ANTIFOULING COATINGS FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

Mike J. Mitchell.
International Protective Coatings
Akzo Nobel
Stoneygate Lane
Felling, Gateshead, NE10 0JY
England

ABSTRACT

Antifoulings have conventionally been used on mobile marine vessels to reduce build up of hull
roughness due to the settlement of various types of biofouling, the consequence of which can be
significant increase in fuel bills and reduction in speed.

This is obviously not the case on static offshore structures such as FPSOs and fixed platforms
however in many areas of severe marine fouling their use is worth giving full evaluation.

In this case speed and fuel use is obviously not relevant, but correct antifoulings can
significantly reduce effect of wave action, for example, on risers, and make inspection of weld nodes
and underwater hulls much easier for divers.

This paper will consider the performance and relevance to static situations of the key types of
CDP Antifoulings (Rosin Modified types), the current tin free polishing types (typically acrylates of
various types), and low energy surface types. Both field experience and laboratory work will be
considered

Key Words: Antifouling; Surface roughness; Silicone elastomer; Easy clean surface.

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally antifoulings have been used on marine vessels to prevent or restrict marine growth,
the effect of which can be to slow the vessel, increase the fuel usage, and potentially increase the rate
of failure of anti-corrosive coating due, for example, barnacle penetration of protective coatings.

Fouling can be classified into two broad groups:

(i) Macrofouling – which includes plant (weed) and animal fouling.

(ii) Microfouling – which includes unicellular algae and bacteria (also referred to as slime).

-1-
 Examples are shown in Figures 1 to 6.

FIGURE 1 – Barnacles FIGURE 2 – Gooseneck Barnacles

The most common fouling animal – one acorn Special problem for offshore structures rather than
barnacle can produce 10,000 larvae in season. ships.
Scraping off can still leave residue, which gives
further colonization.

FIGURE 3 – Molluscs FIGURE 4 – Tube Worms

Tend to be more of a problem on static structures. Mainly a problem on stationary structures.

FIGURE 5 – Plant Fouling FIGURE 6 – Slime

Only tends to occur where there is sunlight, i.e. Settles on all submerged surfaces.
waterline and a few meters below.

Traditional antifoulings were based on rosin, a soluble film forming resin, often reinforced with
another resin, insoluble and with better film forming properties, e.g. vinyl, chlorinated rubber, acrylic or
in lower cost, lower performance materials various types of bodied oils. Fouling control was achieved
by use of high levels of cuprous oxide as a biocide. Cuprous oxide has limited effectiveness against
algal fouling, i.e. seaweeds such as enteromorpha (green week) or ectocarpus (brown weed), and thus
various boosting toxins have been used, such as DDT, lindane, various organo arsenics and organo
sulfur compounds, most of which are now banned. In more recent years low levels of organo tin
compounds were used in these formulations for weed control, but since the beginning of 2003 organo
tins are no longer allowed. This type of antifouling was called a “soluble matrix” type antifouling, i.e. the
resin holding the biocide together would dissolve away to leave a spongy porous film, which hindered

-2-
access to new layers of biocide, thus reducing effectiveness so typically maximum lifetimes were 12-24
months. Another limitation was that exposure to weathering, and especially sunlight could cause
oxidation of the rosin to a more insoluble resin, reducing the effectiveness of the coating, and also
exposure to sunlight could cause severe cracking. A further fault of these early coatings was total
adhesion loss to the anti-corrosive barrier coat system on fully drying out, with consequent flaking in
many areas – sometimes called the “autumn leaf” effect.

Significant improvements in the reinforcing polymer component of these systems has eliminated
many of the above mentioned defects and has now produced films that are more stable, do not oxidize
or crack on exposure, and maintain adhesion. Environmentally acceptable weed control agents are
now used. This type of antifouling is now often referred to as an “erodable” antifouling and can give
lifetimes of 24-36 months, depending upon trading pattern of the vessel concerned.

The real breakthrough in antifouling technology came in the 1970 with the organo tin acrylic
copolymer based self-polishing antifouling or SPC(1). In these coatings the biocidal organo tin group
formed part of the film forming polymer, which hydrolyzed in sea water to continually leach antifouling
agents into the boundary layer around the vessel (this allowed cuprous oxide which was also present to
be released). These coatings “polished” during the ship’s motion making the surface smoother and
actually measurably decreasing fuel consumption. The advent of this type of antifouling for the first
time allowed genuinely long life antifouling systems to be used on trading ships, with lifetimes of up to 5
years and longer.

