Life Cycle Predictions for Coating Systems

Lauren Krogh, Jim Ellor P.E., and J. Peter Ault, P.E.,

Elzly Technology Corporation, Reston, VA

ABSTRACT
In-service coating performance data is often collected in an effort to predict coating life
expectancy and time to failure. Having a general knowledge of coating life expectancy
has many benefits, such as being able to project future maintenance requirements, pri-
oritize repairs, estimate the impact of application parameters on the coating life, and
quantify the risk of deferred maintenance. The DoD maintenance communities benefit
from knowing which assets are a priority for repair as well as the performance factors
influencing coating life. Such data should also be used to asses the design of new
equipment.

The following paper addresses how to use engineering data to illustrate a coating life
cycle and subsequent materiel degradation. Based on the user’s definition of failure for
the asset at hand, a coating life can be defined. This process includes looking at mul-
tiple factors that influence the degradation of coatings and the asset.

KEY WORDS
Life cycle, prediction, coating life expectancy, coating failure, color change, substrate
corrosion, time-to-failure, incubation time

INTRODUCTION
One of the questions often asked / considered when selecting a coating system for an
asset is, “How long is this coating going to last?” Unfortunately, this is a very difficult
question to answer and the response will often vary depending on the source. For in-
stance, a paint salesman and a coatings chemist may have drastically different an-
swers, as they each have a different perspective of the situation. The problem is that
neither of these responses may be applicable to the current situation. The only way to
get a suitable answer to this question is to be honest about the coating expectations
and define what constitutes a coating failure.

There are two important concepts in defining coating failure. First, the definition should
be asset-specific. Take an aircraft and a trailer for example. The coating “failure crite-
ria” for a trailer may have a greater allowance for degradation than that for an aircraft
because trailers are routinely scuffed and scratched in their normal use. On the other
hand, an aircraft will have little degradation allowance as its coating failure criteria due
to various concerns including airframe corrosion. If the aircraft criteria were applied to
the trailer, it would result in unnecessarily increased labor and maintenance costs.
However, if the trailer criteria were applied to the aircraft, the aircraft could lose functio-
nality. Therefore, it is important to consider the specific asset at hand when defining
coating failure. The second concept is that the failure definition should specify an objec-
tive performance criterion. Choose performance criteria which is most important to the
situation and tailor the definition accordingly. Some examples of performance criteria

1
include color/gloss retention, coating adhesion, cutback and structural corrosion subse-
quent to coating deterioration. Once a performance criteria is chosen, set a limit as to
what is acceptable. Only after establishing performance criteria and a failure point can
one move forward to predicting the coating life expectancy.

Once a performance criterion and a failure point are set, predicting the coating life for a
specific asset can be derived through a review of coating and corrosion data applicable
to the coating, equipment, and exposure environment (service) combinations of con-
cern. Simple statistical techniques will allow for the analysis of this data and prediction
coating performance. This will aid in predicting what percentage of an asset is going to
fail at a particular time, how often the asset is going to need maintenance, and the type
of corrosion maintenance that the system is likely to require. All of these will aid in pre-
serving and sustaining our assets to their full life potentials.

Predicting Coating Life Cycles

The life cycle of a coating is best evaluated by analysis of in-service exposure and eval-
uation of the structures of interest for coating breakdown and other relevant phenomena
(e.g., substrate corrosion). These evaluations can be supported or extended with la-
boratory or standard exposure data. Accurate in-service data can provide a meaningful
time to failure. This time can be established regardless of whether the failure point is
based on single or multiple performance criteria.

The first step is to establish the behavior of the coating system over time concerning the
performance criteria of interest. Depending on the performance criteria, there may be
several phenomena to illustrate in the coating performance timeline. Consider an asset
where the failure point is defined by a given amount of structural metal loss and that this
asset is coated for protection. The first phenomena or performance criteria to illustrate
is the time for the formation of initial coating holidays: an “incubation period.” The
second performance criteria would be substrate corrosion following the formation of
these holidays. Combining data for these two phenomena gives a full picture on the life
cycle of a coating. It should also provide a time estimate for repairing the coating to
avoid the risk of substantial structural damage.

