coatings

Article
Assessment of Anti-Corrosion Performances of
Coating Systems for Corrosion Prevention of Offshore
Wind Power Steel Structures
Sung-Hyun Eom 1, *, Seong-Soo Kim 1 and Jeong-Bae Lee 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Daejin University, 1007 Hoguk-ro, Pocheon-si 11159, Gyeonggi-do, Korea;
sskim@daejin.ac.kr
2 GFC R&D., Ltd., 1007 Hoguk-ro, Pocheon-si 11159, Gyeonggi-do, Korea; dlwjdqo@nate.com
* Correspondence: aa216018@daejin.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-10-2032-6929




Received: 10 September 2020; Accepted: 9 October 2020; Published: 12 October 2020


Abstract: The anti-corrosion performance of coating systems (cathode protection, organic coating,
and duplex coating) applied to prevent the corrosion of offshore wind power plants was assessed.
As an assessment method, the adhesion strength of each coating system was evaluated after exposing
the coatings to the marine environment and an indoor salt spray test. It was confirmed that the
adhesion strength varied depending on the exposure period, and the deterioration of adhesion
strength was related to the fracture type of each coating layer. In addition, the fracture type of each
coating system was analyzed and the adhesion strength was corrected according to the fracture type.
The corrosion rates after exposure to the marine environment and indoor salt spray were compared
and examined using the corrected values.

Keywords: offshore wind power steel structures; corrosion; coating; adhesion strength;
marine environment

1. Introduction
Offshore wind power plants are several tens of meters in height, more than 5 m in diameter,
and several centimeters in outer wall thickness, and about 89% of them are made of steel materials.
In such plants, the tower and jacket structures form the support structures. The tower ranges from the
outer platform to the bottom of the nacelle, and the jacket ranges from the outer platform to the bottom
of the steel pipe structure on the sea floor. Since the structures are located offshore, they are directly
exposed to salt and are thus vulnerable to corrosion. Furthermore, they are neither easily accessible,
nor is their maintenance straightforward [1].
In order to prevent corrosion of offshore wind power generation structures, quality standards and
specifications of painting systems are defined based on the ISO 12944 series and corrosion prevention
systems are applied to offshore structures such as petroleum and gas production platforms. However,
the ISO specification is not the only factor when selecting the coating system [2,3].
The corrosion protection coating system used for each zone of an offshore wind power structure
is based on the environmental conditions of each zone; for example, the influence of the high weather
ability, temperature, salt spray and wetting should be considered for atmosphere-exposed zone. In the
case of the tidal zone, it is necessary to consider the combined effect of external force, temperature
and seawater immersion due to tidal change. In the case of the underwater zone, a painting system
reflecting the negative voltage environment due to the use of the electric method is applied [4].
Unlike other offshore plants such as oil and gas extraction platforms, offshore wind power
plants are unmanned structures with limited access. Therefore, continuous corrosion inspection and
monitoring is significantly limited [5]. Furthermore, the corrosion of offshore plants is assessed by the

Coatings 2020, 10, 970; doi:10.3390/coatings10100970 www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2020, 10, 970 2 of 14

corrosion (erosion) of the iron used, and no standard method is available to assess the coating systems
used to prevent the corrosion of plants [6].
A.W. Momber et al. evaluated the corrosion resistance of offshore wind power structures, and found
that the effects of uncoated sections, pins, low film thickness, mechanical impacts, and wrong material
selection resulted in heavy rust, deep pitting, and metal loss. It is expected that most of the structures
will not meet the coating life expectancy of 15 years [7].
The coating industry has continuously improved the coating technology used to protect offshore
structures, which are hundreds of miles away from the land. However, as described above, it is difficult
to inspect regularly the protective coating of offshore wind power generation structures, and corrosion
protection performance of coatings cannot be assessed unless systematic investigation of the coating
system used on the offshore wind power generation platform is performed.
The most important parameter that affects the anti-corrosion performance of a coating system is
the adhesion strength between the coating system and the underlying surface. The adhesion strength
is an important fundamental feature of a coating system and is used to determine the strength with
which the system is attached to a surface. A coating system with insufficient adhesion accelerates the
separation of the coated film and exposes the surface to corrosive environments, resulting in corrosion
of the structure [8].
While many studies have been conducted on the adhesion strength of coating systems, studies
of the variation in adhesion strength according to exposure period under marine environmental
conditions are not sufficient [9].
This study analyzed the adhesion performance of coating system (surface protective paint, metal
spraying, duplex coating) applied for corrosion protection in offshore wind power structures. Through
the test, which comprised a long-term exposure of coating samples to marine conditions and to brine
conditions indoors, the adhesion performance maintenance lifetime of coating systems for offshore
wind power structures were analyzed.

2. Test Sample Fabrication

SS400 standard structural steel was used in this study. All the steel materials were surface-treated
to Sa2 1/2 standard (removal of visible foreign matter such as oil, dust, scale, and rust, which are visible
to the naked eye) according to ISO 8501-1 [10]. The coating systems examined in this study were
Zn–Al metal spraying (MS), Zn–Al metal spraying + epoxy coat (MC), epoxy coat (TP), and epoxy
coat + polyurethane coat (EP), all of which are applied to offshore structures. Table 1 shows the coating
specifications of each coating system.

