Thick_Edit.
qxp 17/7/06 2:39 pm Page 44
Wind Power
Offshore Corrosion Protection of Wind Farms
The potential for the offshore wind market is large,
with projects being announced on a regular basis.
The corrosive environment and ease with
which maintenance can be achieved offshore are
orders of magnitude bigger than corresponding
onshore requirements.
This paper looks at the challenges faced by the
offshore oil and gas industry and how these have been
addressed over the last 40 years to provide robust
solutions that can be adopted by the offshore wind
farm developers. In particular, reference is made to the
latest International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) document that specifically addresses pre-
qualification testing and offshore corrosion control.
History of Offshore Coatings
The protection of offshore steelwork can be traced
over 100 years to the shipping industry with the
requirement to provide anti-corrosive protection and
fouling control on all types of marine vessels.
With the acceleration in the offshore oil and gas
exploration and production industry over the last
40 years, the challenges of protecting the drilling
and production facilities have been at the forefront
of the steel protection industry. When compared
with the shipping industry, the oil and gas industry
has faced differing challenges in dealing with
corrosion control.
Marine vessels travel from port to port, and regularly
undergo dry-docking – repairs and complete
re-application of coatings are undertaken on a regular
basis. In contrast, offshore oil installations are not
designed to be bought back to shore for
re-inspection and maintenance. Whilst regular
offshore maintenance is always a planned event, an
unplanned offshore maintenance event brought on
by premature failure of the applied coating system
can be both a costly and potentially hazardous
operation. Personnel, materials and support
equipment (e.g scaffolding) all have to be mobilised
and transported offshore. Working offshore, often
with restricted access in inclement weather, leads to
44
a report by
James Thick
International Paint Ltd
non-ideal conditions for painting, with the further
likelihood of a future failure.
For these reasons, the oil and gas industry has
adopted coating systems that provide extended
lifetimes to first maintenance. It is recognised that,
whilst not an insignificant cost, the cost of the
materials (paint) relative to the cost of repairing a
failed system offshore is small – designers therefore
rely heavily on pre-qualification performance
testing to ensure only fit for purpose systems are
used offshore.
From a corrosion control perspective, offshore wind
farms have many similarities with the offshore oil and
gas industry and, when considering their
requirements, it is important to understand the
coatings and best practices that have been developed
for the offshore oil and gas industry
Coatings Technology
It could be considered that the real growth in the
offshore oil industry coincided with the use of
‘modern’ high-performance coatings, i.e. coatings
not based on drying oils but rather synthetic
chemicals such as polyurethane and epoxy resin. These
materials can have inherently better long-term stability
than those that cure by air oxidation (e.g. alkyds).
At around the same time as this type of technology
was evolving, surface preparation methods improved
with the advent of sand blasting, allowing removal of
millscale, corrosion products and, at the same time,
significantly increasing the surface area available to
the coating for surface bonding.
Most of the early offshore platforms were situated in
the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and, hence, used the
typical high performance coatings technology
current in the US at that time (1940s and 1950s), i.e.
coatings were based on polyvinyl acetate copolymers
and later on early epoxy amine systems (epoxy
having been first patented and introduced in the late
1940s). Due to the low solids contents of these
systems it was not untypical to apply between five
EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006
Thick_Edit.qxp 17/7/06 2:39 pm Page 45
and seven coats in order to obtain the required total
dry film thickness.
A significant improvement to these systems was to
utilize zinc silicate as a primer, thus improving both
under-film corrosion creep and long-term
corrosion resistance.
This type of multi-coat thermoplastic resin-based
system, especially with inorganic zinc silicate as the
primer, was used for a number of years with
considerable success and many platforms are still
currently coated. It should, however, be noted that
these coatings were not restricted by health and safety
and environmental requirements that would make
their use difficult today.
As time progressed and the application costs
associated with multi-coat systems became more
prohibitive, the tendency became to utilise low
molecular weight vinyl resins in order to obtain high
solids, higher build and, hence, less coat. These
moves all contributed to reducing the overall
effectiveness of the coatings.
Zinc silicates were also used as primers for these
systems, improving under-film creep and
overall corrosion resistance.
What then were the defects or weaknesses of
these materials?
• low solids – 20% initially, increasing to around
40% with vinyl/acrylics but clearly problems with
VOC emissions;
• thermal stability – thermal degradation (dehydro
chlorination) becomes possible at temperatures
greater than 80ºC (176ºF);
• thermoplasticity – softening and damage of the
coating on warming; and
• chlorine – chlorine containing polymers now
have a problem with waste disposal where
incomplete combustion can cause formation of
extremely toxic dioxins.
Coatings of this type were successfully used by many
companies in the GOM, e.g. Gulf, Philips, Exxon
etc., and by Statoil and others in the North Sea.
EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006
Offshore Corrosion Protection of Wind Farms
Early epoxy systems were based on medium
molecular weight epoxy resins, cross-linked initially
with low molecular weight aliphatic amines.
Thixotrope technology was not suitable for high
build coatings so again multi-coat systems were used.
The use of medium molecular weight epoxy in fact
gave two major advantages: they were inherently
flexible, with good adhesion. Low solids also reduced
solvent retention and consequent stresses induced via
film shrinkage, and again, as with vinyls, multi-coats
contributed to the overall performance. Typical
coatings were around 40–45% volume solids and
were applied at 50–75µ (2–3ml) dry film thickness
per coat, with total thickness of 200–250µ (8–10ml).
Again, zinc silicates were also used as primers for
these systems, improving under-film creep and
overall corrosion resistance.
In underwater and splashzone areas, the most
common system was multi-coats of coal tar epoxy,
typically 300–500µ (12–20ml) dry film thickness.
With the discovery and development of new fields
outside the GOM the industry was faced with a whole
series of new challenges, for example, in the North Sea:
• aggressive exposure environment due to high and
continual wave action, salt spray and almost
continuous wetness;
• higher wave action;
• sea salt splashing;
• application under low temperature conditions,
typically down to 5ºC (40ºF) during daytime
application with sub-zero cure overnight;
These conditions are now the typical challenges
being faced by offshore wind farm developers.
The aggregation of all of these issues contributed to
a number of difficulties and short lifetimes to first
maintenance on a number of the early structures,
but by the late 1970s this had largely been resolved.
45
Thick_Edit.qxp 17/7/06 2:40 pm Page 46