The following three case-studies illustrate how these life cycles may be developed.

Single Performance Criterion; Coating Color Change

As an example of modeling life cycle with a single performance criterion, let’s take a
look at color change. Paint color is of particular importance to the Department of De-
fense (DoD) as it supports camouflage requirements. To visualize how color changes
can have a failure point, refer to Figure 1 which illustrates color change for a standard
haze gray color. Color change is quantified by standard methods (ASTM E 308—
“Standard Practice for Computing the Colors of Objects by Using the CIE System”).
The figure shows a haze gray background and different color shifts in the foreground.
In the figure the shifts are in a single element of the tri-axial color-space at one time.
The cumulative value of the shifts are a ΔE of 1, 2, 3, and 5 moving from left to right in
the figure. The three axis of the color-space represent light to dark (+L to –L), red to

2
green (+a to –a), and yellow to blue (+b to –b). In reality a ΔE of any value can be a
combination of a change in one or more of these parameters.

Figure 1: Color Shift In Haze Gray Coatings

It can be seen that as the ΔE changes, the color varies greatly. Too much of a color
shift could render the paint useless. In order to avoid large color shifts, some specifica-
tions define a failure point as a ΔE of + 2.0. Using a ΔE of + 2.0 as the failure point, it is
possible to seek out applicable in-service performance data for color change and de-
termine a time to coating failure.

In one published example of coating color change1 data were developed for color
change versus time for four MIL-Spec coatings exposed in Arizona and Florida for up to
97 weeks. Figure 2 presents the change in color over the exposure period for the four
coating systems averaged for the two exposure sites.

Figure 2: Change in Color vs. Time for Mil-Spec Polyurethane Coatings

3
Figure 3 uses this same dataset and shows a plot of the time to a color change equal to
a ΔE of 2.0 for each of the 4 coatings in each of two locations—eight data points. As
shown in the plot the data range from 0.4 years to 3 years for nominally 10% to 90% of
the population.

MIL-Spec Polyurethane Color Change vs. Time

LSXY Estimates-Complete Data
Table of S tatistics
P robability D ensity F unction Weibull
S hape 1.54324
0.45 90 S cale 1.61551
M ean 1.45366
50 S tD ev 0.961515
0.30

P er cent
M edian 1.27399
P DF

IQ R 1.27572
10 F ailure 8
0.15 C ensor 0
A D* 1.607
C orrelation 0.979
0.00 1
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 0.1 1.0 10.0
Y ear s to Failur e Y ear s to Failur e

S urv iv al F unction H azard F unction

100
1.5
P er cent

1.0
Rate

50

0.5

0 0.0
0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5
Y ear s to Failur e Y ear s to Failur e

Figure 3: Probability Distribution for Time to Failure (ΔE of 2.0) for

Mil-Spec Polyurethanes

The data were subject to a least squares regression against a Weibull distribution func-
tion. The pertinent statistics for this analysis are displayed in the figure. From the sur-
vival function plot in Figure 3, one can see that with our failure point of a ΔE of 2.0, 50%
of these polyurethanes will fail within ~ 1.5 years. These distributions allow for the
compilation of a time to failure for any given percentage of exposures for this coating
system.

Using this information, the maintenance planner can identify as a function of time what
percentage of their fleet will require repainting for color / camouflage reasons. From
this, planners can then nominate assets for painting based on priorities, such as active
duty requirements or to make the most efficient use of their facilities (e.g., if using a mo-
bile repaint service for reserve units, this data suggests scheduling painting every 2-3
years minimizes mobilization costs per asset).

Two Sequential Performance Criteria: Coating Breakdown Followed by Substrate

Corrosion
After having seen an example of defining a coating life timeline which includes only a
single criterion, the next step is to look at another common scenario in which two criteria
can be combined to give a full overview of the coating life cycle. Consider a seawater

4
ballast tank which is coated to mitigate the structural loss of steel. One performance
criterion is the breakdown of the coating. The other is the corrosion of the underlying
substrate. The failure point cannot be defined as the point in time for the first occur-
rence of coating breakdown—the first area of rusting. This may occur shortly after
launch. The real concern might be predicting the cumulative occurrence of coating fail-
ure followed by substrate corrosion.

