IN SITU STUDY OF THE PARAMETERS QUANTIFYING THE CORROSION IN BALLAST

TANKS AND AN EVALUATION OF IMPROVING ALTERNATIVES

Capt. K. De Baere Mrs. H. Verstraelen

Antwerp Maritime Academy Antwerp Maritime Academy
Noordkasteel Oost 6 Noordkasteel Oost 6
2000 Antwerp 2000 Antwerp
Belgium Belgium

L. Lemmens, Phd S. Lenaerts, Phd

University of Antwerp University of Antwerp
Groenenborgerlaan 171 Groenenborgerlaan 171
2020 Antwerp 2020 Antwerp
Belgium Belgium

G. Potters, Phd
University of Antwerp
Groenenborgerlaan 171
2020 Antwerp
Belgium

ABSTRACT

An in situ study of more than 100 ballast tanks of merchant marine vessels looks to the
corrosion process in these tanks from another perspective. The developed corrosion model
shows major similarities with earlier studies based on laboratory experiments.
The field work exposes the influence of ship construction parameters such as land of
construction, coating type and the presence of sacrificial anodes on the corrosion process in
the ballast tanks. Possible alternatives for vessels constructed with ordinary grade A steel and
coated according to IMO PSPC standards are presented, even though further research is
required to come to final conclusions.

Key words:
Merchant marine, ballast tanks, corrosion, coating, sacrificial anodes, in situ study
 ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA: Analysis Of Variance

ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials
BOD biological oxygen demand
BOF: Bijzonder Onderzoeks Fonds : Research fund from the Flemish Government
CI: Corrosion index
COD: chemical oxygen demand
CRS: Corrosion Resistant Steel
DC: Direct Current
IACS: International Association of Class Societies
IMO: International Maritime Organization
KdG: Karel De Grote college of higher education
MARPOL: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
NKK: Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
OBO: Oil Bulk Ore
OCAS: Research centre for steel applications, based in Belgium. It is a joint venture between
the Flemish Region and ArcelorMittal.
PSPC: Performance Standards for Protective coatings
TSCF: Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum
VLCC: Very Large Crude Carrier

INTRODUCTION

The degradation of metallic surfaces due to atmospheric corrosion is a well-known problem for
many exposed steel structures such as bridges, storage tanks and pipelines. Bringing
seawater into this equation causes an even more aggressive environment, and an increased
corrosion effect.
Merchant navy vessels sail across the worlds oceans and in the absence of cargo or when the
ship is only partly loaded, she carries seawater in het ballast tanksto ensure maneuverability
and to control draft, stress and stability. As necessary as ballast tanks are for the operation of
a ship, though, the fact that they are prone to corrosion poses a distinct problem for a ship.

First of all, corrosion is expensive. For the U.S. economy alone, the 1998 cost of corrosion
amounted to $275.7 billion/year1. Production interruptions, incidents and repairs provoked
these economic losses. On board of a ship these elements were boosted by the omnipresent
safety aspect.

Moreover, the problem of ballast tank corrosion was exacerbated by the introduction of the
double hull tanks. In 1989 the Exxon Valdez polluted Prince William Sound and consequently
the USA government imposed a new ship design for all tankers carrying oil in US territorial
waters, called double hull. IMO followed a few years later and the double hull design became
obligatory by the MARPOL convention in 1993 for newly built ships
The purpose of this design was to protect the cargo tanks with a double barrier, to increase
ship safety and to minimize pollution in case of a calamity. Indeed, today, all tankers (and most
other vessels as well) have their ballast tanks wrapped around the cargo tanks, serving as a
protective barrier. To facilitate tank washing and maintenance, all structural elements were
excluded from the cargo tanks and transferred to the ballast tanks, resulting in very unfriendly
labyrinth-like structures. On the other hand, all the stiffening elements concentrated in the
ballast tanks make them very difficult to access and to be kept shipshape. Even more so -
reality proves that maintenance of ballast tanks does almost not exist. Chipping, grit blasting
and airless paint spaying in these enclosed spaces is cumbersome and very expensive.

