Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

Zinc-rich primersTest performance and electrochemical properties

Ole ystein Knudsen , Unni Steinsmo, Marit Bjordal
SINTEF, Materials and Chemistry, Richard Birkelandsvei 3A, N-7465 Trondheim, Norway
Received 13 May 2005; received in revised form 20 May 2005; accepted 20 June 2005

Abstract
The performance of coating systems with different types of zinc-rich primers has been tested in a 5 years offshore field test. All the coating
systems with zinc silicate primers performed well in the test. The performance of the coating systems with zinc epoxy primers varied. Two of
them suffered from large local scribe creep attacks, while the third performed well. Zinc silicate shop primer systems performed surprisingly
well, considering the low zinc loading. Coating systems without any zinc-rich primer, where epoxymastic were applied directly on blast
cleaned steel, performed reasonably well. There was a certain correlation between electrochemical properties of the primers and performance
in the field test. Film thickness of the zinc-rich primers probably affected the electrochemical properties and the field test performance.
2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Zinc-rich primers; Zinc epoxy; Zinc silicate; Shop primer; Electrochemical properties

1. Introduction
Surface treatment constitutes 510% of the construction
costs for an offshore installation and around 20% of the manhours. Cost effective surface treatment may therefore give
significant savings. One way of achieving this is by using
more productive coating systems, which will decrease the
time needed for surface preparation. This has resulted in a
change in surface treatment, from zinc silicate primers to
zinc epoxies. Zinc epoxies are easier to apply, cure faster and
there is no need for a tiecoat. However, the focus on costs in
the construction stage may have taken place at the expense
of long-term properties. For installations that are expected
to have a service life of several decades, the maintenance
costs will contribute significantly to the total life cycle costs
for surface treatment and corrosion protection. The life cycle
costs may therefore in fact have increased, even though the
production costs have decreased.
The mechanism by which the zinc-rich primer protects the
steel substrate is primarily thought to be cathodic protection,
and electrochemical properties of zinc-rich primers have been
thoroughly studied [14]. Only the zinc particles in galvanic

Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 98230420; fax: +47 73596892.

E-mail address: ole.knudsen@sintef.no (O.. Knudsen).

0300-9440/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2005.06.009

contact with the steel substrate will contribute to this effect.

As the zinc particles corrode, the contact to the steel will
gradually be lost, and at a certain time the potential of the
steel exceeds the protection potential. However, the coating
may still provide corrosion protection, so other mechanisms
must also contribute to the protection of the steel, in addition
to the galvanic effect. Zinc corrosion products may inhibit
corrosion [5], e.g. by increasing the pH under the coating
[2]. Corrosion products from the zinc particles may also seal
pores in the primer, improving the barrier properties [68].
In order for the zinc particles to provide cathodic protection of the steel substrate, they must be in electrical contact
with the steel substrate. The epoxy binder is electrically insulating and protects metallic surfaces against corrosion. The
zinc particles in a zinc epoxy primer may then be protected
by the epoxy and insulated from the steel surface. Zinc epoxies also usually contain a smaller volume fraction of zinc
dust, compared to most zinc silicates. Zinc silicates can be
pigmented above the critical pigment volume concentration
(CPVC), without severe loss of properties [9]. When pigmenting above the CPVC, the binder is not able to wet all the
pigment particles, and there will be pores between the particles. This may be an advantage in zinc-rich primers, since the
presence of an electrolyte at the zinc particle surface probably
enhance the anodic reaction. Zinc epoxies pigmented to the

O.. Knudsen et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

225

Table 1
Coating systems tested in 5 years offshore field test
Manufacturer 1
Generic type
1aa

