1 Visual Corrosion Inspection, Evaluation, and Repair Procedure for Ship

2 Tanks Navigating the Mediterranean Sea

3 Juan José Galán-Díaz*, Nuria Varela-Fernández

4 Department of Naval and Industrial Engineering, ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos, University of
5 A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

6 (*) Corresponding author([email protected])

7 Abstract

8 This study addresses the formidable issue of corrosion faced by shipping companies,
9 particularly in the Mediterranean Sea. Following the Spanish Legislation Royal Decree
10 1837/2000, a thorough visual inspection of various ship tanks was conducted, employing an
11 inspection code for surface condition and repair prioritization. The predicament confronting
12 shipping companies revolves around the detrimental impact of corrosion on vessels, leading to
13 economic costs and safety concerns. Tanks such as the fore-peak, sanitary tank, center tank
14 (1A), and double bottom tanks were scrutinized. The fore-peak exhibited significant corrosion
15 (30%), necessitating an urgent epoxy coating. The sanitary tank, initially estimated at 6-25%
16 corrosion, was revised to approximately 10%, requiring a high-pressure wash and epoxy
17 coating. The center tank (1A) displayed localized corrosion (15%), emphasizing the need for
18 prioritized repair with epoxy coating. Double bottom tanks 1 PT and 1 SD manifested corrosion
19 (5%) and blisters (35%), necessitating repairs involving high-pressure washing and epoxy
20 coating. Other tanks, such as freshwater tanks, demonstrated varying degrees of corrosion and
21 required extensive repairs. The findings underscore the importance of customized
22 maintenance strategies based on environmental factors. This study provides valuable insights
23 for shipping companies navigating corrosive marine environments, underscoring the
24 significance of timely detection and targeted repairs.

25 Key words

26 marine corrosion, visual inspection, ship tanks, preventive maintenance, marine environment.

27 1. Introduction

28 Corrosion is a highly expensive problem; it is estimated that corrosion losses in the United
29 States amount to approximately $275.7 billion per year, accounting for 90% of failures [1].
30 Corrosion in ships leads to disruptions in cargo transportation, potential accidents, and repair
31 costs. Statistical data indicates that corrosion is responsible for 90% of the costs associated
32 with structural failures [2]. It should also be noted that numerical simulations are extremely
33 useful for studying the complex phenomenon of corrosion, as it is very difficult to conduct
34 experimental studies while the ship is in full operation [3]. Recently, artificial intelligence
35 methods have been applied for the detection of marine corrosion [4]. One of those strategies
36 is to use pyridinines and quinolines compounds as inhibitors on the surface of ships using
37 machine learning [5]. Momber mentions various protective measures for ships, including the
38 application of protective coatings, corrosion allowance, cathodic corrosion protection, low-
39 corrosion design, climatization of internal sections, and monitoring and inspection [6].

40 As it is well known, corrosion degrades materials into their oxides and sulphides [7]. Ballast
41 tanks are particularly vulnerable to corrosion as they come into contact with seawater when
42 filled, yet they remain in a chloride-rich state when emptied. Moreover, certain areas within

1
43 the ship pose challenges for effective maintenance due to limited lighting and difficult access
44 [8]. The impact of microorganisms on the corrosive process should not be overlooked [9].
45 Approximately 65% of ships carry microorganisms in their ballast tanks [10] [11]. The high
46 surface-to-volume ratio of certain bacteria facilitates rapid chemical reactions [12] and their
47 metabolic activity can induce changes in their environment that promote corrosion in the
48 material [13]. In addition to the corrosive effects, the transport of microorganisms has
49 detrimental consequences for the environment, prompting the investigation of inert gas
50 treatments for their removal [14].

51 In the realm of corrosion prevention for maritime structures, a multitude of coating

52 technologies presents a promising panorama. Diverse options, such as polymeric coatings,
53 nanocrystal electrodeposition, and self-assembled nanocoatings, are showcased in the
54 literature, offering a nuanced approach to safeguarding both ships and machinery from
55 corrosive elements [15]. Notably, innovative additives, as demonstrated in research involving
56 carbon nanotubes and a hyperdispersant (polymethyl naphthol sulfonate), bring forth
57 encouraging results, indicating a potential leap in corrosion resistance capabilities [16]. Recent
58 studies by Upiah underscore the paramount importance of both painting and coatings for
59 repairing or inhibiting corrosion in both ships and ship unloaders [17] [18]. Furthermore, the
60 comprehensive strategy proposed by Bai et al., involving a stable multifunctional linkage
61 anticorrosion composite coating with Zn2+ on serecite surfaces, adds a layer of complexity to
62 corrosion protection approaches [19]. In a quest for enhanced stability, Shamsaee et al.
63 meticulously developed Ni-PTFE composite layers through electrodeposition, with an optimal
64 PTFE concentration, standing out as a significant advancement in corrosion resistance and
65 long-term stability, attributed to the inherent hydrophobic nature of PTFE [20].

