Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
ABSTRACT There are many methods for surface preparation in the coating industry, including abrasive blasting, power tools and hand tools. Experience proved that abrasive blasting is the best method for surface preparation, however it has some limitations for coating repair such as accessibility, time constrain and damaging to surrounding area, etc. New power tool technology was recently introduced to improve the performance of conventional power tool and hand tool methods. In this study, we have evaluated workability and coating performance with different surface preparation methods in accordance with international test standards. INTRODUCTION To achieve adequate protection of assets, use of a protective coating is one of predominant methods used in the oil and gas industry. There are several factors contribute in the coating service life, including surface preparation, coating application, coating material and environmental conditions. It is well known in the coating industry that 70% of the coating failures are attributed to improper surface preparation. Coating applications for new construction is executed at the shop where the area is under a controlled environment. However, maintenance and repair coatings are applied at the field where it is difficult to control the environment. Accordingly, it is hard to obtain a good coating application compared to new construction. In addition, when maintenance coating is carried out in areas that are difficult to access, the cost of maintenance coating can be up to 20 times more expensive than shop applied coating [1]. For some areas, it is difficult to use abrasive blasting and power tools are the only option. However, power tools do not provide the required surface preparation for industrial coatings that are used in critical services. For this reason, it becomes essential to evaluate alternative surface preparation methods that can provide acceptable performance to enhance coating service life.
- Well Completion > Well Integrity > Subsurface corrosion (tubing, casing, completion equipment, conductor) (1.00)
- Production and Well Operations > Production Chemistry, Metallurgy and Biology > Corrosion inhibition and management (including H2S and CO2) (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers > Materials and corrosion (1.00)
"APPLY TWO (2) coats of Everlast Paint Company's Stickycoat For ready comparison, listed below are the designations of No. 77 over a near white blast to SSPC 10." Many specification the old and new revised specifications as they refer to the items for marine coatings have been written with not various degrees of blast cleaning, the suffix 63 or 85 indicating much more detail than this, and then go on in other specification the year of issue: items to the minutest detail for engine repairs.
- Transportation > Passenger (1.00)
- Transportation > Ground > Road (1.00)
- Automobiles & Trucks > Manufacturer (1.00)
ABSTRACT The author uses three recent international pipeline projects as examples, to illustrate that the typical surface profile height and abrasive blast cleaning requirements in todayโs coating standards and specifications have not been sufficient to define the adequate level of the abrasive blasting in order to provide wetting and adhesion of the pipe coatings to the pipe substrate, partially causing the pipeline coating disbondment. Adhesion mechanisms, limitations of the current standards of defining surface profile, and recommendations for future pipeline coating projects are discussed. INTRODUCTION Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) and three-layer polyolefin (polyethylene or polypropylene) are the most common external coating systems for new oil and gas pipelines. These FBE primed pipeline coatings have long track records of successful use, but there are occasional challenges and problems that must be addressed as part of the pipe installation process. One of these challenges and problems often met in the pipeline coating industry is pipe coating disbondment, a delamination normally between FBE and steel at cutback or along the body of the pipe. Pipeline Project Case #1 โ In 2014 and 2015, cracking and coating disbondment failures were observed on a significant number of pipes, during the handling and field cold bending processes along the right of way (ROW) of a major natural gas pipeline project in North America (Figure 1a). The 42โ OD ร 14.27-20.62 mm WT, X70 pipes were coated with a single layer FBE coating. The company pipe coating project specification followed both NACE International (NACE) SP0394 (Formerly RP0394) standard and The American Petroleum Institute (API) RP 5L9 standard. Pipeline Project Case #2 โ In 2015 and 2016, at various construction sites of a key natural gas pipeline in South Asia, a dual layer 2LFBE coating applied to 28โ OD ร 7.14-12.70 mm WT, X70 pipes disbonded randomly on the cold bends along the ROW of the pipeline project. Poor coating adhesion of non-bent pipes was also reported (Figure 1b). The company pipe coating project specification followed also the NACE SP0394 (Formerly RP0394) standard.