Recent studies 2, 3 show corrosion algorithms and functions, given a generalized corrosion
model. All these models are the result of prolonged laboratory studies. In this paper, the
opposite approach has been followed. Taking advantage of our geographical position in the
centre of the international port of Antwerp, we have surveyed a number of ships to assess the
corrosion damage in situ. With the help of Antwerp Ship Repair, and many cooperative
management companies and ships crews, we were able to perform in situ inspections in the
ballast tanks of more than hundred vessels, selected at random without interfering in their
commercial activities. By doing so, we have been able to test a number of predictions based
on the lab results.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Data collection
One hundred ships were surveyed with the aid of a self-designed standard data form. All ships
arriving at Antwerp Ship Repair which could be surveyed without interfering with normal ship
operations were visited and examined, ensuring that the set of ships we examined was
randomized as much as possible. The information collected included general data such as the
country of construction, the trading area and the flag state, as well as more detailed tank
information such as coating type, application date, the presence of anodes and the ballast
frequency. Overview and detailed photos of the tank condition were taken on the different
levels. In order to ensure a maximum uniformity in the observations, detailed procedures were
established.

In situ corrosion quantification

Quantifying the corrosion in a given ballast tank in situ was performed visually. Automated
measuring techniques encompassing the totality of a tank are, to our knowledge, non-existent.
On the other hand, as assessing the amount of degradation within these confines can only be
performed by means of estimation, it is inherently subjective. In order to limit this inherent
subjectivity, an assessment scale was used, which itself was based on the scale of the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) 4. The scale consists out of a
number of diagrams representing a certain percentage of scattered and/or localized corrosion
ranging from 0.1% to 100% surface failure. These diagrams allow a fast visual comparison
with the situation in the tank and make a more objective quantification of the corrosion feasible.
This assessment scale is worldwide accepted by all classification societies, marine coating
suppliers and surveyors.

According the IACS standard, a tank condition can be divided into 3 categories: GOOD, FAIR
and POOR (table 1)6. When it comes to general ship assessment, this division offers an
elegant and practical evaluation method. GOOD means that the tanks are in an acceptable
condition and inspection is only required during the regular dry-docks; FAIR entails an
expensive annual re-examination; POOR is condition that is simply unacceptable. Such a
methodology, albeit with the major classification societies all using slight variations of the IACS
standard, has the general advantage of offering a global uniform system.
However, this subdivision did not fully support the aims in this study and the categories were
too wide to allow for in-depth analysis. Therefore, the IACS system was refined by using a new
corrosion index (CI). As explained by Verstraelen et al (2009a) 6, CI is obtained by weighing
the percentage of local and scattered corrosion on flat surfaces, the percentage of corrosion
on edges and welds and the percentage of scale rust. The result is that the total condition of
the tank can be represented by one figure. Moreover, the use of a tenfold scale made a more
detailed interpretation possible. For future comparison, the IACS assessment was noted for
each sample as well, and indicated on the relevant figures.

Chemical analysis
To complete the inspection of the tank, samples were taken of the mud and, if present, slime.
PO43-, NH4, NO2-, NO3-, SO42-, S2-, and Cl- ions were measured using standard Hach-Lange
water quality tests. In parallel, chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and the pH were recorded for every mud sample. A picture of the m around the sample
place was taken to have a recorded impression of the corrosion progression at the sample
area.

Statistical analysis

To give a general overview of the corrosion in the tanks that were investigated in this study,
the data were analyzed initially using a service life model that is based on two stages: an
initiation time and a propagation time for corrosion. A common linear model relation for the
propagation time is used, allowing for a rapid and accurate assessment of the kinetics of
structural failure of the average ballast tank7. Usage of the service life model in the time frame
we are operating in, also allows for the use of classical interferential statistics, such as a
straightforward ANOVA. Statistical analysis was performed with the open source package R
(for the logit transformation) and with EXCEL, using the built-in formulae and algorithms for the
calculation of the Student t-value and the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality. In the analysis the
linear relationship was assumed for all observations and the initiation time is determined by the
intercept with the time axis (4.5 years).