66 However, amidst these promising avenues, certain challenges persist. The presence of mill
67 scale, if inadequately addressed during ship construction, emerges as a potential catalyst for
68 accelerated corrosion. The cyclic nature of tank ballasting and deballasting operations
69 introduces a vulnerability, subjecting surfaces to repeated wetting and drying and thereby
70 expediting corrosion. The reliance on anti-corrosion coatings in tanks underscores their critical
71 role, emphasizing the need for vigilant maintenance. Structural bending within a framework of
72 a ship introduces the specter of stress corrosion, characterized by crack development
73 perpendicular to applied stress at considerable speeds [21]. Additionally, the potential
74 accumulation of gases in upper tank sections, contingent on the tank's filling level, poses a
75 concern that warrants careful consideration in the pursuit of comprehensive corrosion
76 mitigation strategies.

77 Research gaps in corrosion prevention for maritime structures encompass the need for
78 long-term assessments of coating technologies, advanced detection methods for early
79 identification, optimization of customized maintenance strategies, investigation into the
80 environmental impact of anticorrosive treatments, and the effective integration of diverse
81 technologies for holistic solutions. These areas present opportunities for enhanced
82 understanding and improvement of practices in corrosion prevention within the maritime
83 industry.

84 In the context of the maritime industry, corrosion emerges as a substantial challenge

85 adversely affecting shipping companies, particularly during transit through the Mediterranean
86 Sea. Widely recognized for its economic repercussions and potential hazards, this
87 phenomenon manifests in the form of corrosive, mechanical damages, and other detrimental
88 manifestations in the vessels' tanks. A detailed inspection will unveil the complexity of this

2
 89 issue across various tanks, each facing specific operational conditions and challenges. The
90 dilemma lies in the urgent need to address these issues efficiently, prioritizing repairs based on
91 the severity of the damages. In the insightful review conducted by Lin and Dong, the
92 importance of regular hull inspections to ensure navigation safety is emphasized [22]. They
93 propose employing computer algorithms and robots to enhance efficiency and reduce costs
94 compared to traditional methods. However, it should be noted that a visual inspection utilizing
95 appropriate technical means yields highly satisfactory results.

96 This study significantly contributes to the maritime industry's understanding and

97 mitigation of corrosion challenges faced by shipping companies operating in the
98 Mediterranean Sea. By meticulously inspecting and analyzing various tanks of a ship in
99 accordance with Spanish Legislation Royal Decree 1837/2000 [23], the research provides
100 valuable insights into the specific conditions of each tank, emphasizing the varying degrees of
101 corrosion damage, mechanical issues, and other related concerns. The prioritization of repairs
102 based on a detailed inspection code aids in addressing urgent issues promptly. Moreover, the
103 study underscores the critical need for early detection and repair to prevent extensive
104 damage, offering practical recommendations for surface cleaning, coating removal, and epoxy
105 coating application. The findings serve as a comprehensive guide for maintenance and repair
106 strategies tailored to ships navigating corrosive marine environments, thereby contributing to
107 enhanced operational efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness within the shipping industry.

108 2. Materials and methods

109 The comprehensive inspection of the condition of the ship was meticulously conducted
110 through a thorough visual examination, scrutinizing every aspect to ensure a comprehensive
111 assessment. The vessel, with its main specifications meticulously documented, boasts a length
112 of 93.53 meters, a beam width of 18.24 meters, and a draft reaching 4.61 meters. These vital
113 statistics provide a detailed snapshot of the physical dimensions of the ship, emphasizing its
114 substantial size and maritime capabilities.

115 In its maritime endeavors, this vessel predominantly plies the azure waters of the
116 Mediterranean Sea, navigating through the diverse and dynamic maritime environment that
117 characterizes this renowned body of water. The Mediterranean, with its historical significance
118 and strategic importance, poses unique challenges and opportunities for seafaring vessels, and
119 this ship, with its robust specifications, stands ready to navigate the intricate channels and
120 open expanses of this captivating region.

121 The length of 93.53 meters signifies a vessel of considerable magnitude, allowing for the
122 accommodation of various amenities and equipment essential for a successful voyage.
123 Meanwhile, the beam width of 18.24 meters suggests a substantial breadth, contributing to
124 the stability and seaworthiness of the ship, ensuring its resilience against the ebb and flow of
125 the Mediterranean's often unpredictable currents.

126 Delving into the specifics, the draft of 4.61 meters highlights the depth of the vessel's
127 immersion in the water. This measurement is crucial for assessing the ship's navigational
128 capabilities, especially when navigating shallower or more challenging maritime terrains. It
129 speaks to the vessel's adaptability, enabling it to traverse a range of depths and terrains within
130 the Mediterranean, showcasing its versatility as it sails through varying conditions.

131 In essence, the specifications of the ship, coupled with its preferred maritime domain,
132 underscore its role as a formidable seafaring entity, equipped to navigate the vast and diverse

3
133 Mediterranean Sea. The visual inspection, serving as a key component of the assessment
134 process, ensures that the vessel meets the rigorous standards required for safe and efficient
135 maritime operations, reinforcing its status as a reliable presence in the maritime landscape.
136 Considering that each classification society has its own inspection regulations [24] [8], this
137 inspection was performed in accordance with the Spanish Legislation Royal Decree 1837/2000
138 [23].