Table 1. Coating systems.

System Composition (Dry Film Thickness, DFT, µm) Total DFT

Abbreviation
1.Layer 2.Layer 3.Layer 4.Layer (µm)
MS Zn 85% + Al 15% (100) 100
Zn 85% + Al Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy
MC 425
15% (100) (75) (200) (50)
Epoxy Epoxy Epoxy -
TP 500
(75) (375) (50)
epoxy epoxy epoxy poly
EP urethane 670
(200) (200) (200)
(70)
Zn 85% + Al 15%: weight-ratio. After metal spraying—sealing (not included in coating thickness).

The test samples were fabricated as steel plates with dimensions of 150 mm × 75 mm × 6 mm,
as recommended by ISO 1514 [11]. Although ISO 1514 suggests a steel plate thickness of 3 mm, the plate
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 3 of 14

thickness employed in this study was 6 mm for the adhesion strength test method for corrosion damage
assessment of coating systems.

3. Assessment Method

3.1. Anti-Corrosion Performance Assessment

In this study, the variation in the adhesion strength of anti-corrosion coating systems applied
to offshore wind power plants was measured and assessed after 365 days of exposure to a marine
environment and 15 days of indoor salt spray test (CASS). The adhesion strength was assessed
according to ASTM D 4541 [12]. When foreign matter or corrosion products (corrosion product of zinc:
white rust) were present on the measurement area, the surface was cleaned using a sandpaper with
more than 400 grit and high-pressure water. After bonding a Ø20-mm dolly to the measurement area,
the adhesion strength was measured using a Posi Test AT-A adhesion tester. Three samples were used
for each coating system and measurements were conducted in three zones. Furthermore, the visual
observations of the damage to the coating systems caused by exposure to marine environment and
salt spray were compared with the adhesion strength variation caused by the damage to the coating
systems [12].

3.2. Sea Exposure and Indoor Tests

The corrosion damage to the coating systems under marine environmental conditions was
assessed by exposing the coating systems to sea at a site located in Daebu Island, Korea. In the test site,
the coatings were exposed to the underwater zone, tidal zone, and atmosphere zone. Table 2 shows the
environmental conditions of the test site.

Table 2. Environmental conditions of the test site.

Environmental Condition Exposed Zone Range

atmosphere zone
average temperature 12.5 ◦ C
/tidal zone
atmosphere zone
average relatively humidity 70.4%
/tidal zone
average wind velocity atmosphere zone 7.1 m/s
solar irradiance atmosphere zone 4735.78 MJ/m2
ultraviolet ray exposure atmosphere zone 157.71 MJ/m2
airborne chlorides atmosphere zone 38.5 mg/dm2 /day
tidal zone
pH 8.3
/underwater zone
salinity underwater zone 31~33 PSU
depth the coatings were exposed in the underwater zone underwater zone 2m
height above sea level in the atmosphere zone. atmosphere zone 10 m

An indoor corrosion exposure test method was used for corrosion assessment by simulating the
marine environmental conditions indoors according to the ASTM B 368 salt spray test method. Table 3
shows the conditions of the indoor corrosion exposure test method [13].
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 4 of 14
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

Table 3. Conditions
Table 3. Conditions during
during salt
salt spray
spray test
test (ASTM
(ASTM B
B 368).
368).

Item
Item Unit
Unit Test
TestCondition
Condition
NaClconcentration
NaCl concentration g/L
g/L 40
40
CuCl solutionconcentration
CuCl22 solution concentration g/L
g/L 0.205
0.205
pH
pH -- 3.0
3.0
Compressedairair
Compressed pressure
pressure kgf/cm22
kgf/cm 1.0
1.0
Sprayingsolution
Spraying solution ml/80 m /h
ml/80 m2 /h
2 2.0
2.0
Air ◦C 63±±22
Air saturator
saturatortemperature
temperature °C 63
Salt water ◦C 50±±22
Salt watertank
tanktemperature
temperature °C 50
Test ◦C 50±±22
Testbath
bathtemperature
temperature °C 50

4. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion

4.1. Adhesion
4.1. Adhesion Strength
Strength After
after Exposure
Exposureto
tothe
theMarine
MarineEnvironment
Environment
Figure 1a–c
Figure 1a–c show
show thethe adhesion
adhesion strength
strength as
as aa function
function of of sea
sea exposure
exposure period. The total
period. The total sea
sea
exposure period was 365 days. As shown in Figure 1a, in the case of exposure to
exposure period was 365 days. As shown in Figure 1a, in the case of exposure to the offshore tidalthe offshore tidal
zone, the
zone, the adhesion
adhesion strength
strength of
of MS
MS dramatically
dramatically decreased
decreased after
after 90
90 days
days ofof exposure;
exposure; after
after 365
365 days,
days,
it was near to 5 MPa, which is the minimum adhesion strength for offshore structure
it was near to 5 MPa, which is the minimum adhesion strength for offshore structure coating systems coating systems
recommended by
recommended ISO 12944-9
by ISO 12944-9 [2]. After 365
[2]. After 365 days
days of
of exposure
exposure to to the
the tidal
tidal zone,
zone, the
the adhesion
adhesion strengths
strengths
of MC and TP decreased by approximately 29% compared to their respective initial
of MC and TP decreased by approximately 29% compared to their respective initial values; however, values; however,
they still exhibited strengths of 11.1 and 9.3 MPa, respectively. For EP, the change in
they still exhibited strengths of 11.1 and 9.3 MPa, respectively. For EP, the change in adhesion adhesion strength
was insignificant
strength regardless
was insignificant of the exposure
regardless period. period.
of the exposure
20 20
MS MS
MC MC
18 18
TP TP
Adhesion strength(MPa)
Adhesion strength(MPa)