Manufacturer 2

Manufacturer 3

DFT

Generic type

DFT

Generic type

DFT

(A) No primer

Epoxy mastic
Epoxy acrylic tc 1

260
50

Epoxy mastic 2
Epoxy acrylic tc 2

260
50

Epoxy mastic 3
Epoxy acrylic tc 3

260
50

(B) Zinc epoxy

Zinc epoxy 1
Epoxy mastic 1b
Epoxy acrylic tc 1

60
200
50

Zinc epoxy 2
Epoxy mastic 2
Epoxy acrylic tc 2

60
200
50

Zinc epoxy 3
Epoxy mastic 3
Epoxy acrylic tc 3

75
175
75

(C) Zinc silicate

Zinc ethyl silicate 1

Epoxy tie coat 1
Epoxy mastic 1b
Epoxy acrylic tc 1

60

60

200
50

Zinc silicate wb 2
Epoxy tie coat 2
Epoxy mastic 2
Epoxy acrylic tc 2

Zinc silicate sp 2
Epoxy mastic 1b
Epoxy acrylic tc 1

20
200
50

Zinc silicate sp 2
Epoxy mastic 2
Epoxy acrylic tc 2

(D) Shop primerb

200
50

Zinc ethyl silicate 3

Epoxy tie coat 3
Epoxy mastic 3
Epoxy acrylic tc 3

60
200
50

20
200
50

Zinc silicate sp 2
Epoxy mastic 3
Epoxy acrylic tc 3

20
200
50

tc: topcoat, sp: shop primer, wb: water borne, DFT: dry film thickness.
a Epoxy mastic type a from manufacturer 1 with aluminium pigments.
b The same shop primer was used for all the coating systems.

same volume concentration as zinc silicates will have poor

adhesion, cohesion and overcoatability [9].
The zinc loading is usually given in percent by weight. ISO
12944 states that in order for a primer to be denoted as zincrich the zinc concentration must be higher than 80 wt.%
[10]. However, the specific gravity of silicate is much higher
than for epoxy. In a zinc epoxy and a zinc silicate, both with
90 wt.% zinc, the volume concentration of the zinc will be
approximately 60 and 75%, respectively, due to the difference
in specific gravity.
Due to the lower zinc volume concentration usually found
in zinc epoxies and the insulating and protecting properties
of the epoxy binder, one may ask whether zinc epoxy based
coating systems are more susceptible to degradation in corrosive environments. The purpose with this investigation has
been to compare various generic types of primers. We have
tested zinc epoxies, zinc silicates, shop primers and systems
without primers.

2. Experimental
2.1. Coating systems and pre-treatments
Coating systems with three different generic types of
primers were tested: zinc epoxies, zinc silicates and zinc
silicate shop primers. In addition, coating systems without
primers, i.e. epoxymastics applied directly on blast-cleaned
steel were tested. The test panels were prepared from hot
rolled steel plates (DIN17100). The dimensions of the test
panels were 150 mm 150 mm 5 mm. The steel surface
was blast cleaned with iron grit to Sa 2 21 and medium roughness, except for the shop primed samples that were cleaned
with shot. The various coating systems are listed in Table 1.
The coatings were applied by spraying under controlled conditions in a laboratory. A scribe with dimensions

60 mm 3 mm down to the steel substrate was made in the

middle of the samples before exposure. The coatings were
allowed to cure for 512 weeks before the field test started.
2.2. Field exposure at Snorre
Snorre is an offshore oil production platform located in the
Norwegian sector, west of the Norwegian coast. The samples
were mounted on a vertical rack, facing southwest, about
40 m above the sea level. The field test was started in March
1995 and terminated in September 2000. The samples had
then been exposed for 5 21 years.
The corrosivity at Snorre during the test was classified
according to ISO 12944-2 [11]. Panels of bare steel and zinc
were exposed together with the coated samples. Each year,
panels were collected, the corrosion products removed and
the corrosion rate calculated from the weight loss. The average corrosion rate for bare steel in the test period was 120 and
3.1 m/year for bare zinc. Based on the steel corrosion rate
the environment should be regarded as corrosion class C5,
while the zinc corrosion rate corresponds to corrosion class
C4.
2.3. Evaluation of scribe creep resistance
After the test was terminated, the samples were evaluated
with respect to scribe creep. Around the scribe, loose coating
due to underfilm corrosion was removed with a scalpel. Maximum and average scribe creep was measured according to
Fig. 1. Maximum and average scribe creep were calculated

Fig. 1. Determination of average and maximum scribe creep.

