Search
Filters
Close

Save 20% on select titles with code HIDDEN24 - Shop The Sale Now

The Problem with Meeting Dry Film Thickness Specifications

Over recent years there have been interesting developments in the way marine coatings and linings are specified that have unwittingly resulted in a situation that can make it challenging to meet a paint specification as currently written. 

Product Number: 41215-892-SG
Author: R Kattan, JF Fletcher
Publication Date: 2015
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

Over recent years there have been interesting developments in the way marine coatings and linings are specified that have unwittingly resulted in a situation that can make it challenging to meet a paint specification as currently written. Firstly, there has always been a challenge in meeting a paint specification because of the subjective nature of some of the inspection assessments such as a visual assessment of surface cleanliness, rust and mill scale removal, dust removal, etc. Secondly, up to 2008, the shipbuilding boom and the strong market for shipping had seen a considerable demand for ships and attractive charter rates had encouraged owners to accept new-build ships as quickly as possible. Now that market conditions have worsened, owners are more circumspect and have become more cautious about what is and what is not acceptable. As a result, standards have tightened. In addition, the advent of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Performance Standard for Protective Coatings (IMO PSPC) has seen an increased focus on protective coating for all areas of a vessel but specifically for ballast tanks. In particular, the PSPC introduced the concept of a minimum Dry Film Thickness based on the 90:10 rule. This paper focuses on examples of the problems being faced in meeting specified Dry Film Thickness (DFT), which is deemed the best understood and most objective element of application. The paper will show that even this most basic aspect of the paint specification is neither well understood nor well specified.

Over recent years there have been interesting developments in the way marine coatings and linings are specified that have unwittingly resulted in a situation that can make it challenging to meet a paint specification as currently written. Firstly, there has always been a challenge in meeting a paint specification because of the subjective nature of some of the inspection assessments such as a visual assessment of surface cleanliness, rust and mill scale removal, dust removal, etc. Secondly, up to 2008, the shipbuilding boom and the strong market for shipping had seen a considerable demand for ships and attractive charter rates had encouraged owners to accept new-build ships as quickly as possible. Now that market conditions have worsened, owners are more circumspect and have become more cautious about what is and what is not acceptable. As a result, standards have tightened. In addition, the advent of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Performance Standard for Protective Coatings (IMO PSPC) has seen an increased focus on protective coating for all areas of a vessel but specifically for ballast tanks. In particular, the PSPC introduced the concept of a minimum Dry Film Thickness based on the 90:10 rule. This paper focuses on examples of the problems being faced in meeting specified Dry Film Thickness (DFT), which is deemed the best understood and most objective element of application. The paper will show that even this most basic aspect of the paint specification is neither well understood nor well specified.

Also Purchased