EP EP
16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4
0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365 0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365
Age(days) Age(days)
(a) (b)
20
MS
18 MC
TP
Adhesion strength(MPa)

EP
16

14

12

10

4
0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365
Age(days)
(c)

Figure 1. Adhesion strength of coating systems exposed to (a) tidal zone, (b) atmosphere zone,
Figure 1. Adhesion strength of coating systems exposed to (a) tidal zone, (b) atmosphere zone, (c)
(c) underwater zone.
underwater zone.

In the offshore exposure test, the atmosphere zone simulated the marine environment of the
tower structures of offshore wind power plants. In this environment, structures are vulnerable to
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 5 of 14

In2020,
Coatings the offshore
10, x FOR exposure test, the atmosphere zone simulated the marine environment of the tower
PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
structures of offshore wind power plants. In this environment, structures are vulnerable to corrosion
corrosion because
because they they are
are affected byaffected
airborneby airborneThe
chlorides. chlorides.
airborne The airborne
chlorides of chlorides of the zone
the atmosphere atmosphere
used in
zone used in
this study this0.8~16.0
were study weremg/dm 2 /day,mg/dm
0.8~16.0 /day, which represented
which2represented the highest
the highest amount amountchlorides
of airborne of airborne
in
chlorides in South
South Korea [14]. Korea
As shown[14].inAsFigure
shown1b, in Figure 1b,days
after 365 afterof365 days of exposure,
exposure, foradhesion
for MC, the MC, the adhesion
strength
strength
was lowerwasthanlower
that atthan that atstage,
the initial the initial stage, but
but converged converged
after 270 days.after 270 coating
In other days. In other (MS,
systems coating
TP,
systems (MS,
EP), it was TP, EP), that
confirmed it was confirmed
there was no that there
change in was no change
adhesion in adhesion strength.
strength.
Figure
Figure 1c
1c shows
shows the change
change in adhesion
adhesion strength
strength after
after 365
365 days
days of exposure to the underwater
underwater
zone. For
For all
all the
the coating
coating systems,
systems, the the change
change was
was insignificant
insignificant regardless of the exposure period.

4.2. Adhesion
4.2. Adhesion Strength
Strength after
after Salt
Salt Spray
Spray Test
Test
To examine
To examine the the variation
variation in in adhesion
adhesion strength
strength ofof the
the four
four coating
coating systems,
systems, salt
salt was
was sprayed
sprayed onto
onto
each coating system for 15 days using the ASTM B 368 salt spray test
each coating system for 15 days using the ASTM B 368 salt spray test method, and the adhesion method, and the adhesion
strength was
strength was examined
examined as as aa function
function of of test
test period.
period.
Figure 22shows
Figure showsthe theadhesion
adhesionstrengths
strengths measured
measured onon alternate
alternate daysdays fordays
for 15 15 days ofspray.
of salt salt spray.
The
The adhesion strengths of all the coating systems tended to decrease with increase
adhesion strengths of all the coating systems tended to decrease with increase in exposure time. After in exposure time.
After
15 days 15of
days
saltof salt spray,
spray, the adhesion
the adhesion strengths
strengths of MS,ofMC,
MS,TP,
MC,and TP,EPand EP decreased
decreased by 46%,
by 46%, 35%, 35%,
60%, 60%,
and
and 50%,
50%, respectively.
respectively. In particular,
In particular, TP andTP and EP exhibited
EP exhibited adhesion
adhesion strengths
strengths nearnear
to 5 to 5 MPa,
MPa, whichwhich is
is the
the minimum adhesion strength for offshore structure coating systems stipulated
minimum adhesion strength for offshore structure coating systems stipulated by ISO 12944-9. In the by ISO 12944-9. In the
salt spray
spray test,
test,the
theadhesion
adhesion strength
strength reduction
reductionraterate
of MS
of was
MS 46% was (after 15 days),
46% (after whereas
15 days), the highest
whereas the
adhesion strength reduction rate of 75% was obtained upon exposure to the
highest adhesion strength reduction rate of 75% was obtained upon exposure to the offshore tidaloffshore tidal zone. For TP
and EP, the adhesion strength reduction rates were higher for salt spray exposure
zone. For TP and EP, the adhesion strength reduction rates were higher for salt spray exposure than than for exposure to
the exposure
for offshore tidal
to the zone (28% tidal
offshore and 14%,
zonerespectively).
(28% and 14%, respectively).

20
MS
18 MC
TP
Adhesion strength(MPa)

16
EP
14

12

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Age(days)

Figure 2. Adhesion strength of coating systems after salt spray test.