139 In order to streamline and enhance the efficiency of the inspection procedure, a
140 systematic inspection code was established. This code is detailed in Table 1, where each
141 element corresponds to a specific aspect of the ship's surface condition, along with a
142 corresponding repair priority designation.

143 The inspection code in Table 1 outlines the criteria for evaluating the surface condition of
144 the ship, with a focus on identifying and categorizing different types of damages. The
145 categories range from a perfect surface condition ("-") to various degrees of superficial
146 damage (1 to 5) based on the percentage of damage relative to the total area inspected.
147 Additionally, categories "S" and "L" represent scattered and localized damage, respectively.

148 The repair priority is then assigned using letters: "U" signifies that urgent repairs are
149 required, "M" indicates that the repair should be completed within 12 months, and "F"
150 suggests that the repair can be carried out in more than 12 months. This prioritization helps in
151 efficiently addressing and allocating resources to address the identified issues based on their
152 severity and urgency.

153 In essence, this inspection code serves as a standardized and structured tool that provides
154 clarity and consistency in communicating the findings of the inspection. It aids in the decision-
155 making process by clearly defining the nature and extent of surface damage, as well as
156 specifying the timeframe within which repairs need to be addressed. Overall, the
157 establishment of this inspection code contributes to a more organized and effective approach
158 to ship maintenance and repair planning.

159 The process followed in the inspection is outlined in the flowchart of Figure 1, providing a
160 detailed visual representation of each sequential step and stage throughout the procedure.

161 3. Results and discussion

162 3.1 Fore-peak tank

163 The corrosion observed in the fore-peak tank accounts for approximately 30% of its
164 total surface area. Minor mechanical damage is also present, with the majority concentrated in
165 the reinforcements and peaks due to higher stress concentration levels in these areas.
166 Additionally, corrosion damage was identified within the tank itself, attributed to the presence
167 of salty water that remains inside after ballasting. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate that internal
168 corrosion primarily occurs in vulnerable areas such as welds or openings in bulkheads. Figure
169 2b demonstrates the autocatalytic nature of the corrosive process, indicating a feedback loop
170 and highlighting the importance of early detection to prevent extensive damage.

171 The repair process followed ISO 8501-1:2007 standards [25]. It establishes two
172 cleaning degrees before painting: St2 and St3. St2 requires the surface to be free of visible oil,
173 grease, and dirt, as well as mill scale, rust, paint coatings, and foreign matter showing poor
174 adhesion. This is achieved by manual or machine steel brushing, leaving the surface with a soft
175 metallic sheen. St3, a thorough manual and mechanical cleaning, requires the surface to have

4
176 a clear metallic sheen. In this tank, the St3 cleaning degree was used to achieve maximum
177 coating adhesion.

178 As the tank is used for ballast, the frequent presence of saltwater inside favors
179 corrosion, particularly in the weakest parts, such as welding areas, bulkhead openings, or at
180 the ends of the tank.

181 The fore-peak operates under two different working conditions: its surface is in
182 contact with the marine atmosphere, and there is a splash zone. A summary of the tanker's
183 condition is presented in Table 2.

184 As evident in Table 2, fore-peak repair is of utmost urgency. To address this, an epoxy
185 coating was applied as follows:

186  An initial layer of grey epoxy paint covered a total surface area of 1150 m2. The paint
187 had a 77% volume solid content. A primary coat was administered to the corroded
188 surface, representing 30% of the overall surface area, with a designed thickness of 150
189 µm, expected to reduce by approximately 50% due to solvent evaporation during
190 drying. This phase consumed 134 L of paint, resulting in an epoxy paint yield of 2.6
191 m2L-1.

192 For the second layer, a red epoxy paint coating was applied to 40% of the total surface
193 area, 10% more than the corroded surface, as a preventive measure. In this phase, 150
194 L of epoxy paint were used, equating to an epoxy paint yield of approximately 3.1 m2L-
1.
195

196 This coating strategy not only addresses existing corrosion but also aims to prevent
197 future damage. The careful application of protective layers with specific characteristics seeks
198 to ensure effective and lasting protection.

199 3.2 Sanitary tank

200 The sanitary tank, crucial for the hygiene and proper functioning of the vessel,
201 presents a significant challenge due to its location and purpose. Corrosion, assessed at 10% of
202 the total surface during the inspection, may be influenced by the specific environmental
203 conditions to which this tank is exposed. Given its position and purpose, humidity and
204 temperature can play a significant role in the corrosive process.

205 With the aim of addressing these challenges, a high-pressure and high-temperature
206 water washing strategy was implemented, ranging from 150 to 180 bars and between 70 and
207 90 °C, in accordance with ISO 8501-3: 2008 [26]. This approach not only removes grease,
208 blisters, and inadequate repainting but also effectively prepares the tank's surface to receive
209 the protective coating.