Performance Criterion I – Coating Degradation

The failure rate of coatings in ballast tanks can be determined from in-service data. As
an example, the Navy maintains an extensive database concerning the condition of its
tanks for surface ships. This data provide a basis for estimating the time until break-
down of the coating first occurs. In a report2 concerning the analysis of this data, the
variation in time to reach a specific failure point for recoating was determined. Data
were also developed to illustrate the probable increases or decreases in additional coat-
ing degradation before or after the time to reach the specific failure point of interest.
The data shows a variation in the degree of degradation over time and were regressed
backwards in time to arrive at the time of “initial” coating degradation—basically an es-
timate of the time at which the most sensitive inspection protocol indicated any coating
deterioration. Figure 4 shows the resulting distribution of this data, again fit to a Weibull
statistical model. Multiple data are available from the large number of data points in the
database.

Distribution Overview Plot for Incubation Time

LSXY Estimates-Arbitrary Censoring
Table of S tatistics
P robability Density F unction Weibull
S hape 1.73550
0.15
S cale 5.63109
90
M ean 5.01763
50 S tDev 2.98154
0.10
M edian 4.55907
P er cent
P DF

IQ R 4.05047
10 A D* 1.839
0.05
C orrelation 0.923

0.00 1
0 5 10 15 1 10
Incubation T ime Incubation T ime

S urv iv al F unction H azard F unction

100 0.6

0.4
P er cent

Rate

50

0.2

0
0.0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Incubation T ime Incubation T ime

Figure 4: Distribution of Time to Initial Degradation for Tank Coatings (Incubation

Time)

5
This analysis of coating breakdown shows that after 5 years in service more than half of
the coatings will have begun to deteriorate. It also shows that the coatings are likely to
begin to deteriorate at about 4 years, yet a small fraction may last beyond 10 years be-
fore starting to deteriorate. The parameters for the Weibull distribution (the Shape and
Scale factors) dictate all of the parameters of these data plots.

Performance Criterion II - Corrosion Rate

Using data from the specific environment in which an asset will operate allows for the
compilation of a corrosion timeline. The current example looks at a steel tank. This
analysis is aided by the large volume of work on the corrosion rate of steel in seawater.
R.E. Melchers provides one such model where corrosion is broken down into four dis-
tinct phases with varying rates3. In this model, Melchers reinterprets much of the earlier
data (in the literature) and provides for estimated parameters for this model.

For our current purposes, we choose to simplify the Melchers model and simply focus
on the short term and longer term steady state corrosion rates. The initial corrosion
rates (for times ~ < 3 years), are approximated to be from 0.09 to 0.31 mm/yr. Melchers
reports the longer term corrosion rate to range from 0.05 to 0.125 mm/yr. In knowing
these values, it is possible to start to put together a timeline for metal loss corrosion for
times less than and greater than 3 years.

Combining Coating Breakdown and Corrosion Rate

To estimate the total expected metal loss for an asset, combine the probability density
function derived for the first coating breakdown with the subsequent corrosion rate. The
corrosion rates can be obtained from Melchers’ work, though simplified somewhat.

To reduce the complexity of Melchers data and modeling, it is possible to use two cor-
rosion rates—(1) an initial corrosion rate for the first three years of exposure and (2) a
corrosion rate beyond three years. Using Melchers’ data from a variety of seawater ex-
posure conditions, Figure 5 was constructed to show histograms of these corrosion da-
ta.