Of course, as the measured CI is a percentage, with a theoretical range between 0 and 100,
classic linear regression methods are not completely satisfying as their predictions are not
limited to this allowable range. Also, since severely corroded ships are systematically
demolished and so disappear out of the population, there is a bias towards structurally better
ships in the higher age ranges, causing also a deviation of a straight line (as the service model
generates). Therefore we opted for an approach that is complementary to the service model
approach, by transforming the data using a generalized linear model8, 9. This transformation
was done by way of the logit-function:

CI
logit (CI ) = ln
100 CI (Eq. 1)

In order to use this model, the ships with a CI of 0 had to be discarded as outliers.

Another important main assumption in this approach that guarantee the validity of all tests is
that the data utilised in the analyses follow a normal distribution, since we work with the
residuals (the difference between the observed values and the values that are predicted by the
linear model). Therefore, to start the analysis of the data, a check was performed on the
normality of the distribution of the CI in the residuals using both graphical (Kernel density
estimate) and non-graphical methods (Shapiro-Wilk test).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initially, the CI of all the visited ships was calculated and plotted on a scatter diagram in
function of the age of the vessel (t). Linear regression resulted in the following model7:

CI = 1.6817t 7.1449 (Eq. 2)

The coating could be observed to remain intact for the first 4.5 years, after which period
corrosion started to become visible. In the absence of any maintenance, the tank condition
deteriorated from good to fair after 10.4 years. After 22.1 years, the average tank had a poor
condition, no longer acceptable for further use. Another in situ investigation of 37 vessels,
done by Soerensen and Lang10 and the experiments done by Southwell et all (1979)11,
Guesdes Soares & Garbatov (1999)12, Melchers (1999)3, Paik and Thayambali (2001)2 and
Ivanov (2004)13 show similar corrosion patterns.

To progress beyond the effect of time on the progression of corrosion, the average deviation
from the service life model was calculated for each data point and these deviations were
subjected to an ANOVA analysis of the residuals. The main assumption in this approach to
guarantee the validity of the ANOVA is that these differences follow a normal distribution.
Based on a Shapiro-Wilk test (P=0.07), the null hypothesis of a normal distribution could not be
rejected (data not shown). In parallel, the approach through the generalized linear model was
used to corroborate the outcome. Both analyses demonstrate that none of the variables such
as type of coating, trading area, country of construction, type of the ship or its length have
significant effects on the progression of corrosion.14

About one third of the tanks had sacrificial anodes to protect the tank structure after coating
failure. The use of anodes to counteract the degradation of metal structures is built upon very
sound physical foundations15. In principle, cathodic protection occurs upon connecting the
metal to be protected to an external anode made of a less noble metal, i.e. usually zinc,
leading to the formation of an electrical DC current so that all areas of the metal surface
become cathodic and therefore do not corrode. The galvanic anode will be sacrificed, its
material being consumed until, eventually it must be replaced. When present, in all cases the
anodes had been installed at the time of the ships construction.

To investigate the usefulness of sacrificial anodes, a generalized linear model was fitted to the
data subsets, divided according to the presence of an anode. Surprisingly, as demonstrated in
figure 2, there was no significant difference between both subpopulations. The grey zone
surrounding each of the trend lines denotes the 5% confidentiality interval, allowing for a
statistical inference analysis of the data. The overlapping of these zones, along the entire
length of the curve, indicates that there is no significant difference in terms of corrosion
progression between tanks that are equipped with anodes and tanks that are not. For further
analysis, the tanks were not only divided according to the presence of anodes, but,
supplementary-, also according to the wetness regime of the tanks. Tanks always dry are
filled less than 5% of the time, wet/dry means they are partly or completely filled between 5%
and 75% of the time and the tanks defined wet contain ballast more than 75% of the time. In
the category always dry, there were only 5 ships available, none of these ships had sacrificial
anodes installed, hence this category was statistical not significant and was excluded from
further analysis. The ANOVA indicates as well that there is no significant difference between
the different categories (P=0.44).The average differences (and their standard errors) are
represented in figure 3. The histogram gives the average deviation from the standard corrosion
curve, with and without anodes.