Figure 2. Adhesion strength of coating systems after salt spray test.
4.3. Fracture Type after the Adhesion Strength Test
4.3. Fracture Type after the Adhesion Strength Test
When a coating system is exfoliated at certain adhesion strength, ISO 4624 specifies that the fracture
area When
of eacha coating
coating layer
system is exfoliated
should at certain
be indicated adhesionthe
by measuring strength,
area ofISO
the 4624 specifies
exfoliated that [15].
coating the
fracture area of each coating layer should be indicated by measuring the area of the exfoliated
While only a single coat is sufficient for some coating systems, offshore steel structures require three or coating
[15].
moreWhile only
coats of a single coat
heavy-duty is sufficient
coatings. for some
Accordingly, thecoating
adhesion systems,
strengthoffshore
notationsteel structures
of ISO require
4624 represents
three
the fracture area of the exfoliated coating layer together with the adhesion strength, considering4624
or more coats of heavy-duty coatings. Accordingly, the adhesion strength notation of ISO the
represents the fracture
adhesion strength areathe
between of coating
the exfoliated coating
system and layer together
the surface with
as well as thatthe adhesion
between eachstrength,
coating
considering
layer. Figurethe adhesion
3 shows the strength between
coating layers andthe coating
fracture system
shape and coating
of each the surface as well
system. as that
After between
the adhesion
each coating layer. Figure 3 shows the coating layers and fracture shape of each coating
strength of each sample subjected to sea exposure and salt spray was measured, the fracture type system. After
of
the coating
adhesion strength
layer of each sample subjected to sea exposure and salt spray was measured, the
was analyzed.
fracture type of the coating layer was analyzed.
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 6 of 14
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Coating
Coating layer
layerfracture
fractureshape
shapeofofeach
eachcoating
coatingsystem:
system:(a)(a)Zn–Al
Zn–Al metal
metal spraying
spraying (MS),
(MS), (b)(b) Zn–
Zn–Al
Al metal
metal spraying + epoxy
spraying + epoxy coat
coat (MC),
(MC), (c) (c) epoxy
epoxy coatcoat (TP),
(TP), (d) (d) epoxy
epoxy + polyurethane
coatcoat + polyurethane coat
coat (EP).
(EP).

Tables
Tables4–7
4–7show
showthe
theadhesion
adhesionstrengths and
strengths fracture
and types
fracture of the
types coating
of the systems
coating according
systems to the
according to
period of exposure.
the period of exposure.

Table 4. Adhesion
Table 4. Adhesion test
test results
results of
of coating
coating systems
systems exposed
exposed to
to tidal
tidal zone.
zone.

Type
Type Age (Days)
Age (days) Fracture
Fracture Mode Mode
0 0 Y = 100%
Y = 100%
90 B = 20%, Y = 80%
MS 90 B = 20%, Y = 80%
MS 180 A/B = 10, B = 90%
180 A/B = 10, B = 90%
365 A/B = 70, B = 30%
365 A/B = 70, B = 30%
0 E/Y = 100%
0 E/Y = 100%
90 D/E = 10%, E/Y = 90%
MC 90 D/E = 10%, E/Y = 90%
MC 180 E/Y = 100%
180 E/Y = 100%
365 D/E = 10%, E/Y = 90%
365 0
D/E = 10%, E/Y = 90%
D/Y = 100%
0 90 D/Y
C/D = 100%
= 10%, D = 10%, D/Y = 80%
TP 90
TP 180 C/D = 10%, DD==10%,
10%,D/Y
D/Y =
= 80%
90%
180 365 D = 10%,
D= D/Y = 90%
10%, D/Y = 90%
365 0 DD
= 10%,
= 10%,D/Y
D/E==90%
10%, E/Y = 80%
0 90 D = 10%, D/EE==10%,
30%,E/Y
E/Y =
= 80%
70%
EP
90 180 E = 30%,
D/EE/Y = 70%
= 20%, E/Y = 80%
EP
180 365 D/E
C/D==
20%, D/E==80%
20%,E/Y 10%, E/Y = 70%
365 C/D = 20%, D/E = 10%, E/Y = 70%
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 7 of 14

Table 5. Adhesion test results of coating systems exposed to atmosphere zone.

Type Age (Days) Fracture Mode

0 Y = 100%
90 Y = 100%
MS
180 Y = 100%
365 Y = 100%
0 E/Y = 100%
90 E/Y = 100%
MC
180 E/Y = 100%
365 E/Y = 100%
0 D/Y = 100%
90 D/Y = 100%
TP
180 D/Y = 100%
365 D/Y = 100%
0 E/Y = 100%
90 D/E = 20%, E/Y = 80%
EP
180 E/Y = 100%
365 D/E = 10%, E/Y = 90%

Table 6. Adhesion test results of coating systems exposed to underwater zone.

Type Age (Days) Fracture Mode

0 Y = 100%
90 Y = 100%
MS
180 Y = 100%
365 Y = 100%
0 E/Y = 100%
90 E/Y = 100%
MC
180 E/Y = 100%
365 E/Y = 100%
0 D/Y = 100%
90 D/Y = 100%
TP
180 D/Y = 100%
365 D/Y = 100%
0 D/E = 10% E/Y = 90%
90 D = 10%, D/E = 20%, E/Y = 70%
EP
180 D = 20%, D/E = 10%, E/Y = 70%
365 C/D = 10%, D/E = 20%, E/Y = 70%
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 8 of 14

Table 7. Adhesion test results of coating systems exposed to salt spray test (ASTM B 368).