226

O.. Knudsen et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

Table 2
Generic type, zinc concentration and dry film thickness of the primer samples
used for testing electrochemical properties
Primer

Generic type

Dry film thickness (m)

Zinc epoxy 1
Zinc epoxy 2
Zinc epoxy 3
Zinc silicate 1
Zinc silicate 2
Zinc silicate 3
Shop primer 1
Shop primer 2
Shop primer 3

Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
Ethyl silicate
Water borne
Ethyl silicate
Silicate
Silicate
Silicate

30
60
132
92
123
93
28
31
40

10
11
9
9
5
17
6
8
9

according to:
Maximum scribe creep : amax
Average scribe creep : a =

dmax d0
=
2

d t d0
2

where d t is the average of the five diameters measured.

2.4. Electrochemical properties of zinc-rich primers
The ability of the zinc-rich coatings to protect the steel
cathodically was investigated by measuring the open circuit
potential of steel panels coated with primers only, during
exposure submerged in seawater. Table 2 shows the generic
type and film thickness for the various primers tested. The
primers are identical to the ones tested in the field test. The
samples were exposed for 100 days, and the open circuit
potential was measured for each sample every day during the
test period.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Field test
Fig. 2 shows the average and max scribe creep measured
for the various coating systems after 5 21 years offshore field
test. Most of the coating systems gave acceptable performance in the test. However, due to the high level of control
during surface pre-treatment and application of the systems,
the performance may be somewhat better than what can be
expected on an offshore construction. Local imperfections,
e.g. insufficient cleaning or too high or too low film thickness, are likely to be found on a complicated structure like
an offshore installation. Such imperfections will probably
increase the degradation of the coating system relative to the
results obtained here.
The coating systems with no primer (A1, A2 and A3)
in general gave more scribe creep than the coating systems with primers (average scribe creep). The scribe creep
attacks had a different appearance compared to the other
systems. Instead of a continuous attack spreading from the

Fig. 2. Scribe creep measured for the various coating systems at after 5 years
offshore field test.

scribe, the corrosion was located in small spots along the

scribe, most of them about 12 mm distance from the original
scribe.
The performance of the zinc epoxies (B1, B2 and B3) varied in the field test. Two of them (B1 and B2) had severe local
scribe creep. The local attacks gave high max scribe creep
readings, but had less effect on the average scribe creep. For
system B1, only one of the two samples had this large local
attack, while for system B2 these attacks were found on both
samples and at more than one location along the scribe. The
samples of system B3 had little or no scribe creep and were
one of the best systems in the entire test. What properties of
the coating systems may then explain the difference in performance between the zinc epoxy systems? Several factors,
like e.g. zinc loading, film thickness, formulation and application, will have influence. One difference can be seen in the
specification of the systems. Table 1 shows that for system
B3 the specified dry film thickness of the zinc epoxy primer
was 75 m, while for the two other zinc epoxy systems the
specification was 60 m thickness. Cross sections of the three
coating systems show that the zinc epoxy primer of B3 was
applied significantly thicker than the two other primers, and
also thicker than specified (Fig. 3). The micrographs indicate
that zinc epoxy B3 was in the order of 100 m, while the two
other were in the order of 5060 m. As will be discussed
later, we believe the film thickness of the primer may affect
the performance of the system Fig. 3.
The coating systems with zinc silicate primers (C1, C2
and C3) in general performed well. The three coating systems
gave average scribe creeps in the order of 1 mm during the
5 21 years test period. There was little difference between the
tested coatings. The zinc silicate systems therefore stand out
as a safe choice when long lifetime is desired.
The coating systems with shop primer (D1, D2 and D3)
had surprisingly little scribe creep. The average scribe creep
was in the order of 1 mm, which is comparable to the zinc
silicate systems. The shop primer contains significantly less
zinc and was applied on shot blasted surfaces. Based on both
these aspects, we expected more scribe creep for these coatings. The three coating systems tested all had the same shop

O.. Knudsen et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

227

end up close to the zinc silicates in the ranking of the various

primers. The ranking will then be as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Zinc silicate systems.

Shop primer systems.
Systems without primer (Sa 2 21 ).
Zinc epoxy systems.