210 Table 3 provides a detailed summary of the corrosion status of the sanitary tank,
211 highlighting the presence of corrosion (3S), mechanical damage (1L), blisters on 10% of the
212 surface, and white repainting on 10%, which did not adhere correctly to the original layer,
213 potentially causing additional damage. Furthermore, the table shows that 80% of the original
214 coating remains in good condition, but repair is required on 20% of the total surface.

215 The application of an initial layer of gray coating with a thickness of 150 μm was
216 strategically chosen to address specific damaged areas identified during the inspection. This

5
217 layer not only provides a robust defense against corrosion but also establishes suitable
218 conditions for the application of the final red coating layer.

219 The choice of the red coating is not solely for aesthetic purposes but is based on its
220 preventive capabilities. By covering 40% of the total surface, 10% more than affected by
221 corrosion, this layer aims to prevent future damage and contribute to the long-term integrity
222 of the sanitary tank. This strategic approach not only addresses the damaged areas but also
223 establishes a protective barrier to ensure optimal performance of the tank in the demanding
224 maritime environment.

225 Figure 3 depicts the detachments and oxidations observed in the area of reinforcements.

226 3.3 Centre tank (1A)

227 This tank is situated at the bow of the ship, in the central section. It exhibits localized
228 corrosion affecting approximately 15% of the surface, primarily concentrated in the
229 reinforcement areas and their lower sections. The prolonged presence of liquids in these
230 regions, coupled with the tendency for the accumulation of dirt, contributes to the onset of
231 corrosion. Moreover, the reinforcement areas pose challenges for effective coating
232 application, significantly increasing the likelihood of corrosion. Figure 4 visually illustrates the
233 corrosion observed in the reinforcement area.

234 The corrosion damage in this tank is estimated to affect 20% of its surface, which
235 includes 5% of white repainting with poor adherence. Considering the established codes, the
236 condition of the central tank is summarized in Table 4.

237 The total area of this tank is 580 m2. Initially, the surface damage, accounting for 20%
238 of the tank's total surface, was treated with a 150 μm thick layer of grey epoxy coating. This
239 stage required a total of 45 L of paint, resulting in a paint yield of 2.6 m2L-1. In the second layer,
240 an additional 10% of the tank's surface was covered, which corresponds to 30% of the total
241 surface, equivalent to 174 m2. For this layer, red paint was used. The total volume of coating
242 applied in this stage was 56 L, resulting in a yield of approximately 3 m2L-1.

243 3.4 Double bottom tank 1 PT

244 This tank is located at the bottom of the ship, specifically in the double bottom area on
245 the port side. Corrosion is present on approximately 5% of the tank's surface, primarily
246 affecting the lower sections of the bulkheads and the ceilings. Blisters are visible on
247 approximately 35% of the tank surface, with an adjacent area exhibiting poor adhesion. In
248 total, the damage amounts to approximately 40% of the tank's surface. Mechanical damage is
249 minimal, accounting for less than 2% and confined to a localized area. Figure 5 illustrates the
250 scattered blisters found throughout the tank.

251 Before coating, the surface was washed with pressurized water between 150 and 180
252 bars and a temperature between 70 and 90 °C. This procedure removes exfoliations, salts,
253 grease, and repainted areas. The first layer of grey coating was applied over the damaged 540
254 m2 of the tank, and the second layer, red, covered an additional 54 m2. The thickness of each
255 layer was 150 μm, and the total consumption of paint amounted to 172 L.

256 3.5 Double bottom tank 1 SD

257 The tank is located in the lower part of the ship, specifically in the double bottom area
258 on the starboard side. Upon inspection, approximately 5% corrosion was detected, primarily

6
259 attributed to mechanical damage. Scattered blisters were found on 15% of the tank surface. In
260 the vicinity of the blisters, poor adhesion between the paint system and the steel was
261 observed. Additionally, 20% of the tank surface was repainted white, but this paint exhibited
262 limited adherence to the original coating. Considering all the damage, a total area of 40% of
263 the tank required repair. Since this tank is identical to the previous one and exhibits nearly the
264 same damages, the same procedure was applied: applying a first layer of grey coating followed
265 by a second layer of red paint, with a total paint consumption of 172 L for both layers
266 combined."

267 These changes mainly involve adjusting the sentence structure for smoother flow and
268 specifying that the 40% repair area accounts for all types of damage mentioned

269 3.6 Central double bottom tank 1

270 This tank exhibited less damage compared to the previous ones. Corrosion was
271 localized and affected 2% of the tank surface, specifically in the tank reinforcements.
272 Additionally, a small portion of the surface showed peeling, and blisters were observed on 10%
273 of the tank surface, scattered throughout. The presence of blisters caused a lack of adherence
274 in the surrounding areas. Consequently, the area requiring repair accounted for 10% of the
275 tank surface.

276 Similar to the previous cases, the damaged surface needed to be cleaned using high-
277 pressure, high-temperature water to remove both the blisters and incompatible paint layers.
278 Once the cleaning process was completed, two coats of coating, grey and red, were applied to
279 the damaged surface, which in this case amounted to 71 m2. The second layer covered an
280 additional 10% of the surface.