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Midstream (1.00)
- Materials > Chemicals > Commodity Chemicals > Petrochemicals (0.54)
ABSTRACT: The Performance Standard for Protective Coating (PSPC), adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution MSC.215(82), became mandatory on 1 July 2008 (contract date of ship's new construction) for dedicated seawater ballast tanks on all types of ships of not less than 500 gross tonnage and for double-side skin spaces arranged in bulk carriers of 150 m in length and upwards. In addition, a new PSPC requirement, stemming from the recent adoption of IMO Resolution MSC.288(87), will become effective 1 January 2013 (contract date of ship's new construction) for the crude oil tanks of oil tankers of not less than 5,000 tonnes deadweight. Both PSPC standards set out a target useful coating life of 15 years, over which the coating is intended to remain in GOOD condition from initial coating application. The shipyard is responsible for implementing the requirements of the IMO PSPC during new construction. Before new construction starts, a Tripartite Agreement (TPA) on inspection procedures of the surface preparation and coating processes shall be agreed upon and signed by the owner, the shipyard and the coating producer. In addition to the selection of qualified and certified coating inspector(s), quality control of surface preparation, steel work and coating application at every phase of new construction, harmonized with the shipyard's facilities and experience, is to be agreed upon for PSPC compliance. Those are reflected in good TPA and the final Coating Technical File (CTF). This is most important in order to achieve the target useful coating life. This paper will focus on the key elements relevant to shipyards during new construction that affect the useful coating life. Those elements are the Tripartite Agreement (TPA), qualified coating inspector, primary surface preparation, steel work, secondary surface preparation, erection and coating application condition. The standardization of shipyard new construction processes to the PSPC requirements has the potential for improving the quality of coating, and also provides an opportunity for better control of costs during construction and throughout the service life of the vessel. INTRODUCTION Corrosion protection gained from the effective application and maintenance of coatings is of great importance to the marine industry. The recent amendment and adoption to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in resolutions MSC.216(82) and MSC.291(87) requires the Performance Standard for Protective Coating (PSPC) for specified spaces within ships. The International Association of Classification Societies Ltd (IACS) made the PSPC mandatory for oil tankers and bulk carriers contracted on or after 8 December 2006 and built under Common Structural Rules (CSR). Since the formal implementation of the new standard on 1 July 2008 there have been an increasing number of vessels that must comply with the PSPC. Although the role of the class society, under the PSPC, is primarily that of an auditor whose role is to verify that the standard's requirements are followed by the parties to the Tripartite Agreement, Class societies continue to receive requests to assist in interpreting the IMO PSPC.
- Transportation > Marine (1.00)
- Transportation > Freight & Logistics Services > Shipping (1.00)
- Well Completion > Well Integrity > Subsurface corrosion (tubing, casing, completion equipment, conductor) (1.00)
- Production and Well Operations > Production Chemistry, Metallurgy and Biology > Corrosion inhibition and management (including H2S and CO2) (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers > Materials and corrosion (1.00)
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) external coatings have been used since early to middle 1960?s. Since that time, improvements have been made and the acceptance of this type of coating has grown to the point to become the most used coating for new construction. Nevertheless, close attention must be paid during the application. In order to obtain complete advantage from the optimum properties of FBE coatings, it is necessary to achieve a high quality control on all aspects from the basic material through the coating processes to final inspection and handling. This requires a very fine technical approach, prior discussion and approval of material and coating procedures with comprehensive testing and overall quality control at all stages of production [l]. Even though, quality control improvements have been made, the effect of all possible contaminants on the performance of FBE has not been studied. The presence of contaminants on pipe surface will decrease the coating life time due to increase of cathodic disbonding and reduction of the adhesion. There are many sources of surface contamination and the pipe is liable to pick up the contaminants during fabrication, transportation and storage prior to receipt at the application. Also, during the surface preparation the pipe external surface can pick up contaminants. Among those contaminants, oil and grease from pipe handling equipment (during transit or in the plant), have been experienced and reported in the literature. Because of the sporadic occurrence of this contamination and the fact that it is not readily removed by blast cleaning, visual inspection of every pipe is necessary prior to blast cleaning, and any oil or grease must be removed by washing the affected area with solvent [l]. Pretreatment of steel pipe surface prior to coating with fusion bonded epoxy has been used to combat contamination on the surface that could cause poor adhesion. Phosphoric acid pretreatment has been shown to be one of the most effective treatments to neutralize the chloride contamination of deck stored pipe [2] Another source of contamination such as water, grit and phosphoric acid quality have been identified as a source of contamination. Furthermore, in the literature nobody has published the effect of contaminant of varnish or precoated pipe external surface on the performance of FBE. This paper describes a study on the effect of contaminant on the FBE performance. Several variables were considered in this investigation: presence of varnish or previous coating on the pipe, phosphoric acid treatment, wash water and blasting grit quality. The presence of contaminants on the surface of the pipe was identified using EDAX (X ray energy dispersion analysis), optical and electron microscopy analysis, grit and water conductivity and acid treatment location.