To explain this unexpected result, a number of hypotheses can be raised. Firstly, anodes work
only when immersed in the electrolyte. In a ballast tank this means that the effective time is
reduced with 50%, as the tank is being emptied and refilled on a regular basis. However,
anodes need a settling time of 24 to 48 hours before generating an adequate current density20.
This means that on short ballast voyages they become less effective. Furthermore, anodes
should be kept clean, which is, according to our observations, is often not the case.
Additionally, although the quantity and the positioning of anodes should be adapted to the
condition of the tank, no evidence of this policy could be noted. Lastly, an anode that is
effective shows evidence of this activity. Material disappears and the surface becomes rough.
Most of the anodes we observed in the tanks were either still intact after many years of service
or showed evidence of overworking.

Scatter diagrams of the corrosion index in function of the different chemical parameters were
drawn. It was obvious that the distribution was not normal and consequently linear regression
could not be applied.

Poisson regression was tried. A large chi-square value indicated that the Poisson regression
was not a good choice. The analysis was run again using negative binomial regression and
also this approach was rejected based on over dispersion.

Finally zero-inflated Poisson regression was used because the number of zeros in the
database was significant. Satisfactory results were obtained. A significant relation could be
discovered between the corrosion index and the concentration chlorides and the pH of the
sample. This relation is amply described in the literature.

There might also be a substantial influence of the steel quality to the corrosion rate. Steel for
hull construction is usually mild steel containing 0.15 to 0.23 per cent carbon, and a reasonably
high manganese content. Both sulphur and phosphorus in the mild steel are kept to a minimum
(less than 0.05 per cent). Higher concentrations of both are detrimental to the welding
properties of the steel and cracks can develop during the rolling process if the sulphur content
is high.
At present there are 5 different qualities of steel employed in merchant ship construction,
referred to as IACS steels. These grades are A, B, C, D and E. Following Lloyds Register
requirements, grade A steel is ordinary mild steel, grade B is a better quality mild steel than
grade A and specified where thicker plates are required in more critical regions. Grade C, D
and E possess increasing notch-tough a1 characteristics16. Though A, B, D and E steel grades
are not particularly corrosion resistant, they are commonly used for the production of hull
plates for ships, as they are cheap, easy to produce and relatively strong 1.

a
Notch-toughness: Measure for the expanding speed of cracks in steel
The mechanical properties of steel can be improved by adding small quantities of other
chemical elements that way High Strength Low Alloy grades have been developed18. These
high tensile steels are indicated by the classification societies by the addition of H following
the letter indicating the steel quality. These high tensile steel types are stronger than ordinary
steel grades but they certainly do not resist corrosion better. The addition of a small
concentration of chromium, nickel and copper improves corrosion resistance17, 19

For a ship builder it must be interesting to know the distinctive characteristics of the steel
influencing the rate of corrosion so he can take them into account when ordering the plates for
his next ship. Of course, since the quality of ship construction steel is determined by ASTM
standard A131 24 this should imply that the steel used at the different ship construction yards
all over the world is uniform and of the same composition. Further in-depth research should be
able to verify this hypothesis: 30 steel plates, taken from ships during repair work, have been
collected at Antwerp Ship Repair. These plates will be brought in a standard condition and
exposed to a number of individual tests to examine the corrosion rate of each individual plate.
4 measuring methods are selected: photographical measurement, ultrasonic measurement,
weight measurement and electrochemical measurement. In a next stage we will try to establish
a regression between the chemical and crystalline parameters and the observed corrosion
rate. The tests will be performed during a period of 12 months. Results can be expected at the
end of 2011.

The choice between the different alternatives to fight corrosion in ballast tanks must be
financially healthy. Our physical and statistical research was concluded with an economical
chapter.

An existing standard Panamax tanker20 with 51000m2 of ballast tanks was selected for the
analysis. Since the objective was to calculate the cost of corrosion in the ballast tanks only the
investment and the cost directly related to these tanks were taken into consideration. The
ballast tanks were simulated in 4 different ways. The initial investment was weighted against
the operational costs and the scrapping value of the ship after 25 years. A number of logical
decisions were taken in function of the way of construction and protection of the tank.
Table 2 gives an overview of the different solutions examined together with the assumptions. It
was supposed that the vessel was constructed in China and dry-docked in Bahrein21mainly
because of availability and completeness of relevant economical data.