281 Figure 6 illustrates the lack of adherence between the paint and the steel in the area
282 near the blisters.

283 3.7 Double bottom tank 2 PT

284 The tank under examination is located at the bottom of the ship on the starboard side,
285 specifically the second tank towards the stern. Corrosion in this tank is dispersed and accounts
286 for approximately 2% of the tank's surface, primarily affecting the reinforcements, roofs, and
287 lower sections. Mechanical damage is minimal, less than 2%, with localized areas showing
288 cracking and peeling, amounting to 2% of the tank. Additionally, there is a lack of adhesion
289 between the paint system and the steel. Overall, 5% of the tank requires repair due to damage
290 occurring in the same areas.

291 Figure 7 illustrates the detachment and lack of adhesion between the paint and the
292 steel. The faults are located in the three-lane roofs spanning the entire length of the tank.

293 The total area of this tank is 610 m2. Following the same procedure as the previous
294 tank, a total of 173 L of paint were used for the two layers.

295 3.8 Deep Tank 1 SD

296 Table 5 presents the inspection findings for starboard deep tank 1. The overall damage
297 to this tank amounts to 10%. The corrosion is primarily attributed to mechanical damage.
298 Blisters are observed in scattered locations, covering approximately 10% of the tank's surface.
299 The presence of blisters results in a lack of adhesion in the surrounding areas.

7
300 Figure 8 shows the lack of adherence between the previous paint system and the steel
301 in the area near the blisters.

302 Prior to the application of the anticorrosive coating, cleaning was performed using
303 pressurized water at a high temperature ranging from 70 to 90 °C and at a pressure between
304 150 and 180 bar. The total surface area of this tank is 540 m2, with approximately 54 m2
305 requiring repair due to damage. Following the same procedure as in previous cases, a total of
306 60 L of epoxy coating was used for this tank.

307 3.9 Deep Tank 2 SD

308 This is the second-deep tank on the starboard side. Approximately 1% of the surface
309 showed corrosion, which was attributed to mechanical damage. Blisters were observed on 2%
310 of the total surface, causing a lack of adherence in the surrounding areas. The repair required
311 addressing 3% of the tank's surface. Overall, the tank was in good condition. With a large area
312 of 2,100 m2, a total of 65 L of epoxy coating was consumed for the two layers. As in previous
313 cases, the application of the epoxy coating was preceded by cleaning with high-pressure and
314 high-temperature water.

315 3.10 Fresh water tank 13 PT

316 This tank is located on the port side of the ship. Corrosion was observed in a localized
317 manner, representing 5% of the tank's surface, as indicated in the results shown in table 6. The
318 corrosion can be attributed to mechanical damage and improper repainting, where the original
319 paint scheme was not followed.

320 There were cracks present on 5% of the tank surface, along with peeling and blisters
321 scattered across 30% of the surface. Taking into account the dispersed nature of the damage, a
322 total of 70% of the surface requires repair. The repair process followed the cleanliness
323 guidelines outlined in ISO 8501-3:2008 for achieving a St3 cleanliness degree.

324 To address the damage, a high-pressure and high-temperature wash with fresh water
325 (between 150 and 180 bar and between 70 and 90°C) was conducted. This wash aimed to
326 remove blisters, incompatible repainting, and grease from all possible areas. Furthermore,
327 areas exhibiting exfoliation, oxidation, and detachment were meticulously treated by grinding
328 and brushing. Additionally, a thorough abrasive blast cleaning was performed.

329 It is worth noting that the preparation process for this tank was more extensive
330 compared to the previous ones. This is attributed to the fact that this tank is designated for
331 storing clean water for the crew's consumption. Figure 9 provides a visual representation of
332 the internal condition of the fresh water port tank 13.

333 3.11 Fresh water tank 13 SD

334 This tank is situated on the starboard side of the ship. The corrosion observed in the
335 tank affected approximately 2% of its surface. The corrosion was primarily a result of
336 mechanical damage and improper repainting that did not adhere to the original paint scheme.

337 Blisters were found on 50% of the tank's surface, leading to a lack of adherence
338 between the paint system and the steel, as well as between the paint layers. Considering the
339 widespread nature of the damage, a total area of 70% requires repair. Figure 10 provides a
340 visual representation of the corrosion spread within the tank.

8
341 The repair of this tank was identical to the previous one, since both tanks have the same
342 mission on the ship.

343 3.12 Deep Tank 2 PT

344 This tank is located on the port side. Corrosion was present in 5% of the tank surface
345 and it was mainly due to mechanical damage. Scattered blisters were found in most of the
346 tank, the percentage of the floor surface covered by them was 90%, which caused a lack of
347 adhesion of the previous paint system on the tank floor. Total tank surface damage repaired
348 was 25%. The above data is shown in a more schematic way in table 7

349 An SA 21/2 cleanliness grade is also applied to this tank prior to coating. The blisters were
350 scattered throughout the floor, covering approximately 90% of the surface. Figure 11.a shows
351 the mechanical damage and oxidation on ceilings and bulkheads. The blisters were scattered
352 throughout the floor, covering approximately 90% of the surface (11.b).