This technology continued to be used until the end of 2002(2) when IMO legislation banning the
use or organo tins came into place due to concern regarding their long term effect on marine life.

Various new “polishing” technologies have replaced the organo tin copolymer, all aiming to
function in the same way, typically these are based on copper acrylate, zinc acrylate or silyl
copolymers.

With all of this “polishing” technology it has proved possible to adjust the polishing rate to suit
the speed and trading pattern of the ship, from relatively slow supertankers to fast container vessels.
Long static periods are normally considered to be a problem.

OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

With the advent of more offshore structures, initially of the fixed variety, but now more and more
of the floating type, questions are continually asked regarding whether antifouling is needed and, if so,
what type given the typical long design life of these structures and the inability to apply any new
material once in position.

The first question to consider is why antifouling systems should be considered for static offshore
structures, in this case speed and fuel usage are not an issue, and can hard epoxy coatings not be
considered sufficient for protection. The primary reasons for antifouling or fouling prevention systems
to be used on static structures to:

(1) Prevent increase in surface area of jackets and risers due to fouling, increased surface area can
have implications on structural issues for wave action, and can necessitate increase in structural
members and consequently weight.

(2) Allow inspection of weld nodes in submerged areas.

-3-
 For floating structures, such as FPSOs, the main issue is the regular bottom inspections
required to be undertaken by the Regulating Bodies and necessitating expensive use of divers. Easier
exposure of inspection areas significantly reduces diving costs. Also, there have been reports and
observations that barnacles can penetrate even epoxies, such penetration will clearly reduce the
corrosion resistance of the epoxy.

HISTORY

Initially conventional antifoulings were given consideration and sometimes used in the offshore
industry to prevent or limit fouling growth on fixed structures, especially on jackets and risers.
Generally because of the static nature of these structures conventional antifoulings tended not to be
considered, but in some instances, multi-coat organo tin copolymer polishing systems were used (e.g.
Morecambe Bay in Irish Sea) and, in fact, were reported to give unacceptable localized levels of organo
tin. There have also been reports of organo tin copolymer antifoulings maintaining some degree of
activity off West Africa for up to 10 years, due purely to localized currents.

Other novel systems were also tried, including ‘hoops’ which moved up and down the jacket or
the riser with wave action and tide, and prevented adhesion of fouling which might have settled there.
The fact that this approach was actually considered demonstrates the concern that can be generated
regarding fouling in these areas.

Finally, there were some further approaches using metallic copper, in one instance a polyester
resin which allowed very thick films to be applied, and in the other case copper metal was thermally
sprayed onto the surface. As might be expected from experience with copper cladding on wooden
vessels fouling prevention, this approach shows some effectiveness against animal fouling but very
little against algal fouling. Injection of chlorine has been tried and rejected, and now most solutions
using fouling controls are not allowable.

NEW APPROACHES

Work on alternative approaches to conventional ‘toxin’ containing antifoulings has been

underway for many years, with many ideas being tried including, for example, the use of non-stick
surfaces such as used in frying pans, but with limited effect.

In the early 1970’s the performance of a patented silicone elastomer system containing silicone
oil started to be investigated(3). Basically, this system had a low energy surface which did not actually
prevent fouling attachment but prevented good adhesion being obtained and allowed removal of the
fouling with very little force, in some cases removal can occur due to thermal currents, tidal movement,
esturial water flow or storm action. Measurement of the surface energy has shown it to be as low as
20-22 Dyne/cm.

Table 1 shows a comparison of silicone elastomer type material (PMDS) with other organic
polymers, both with low surface energy (γc) surfaces and standard plastics, such as polyethylene. It will
be noted that although PTFE, for example, has a slightly lower surface energy than the silicone
elastomer when the elastic modulus (E) which gives a measure of the degree of rubberiness is taken
into account there is a massive difference between the materials. It is considered that the square root
of the product of surface energy and elastic modulus (γcE)½ gives a measure of ability to remove
fouling.

