give temporary protection of rusted
Depending on their properties, the steel surfaces.
coatings used in the tests were Hard coating Paint that cures
divided into three categories: soft Fig. 1: Wave tank with four test panels or dries and provides long-term
coatings, semi-hard coatings, and in simulated real service conditions protection of steel surfaces. (Paint
hard coatings, which are defined as is used as a synonym for hard

Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

PCE June 1997 17
 Table 3: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint) Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)

Coating Coating Blisters on Panel Rust On Undercutting Pull-off Class

Type No. from Scribe Adhesion

Wave tank Condensation Wave tank Wave tank Wave tank

side panel chamber deck panel deck panel deck panel
with cooling (mm) (Ref)1 (MPa)

Coal tar 1 0 0 Ri 2 1.0 (2.4) B2

epoxy
2 0 1 (S3) 0 2 6.1 (4.6) B2
3 0 4 (S3) 0 2 5.0 (3.9) B3
4 3 (S4) 2 (S4) 0 1 3.8 (4.0) B3
5 3 (S3) 4 (S3) 0 4 4.6 (6.3) B4
6 3 (S5) 3 (S5) 0 0.2 (1.7) B5
7 3 (S3) 4 (S5) 0 1.1 (1.6) B5
8 4 (S5) 4 (S5) 0 1.6 (1.6) B5
Solvent-free 9 4 (S4) 4 (S4) 0 2.7 (2.2) B4
epoxy 10 3 (S2) 4 (S2) Ri 1 6 3.6 (3.9) B5
High-solids 11 0 3 (S4) local 0 5 6.1 (4.0) B2
epoxy 12 0 2 (S4) 0 2 3.5 (3.9) B3
13 2 (S3) 2 (S2) 0 0 4.5 (4.5) B3
14 3 (S5) 2 (S4) 0 4 2.7 (3.8) B4
15 4 (S4) 4 (S4) 0 4 3.5 (3.2) B4
16 3 (S3) 4 (S3) 0 5 9.0 (7.9) B4
17 4 (S4) 4 (S4) 0 2 1.8 (2.9) B5
Surface-tolerant 18 0 0 0 2 3.5 (2.6) B1
epoxy 19 0 0 0 0 3.3 (2.7) B1
20 0 0 0 2 3.2 (3.1) B1
21 0 0 0 5 3.2 (2.2) B1
22 0 0 Ri 1 5 4.1 (3.2) B2
23 3 (S5) 3 (S5) 0 9 2.4 (3.0) B5
24 3 (S3) 4 (S3) 0 4 0.9 (0.9) B5
Others 25 0 0 0 2 0.7 (0) B2
(non-epoxy) 26 2 (S3) 2 (S2) 0 6 4.0 (3.8) B3
27 4 (S5) 4 (S5) 0 8 2.5 (1.6) B4
28 4 (S2) 4 (S2) 0 1 B5
29 3 (S3) 3 (S4) Ri 1 0 0.3 (0.7) B5
30 0 5 (S5) Ri 3 4 0 (0) B6
1) In
In brackets:
brackets: pull-off
pull-off adhesion of unexposed reference
reference panel.
panel.
First number
number isis blister
blister density;
density; number
numberininparenthesis
parenthesesisisblister
blistersize.
size.

coating in this article). classified soft coating. at 90 volts. The number of pin-
These definitions contain some holes was recorded.
evaluation of the coating lifetime, Evaluation and Classification After the tests, adhesion was
which is reflected in the classifica- of Hard Coatings tested using the pull-off method
tion. Similar products are ranked At intervals during the exposure (ISO 4624).4 The effect of waves,
according to their performance. and after the test was completed, heat, and temperature gradients
When comparing products between the coatings were evaluated for were evaluated visually.
the groups, a low-classified hard degree of blistering and degree of Disbonding of the coating from the
coating may still give better protec- rusting according to ISO 4628/1-3.3 scribe was evaluated and recorded.
tion than a high-classified semi- Before exposure, one small Flexibility was tested according to
hard coating. Similarly, a low-clas- (15x15 cm) and one large (20x40 ASTM D4145.5 Three pieces from
sified semi-hard coating may still cm) panel were tested for pinholes the deck panel of the wave tank
give better protection than a high- with a low voltage pinhole detector and an unexposed control panel
18 PCE June 1997 Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company
 Table 4: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint)
Tested on Pre-rusted and Moist Substrate
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)