Type I tanks are constructed in grade A steel, have a standard PSPC (Performance Standard
for Protective Coatings ) coating and are equipped with sacrificial anodes. For type II tanks the
corrosion allowance has been doubled avoiding steel replacement throughout the economical
lifetime of the ship. Type III tanks have an improved coating system with a 25 years guarantee.
Type IV tanks are constructed in corrosion resistant steel (CRS). Coating is only necessary
since it is required by IMO PSPC and the use of anodes becomes superfluous.

The steel quality referred to as corrosion resistant (CRS) in this text is an experimental steel
quality developed at present especially for use in ballast tanks. Thanks to the kindness of an
important steel manufacturer we possess a sample and know the exact chemical composition
of this steel grade. We are able to confirm that it is a new grade and differing considerably from
weathering steel qualities. Providing more details at this moment would be unethical.
Obviously CRS for use in ballast tanks is in an premature stage and a lot of testing is
necessary to make sure it lives up to the promises. An extensive testing program is running at
this moment at the Antwerp Maritime Acdemy in cooperation with OCAS, KdG and the
University of Antwerp comparing the corrosion characteristics of CRS with grade A and B steel
in controlled, true to life conditions.
Following parameters were considered: the initial investment being the new building cost, the
average quantity of steel replaced per dry-dock due to corrosion in function of the age of the
ship, the loss of income due to unemployment while in dry-dock, the price of recoating and the
replacement of sacrificial anodes.

Calculating the different presented cost corrosion models (figure 4) reveals some remarkable
conclusions. Type I and Type II are difficult to accept. Although Weber22 concluded that it was
4 to 14 times more expensive to replace corroded steel than to apply and maintain a coating
system, type II is heavily penalised by the loss of carrying capacity/freight due to an increased
light weight. A more intelligent tank design and the use of high tensile steel might resolve the
problem. For sake of uniformity this possibility is not further worked out.

Ballast tanks coated with TSCF 25 year coating system (type III) perform better since the dead
weight capacity remains intact. Under the express condition of correctness regarding the
obtained information in respect to prices and corrosion characteristics of the CRS we are
putting forward that constructing with these new steel types might be the most economical
solution. The advantage is caused mainly by low life cycle costs and a high residual value.

A sensibility study showed that the relative position of the models is independent of discount-
and inflation rate.

Figure 4 assumes an inflation rate of 6% and a discount rate of 4%.

Of course, corrosion fighting can be improved by simply designing better ballast tanks. The
draining of the tank should be optimized and areas where water and mud can accumulate
must be eliminated for as much as possible. IMO PSPC also emphasises the importance of
this constructive measures. A lot of attention is given to the preparation of the steel plates, the
rounding of the edges, the avoidance of unnecessary complex welds.

The University of Michigan and the Technical University of Delft each developed separately a
complete new ship design without ballast, other than for trim. The obligatory double barrier for
tankers can be kept dry. Also Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NKK), a Japanese Classification society
worked out a VLCC tanker with dry double hull spaces and segregated ballast tanks placed in
the centre of the ship between the cargo tanks. Another theoretical option is to fill the ballast
tanks with some kind of inert material or to have fixed ballast or to recycle ballast. The ideal
solution for ship owners is of course that his vessels carry cargo on every leg of the voyage
making ballast unnecessary. This idea was launched in the 1970s with the OBO carrier, but
although its design was good, the competition from specialized ships was far too important.
Today, there are new initiatives to bring the concept back alive, but they are still in an early
stage23.
 Table 1: Calculation method of CI.

G/F/P Corrosion Weighted Breakdown Breakdown Local Area of

index (CI) corrosion of coating of coating breakdown hard rust
in % or area or area of coating scale
rusted rusted or rust on
(Local) (Scattered) edges or
weld lines
Good 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Good 1 1.175% 0.5% 0.5% 5% 0%
Good 2 2.35% 1% 1% 10% 0%
Good 3 3.95% 2% 2% 15% 0%
Good 4 7.675% 3% 3% 20% 0%
Fair 5 10.5% 5% 5% 25% 1%
Fair 6 15,5% 10% 10% 30% 3%
Fair 7 25% 15% 15% 40% 5%
Poor 8 30% 20% 20% 45% 10%
Poor 9 34% 25% 25% 47.5% 12.5%
Poor 10 38% 30% 30% 50% 15%
Verstraelen et al. (2009b).