Wind Power

Zinc silicates were replaced by zinc-rich epoxies,
and coatings formulated suitable for temperate
climate application.
In underwater and splashzone areas thick epoxy
cladding systems became popular, typically with
3,000–6,000µ (120–240ml) of dry film thickness.
Thus, by the late 1970s in the GOM, systems started to
become the precursors of those used today, followed
by the Persian Gulf, and the North Sea, i.e. for
atmospheric exposure a three-coat system comprising
of a zinc-rich, high-build epoxy, polyurethane.
accelerated testing and external exposure testing
have shown that there is little difference in
performance, either in terms of corrosion creep
from damaged areas or general areas between a well-
formulated zinc-rich epoxy and an inorganic zinc
silicate, when utilised in a total corrosion system.1-3
In the 1990s, twin pressures had driven a move to
higher solids coating systems, for instance:
• reduction of solvent emissions (volatile organic
content (VOC)); or

In some ways, this reduction in the number of coats
and application of thick films started to show some of
the problems that are sometimes now observed, i.e.
film instability on ageing, leading to cracking,especially
in poorly prepared and thick areas such as welds.
• reduction of number of coats used – applied cost
reductions due to less labour.
A consequence was to move to thicker films per coat,
intentionally and because of higher solids being used.

Offshore maintenance programs are expensive

and complex, with changing regulations
adding to the problems.

When this type of system was formulated and applied
correctly, excellent results could be achieved, but
despite this all the inherent difficulties of using zinc
silicate primers remained, i.e. potential poor cure at
low humidities and subsequent splitting and pinholing
difficulties on overcoating. However, due to adverse
weather conditions, abuse of products at application or
non-compliance with data sheets, major problems
could occur that never happened with the single pack
solution polymer thermoplastics, where adhesion was
never a problem.
There has been continual debate over the years
as to the effectiveness of zinc rich epoxies compared
with zinc-rich silicates. Certainly, as single coats, the
inorganic zinc silicate will always outperform a
similar zinc level (by weight) zinc epoxy (largely due
to the higher level of zinc dust by volume in the
silicate film due to the higher density of the silicate
matrix compared with the cured epoxy polymer).
However, the primer is not used in isolation, but an
integral part of a complete system. Extensive
There was also an unfortunate philosophy within the
industry that thick films are good and the thicker the
better. This led to an increasing use of both thick
intermediates and thick barrier coat primers.
This proposition does not live up to examination.
Laboratory corrosion testing can demonstrate
relatively easily that, with very thick films, corrosion
from a damaged or uncoated area may appear to be
very small but on examination is major – the thick
films preventing blistering and making it less obvious
that there is under-film corrosion.
In practice it is difficult to apply even films due to
both statistical spread of dry film thicknesses on a flat
area, and even more so the difficulty of applying
even films on complex areas.
Offshore Maintenance
Offshore maintenance programmes are expensive and
complex, with changing regulations adding to the
problems – for example, blasting is no longer allowed,

1. Mitchell M J, “Zinc Primers – The Way Forward”, SSPC Conference (1996).

2. Mitchell M J, “Zinc Silicate or Zinc Epoxy as the Preferred High Performance Primer”, International Corrosion Conference
South Africa (1999).
3. Mitchell M J, Claydon D A, “Accelerated Corrosion Testing”, Cefracor, France (2001).