were cut out. The pieces were bent
180 degrees at 5, 20, and 40 mm
diameter, and the result was report-
ed as minimum diameter of no
paint fracture. If paint fracture was
seen even at 40 mm diameter, the
degree of bend at fracture was
reported. Pull-off and flexibility
tests were done a minimum of two
weeks after exposure. For the panel
with sacrificial anodes (Table 1),
the current demand was calculated
and the effect of cathodic protec-
tion was evaluated visually.
The panels were evaluated main-
ly on the density of blisters and the
area rusted. From the evaluation,
coatings were classified from B1 to
B6, with B1 being the best rating
(Table 2).
From 15 different producers, 30
hard coatings were tested on pre-
rusted substrates. The pre-treat-
ment of the pre-rusted panels was
according to the producers recom-
mendations. As shown in Table 3,
only four products were classified
B1. All four were surface-tolerant
epoxy coatings. Coal tar epoxy
coatings, which were believed to
provide the best corrosion protec-
tion for ballast tanks, showed dif-
ferent performances in this study
from producer to producer. Only
two solvent-free products were test-
ed on a pre-rusted substrate, and
they were classified B4 and B5. In
the high-solids group (more than
80 percent volume solids), only one
product was classified B2. Blisters
on the cold wall panel in the wave
tank and on the panels in the con-
densation test chamber (tempera-
ture gradients) resulted in the
largest deterioration of the coating
systems. Salt contamination on the
pre-rusted panels and poor wetting
properties of the coatings were
probably the main reasons for blis-
Coating Blisters on Panel
No.
Wave tank Condensation Wave tank Wave tank
side panel chamber deck
with cooling panel
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 1 (S4) 4 (S3) 0 9
0 0
6 3 (S2)
1) In brackets: pull-off adhesion of reference panel not exposed.
First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.
ter formation.
Six hard coatings from five differ-
ent producers were tested on pre-
rusted/moist substrates. Table 4
shows that four products were clas-
sified B1. These products included
a solvent-free epoxy, a high-solids
epoxy, a surface-tolerant epoxy, and
a urethane-based coating.
Deterioration of the coating systems
occurred in the form of blisters on
the cold wall panel in the wave
tank and on the panels in the con-
densation test chamber (tempera-
ture gradients). Again, salt contami-
nation on the pre-rusted panels and
poor wetting properties of the coat-
ings were probably the main rea-
sons for the formation of blisters.
From 12 different producers, 44
hard coatings were tested on zinc
shop-primed or blast-cleaned sub-
strates. The highest classification,
B1, was given to 29 products, as
shown in Table 5. Surface-tolerant
epoxy coatings and coal tar epoxy
coatings performed best in this test.
Also, in the solvent-free epoxy and
the high-solids groups, 50 percent
of the products were classified B1.
Blisters on the cold wall panel in
the test tank and on the panels in
the condensation test chamber
caused the largest deterioration of
the coating systems. Poor wetting
Rust On
Undercutting Pull-off Class
from Scribe Adhesion
Wave tank
deck panel deck panel
(mm) (Ref)1 (MPa)
6 5.9 (5.9) B1
9 6.1 (7.2) B1
3 8.0 (8.3) B1
4 8.9 (7.4) B1
6.1 (7.2) B4
11 6.6 (10.4)
B4
properties were probably the main
reason for the formation of blisters.
Evaluation and Classification
of Semi-hard Coatings
At intervals during exposure and
at the end of the test, the semi-hard
coatings were evaluated for degree
of blistering and degree of rusting
according to ISO 4628/1-3. The
degree of rusting in the pictures of
the standard is based on hard paint
coatings, which flake during rust-
ing. Because of their softness and
good adhesion, semi-hard coatings
do not flake off, and this should be
remembered when comparing the
exposed panels with the pictures in
the standard. For all coating sys-
tems, evaluation of the degree of
rusting according to the standard is
done without scraping off the coat-
ing. However, the coating must be
scraped off in order to see under-
rusting on pre-rusted, blast-cleaned,
or shop-primed panels.
Semi-hard coatings may develop
blisters that disappear later. Devel-
opment of blisters was recorded
during the test period and after the
exposure. Because under-rusting
often develops under blisters of
semi-hard coatings, this must be
regarded as a defect even if the blis-
ters disappear when the exposure is

Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

PCE June 1997 19
 Table 5: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Hard Coatings (Paint)
Tested on Zinc Shop-primed or Blast-cleaned Panels
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)

Coating Type Coating Blisters on Panel Rust On Undercutting Pull-off Class

No. from Scribe Adhesion

Wave tank Condensation Wave tank Wave tank Wave tank

side panel chamber deck panel deck panel deck panel
with cooling (mm) (Ref)1 (MPa)

Coal tar epoxy 1 0 0 0 3 4.2 (2.5) B1

2 0 0 0 6 2.0 (1.9) B1
3 0 0 0 7 4.6 (4.7) B1
4 0 0 0 6 2.5 (2.9) B1
5 0 0 0 10 4.3 (5.1) B1
6 0 0 0 3 2.2 (2.4) B1
7 1 (S3) 0 0 7 4.5 (4.3) B2
8 2 (S5) 4 (S4) 0 10 3.2 (4.8) B4
Bleached tar 9 0 0 0 10 4.2 (3.7) B1
epoxy 10 0 0 0 6 2.9 (4.6) B1
11 0 3 (S4) 0 14 5.9 (2.8) B3
12 0 4 (S3) 0 13 1.6 (1.7) B3
Solvent-free 13 0 0 0 8 4.0 (5.0) B1
epoxy 14 0 0 0 9 4.0 (5.1) B1
15 0 4 (S3) 0 10 3.4 (3.4) B3
16 0 4 (S3) 0 10 3.0 (3.7) B3
17 0 4 (S4) 0 6 2.5 (1.2) B3
High-solids 18 0 0 0 12 4.6 (4.0) B1
epoxy 19 0 0 0 10 >5 (7.3) B1
20 0 0 0 9 3.2 (4.3) B1
21 0 0 0 19 3.3 (3.9) B1
22 0 0 0 6 3.3 (5.3) B1
23 0 0 0 3 5.0 (5.4) B1
24 0 0 0 8 3.1 (3.2) B1
25 0 0 0 7 8.5 (6.5) B2
26 0 3 (S4) 0 13 4.9 (4.2) B3
27 0 3 (S2) 0 22 2.4 (1.9) B3
28 3 (S2) 5 (S4) 0 19 3.0 (1.7) B5
29 4 (S4) 5 (S4) 0 12 5.6 (2.7) B5
30 4 (S5) 5 (S5) 0 11 4.3 (2.9) B6
Surface-tolerant 31 0 0 0 8 3.1 (1.9) B1
epoxy 32 0 0 0 14 2.9 (1.8) B1
33 0 0 0 11 4.3 (3.9) B1
34 0 0 0 8 5.6 (5.1) B1
35 0 0 0 8 5.6 (5.5) B1
36 0 0 0 3 3.9 (4.0) B1
37 0 0 0 33 2.2 (3.7) B1
38 0 0 0 4 4.5 (2.6) B1
39 0 0 0 6 3.6 (2.9) B1
Others 40 0 0 0 15 2.1 (3.1) B1
(non-epoxy) 41 0 0 0 14 4.9 (4.1) B1
42 0 0 0 0 2.7 (1.4) B1
43 0 2 (S3) 0 7 3.0 (5.1) B2
44 1 (S2) 2 (S3) 0 10 4.6 (4.2) B3
1) In brackets: pull-off adhesion of unexposed reference panel.
First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.