Table 2: Vessel types for life cycle cost.

Type I Type II Type III Type IV

Steel Grade A Grade A Grade A Corrosion
resistant
Coating system IMO PSPC IMO PSPC TSCF 25 1 white
estetical layer
Coating type Pure epoxy Pure epoxy Pure epoxy Pure epoxy
Anodes yes yes yes no
Replacement Every 5 years Every 5 Every 10 NA
anodes years years, due to
better coating
system
Coating yes yes yes yes
reconditioning
Plate yes NA NA 25 year NA corrosion
reconditioning doubling of coating system resistant steel
corrosion
allowances
 Figure 1: General corrosion model

Verstraelen et al. (2009b).

Figure 2: Effect of the presence of anodes (logit transformation)
Figure 3: Analysis of the impact of anodes

Figure 4: Cost of corrosion

 CONCLUSIONS

No person familiar with merchant navy ships will deny the importance of corrosion, both
directly on the structure of a ship, and indirectly on the profits to be made from its operation. A
better insight in the onset and progression of corrosion and innovative monitoring techniques
will enable an improved planned maintenance and enhance the security of ship and crew. A
better design will avoid important future expenses and improve the cost-effectiveness of the
ship.

Contrary to what could be predicted from the electrochemistry of a sacrificial anode system,
the data, gathered during in situ visits of at random selected ballast tanks, presented in this
article, throw some doubt on the reliability of such anodes. We do not question the efficiency of
sacrificial anodes in ballast tanks if properly installed and maintained. Our visual observations,
supported by the statistical interpretation of the data gathered do not show any significant
advantage of the use of these anodes. Most probably this is caused by the specific
environment- and construction-related characteristics of a ballast tank. Ballast tanks, especially
on board of double hull ships are becoming more and more complex making cathodic
protection increasingly difficult. Therefore, an intelligent construction and efficient coating
application at the ship building yard seems to be useful better solution than the application of
anodes.

No IMO or IACS regulation imposes the use of sacrificial anodes inside ballast tanks.
Consequently, flag state or classification societies do not conduct initial or regular inspections.
Since there are no rules and no inspection system a lot of liberty exists when installing the
anodic protection system on board.

Today, ships ballast tanks are constructed with ordinary grade A or AH steel, produced in
accordance with ASTM A131 / A131M 08 Standard Specification for Structural Steel for
Ships and isolated with an epoxy coating, following the IMO PSPC Standards, guaranteeing
an average coating life of 15 years, if applied correctly. With an economic life cycle of a vessel
around 25 years, this leaves the ships structure unprotected for 10 years. In addition, there are
several innovative solutions on the drawing board at the moment24, 25.

The customary way of constructing ships is no longer sufficient. Standard steel quality with a
coating that lasts 15 years is no longer acceptable, as the life span of the ship is 25 years.
Coating starts to fail after 5 years and the ballast tank condition is poor after 20 years. Three
options are open for further research:
1. Increase the plate thickness. Even when there is corrosion, the ship structural strength
is never affected, as the expanded corrosion allowance is large enough to cover 25
years. Of course the initial cost of the extra steel and the reduction in profit as a result of
the loss of cargo carrying capacity have to be taken into account.
2. Use of ordinary steel but with extra attention to the coating application. This means that
the steel preparation is done under ideal circumstances and with extra care. A third
coating layer is put on top to provide the necessary protection. The tank stays protected
for 25 years
3. Use of corrosion resistant steel for the ballast tanks. The cost of this steel is higher than
the ordinary grade A steel, but a part of this money can be recuperated because coating
is only applied for cosmetic reasons and, based on the prediction of the producers of
the corrosion resistant steel for ballast tanks, we suppose that these CRS plates will
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been funded by the BOF research fund of the Antwerp University Association.
The authors wish to thank specifically the captains, crews and managements of all visited
ships.
 REFERENCES

1. FHWA-RD-01-156, Corrosion Cost and Preventive Strategies in the United States

(Washington D.C. FHWA).