Type Age (Days) Fracture Mode

0 Y = 100%
5 Y = 100%
MS
10 B = 30%, Y = 70%
15 A/B = 30%, B = 30%, Y = 40%
0 E/Y = 100%
5 E/Y = 100%
MC
10 D/E = 20%, E/Y = 80%
15 C/D = 10%, D/E = 20%, E/Y = 70%
0 C/D = 20%, D/Y = 80%
5 B/C = 20%, C/D = 20%, D/Y = 60%
TP
10 B/C = 30%, C/D = 30%, D/Y = 40%
15 A/B = 10%, B/C = 30%, C/D = 20%, D/Y = 40%
0 C/D = 10%, D/E = 20%, E/Y = 70%
5 B/C = 20%, C/D = 20%, D/E = 10%, E/Y = 50%
EP
10 A/B = 10%, B/C = 10%, C/D = 20%, D/E = 20%, E/Y = 40%
15 A/B = 40%, B/C = 30%, C/D = 20%, D/E = 10%

Table 4 shows the adhesion strength and fracture type of each coating system exposed to the
offshore tidal zone. For MS, Y = 100% fracture occurred when the adhesion strength was 13.1 MPa
before exposure. After 365 days of exposure, the adhesion strength reduced by 75% to 3.1 MPa,
with fracture type A/B = 70% and B = 30%. For MC, the adhesion strength was 15.9 MPa before
exposure and 11.1 MPa after 365 days of exposure. At 11.1 MPa, fracture with D/E = 10% and E/Y = 90%
occurred. For TP and EP, fractures with D = 10% and D/Y = 90% and that with C/D = 20%, D/E = 10%,
and E/Y = 70%, respectively, occurred, and slight fractures between the coating layers appeared.
Table 5 shows the adhesion strength and fracture type of each coating system sample exposed
to the offshore atmosphere zone. The adhesion strength reduction of the samples exposed to the
atmosphere zone was insignificant, and it was confirmed that adhesion between the coating layers was
excellent because the dolly adhesive part was exfoliated in all the samples.
Table 6 shows the adhesion strength and fracture type of each coating system sample exposed
to the offshore underwater zone. For MS, MC, and TP, the adhesion strength reductions were
insignificant after 365 days of exposure to the underwater zone. For EP, the change in adhesion
strength was insignificant for the entire exposure period of 365 days; however, fracture with C/D = 10%,
D/E = 20%, and E/Y = 70% occurred after 365 days, confirming that the adhesion between the coating
layers deteriorated.
Table 7 shows the adhesion strength and fracture type of each coating system sample subjected to
the indoor salt spray test (CASS). The fracture type was analyzed for 0, 5, 10, and 15 days. For MS,
30% fracture occurred in the Zn–Al metal spray coating layer after 10 days of salt spray, and 70%
fracture appeared in the dolly adhesive layer. After 15 days of salt spray, fracture with A/B = 30%,
B = 30%, and Y = 40% occurred, confirming that the adhesion between the sample surface and the
Zn-Al metal spray coating layer had decreased. For MC, fracture with D/E = 20% and E/Y = 80%
occurred after 10 days of salt spray, while fracture with C/D = 10%, D/E = 20%, and E/Y = 70% appeared
after 15 days of salt spray. For TP, fracture with B/C = 20%, C/D = 20%, and D/Y = 60% occurred after
five days of salt spray and that with A/B = 10%, B/C = 30%, C/D = 20%, and D/Y = 40% appeared after
15 days of salt spray, confirming that fracture occurred on the sample surface and in all the coating
layers. For EP, fracture with A/B = 40%, B/C = 30%, C/D = 20%, and D/E = 10% appeared after 15 days
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 9 of 14

of salt spray. In particular, 40% fracture occurred between the sample surface and the 1st coating layer,
confirming that the adhesion of the 1st coating had significantly lowered.
Thus, in this study, by measuring the adhesion strength from the sample surface to each
coating layer, it was confirmed that the fracture type varied as the adhesion strengths of the coating
systems changed.
When fracture occurred in the glue between the top layer and the dolly of the coating system,
the adhesion strength reduction was insignificant, and the coating system specimen was not damaged.
In addition, when the adhesion strength decreased, fracture occurred from the coating layer beneath
the top layer. When the fracture rates of the coating layers, except for the A/B layers, were 20% or
less, the change in adhesion strength was insignificant. When fracture occurred at A/B, the adhesion
strength decreased significantly compared to that before exposure. In particular, the coating system
sample was somewhat damaged and swelling of the coating was also observed. In conclusion, defects
between the surface and the coating system (A/B) not only decrease the adhesion strength, but also act
as a factor that significantly deteriorates the anti-corrosion performance.