-4-
 TABLE 1
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOME POLYMERS (BRADY AND SINGER, 2000)(4)

Surface
Energy (γc) Elastic
Polymer Modulus (E) (γcE)½
dyne/cm GPa

p-(hexafluoropropylene) 16.2 0.5 2.9

p-(tetrafluoroethylene) 18.6 0.5 3.1
(PTFE)
p-(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) 23.0 0.002 0.2
(silicone elastomer)
p-(vinylidene fluoride) 25.0 1.2 5.5
p-(ethylene) 33.7 2.1 8.4
p-(styrene) 40.0 2.9 10.8
p-(methyl methacrylate) 41.2 2.8 10.7
Nylon 66 45.9 3.1 11.9

In the early days of this development, as might be expected, the problem encountered was to
achieve good adhesion of the non-stick polymer to an epoxy anti-corrosive substrate. Initially, rolls of
silicone elastomer had to be produced which were then glued to the surface in a similar way to "wall
papering". Eventually it was found that another silicone elastomer could be formulated as the tie layer
containing a special adhesion promoter, which would adhere to epoxy anti-corrosive systems and could
then be overcoated with the silicone elastomer coating having the low energy surface. This type of
non-stick silicone elastomer is very flexible and thus has good resistance to impact but has low tear
strength. Thus damage by gouging is relatively easy. From Table 1 it can be seen that the silicone
elastomer has two key attributes contributing to adhesion to the surface, it does have low surface
energy, but also a very low elastic modulus. It is the low elastic modulus, which together with the low
surface energy, and hydrophobic nature of the surface which allows easy fouling removal. PTFE also
has a low energy surface but because it has a relatively high elastic modulus fouling sticks to it and is
not as easily removed as with the silicone elastomer.

Raft testing in Falmouth Harbor in Southern England demonstrated that this coating could
remain free of fouling for long periods, with slight settlement occurring during the summer growing
period and washing off during the winter season. Test panels have remained largely clean and free of
fouling for periods of up to 13 years in this way.

It has been found that to maximize the performance of the silicone elastomer it is preferably applied to
a smooth substrate, i.e. welds need to be ground, weld splatter removed, if applied over concrete, all
blow holes etc., need to be filled. Rough surfaces increase the surface area onto which barnacles can
cement themselves, thus increasing force needed for removal.

This approach to fouling control was outside the normal concept of ‘antifouling’ and,
consequently, for many years was in the unfortunate position of being technology looking for a market.
This meant that during the 1970’s and 1980’s there were many small scale trials but the cost of the
silicone based material, the fact that fouling did settle (albeit it could be easily removed), danger of

-5-
silicone contamination at the site, combined to prevent the use on large scale projects. Figure 7 shows
a typical example of a long term exposed test panel in a heavy animal fouling environment.

FIGURE 7

In the area of general marine vessels concern with environmentally damaging materials in
conventional antifouling paints has led to more use on full size vessels, and it is interesting to note that
most of the limitations mentioned earlier can be overcome. This was especially the case in the 1990’s
with fast ferries.

FIGURE 8

In one interesting case, a twin hulled catamaran design ferry was coated with organo tin
polishing antifouling on one hull and silicone elastomer on the other. In practice it was found that the
silicone elastomer suffered less mechanical damage and was more intact after 12 months than the
organo tin copolymer antifouling.

Figures 9 and 10 below are a number of examples of applications to marine vessels, showing
absence of animal or plant fouling with generally only easily removable slime, and also the ease of
removal.

-6-
 FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10

Figure 11 shows the surfaces of freshly applied polishing antifouling and silicone elastomer
antifouling, and also how much smoother the silicone elastomer inherently is due to the flexible
backbone of the polymer allowing the polymer chain to adopt the lowest surface energy configuration.

FIGURE 11

Figure 12(5) also gives a measure of the smoothness of the silicone elastomer surface when
compared to conventional antifoulings.

FIGURE 12

-7-
 As mentioned earlier, the low surface energy prevents good adhesion of animal fouling such as
barnacles. Figure 13(6) shows measurements of barnacle adhesion over an immersion period of 7
years. It can clearly be seen that there is no decrease in surface efficiency (i.e. increase in surface to
surface energy) over this period.

FIGURE 13

As can be seen from Figure 13, adhesion of barnacles to silicone elastomer is typically 8-10 psi,
with pure epoxies the figure is typically around 200 psi.

Figure 14 illustrates the ease with which barnacles can be removed.