6
 Initial Corrosion Rates < ~ 3 years Corrosion Rates > ~ 3 Years
Melchers (Ro) Melchers (Rs)

30
Mean 0.0733
20
Mean 0.1846 StDev 0.02455
StDev 0.06646 N 10
25
N 14

15
20

Percent
Percent

15
10

10

5
5

0 0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
r01 rs1

Figure 5: Histograms of Corrosion Rate Data, Steel in Seawater before and after
3 Years

Assuming that these corrosion rates begin following the initial breakdown of the coating,
combine three elements in a Monte Carlo model4. These elements are the time to coat-
ing breakdown (Figure 4) and the probable corrosion rates (Figure 5). In the Monte
Carlo model, a random number generator function was used to select a time to coating
breakdown following the equations predicted by Figure 4. Using a second random
number, a corrosion rate for the first three years after the first coating breakdown was
selected from the histogram in Figure 5 (left chart); for times extending beyond 3 years,
a second corrosion rate was determined from Figure 5 (right chart). The author as-
sumes a total service time of 15 years. The total corrosion time is thus 15 years less
the incubation time. The total corrosion is the corrosion rate for the time period times
the exposure time in the < 3 year region and the > 3 year region. Obviously for expo-
sures less than 3 years (beyond coating breakdown), there is only one contribution to
the model. Figure 6 shows the results of this model.

7
 Predicted General Corrosion Rate - 15 Years Ballast Tank
16

14

12

10
Percent

0
0 1 2 3
Total Corrosion - mm (1 mm = 40 mils)

Figure 6: Predicted Total Corrosion Rate for Seawater Ballast Tank at 15 Years

As a point of practical comparison, Paik presented data on metal loss measurements on

seawater ballast tanks for ocean-going tankers and bulk carriers4. A total of 1937 mea-
surements were made on bottom and side shell plates. The data were obtained using
an ultrasonic tool—each data point representing the average of several readings in a
specific area. The data therefore (seem to) represent an average corrosion rate and not
a maximum pit depth.

Figure 7 shows the data obtained and plotted in this paper (as the author’s Figure 2).
As is noted, there is a considerable spread in the data sets. The data for the 15 year
data are of particular interest.

8
 Figure 7: Corrosion Depth vs. Ship Age – Seawater Ballast Tanks

Figure 8 is the 15 year graph from the upper left quadrant of Figure 7 compared to the
values predicted by the above analysis (Figure 6).

Predicted General Corrosion Rate - 15 Years Ballast Tank

16

14

12

10
Percent

0
0 1 2 3
Total Corrosion - mm (1 mm = 40 mils)

Figure 8: Comparison of Actual Measured vs. Predicted Corrosion in Seawater

Ballast Tanks at 15 Years

While the agreement is not perfect, the ranges of expected corrosion are similar. Per-
haps the predicted cumulative corrosion damage (for Navy ships) is somewhat more
than is experienced on the commercial side, though commercial ballast tanks may op-
erate at different filling cycles than the ballast tanks on Navy. Of course there are other
potential differences—the influences of which can be both positive and negative.

9
Pragmatically, the analysis seems to put a maintenance engineer into the correct range
of expected corrosion.
If the failure point for the ballast tanks is substantially less than corrosion of 2-3 mm
(maximum), then the coatings need to be replaced at an interval much less than 15
years.

Two Mixed Performance Criteria: Crevice Corrosion and Coating Failure

The last example includes examining a situation where the performance criteria of inter-
est are co-mingled. In this example, we consider a crevice formed when a metal panel
is skip-welded into a frame to form the side of a trailer—a trailer of the type that might
be used by the Marine Corps or Army to transport war materiel. Certain types of these
trailers can suffer from corrosion along these joints. Most often these joints represent
the welding of two sections of steel to each other. In the resultant product, the steel
area within the crevice cannot be coated. Figure 9 shows an example of the problem.

Figure 9: Example of Skip-Welding Creating a Crevice (left) and Crevice

Corrosion (right) after Years of Service

The pertinent data of interest would be the corrosion rate of steel within this crevice
joint. From work performed as part of an ongoing study5,6, the corrosion occurring with-
in uncoated crevices exposed to marine environments was studied. This study showed
that the nominal corrosion rates for steel in such tight crevices ranged from ~ 2 to 14
mpy in one year, from 5 to 20+ mpy in two years, and generally exceeded 20 mpy after
three years. The maximum corrosion rate that could be measured was 20 mpy. Figure
10 provides a picture of the test samples after three year exposure. The figure on the
left is the steel test coupon; the figure on the right shows the initial configuration.