4.4. Correction of Adhesion Strength

As discussed in Section 4.3, the fracture type between coating layers varied depending on the
degree of damage to the coating system when the adhesion strength was measured. In particular,
when fracture occurred at A/B (surface/1st coating), the adhesion of the surface/1st coating interface
lowered and the possibility of critical corrosion of the surface increased [16].
In addition, fracture between the coating layers degraded the performance of the coating system,
which was used to prevent the corrosion of steel materials, because of the lack of functionality of the
coating type constituting the coating layers.
A.W. Momber et al. determined the fracture type between each coating layer as a factor when
measuring the adhesion strength, and assessed the corrected adhesion strength, i.e., the corrosion
prevention effect, CE , according to the adhesion strength by applying the fracture type factor to the
measured adhesion strength [9].
β
CE = (1)
α1 · α2
where, β is the adhesion strength (MPa), and α1 , α2 are correction factors.
Table 8 shows the correction factor according to the fracture type after adhesion strength
measurement. α1 and α2 are the fracture type factors, and the corrosion prevention effect remarkably
improves as the CE increases. α1 is the fracture type factor (area, %) for the fracture of the A/B coating
section (see Figure 3), and α2 is the fracture type factor (area, %) for the fracture of the coating layers
above the B coating section.

Table 8. Fracture type correction factor (by Momber et al.) [9].

Fracture Type
A/B in %/Other Fracture 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Types in %
Coefficient α1 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.45 1.60 1.75 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.35 2.50
Coefficient α2 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10

In this study, the adhesion strengths were corrected using the fracture type factor proposed by
Momber et al. Figure 4 shows the corrected adhesion strengths. When 100% fracture occurs in the
dolly used for measuring the adhesion strength and the glue of the top coating layer, the coating
system is considered to have no defect, and thus, the A/B fracture type (area) is 0% and α1 and
α2 are 1.00. The corrected adhesion strengths of the four coating systems examined in this study,
which were corrected according to the fracture type, were lower than the initial adhesion strengths
when the fracture area between the coating layers was large. Furthermore, the corrected values were
Coatings 2020,
Coatings 10, x970
2020, 10, FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of
10 of 14
14

the fracture area between the coating layers was large. Furthermore, the corrected values were
significantlylower
significantly lowerthan
thanthe
theinitial
initialvalues
values when
when fracture
fracture occurred
occurred between
between thethe sample
sample surface
surface andand
the
the 1st coating (A/B) and the fracture area was large. As described in this section, C
1st coating (A/B) and the fracture area was large. As described in this section, CEE represents the represents the
corrosion prevention
corrosion prevention effect
effect of
of the
the coating
coating system,
system, the
the fracture
fracture of
of A/B
A/B directly
directly provides
provides the
the area
area where
where
the sample surface is exposed to a corrosive environment, and fracture between the
the sample surface is exposed to a corrosive environment, and fracture between the coating layers coating layers
acts as a factor that degrades the corrosion prevention function of each coating layer and
acts as a factor that degrades the corrosion prevention function of each coating layer and lowers the lowers the
corrosion prevention
corrosion prevention performance
performance of of the
the entire
entire coating
coating system
system [8].
[8].

20 20

Corrected adhesion strength(MPa)

Corrected adhesion strength(MPa)

15 15

10 10

5 5

Tidal zone Tidal zone

Atmosphere zone Atmosphere zone
0 Underwater zone 0 Underwater zone

0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365 0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365

Age(days) Age(days)
(a) (b)
20 20
Corrected adhesion strength(MPa)
Corrected adhesion strength(MPa)

15 15

10 10

5 5

Tidal zone Tidal zone

Atmosphere zone Atmosphere zone
0 Underwater zone 0 Underwater zone

0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365 0 7 14 30 90 180 270 365

Age(days) Age(days)
(c) (d)
20
Corrected adhesion strength(MPa)

15

10

5
MS
MC
TP
EP
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Age(days)
(e)
Figure 4. Corrected adhesion strength of (a) MS, (b) MC, (c) TP, (d) EP and corrected adhesion strength
Figure 4. Corrected
of coating adhesion
systems after strength
salt spray of (a) MS, (b) MC, (c) TP, (d) EP and corrected adhesion
test (e).
strength of coating systems after salt spray test (e).
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 11 of 14
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

These results
These results suggest that the
suggest that the fracture
fracture type
type must
must be be analyzed
analyzed when
when the
the corrosion
corrosion prevention
prevention
performance
performance of a coating system in terms of the adhesion strength is considered because adhesion
of a coating system in terms of the adhesion strength is considered because adhesion
strength correction
strength correction(corrosion
(corrosionprevention
preventioneffect, CEC) Evaries
effect, depending
) varies dependingononthethe
fracture type
fracture between
type the
between
coating layer, even if the initial adhesion strength of the coating system is
the coating layer, even if the initial adhesion strength of the coating system is high.high.