46 EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006

Ernst&Young_AD.qxp 8/7/06 1:57 pm Page 19

With a dedicated team of

advisors, supported by an
international network of
specialists, Ernst & Young's
Renewable Energy Group
helps clients to maximise
value from renewable energy
activity.

For further information contact:

Jonathan Johns
Tel: +44 1392 284 300
E-mail: jjohns@uk.ey.com

www.ey.com/renewables
!@#
Thick_Edit.qxp 17/7/06 2:40 pm Page 48
Wind Power
Figure 1: High Solids Epoxy mastic (70% Edge
Coverage) (Sample 1)
replacement by ultra-high pressure (UHP) water
blasting is now doubtful following considerable
offshore experience in the North Sea because of
health and safety considerations, i.e. dangers of the
high pressure jet and the logistical difficulties of
operating this heavy equipment continuously.
Offshore wind farms have a further complexity – that
of access to the steelwork – unlike an oil production
platform the steelwork on a wind tower is difficult to
reach without major planning and cost
This all puts further emphasis on providing ‘good’
new construction systems being used that can offer
maintenance-free lifetimes of many years
(>20 years).
Pre-qualification testing as adopted in ISO
20340:2003 helps ensure quality products are
specified (via reference to testing protocols).
Importantly the standard also includes product
authentication/composition testing to ensure
that materials that have been approved are not
switched at the point of supply for inferior
untested products.
New Technologies
Offshore corrosion protection is critical and, hence,
over the years operators have been willing to try
many ‘new’ or ‘novel’ coating systems, often with
little track record or test data, in the hope that these
would solve corrosion problems. Additionally, with
the drive to improve efficiencies during the
fabrication process, many more cost-effective
solutions (e.g fewer coats, faster cure leading to
improved productivity) have been investigated for
use offshore. Included in the many technologies
that have been tried are thick film urethane
elastomers, oil displacing modified epoxies,
flexibilized epoxy phenolics, zinc coated blasting
media, thermally sprayed copper antifouling and
moisture-cured urethanes.
48
Figure 2: High Solids Epoxy Mastic (70% Edge
Coverage) (Sample 2)
Most of these approaches have now been abandoned,
and it is interesting to note that the systems did not
go through prequalification testing regimes now
employed by the offshore industry (e.g. ISO 20340
or NORSOK M 501). In many cases, it is doubtful
if they would have passed the relatively new pre-
qualification testing regimes.
It is likely that new technologies going forward will
be based on more reasoned and studied chemistry,
patenting will become more of an issue in the
industry and there are decision-making tools
becoming available to help make performance and
suitability decisions.
A good example of new technology for offshore is
the use of inorganic hybrid materials (polysiloxanes)
as super-durable finishes. These are based on new
chemistry and have required extensive laboratory
work to understand the implications of the
competing cross-linking reactions. Initially it could
be argued that the technology may have been
oversold in terms of inherent anti-corrosive
properties, but this was probably also tied up with
long-term offshore anti-corrosive systems only
consisting of two relatively thin coats requiring non-
standard application procedures to ensure correct dry
film thickness.
Much more consideration is now being given to
modes of failure and coatings formulated to alleviate
these weaknesses. A good example is edge
breakdown: inspection generally shows this area to
show first failure. New formulations are being
developed which give better wrap round properties,
even with airless spray application, and actual edge
coverage is now being regularly measured. Examples
are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Other areas where new coatings are being
continuously improved is to resist cracking on the
inevitable over-thick areas, which often occur on
poorly prepared areas such as welds.
EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006
Thick_Edit.qxp 17/7/06 2:40 pm Page 49
Offshore Corrosion Protection of Wind Farms
Thus new technology can be considered to move in
three directions:
• to improve application efficiency and tolerance,
possibly of existing basic technologies;
• to develop new inherently more stable and
durable chemistries, which meet all application
requirements and give longer lifetimes; and
• to develop coating systems that provide benefits to
the wind tower fabricator e.g speed of cure (steel
through put), lower VOC (solvent) emissions.
Pre-qualification Testing
Historically, the major offshore operators
conducted their own testing and approval
processes, however with consolidation in the
industry, a move towards outsourcing, and
requirements for more detailed testing, it was been
recognized that universal industry standards should
be adopted. During the 1990s the Norwegian
Other areas where new coatings are being continuously
improved is to resist cracking on the inevitable
over-thick areas, which often occur on poorly
prepared areas such as welds.
Offshore Industry under the auspices of