FIGURE 14

Application on to various offshore structures, both fixed production and subsea, has taken place
since 1989, primarily in the North Sea, but also in Australia, covering both caissons, subsea structures
and submerged steelwork.

-8-
 Examples have been on the Heidrun platform in Norway (1993-94), where the risers were
coated with an anti-corrosive system followed by silicone elastomer in order to prevent the need for
additional reinforcing structural steel, which would have been needed to allow for the effect of wave
action on the larger area of fouled risers.

Earlier than this (1992), the jacket on the Brage platform in Norway was coated.

Water inlets have been coated in a number of countries, including UAE, Germany and UK.
Most work has been undertaken in the UK.

Offshore structures off NW Australia has been inspected by divers after 3 years and the weld
nodes that were treated with silicone elastomer have been easily cleaned for inspection, whereas the
remaining area has fouling almost impossible to remove. Areas coated from a few hundred square
meters up to 8,000 square meters on one project, reports to date all suggest silicone elastomer is
performing as would be expected.

From the above it is clear that long-term performance can be achieved on fixed structures,
supporting the conclusions drawn from all of the earlier laboratory testing and trialling.

However, there was still a need to address the issue of how to apply in the case of a larger
floating structure, such as an FPSO. Concern here is for the possible elastomer contamination of
surfaces not to be coated with the elastomer, as with for example, silicone oils or other low energy
materials, conventional coatings will not adhere well to such contamination. In many new construction
situations there can be more than one vessel in the dry dock, so contamination potentially becomes a
real problem and there are possible difficulties in painting at the block stage because of the nature of
the material. A method of working around this problem has been achieved by coating the vessel with
one coat of tin-free antifouling in the dry dock, fitting out, then redocking in another dry dock containing
only the vessel to be coated. The surface, which is still in good condition is then cleared down, any
minor touch-up undertaken, to give a smooth substrate suitable for application of a low surface energy
system. A special sealer coat is then applied over the antifouling, which allows application of the
silicone elastomer tie coat, which is then overcoated with the silicone elastomer low energy surface
coating.

This approach has worked well to date with a vessel coated in this way performing well in the
North Sea for the past 3 years. An example is shown in Figure 15.

FIGURE 15

-9-
 CONCLUSION

The performance limitations of conventional ‘eroding’ or ‘polishing’ antifoulings have been

described and the inability of these type of materials to function correctly in a static or low water
movement situation, due to an inability to consistently replenish the toxic surface with new active
material as water movement is insufficient to remove surface material. An alternative approach has
been discussed utilizing a low energy surface silicone elastomer. In excess of 20 years laboratory and
field experience has categorically shown the effectiveness of the non-toxic easily cleaned surface for
long term fouling control.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the help given by Professor C.D. Anderson of International Marine Coatings.

REFERENCES

(1) TBT SPC Patent; Milne, A. and Hails, G. (1974); GB Patent 1 457 590 (3 April 1974).

(2) International Maritime Organization (2001); “International Convention on Control of Harmful

Antifouling Systems on Ships”, 25 October 2001, http://www.imo.org.

(3) Intersleek Patent; Milne, A. (1976); GB Patent 1 470 465 (19 January 1976).

(4) Brady, R. F. And Singer, I. L. (2000); “Mechanical Factors Favoring Release from Fouling
Release Coatings”; Biofouling, 15, pp. 73-81.

(5) Candries, M. (2001); “Drag, Boundary-Layer and Roughness Characteristics of Marine

Surfaces Coated with Antifoulings”, PhD Thesis, Department of Marine Technology, University
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; http://www.geocities.com/maxim candries/.

(6) Swain, G., Anil, A. C., Baier, R. E., Chia, F.-S., Conte, E., Cook, A., Hadfield, M., Haslbeck, E.,
Holm, E., Kavanagh, C., Kohrs, D., Kovach, B., Lee, C., Mazella, L., Meyer, A. E., Qian, P.-Y.,
Sawant, S. S., Schultz, M., Sigurdsson, J., Smith, C., Soo, L., Terlizzi, A., Wagh, A.,
Zimmerman, R. and Zupo, V. (2000); “Biofouling and Barnacle Adhesion Data for Fouling-
Release Coatings Subjected to Static Immersion at Seven Marine Sites”, Biofouling, Vol. 16, pp.
331-344.

- 10 -