353 Upon completion of the inspection, it was found that the tanks with the greatest
354 corrosion were those located from the central part to the bow (Fore-peak, Sanitary Tank,
355 Central Tank 1 and Port Double Bottom Tank and Starboard Double Bottom Tank). This
356 incidence was due to environmental effects (rain or wind) and temperature gradients, which
357 are much more pronounced in this part of the ship.

358 The most damaged tanks on this ship and in need of major repairs were the 13 PT and
359 SD freshwater tanks, which need 70% of their area repaired. Although it is true that the repair
360 was mainly due to the presence of blisters and peeling and not so much to the state of
361 corrosion of its plates.

362 The next tanks in repair order are double bottom tanks 1 Port and Starboard. Both
363 tanks have 40% surface damage. Both tanks have similar damage to their protective shell.
364 Although they are not the most corroded, but they have a lot of blisters on their surface.
365 Double bottom tanks are considered to have a relative humidity of 90 to 100% [27].

366 Some authors such as Mendoza et al. established that the time of the wet state of the
367 surface depends on climatic factors, including humidity, hours of sunlight, the temperature of
368 both the air and the metal surface, the speed of wind and the duration and frequency of rain
369 and fog [28]. Within a tank not all factors can coexist. However, the influence of the hours of
370 sun is the most preponderant since it increases the temperature inside the enclosure.

371 On the other hand, Gardiner et al. [27] established that corrosion is a function of three
372 parameters: time of wet state of the surface, salt deposits and temperature. Although in the
373 present case tanks inside the ship were analyzed, and it could be thought that the influence of
374 salt in the corrosion process is practically insignificant, however, in the ballasting and
375 deballasting operations of tanks they are filled and empty with salt water, which is why the
376 presence of salt inside the tanks cannot be neglected.

377 The tanks with the least damage are the Deep tank 2 SD and the Double Bottom tank 2 PT.
378 These two tanks are located in the lower part of the ship and therefore have a more constant
379 temperature, because they are always submerged and close to the water, controlling the
380 internal temperature of the tank.

381 4. Conclusions

9
382 The comprehensive analysis of the integrity of the onboard tanks has revealed a detailed
383 overview of the structural challenges facing the vessel. These results provide valuable insights
384 to guide immediate actions and long-term strategies with the aim of strengthening structural
385 resistance, extending the lifespan of tanks, and optimizing maintenance operations. The main
386 conclusions are presented below, outlining directions for future work, merging the findings
387 obtained with a forward-looking perspective.

388 By meticulously examining each tank, from the Fore-peak to the Deep Tank 2 PT, a
389 prioritization for repairs has been established, highlighting those requiring urgent attention.
390 Identifying specific damage patterns and evaluating successful repair methods have emerged
391 as fundamental pillars for designing preventive and corrective strategies.

392 It is imperative to recognize the influence of environmental factors, such as exposure to

393 wind and rain, and the correlation between temperature and humidity in the corrosive
394 process. These aspects, supported by previous research, underscore the importance of
395 addressing not only existing damages but also implementing preventive measures that
396 preserve long-term structural integrity.

397 The most affected tanks, such as the 13 PT and SD freshwater tanks, have emerged as
398 critical points requiring substantial interventions, mainly due to the presence of blisters and
399 detachments. Although corrosion is a predominant concern, it is highlighted that the condition
400 of the plates has also contributed to the need for repairs, revealing the complexity of the
401 challenges faced.

402 Looking ahead, a deeper investigation into the specific effects of humidity and
403 temperature inside the tanks is recommended, especially considering the presence of
404 saltwater during ballasting operations. These studies could provide essential information to
405 develop more effective and specific protection strategies for the vessel's conditions.

406 Through this work, not only does it fulfill the role of being a detailed report on the current
407 state of the tanks, but it also serves as a platform for future research and corrective actions. In
408 doing so, the aim is to ensure the continued safety and efficiency of the vessel, reaffirming a
409 commitment to sustainable maritime practices and the long-term preservation of the flee

410 References

411 1. Zayed, A., Garbatov, Y., Soares, C. G. “Corrosion degradation of ship hull steel plates
412 accounting for local environmental conditions”, Ocean Eng., 163, pp. 299-306 (2018). DOI:
413 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.05.047
414 2. Imran, M.M.H., Jamaludin, S., Ayob, A.F.M., et al. “Application of artificial intelligence in
415 marine corrosion prediction and detection”, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,
416 11 (256), pp 1-25. (2023). DOI: 10.3390/jmse11020256
417 3. Liu, Y., Liu, H. “Prediction of corrosion rates of a ship under the flow accelerated
418 corrosion mechanism”, Corros. Rev., 39 (5), pp.445-452 (2021). DOI:
419 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.05.047
420 4. Siswantoro, N., Pitana, T., Nurdiansyah, T.R., Zaman, et al. “The preliminary study of
421 artificial intelligence based on convolutional neural network as a corrosion detection tool
422 on ship structures”, AIP. Conf. Proc., 2482 (1) Purbalingga, Indonesia, pp 130002-130003
423 (2023).
424 5. Ser, C.T., Žuvela, P., Wong, M.W. “Prediction of corrosion inhibition efficiency of
425 pyridines and quinolines on an iron surface using machine learning-powered quantitative

