Thermally Sprayed Aluminum (TSA) coatings are used in industry for the protection against corrosive environments. Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) programs often deploy TSA as it has improved physical properties (hardness, adhesion, etc.) as well as higher corrosion resistance in comparison to traditional epoxy coatings. Unlike Epoxy coatings, in-service inspections of TSA can be challenging due to the heterogenous thickness profile and surface porosity. This study presents an outlook of corrosion rates of TSA coating from an experimental and Risk-based inspection (RBI) standpoint. The corrosion rates of TSA coating from a published experimental study were compared with RBI calculated corrosion rates. Corrosion rates that were extracted from the experimental studies were under two sets of testing conditions namely (a) CUI simulation test based on ASTM G189-07 test at high temperature (170°C) over a duration of 3 days and (b) quick immersion in fresh water (for 48 hours) followed by outdoor ageing test at ambient temperature over a duration of 1 year. Followed by the comparisons between experimental and RBI calculated corrosion rates, it highlights the deviations reasonings and possible ways for the alignment of the TSA corrosion rates as observed from experimental studies to those assumed with RBI models.

Subject
Coating inspection, Coatings, Insulation, Risk based inspection, Electrochemical cells, Ambient air temperature, Moisture, Corrosion rate, Aluminum spraying, Predicted corrosion rate, Deviation, Coating degradation, Corrosion under insulation
Keywords:
Risk-based inspection, corrosion under insulation, thermally sprayed aluminum (TSA)
© 2025 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. This work is protected by both domestic and international copyright laws. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
2025
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.