finished. The reported size and
density of the blisters is the highest
level recorded during exposure.
The effect of the blisters on the
substrate is studied by scraping off
the coating down to the steel sub-
strate.
Before exposure, one small panel
(15x15 cm) and one large panel
(20x40 cm) were tested for pin-
holes with a low-voltage pinhole
detector at 90 volts. The number of
pinholes was recorded.
After the tests, the effect of the
waves, heat, and temperature gra-
dients again were evaluated visual-
ly. Undercutting from scribe was
evaluated and recorded. For the
panel with anodes (Table 1), the
current demand was calculated and
the effect of cathodic protection on
the coating (disbonding/blistering)
was evaluated visually.
As with hard coatings, classifica-
tion of semi-hard coatings was
based mainly on the degree of rust-
ing and/or the density of blisters. If

20 PCE June 1997 Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

 Table 6: Classification of Semi-hard Coatings
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)
Semi-hard Area Rusted Area
Coatings Blistered Summary and Conclusions
The test results show that only
Class C-1 Ri 0 to Ri 1 (0-0.05%) on all panels Density 0-1 four paints of 30 tested on pre-rust-
Class C-2 Ri 2 to Ri 3 (0.5-1%) on deck and side wave Density 2-3 ed substrates received the best clas-
tank panels, other panels maximum Ri 2 (0.5%) sification. All four were surface-tol-
erant epoxies. On zinc shop-primed
Class C-3 Ri 3 to Ri 4 (1-8%) on deck and side wave tank Density 3-4
panels, other panels maximum Ri 3 (1%) or blast-cleaned steel, 29 of 44
paints tested received the best clas-
Class C-4 Ri 4 to Ri 5 (8-50%) on deck and side wave Density 4-5 sification.
tank panels, other panels maximum Ri 4 (8%) After testing more than 90 prod-
Class C-5 Ri 5 (40-50%) on all panels Density 5 ucts on different substrates, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be made.
Class C-6 More than 50% of area rusted on all panels Density 5
The testing and classification
system described in this article
under-rusting was revealed by gives shipowners and ship-
scraping off the coating, the classi- yards a procedure to select
fication was lowered. From the coating systems for protec-
evaluation, the products were clas- tion and maintenance of
sified from C1 to C6, with C1 ballast tanks.
being the best rating (Table 6). The accelerated ballast
Seven semi-hard coatings from tank test can be used by
five different producers were test- coating suppliers as a pre-
ed. As shown in Table 7, no semi- qualification test for testing
hard coatings were classified C1, new and existing products.
and only one was classified C2. Results of the testing
Four coatings were classified C3. are being used by Det
Blisters and rust formation on sev- A view of the test panels in the wave tank Norske Veritas classification
eral panels caused deterioration of society as part of its docu-
the coating systems. Salt contami- the panel with anodes (Table 1), mentation for approval of coatings
nation on the pre-rusted panels the current demand was calculated for corrosion protection of ballast
and poor wetting properties proba- and the effect of cathodic protec- tanks.
bly were the main reasons for blis- tion was evaluated visually. As a result of the testing and
ter formation. Six soft coatings from five differ- classification system, coating manu-
ent producers were tested. No soft facturers have developed new coat-
Evaluation and Classification coatings were classified A1, but ing systems and reformulated others
of Soft Coatings three soft coatings were classified to improve them.
During exposure, the coatings A2, as shown in Table 9. Soft coat- Coating specifications can be
were evaluated visually. After the ings with good penetrating proper- written to define performance in
tests were completed, the coating ties and low water solubility accordance with the criteria, guide-
on each panel was evaluated and (meaning they are difficult to wash lines, and recommendations pro-
rated according to the following away) performed best in this test. duced by the study.
scale: 0all coating remains; 5 Seawater wave movement partly
no coating remains. Ratings of 1 to washed off some soft coatings References
4 were used to describe intermedi- from the splash zone and above. 1. ISO 6270-1980, Paint and
ate degrees of remaining coating. The heat (50 C) on the reverse side VarnishesDetermination of
From the evaluation of individ- of the test steel panel simulating Resistance to Humidity (Continuous
ual panels, the products were clas- the tank top (deck) decreased the Condensation).
sified from A1 to A6, with A1 viscosity of some of the soft coat- 2. ISO 8501/1-1988, Preparation of
being the best rating (Table 8). For ings and thus increased their wear. Steel Substrates Before Application

Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company

PCE June 1997 21
 Table 7: Test Results and Classification after Exposure for Semi-hard Coatings Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate
(Degree of blisters and rust according to ISO 4628/1-33)
Coating Blisters on Panels Rust on Panels Current Demand Class
No. (mA/m2)
Wave tank side Condensation Wave tank Wave tank Condensation Wave tank
panel with cooling chamber deck panel side panels chamber bottom panel
1 0 2 (S5) Ri 1 Ri 1 Ri 2 46 C2
2 4 (S4) 4 (S3) Ri 4 Ri 3 Ri 3 26 C3
3 4 (S2) 4 (S2) 0 0 0 0 C3
4 3 (S3) 5 (S4) Ri 1 Ri 1-2 Ri 1-2 21 C3
5 0 0 Ri 2 Ri 1 0 62 C3
6 5 (S5) 5 (S5) Ri 3 Ri 4-5 Ri 3 34 C4
7 0 4 (S4) Ri 4 60-95% Ri 2-3 81 C5
First number is blister density; number in parentheses is blister size.

Table 8: Classification of Soft Coatings

Soft Coats Evaluation Rusting.
Class A-1 0 on all panels tested (all coating remains) 4. ISO 4624-1978, Paints and
Class A-2 1-2 on all panels tested VarnishesPull-off Test for
Class A-3 3 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 2 or better Adhesion.
5. ASTM D4145-83, Standard Test
Class A-4 4 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 3 or better
Method for Coating Flexibility of
Class A-5 5 on deck panel wave tank, other panels 4 or better
Prepainted Sheet.
Class A-6 5 on all panels (no coating remains)

Table 9: Test Results and Classification after

Acknowledgements
Exposure for Soft Coatings Tested on Pre-rusted Substrate The author acknowledges the
cooperation of 22 shipowners, 22
Coating Remaining Coating on Panels1 Current Demand Class coating producers, and other partici-
No. (mA/m2)2 pants in the project. The partici-
Wave tank Wave tank Condensation Wave tank pants contributed both technical
deck panel side panels chamber bottom panel information and financial support to
the project.
1 0 1-3 1 48 A2
2 1 2 1 104 A2 About the Author
3 1 1-3 1 1.6 A2 Helge Vold is a senior research engi-
4 3 1-3 1 74 A3 neer at MARINTEK, Laboratory of
5 4 3-4 2 34 A4 Materials Application, Sandefjord,
A5 Norway. He has a
6 5 3-4 2 38
M Sc. in chemical
1) The coatings were evaluated according to the following scale: 0all coating remains, 5no coat-
engineering from
ing remains. The rating 1 to 4 is used to describe the intermediate degrees of coating remaining.
2) The current demand for a good protective coating is below 10 mA/. For bare steel, the current
the Norwegian
demand is from 60 to 100 mA/m2, depending on temperature and seawater flow velocity. University of
Technology,
of Paints and Related Products VarnishesEvaluation of Trondheim, and
Visual Assessment of Surface Degradation of Paint Coatings 20 years of experi-
CleanlinessPart 1: Rust Grades Designation of Intensity, Quantity ence in corrosion protection in
and Preparation Grades of and Size of Common Types of marine environments, including
Uncoated Steel Substrates and of DefectPart 1: General Principles field and laboratory testing of coat-
Steel Substrates After Removal of and Rating Schemes; Part 2: ings.
Previous Coatings. Designation of Degree of Blistering;
3. ISO 4628/1-3, 1992, Paint and Part 3: Designation of Degree of

22 PCE June 1997 Copyright 1997, Technology Publishing Company