4.5. Corrosion
4.5. Corrosion Rate
Rate Comparison
Comparison between
between the
the Indoor
Indoor Corrosion
Corrosion Acceleration
Acceleration Test
Test and
and Sea
Sea Exposure
Exposure Test
Test
In this
In thisstudy,
study, thethe
corrosion rate (%)
corrosion rateof(%)
eachofcoating system measured
each coating by the corrosion
system measured by theacceleration
corrosion
acceleration test conducted in the laboratory was compared with that of the exposure test. Inthe
test conducted in the laboratory was compared with that of the exposure test. In addition, time of
addition,
corrosion
the time occurrence
of corrosion in each coatingin
occurrence system
each derived
coatingfromsystemthe indoor
derivedcorrosion
from the acceleration test and
indoor corrosion
that obtained from exposure to marine environment were examined.
acceleration test and that obtained from exposure to marine environment were examined.
ISO 12944-9
ISO 12944-9 specifies
specifiesthat
thatthe
thecoating
coatingsystem
systemusedused forfor
offshore
offshorestructures
structuresshould
shouldmeet 50%50%
meet of the
of
initial value after the aging test (NORSOK M-501). In this study, the occurrence
the initial value after the aging test (NORSOK M-501). In this study, the occurrence of corrosion in of corrosion in each
coating
each system
coating was judged
system to be corrosion
was judged when the
to be corrosion adhesion
when strengthsstrengths
the adhesion were less were
than 50%
less compared
than 50%
with the initial adhesion.
compared with the initial adhesion.
Figure 5
Figure 5 shows
shows thethe corrosion
corrosion rate
rate (compared
(compared to to the
the initial
initial value) of each
value) of each coating
coating system
system asas a
a
function of exposure period after the salt spray test and sea exposure test (corroded
function of exposure period after the salt spray test and sea exposure test (corroded area). The period area). The period
of the
of the salt
salt spray
spray test
test was
was 1515 days
days and
and that
that of
of the
the sea
sea exposure
exposure test
test was
was 365
365 days.
days.
Salt spray & Ocean exposure age(days)

700
=Fitted line-Salt spray
630 y=0.249x+1.724 (R2=0.856)
=Fitted line-Tidal zone
560 y=4.373x-10.802 (R2=0.959)
=Fitted line-Atmosphere zone
490 y=236.275x+3.5 (R2=0.99)
420 =Fitted line-Underwater zone
y=39.897x-3.534 (R2=0.741)
350

280

210

140

70

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Adhesion strength reduction rate(%)
(a)
Salt spray & Ocean exposure age(days)

700

630

560

490

420
=Fitted line-Salt spray
350 y=0.466x+0.717 (R2=0.942)
 =Fitted line-Tidal zone
280
y=11.485x-55.649 (R2=0.545)
210 =Fitted line-Atmosphere zone
y=35.523x-53.869 (R2=0.789)
140 =Fitted line-Underwater zone
y=108.46x-15.201 (R2=0.566)
70

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Adhesion strength reduction rate(%)
(b)

Figure 5. Cont.
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 12 of 14
Coatings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 14

Salt spray & Ocean exposure age(days)

700

630

560

490

420

350
=Fitted line-Salt spray
280 y=0.243x-2.266 (R2=0.945)
=Fitted line-Tidal zone
210 y=6.59x-26.741 (R2=0.194)
=Fitted line-Atmosphere zone
140 y=-48.574x+9.964 (R2=0.422)
=Fitted line-Underwater zone
70 y=25.974x+115 (R2=0.427)
0

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Adhesion strength reduction rate(%)
(c)
Salt spray & Ocean exposure age(days)

700
=Fitted line-Salt spray
630 y=0.202x+0.625 (R2=0.984)
 =Fitted line-Tidal zone
560 y=24.148x-47.844 (R2=0.822)
=Fitted line-Atmosphere zone
490
y=76.222x-3.789 (R2=0.122)
420 =Fitted line-Underwater zone
y=16.396x+47.222 (R2=0.189)
350

280

210

140

70

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Adhesion strength reduction rate(%)
(d)
Figure
Figure5.
5.Comparison
Comparisonof
ofcorrosion
corrosionrate
rateof
of(a)
(a)MS,
MS,(b)
(b)MC,
MC,(c)
(c) TP,
TP, (d) EP.

For MS (Figure 5a), the 50% corrosion rate occurred after 15 days of the salt spray test as as well as
as
after approximately 180 days of exposure to the tidal zone.
For MC (Figure
(Figure 5b),
5b),the
thecorrosion
corrosionrateratedid
didnot
notreach 50%
reach 50%during
duringthethe
saltsalt
spray testtest
spray period, andand
period, the
corrosion
the raterate
corrosion during sea sea
during exposure
exposurewaswasnot high, indicating
not high, thatthat
indicating long-term
long-termcorrosion
corrosionexposure test
exposure
results
test are required.
results are required.
For TP
For TP and
and EP EP (Figure
(Figure 5c,d),
5c,d), the
the corrosion
corrosion rates
rates were
were 50%
50% after
after 9–10
9–10 days
days ofof the
the salt
salt spray
spraytest.
test.
For exposure
exposure to tothe
thetidal
tidalzone,
zone,TP
TPachieved
achieved50% 50% corrosion
corrosion rate in in
rate a significantly
a significantlyshorter timetime
shorter thanthan
EP did.
EP
It was
did. found
It was that that
found EP achieved 50% 50%
EP achieved corrosion rate after
corrosion 1–2 years
rate after whenwhen
1–2 years exposed to thetounderwater
exposed zone.
the underwater
zone.For sea exposure, comparison of corrosion timing with that of the salt spray test was possible only
for the
Fortidal
sea zone wherecomparison
exposure, the corrosionof rate changed
corrosion significantly.
timing with thatForof the atmosphere
salt spray test andwasunderwater
possible
zones,for
only however,
the tidal long-term
zone wheresea exposure test results
the corrosion rate are required
changed to compare For
significantly. the corrosion timing with
the atmosphere and
that of the saltzones,
underwater spray however,
test, exceptlong-term
for some cases
sea where
exposurethe corrosion
test resultsrateare
of the coatingto
required system changed.
compare the
corrosion timing with that of the salt spray test, except for some cases where the corrosion rate of the
5. Conclusions
coating system changed.
The results of this study can be summarized as follows.
5. Conclusions
(1) When fracture occurred from the coating layer beneath the top coating of the coating system,
The results of this study can be summarized as follows.
the adhesion strength deteriorated depending on the fracture type. When fracture occurred
(1) When fracture
between occurred
the surface andfrom thecoating,
the 1st coatingthe
layer beneathstrength
adhesion the top coating of thedecreased
significantly coating system, the
compared
adhesion strength
to that before deteriorated depending on the fracture type. When fracture occurred between
exposure.
the surface and the 1st coating, the adhesion strength significantly decreased compared to that
before exposure.
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 13 of 14