10
426 structure-property relationships”, Appl. Surf. Sci., 512 (145612), pp 1-10. (2020). DOI:
427 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.145612
428 6. Momber, A. “Corrosion and Corrosion Protection of Wind Power Structures in Marine
429 Environments”, In Introduction and Corrosive Loads. Volume 1. Academic Press. London
430 (2023)
431 7. Sheikh, M.F., Kamal, K., Rafique, F., et al. “Corrosion detection and severity level
432 prediction using acoustic emission and machine learning based approach”, Ain Shams
433 Eng. J, 12 (4), pp.3891-3903 (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.asej.2021.03.024
434 8. De Baere, K., Verstraelen, H., Rigo, P., et al. “Study on alternative approaches to
435 corrosion protection of ballast tanks using an economic model”, Mar. struct., 32, pp. 1-17
436 (2013). DOI: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2013.02.003
437 9. Heyer, A., D'Souza, F., Morales, et al. “Ship ballast tanks a review from microbial
438 corrosion and electrochemical point of view”, Ocean Eng.,70, pp. 188-200 (2013). DOI:
439 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.05.005
440 10. Hallegraeff, G. M., Bolch, C. J. “Transport of diatom and dinoflagellate resting spores in
441 ships' ballast water: implications for plankton biogeography and aquaculture”, J. Plankton
442 Res., 14(8), pp. 1067-1084 (1992).
443 11. Hamer, J. P., Lucas, I. A., McCollin, T. A. “Dinoflagellate cysts in ballast tank sediments:
444 between tank variability”, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 40(9), pp. 731-733 (2000). DOI:
445 10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00198-8
446 12. Manahan, S. E. Fundamentals of environmental chemistry. CRC press. London (2011).
447 13. Loto, C. A. “Microbiological corrosion: mechanism, control and impact-a review”, Int. J.
448 Adv. Manuf. Technol., 92(9-12), pp. 4241-4252 (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s00170-017-0494-8
449 14. Sun, H., Li, J., Chen, N. “Investigation of Q235 low-carbon steel corrosion under simulated
450 ballast water tank conditions”, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci, 17(22056) pp. 1-12 (2022). DOI:
451 10.20964/2022.05.50
452 15. Hossen, A., Mahmud, R., Islam, A. “Minimization of corrosion in aquatic environment–a
453 review” Int. J. Hydro., 7 (1), pp.9-16 (2023). DOI: 10.15406/ijh.2023.07.00334
454 16. Zhang, J., Chen, J., Zhu, A. “The novel hyperdispersant for CNT in waterborne paint and
455 its metal corrosion protection behavior”, J. Mater. Sc., 58(27) pp.1-14 (2023). DOI:
456 10.1007/s10853-023-08674-2
457 17. Upiah, P.Q., Surnam, B.Y.R. “Corrosion risk assessment in a ship unloader”, J. Adhes. Sci.
458 Technol., 37 (20) pp 2896-2917 (2023). DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2022.2142359
459 18. Upiah, P.Q., Surnam, B.Y.R. “Investigation on corrosion protection systems and wear
460 problems for a ship unloader”, International Journal of Surface Engineering and
461 Interdisciplinary Materials Science, 10 (1), pp.1-23 (2022). DOI: 10.4018/IJSEIMS.302236
462 19. Bai, Z., Meng, S., Cui, Y., et al. “A stable anticorrosion coating with multifunctional linkage
463 against seawater corrosion”, Composites Part B: Engineering, 259 (110733), pp. 1-15
464 (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110733
465 20. Shamsaee Zafarghandi, M., Pirhady Tavandashti, N. “Electrodeposition of Hierarchically
466 Structured Superhydrophobic Ni-PTFE Composite Coating with Remarkable Corrosion
467 Resistance, Chemical and Mechanical Stability”, Scientia Iranica, pp. 1-37 (2023).
468 21. Gaspar, B., Teixeira, A. P., Soares, C. G. “Effect of the nonlinear vertical wave-induced
469 bending moments on the ship hull girder reliability” Ocean Eng., 119, pp.193-207 (2016).
470 DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.005
471 22. Lin, B., & Dong, X. “Ship hull inspection: A survey”, Ocean Eng., 289 (116281) pp. 1-29
472 (2023). DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.116281
473 23. Regulation on Inspection and Certification of Civilian Ships, Royal Decree U.S.C. (2000).