3.2. Electrochemical properties of zinc-rich primers

Fig. 3. Cross sections of zinc epoxy B1, B2 and B3 photographed in an

optical microscope. The micrographs show the blasting profile of the steel
(bright), the film thickness of the zinc epoxy primer and the zinc dust particles, and the epoxy mastic barrier coat with various types of pigments.

primer coating. Compared to the situation where an intact

shop primer is coated in the yard, these samples were probably not entirely representative. At the yard, the shop primer
will be exposed to the environment for some time before coating. Here, the samples were stored dry in the period between
shop priming and application of the rest of the coating system.
Comparing scribe creep resistance of the various generic
types of primers can be difficult. The zinc epoxy systems
in particular varied in performance. The difference between
the products may be larger than the difference between the
generic systems. However, some conclusions can be drawn.
All the systems with zinc silicate primers had little scribe
creep during the 5-year test period. Zinc silicate primers
therefore seem to be the safe choice regarding corrosion
protection properties. The zinc epoxies tested varied in performance, but it seems to be possible to obtain good corrosion
protection with zinc epoxy systems as well. The best zinc
epoxy system actually had less scribe creep than the zinc
silicates. However, the two other systems performed significantly worse. The systems without primers generally had
more scribe creep than the zinc silicates and the shop primers.
Based on the results alone the shop primer systems would

Zinc-rich primers can only protect the steel cathodically

when the zinc particles in the primer have electric contact to
the steel substrate. Only the zinc particles in direct contact
with the steel substrate, or connected through other zinc particles, will contribute to the cathodic protection. It is therefore
necessary to have a large amount of zinc dust in the coating.
Too few particles will give too low electrical contiguity. On
the other hand too much zinc particles will result in a porous
film with poor mechanical properties.
The potential of zinc in seawater is approximately
1.050 VSCE , while the steel substrate used here has a potential of approximately 0.65 VSCE . The measured potentials
are mixed potentials between the steel substrate and the
active zinc-pigments, and will depend on the area ratio
between the two. If only few zinc-pigments are active, the
anode area will be small, and the potential will be close to
that of the steel. On the other hand, if the area of active zinc
particles is large, the potential will be close to that of zinc.
Fig. 4 shows that the zinc silicate primers tested gave
potentials between 1.0 and 0.8 VSCE during the entire
100 days period they were exposed in substitute seawater.
This shows that the zinc particles in the primers were electrochemically active, and that a proportion of them were in
galvanic contact to the steel substrate. The potential increased
during the test period, from 1.0 VSCE in the beginning to
0.8 VSCE in the end. This shows that the zinc pigments were
consumed or that galvanic contact was lost with time.
There were large differences in the performance of the
zinc epoxy primers. Fig. 5 shows that the two samples of
zinc epoxy 1 behaved very differently. For one sample the

Fig. 4. Variations in corrosion potential with time for three zinc silicate
primers exposed in substitute seawater at ambient temperature.

228

O.. Knudsen et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

Fig. 5. Variations in corrosion potential with time for three zinc epoxy
primers exposed in substitute seawater at ambient temperature.

open circuit potential was comparable to the potential found

on the zinc silicate samples, i.e. 0.95 to 0.8 VSCE . Hence,
a proportion of the zinc particles were active and in galvanic
contact with the steel, providing cathodic protection. However, for the other sample the potential increased during the
test to about 0.65 VSCE , which means that the steel was corroding towards the end of the period. After the test the latter
sample was covered with red rust in a limited area. Probably
the primer was very thin there, so that the zinc particles were
consumed and the steel started to corrode. The average film
thickness of zinc epoxy 1 was only 30 10 m (Table 2),
which means that the film thickness was very low in some
areas.
The potential of the sample with zinc epoxy 2 rapidly
increased to about 0.6 VSCE . After less than 10 days the
potential increased above 0.78 VSCE , which is the protection potential of steel in seawater, and the steel below the
primer started to corrode Fig. 6.
Zinc epoxy 3 gave open circuit potentials below 0.9 V
during the entire 100 days test period. The zinc particle concentration in the primer was 81% by weight, compared to
86% by weight in zinc epoxy 1. The zinc concentration can
therefore probably not explain the difference in open circuit