2. J.K. Paik, A.K. Thayamballi, Ultimate strength of ageing ships, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime
Environment 216 (2002): p. 57-77.

3. R.E. Melchers, Corrosion Modelling for Steel Structures, Journal of Constructional

Steel Research, 52 (1999a): p. 3-19.

4. IACS, Recommendation 87, Guidelines for coating maintenance & repairs for ballast tanks
and combined cargo/ballast tanks on oil tankers, (London, UK, International Association of
Classification Societies).

5. OCIMF, Double hull tankers are they the answer? (London, UK, OCIMF)

6. H. Verstraelen, K. De Baere, W. Schillemans, L. Lemmens, R. Dewil, S. Lenaerts, G.

Potters, In Situ Study of Ballast Tank Corrosion on ShipsPart 1, MP 48, 10 (2009): p. 48-
51.

7. H. Verstraelen, K. De Baere, W. Schillemans, L. Lemmens, R. Dewil, S. Lenaerts, G.

Potters, In Situ Study of Ballast Tank Corrosion on ShipsPart 2, MP 48, 11 (2009): p. 54-
57.

8. J. Faraway, Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and
nonparametric regression models. (London, UK, Chapman & Hall, 2006), p. 301.

9. S. Wood, Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. (London, UK, Chapman &
Hall, 2006), p. 422.

10. O.B. Soerensen, E. Lang, Then years experience with light coloured ballast tank
coatings, Corrosion Conference & Expo (Nashvill, TN: Nace, March 2007)

11. C.R.Southwell, J.D. Bultman, Jr C.W.Hummer, Seawater Corrosion Handbook. (New

Jersey, USA: Noyes Data Corporation, 1979), p.494.

12. C. Guedes Soares, Y. Garbatov, Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates

subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads, Marine Structures, 12 (1999): p.
42555.

13. L.D. Ivanov, G.E. Wang, A.K. Seah, Evaluating corrosion wastage and structural safety of
aging ships, Pacific international maritime conference (Sydney, Australia, Feb 25, 2004)

14. K. De Baere, H. Verstraelen, R. Dewil, L. Lemmens, S. Lenaerts, G. Potters, Impact of

Tank Construction on Corrosion of Ship Ballast tanks, MP 49, 5 (2010): p. 48-53.
15. P. Pedeferri, Cathodic protection and cathodic prevention, Construction and Building
Materials, 10 (1996): p 391-402.

16. D.J. Eyres, Ship Construction, 6th ed. (Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p.365.

17. P.R. Roberge, Handbook of Corrosion Engineering, 1st ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
2000), p. 1140.

18. K.G. Budinski, Materiaalkeuze voor technici, 3th ed. (Schoonhoven, The Netherlands:
Academic service, 2003), p. 832.

19. T. Pissierssens, Invloed van de staalkwaliteit op de corrosiesnelheid, unpublished

bachelor thesis (Antwerp, Belgium: Anwerp Maritime Academy, 2010), p. 81.

20. Nei-Marine, Life cycle cost of the venture oxygen strippingTM Ballast Tank Corrosion
Protection System in Double Hull Ships, Nei-Marine, April 24, 2007,
http://www.nei-marine.com/documents/VOS_Life_Cycle_Cost_Panamax.pdf (September 20,
2010).

21. Pricelist Bahrain drydocks, 2004

22. P.F. Weber, Structural Surveys of Oil Tankers, Transactions, 96 (1984)

23. Safinah, Equivalent ballast tank protection, Safinah, March 2009,

http://www.safinah.co.uk/news/equivalent-ballast-tank-protection.htm (September 2010)

24. ASTM A131 /A131-M, Standard Specification for Structural Steel for Ships (West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania ASTM).

25. IMO PSPC; Resolution MSC. 215(82)), Performance Standard for Protective Coatings for
dedicated seawater ballast tanks in all types of ships and double-side skin spaces of bulk
carriers, (London, UK, IMO).