10
 Figure 10: Crevice Corrosion Samples after 3-Years Marine Exposure

This data can be compared to the experience of the USMC with trailers in the harsh ma-
rine environment of Okinawa, Japan. The USMC Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program Office maintains an extensive database of inspection data on the variety of
ground vehicles and associated tactical assets fielded at different Marine Expeditionary
Force sites. One of the corrosion phenomena that are tracked in this database is the
presence of crevice corrosion. The severity of the crevice attack observed is rated on a
five point scale. The specific ratings of our particular interest are the onset of corrosion
in the crevice (as evidenced by weeping of corrosion products), slight corrosion attack
around the crevice, and eventual structural deterioration. Within the USMC nomencla-
ture these are labeled as condition 2, 3, and 4 deterioration. Table 1 provides the data
for trailer crevice corrosion since the date of trailer manufacture.

Table 1: Crevice Corrosion Category vs. Time (Trailers in Okinawa)

Trailers Number of Defects in Pop- Number of Percent of Population Af-

ulation Samples fected
in Popula-
tion
Rat- 4 3 2 4 3 2
ing→
Age↓
1 0 1 11 73 0% 1% 15%
2 0 7 28 124 0% 6% 23%
3 0 1 8 21 0% 5% 38%
4 0 3 1 27 0% 11% 4%

11
5 1 4 1 17 6% 24% 6%

From this table it is possible to see that older trailers are more likely to have a higher
rating (higher degree of corrosion). As a high percentage of assets corrode enough to
become category 3 and 4, fewer assets are left as category 2. From this a timeline can
be created which states that by the end of year 1, 15% of the trailers will be assessed
as being in category 2.

Consider that the nominal shell thickness for these multiple classes of trailer may be in
the range of 50 to 100 mils and that in an unprotected condition 20+ mils of corrosion
can occur in 2 to 3 years, the occurrence of the loss of a structural joint (rating of 4) in
6% of the assets in 5 years is not surprising. The fact that it is not higher than 6% is
probably the positive impact of the coatings or other preservatives that were added over
the years. But again, if the failure point is to maintain structural integrity for 5+ years,
the corrosion rate data would have suggested that additional corrosion prevention is
needed to stop corrosion over this timeframe.

Knowing the percentage of the population that may achieve the failure condition (here
6%) the operating unit can then analyze the costs to improve the corrosion resistance of
all of its trailers to meet the five year requirement versus the cost to replace 6% of its
fleet every 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS
It is possible to predict coating life cycles through the creation of a timeline to failure. To
do so the following steps must be taken:

1. Set asset specific, objective failure criteria based on desired performance cha-
racteristics.

2. Develop a model of the corrosion process of interest which addresses the per-
formance characteristics of concern.

3. Obtain in-service data relating to the coating system and environment to which
the asset is going to be exposed. The data must reflect (measure) the perfor-
mance characteristics of interest (e.g., coating degradation and corrosion rate).

4. Use simple statistical modeling to predict the life span of the coating.

REFERENCES

1. Escarsega, Lum, Patterson, Whitt, Army Research Laboratory, “Mechanisms of Mili-

tary Coatings Degradation: Accelerated and Outdoor Exposure Evaluations,” Septem-
ber 2003
2. Ellor, J & Savell,T., “Lifetime Estimation of Surface Ship Tank and Void Coating
Systems,” Technical Report to NSWC-CD, April 2008

12
3. Melchers, R.E. “Modeling of Marine Immersion Corrosion for Mild and Low-Alloy
Steels,” Corrosion, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 319-334, 2003
4. Paik, Thayamballi, Park, Hwang, “A Time-Dependent Corrosion Wastage Model for
Seawater Ballast Tank Structures of Ships”, Corrosion Science 46 (2004) pp. 471-486
5. Repp, J. & I. Handsy “Corrosion Evaluation of Army and Automotive Materials in
Hawaii – Year Three Update,”, SAE Conference, 2008-08B-298
6. Elzly Technology Corporation report to TACOM, “Engineering Support to the
PRCRP,” W56HZV-06-P-L647, September 2008

13