(2) The corrected value of the measured adhesion strength according to the fracture type (corrosion
prevention effect, CE ) was affected by the fracture area between the coating layers and the fracture
type between the surface and the 1st coating. In particular, if fracture occurs between the surface
and the 1st coating in all the coating systems, the corrected adhesion strength would become
significantly lower than the initial value.
(3) For exposure to the tidal zone, the corrosion rate (%) of each coating system after exposure
to marine environment could be compared with that after the indoor salt spray test using the
corrosion rate data for one year of exposure to marine environment. For the atmosphere zone
and underwater zone, long-term sea exposure test results are required.
(4) In terms of in accordance with adhesion strength (anti-corrosion performance) by types and
structure positions of the coating system applied on offshore wind power structures, Zn–Al metal
spraying + epoxy coat (MC), epoxy coat (TP), epoxy coat + polyurethane coat (EP) type coating
systems would be suitable for offshore wind power steel structures.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.-H.E.; methodology, S.-H.E. and J.-B.L.; validation, S.-S.K. and J.-B.L.;
formal analysis, S.-S.K.; investigation, S.-H.E.; resources, J.-B.L.; data curation, S.-S.K.; writing—original draft
preparation, S.-H.E.; writing—review and editing, S.-H.E. and J.-B.L.; visualization, S.-H.E.; project administration,
S.-S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20153030023600).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lee, J.-H.; Jung, K.-H.; Park, J.-C.; Kim, S.-J. Determination of optimum protection potential for cathodic
protection of offshore wind-turbine-tower steel substructure by using potentiostatic method. J. Korean Soc.
Mar. Eng. 2017, 41, 230–237. [CrossRef]
2. ISO 12944-5. Paints and Varnishes—Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems—Part 5:
Protective Paint Systems; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
3. ISO 12944-9. Paints and Varnishes—Corrosion Protection of Steel Structures by Protective Paint Systems—Part 9:
Protective Paint Systems and Laboratory Performance Test Methods for Offshore and Related Structures; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
4. Axelsen, S.B.; Knudsen, O.Ø.; Johnsen, R. Protective Coatings Offshore: Introducing a Risk-Based Maintenance
Management System—Part 1: Risk Analysis Methodology. Corrosion 2009, 65, 809–816. [CrossRef]
5. Versowsky, P.E. Rationalization and optimization of coatings maintenance programs for corrosion
management on offshore platforms. NIST Spec. Publ. 2005, 1035, 170–177.
6. DNV GL-ST-0126. Support Structures for Wind Turbines; DNV-GL: Oslo, Norway, 2016.
7. Momber, A. Quantitative performance assessment of corrosion protection systems for offshore wind power
transmission platforms. Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 314–327. [CrossRef]
8. Sørensen, P.A.; Kiil, S.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Weinell, C.E. Anticorrosive coatings: A review. J. Coat. Technol. Res.
2009, 6, 135–176. [CrossRef]
9. Momber, A.; Plagemann, P.; Stenzel, V. The adhesion of corrosion protection coating systems for offshore
wind power constructions after three years under offshore exposure. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2016, 65, 96–101.
[CrossRef]
10. ISO 8501-1. Preparation of Steel Substrates before Application of Paints and Related Products—Visual Assessment
of Surface Cleanliness—Part 1: Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel
Substrates after Overall Removal of Previous Coatings; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2007.
11. ISO 1514. Paints and Varnishes—Standard Panels for Testing; International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
12. ASTM D 4541. Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
Coatings 2020, 10, 970 14 of 14

13. ASTM B 368. Standard Test Method for Copper-Accelerated Acetic Acid-Salt Spray (Fog) Testing (CASS Test);
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
14. Lee, J.-S. Long Term Measurement of Airborne Chlorides and Durability of Concrete Mixed with Sea Sand; KICT:
Goyang, Korea, 2006. [CrossRef]
15. ISO 4624. Paints and Varnishes—Pull-Off Test for Adhesion; International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
16. Spengler, E.; Margarit, I.; Mattos, O. On the relation between adherence of a paint film and corrosion
protection. Electrochim. Acta 1993, 38, 1999–2003. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).