NORSOK5 devised a performance based pre-
qualification testing protocol for coating systems.
Subsequent revisions to this standard developed a
comprehensive set of prequalification requirements
for all areas of steelwork requiring protection e.g.
helidecks, exposed structural steel, splashzone areas
and subsea areas.
More recently in 2003 these were further refined via
the ISO into ISO 20340.
ISO 20340:2003 4 deals with the performance
requirements for the protection, by protective paint
systems, of new offshore and related structures
exposed to the offshore atmosphere, as well as those
immersed in sea or brackish water. This international
standard places emphasis on high-durability paint
systems, with the aim of minimising maintenance,
4. ISO 20340:2003, “Paints and varnishes – Performance requirements for protective paint systems for offshore and related
structures”, www.iso.org
5. NORSOK M501, “Surface preparation and protective coatings for offshore”, www.standard.no
EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006
and, hence, reducing safety considerations and
environmental impact.
In particular, ISO 203040:2003 tackles head on the
issue of product authentication via a series of
detailed chemical composition tests at the time of
pre-qualification. The standard contains a protocol
for the random sampling of coatings at the point
of application.
This detailed product authentication procedure has
been borne out of necessity – often within the
protective coatings industry there has been a
tendency to approve a coating system through a pre-
qualification procedure, and then supply products
with differing chemical composition, and hence a
differing performance to those originally tested. The
brand and naming of the products often remain
unchanged, however the change performance
brought about by reformulation (often driven by by
cost reductions), or by raw material supply issues (in
differing countries of manufacture) can lead to early
failure and expensive remedial work for the operator.
Whilst the adoption of both the NORSOK M501
(currently moving from Revision 4 to Revision 5)
and ISO 20340:2003 have been broadly welcomed
by all parties engaged in the offshore protection of
steelwork there still remains some opportunity for
confusion in the detail.
For example ISO 20340:2003 makes allowance for
cyclic testing under differing conditions. The
differences in the testing can lead to significantly
differing corrosion results.
ISO 20340 Cyclic Testing: Option 1
72 hours Salt spray 5% NaCl pH 7 (ISO 7253)
24 hours Dry out at -20°C
72 hours Condensation/UV (ASTM G53)
4 hours UV at 60ºC, four hours condensation at
50ºC
49
Thick_Edit.qxp 17/7/06 2:41 pm Page 50
Wind Power
Figure 3: Ambient Dry Out at +23 °C Heavy Rust,
No Blister Formation, No Cracks
1mm Corrosion creep; good result.
ISO 20340 Cyclic Testing: Option 2
72 hours Salt spray 5% NaCl pH 7 (ISO 7253)
24 hours Dry out at +23 °C
72 hours Condensation/UV (ASTM G53)
4 hours UV at 60ºC, 4 hours condensation at
50ºC
For both options one cycle = one week (168
hours) and the test duration is 25 weeks (4,200
hours); however, the differing dry-out
temperatures at -20°C compared with +23°C can
have a significant affect on the results obtained.
At first glance the requirements of coating systems for the
offshore protection of wind farms could be considered
little different to those located onshore.
Testing of the same coating system using option 1
could yield a poor result (scribe creep 8.4mm as
shown in Figure 4) compared with a good
result using option 2 (scribe creep 1mm as
shown in Figure 3). Equally, test results obtained
for NORSOK M501 Revision 4 cannot
be compared directly to those obtained for
Revision 5.
It is therefore important when considering
specifications for offshore wind farms, that
when comparing directly test data results, all
data has been generated under the same testing
regime, and is compared on a direct like for
like basis.
50
Figure 4: Dry Out at -20°C Heavy Rust, Blister
Formation with Cracks
>5 mm corrosion creep; poor result
Summary
At first glance the requirements of coating systems for
the offshore protection of wind farms could be
considered little different to those located onshore.
The conventional wisdom of using the same products
applied a little thicker to meet the more aggressive
environments would seem a logical approach;
however, a more detailed analysis of the issues and
history surrounding the protection of offshore
structures serves to teach us some interesting lessons.
These experiences form the basis of the detailed pre-
qualification procedures which when coupled with
the protocols for product authentication provide a
robust approach to corrosion control offshore.
ISO 20340 compliance plus proven offshore
credentials should constitute the minimum
acceptance criteria when considering offshore
coating specifications, especially given the potential
cost of correcting inappropriate specifications.
By adopting ISO 20340 and understanding the
nuances in the testing regimes contained within the
standard, it is possible for offshore wind farm
developers and operators to utilise the best practice
developed for the oil and gas industry. ■
EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY REVIEW 2006