11
474 24. Amirafshari, P., Barltrop, N., Bharadwaj, et al “A review of nondestructive examination
475 methods for new-building ships undergoing classification society survey”, Journal of Ship
476 Production and Design, 34(01), pp. 9-19 (2018). DOI: 10.5957/JSPD.160039
477 25. ISO 8501-1:2007. “Preparation of steel substrates before application of paints and related
478 products-visual assessment of surface cleanliness” International Organization for
479 Standardization (ISO) (2007)
480 26. ISO 8501-3:2008. “Preparation of steel substrates before application of paints and related
481 products - Visual assessment of surface cleanliness-Part 3: Preparation grades of welds,
482 edges and other areas with surface imperfections” International Organization for
483 Standardization (ISO) (2008).
484 27. Gardiner, C. P., Melchers, R. E. “Enclosed atmospheric corrosion in ship spaces”, Br.
485 Corros. J., 36(4), pp. 272-276 (2001). DOI: 10.1179/000705901101501730
486 28. Mendoza, A. R., Corvo, F. “Outdoor and indoor atmospheric corrosion of carbon steel”,
487 Corros. Sci., 41(1), pp. 75-86 (1999). DOI: 10.1016/S0010-938X(98)00081-X

488 Biographies

489 Juan José Galán holds a Ph.D. in Physics and is a professor in the area of materials science
490 at the University of A Coruña. He has conducted research in the field of condensed matter,
491 focusing on both metallic and polymeric materials, particularly those with various specific
492 coatings. Currently, his research also encompasses topics related to sustainability and the
493 recycling of materials within an industrial context.

494 Nuria Varela Fernández, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of A Coruña, stands out
495 for her research focus on the corrosion of maritime materials. Her contributions to the field
496 include the present work, which constitutes an integral part of her doctoral thesis. In addition
497 to her academic achievements, Dr. Varela Fernández demonstrates a notable commitment to
498 scientific pedagogy, enhancing not only the realm of research but also the dissemination and
499 transmission of scientific knowledge.

500

501 Table 1 Inspection code

Surface condition: Repair priority

-: Perfect U The repair must be urgent
1. Surface damage less than 2% of the total M The repair must be done within 12
area inspected months
2: Superficial damage between 2 and 5% of F The repair can be done in more than 12
the total area inspected months
3: Superficial damage between 6 and 25% of
the total inspected area
4: Surface damage greater than 25% of the
total area inspected
5: 100% damaged surface
S: Scattered damage
L: Localized damage
502

503

504

12
505

506

507
Start
508

509

510 Visual inspection of

each of the ship
511 compartments
512

513

514
Comply with the No
515 Royal Decree?
516

517
Yes
518
Apply inspection
519 code to damaged
surfaces (Table 1)
520

521

522

523 Priority?

524 (Table 1)

525

526

527
Repair within 12 Long-term repair
Urgent (category U)
528 months (category M) (category F)

529

530

531 End
532

533 Figure 1. Flowchart of the inspection process for the compartments of a ship

534

535

13
536

537

538 (a) (b)

539 Figure 2a Corrosion damage inside the forepeak. Figure 2b autocatalytic process inside the
540 forepeak

541 Table 2: Forepeak tank corrosion status summary

Mechanical Rust
Corrosion Rust peeling Blisters Priority
Forepeak damage cracking
Bulkheads,
ceilings and 4L 1L - 1L - U
floors
542

543 Table 3: Sanitary tank corrosion status summary

Sanitary Corrosion Mechanical Damage Rust cracking Rust peeling BlistersPriority

tank
Bulkheads,
ceilings and 3S 1L - 2L 3L U
floors

544

545 Figure 3 Detachments and oxidation in the area of reinforcement in the sanitary tank.

546

14
547

548 Figure 4 Corrosion in a reinforcement area of the central tank

549

550 Table 4: Centre tank corrosion status summary

Centre tank Corrosion Mechanical damage Rust cracking Rust peeling Blisters Priority
Bulkheads,
ceilings and 3L 1L - 2L U
floors
551

552

553 Figure 5 scattered blisters in double bottom tank 1 PT

554

555 Figure 6: Adhesion issue in double bottom central tank 1

15
556

557

558 Figure 7: Image of the interior of double bottom tank 2 PT

559

560 Table 5: Summary of Corrosion Status in Deep Tank 1 SD

Deep Tank 1 Corrosion Mechanical Rust Rust Blisters Priority

SD damage cracking peeling
Bulkheads,
ceilings and 2L 2L 2L 3S U
floors
561

562

563 Figure 8: Interior Image of Deep Tank 1 SD

564

565 Table 6: Summary of Corrosion Status in Fresh Water Tank 13 PT

1Fresh water Corrosion Mechanical Rust Rust Blisters Priority

tank 13 PT damage cracking peeling
Bulkheads,
ceilings and 2L 2L 3S 4S 4S
floors
566

16
567

568 Figure 9. Inside part of the fresh water tank 13 PT

569

Deep Tank 2 Mechanical Rust Rust

Corrosion Blisters Priority
PT damage cracking peeling
Bulkheads,
2L 2L 1L 2S 2L U
ceilings
floors 2L 2L 2L 3S 5S U
570 Table 7: Deep Tank 2 PT corrosion status summary

571

572

573 Figure 10. Inside part of the fresh water tank 13 SD

574

575

576 (a) (b)

17
577 Figure 11. Oxidation on bulkheads (a) Tank floor condition (b)

18