potential. However, compared to zinc epoxy 1 and 2, the dry

film thickness of zinc epoxy 3 was significantly higher. This
is more likely the explanation. With a higher film thickness,
there will be a larger reservoir of zinc particles in the film.
Film thickness will also vary somewhat over the surface. For
zinc epoxy 1, with a film thickness of only 30 10 m,
there will be areas with less than 20 m film thickness.
Hence, not only the properties of the primer itself will
determine the electrochemical properties, but also how it is
applied.
Fig. 6 shows the open circuit potentials of the samples
with shop primers. All these products had limited capacity
for cathodic polarization, and the potentials rapidly increased
to about 0.65 V. After the test the samples were covered with
rust. The zinc content in these products is rather low, which
explains their performance in this test.
The potential of the sample increases when the amount
of zinc particles in galvanic contact with the steel decreases.
The galvanic contact may be lost due to corrosion of the
zinc particles, either by total consumption of the particles or
by formation of insulating corrosion products between the
particles and the steel substrate.
There seems to be a certain correlation between the results
in the field test and the ability of the primer to protect the steel
substrate. The zinc silicate primers gave little scribe creep
in the field test. The testing of electrochemical properties
showed that the zinc silicates provided cathodic protection
for a long period of time. Two of the zinc epoxy primers gave
several large local scribe creep attacks. These two primers
had short periods of cathodic protection of the steel in the
electrochemical testing. The third zinc epoxy performed well
in the field test, and the electrochemical properties of the
primer was comparable to the zinc silicates. The zinc silicate
shop primers all showed limited ability to provide cathodic
protection, but in the field test the shop primer systems performed well. Evidently, the electrochemical properties of the
primers alone cannot explain the performance of a coating
system.

4. Conclusions

Fig. 6. Variations in corrosion potential with time for three zinc silicate shop
primers exposed in substitute seawater at ambient temperature.

Zinc silicate primers seem to be the safe choice for longterm corrosion protection. The tested coating systems with
zinc silicates gave little scribe creep.
Good performance was also achieved with zinc epoxies,
but there were differences between the coating systems
tested. Two of the systems gave large local scribe creep,
while the third system performed well.
The film thickness of the zinc epoxy seems to be important
for the performance of the coating system. The system with
the thickest zinc epoxy performed best in the field test, and
there seemed to be a correlation between film thickness of
the zinc epoxy and electrochemical properties.
The performance of the silicate shop primer was comparable to the zinc silicate primer. This was surprising, con-

O.. Knudsen et al. / Progress in Organic Coatings 54 (2005) 224229

sidering the low concentration of zinc in the shop primer.

However, based on this investigation alone we are not willing to say that zinc silicate shop primers in general can be
expected to give the same performance as zinc-rich silicates.
The results suggest that there is a connection between electrochemical properties of the primers and the scribe creep
resistance of the coating system. This implies that the electrochemical properties of zinc-rich primers to some degree
predict their performance when exposed in corrosive atmosphere.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the following companies
and institutions for supporting the project: Kvrner Rosenberg, Aker Engineering, Statoil, Hydro, Conoco, Scana
Offshore, Carboline, Jotun, International, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, The Norwegian Research
Council.

229

References
[1] D. Pereira, J. Scantlebury, M. Ferreira, M. Almeida, Corros. Sci. 30
(1990) 11351147.
[2] S. Lindquist, L. Meszaros, L. Svenson, J. Oil Colour. Chem. Assoc.
68 (1985) 1014.
[3] S. Felui, R. Barajas, J. Bastidas, M. Morcillo, J. Coat. Technol. 61
(1989) 6369.
[4] R. Fernandez-Prini, S. Kapusta, J. Oil Colour. Chem. Assoc. 62
(1979) 9398.
[5] T.K. Ross, J. Wolstenholme, Corros. Sci., 17 (1977) 341351.
[6] S. Felui, R. Barajas, J. Bastidas, M. Morcillo, J. Coat. Technol. 61
(1989) 7176.
[7] C. Hare, M. Steele, S. Collins, J. Prot. Coat. Linings 18 (2001)
5472.
[8] F. Theiler, Corros. Sci. 14 (1974) 405406.
[9] M. Mitchell, A. Smith, Corrosion and Prevention 98 Proceedings
Australasian Corrosion Association, 1998.
[10] ISO, 12944, Paints and varnishescorrosion protection of steel
structures by protective paint systems. Part 5: Protective paint systems, 1998.
[11] ISO, 12944, Paints and varnishescorrosion protection of steel
structures by protective paint systems, Part 2: Classification of environments, 1998.