Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance
There is a rising imperative to increase the operational availability of maritime vessels by extending the time between full docking cycles. To achieve operational efficacy, maritime vessels must remain clear of biological growth. Such growth can cause significant increases in frictional drag, there...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-04-01
|
Series: | Polymers |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/11/4/663 |
id |
doaj-288cd92c243b4a8db137ec379c7ada66 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-288cd92c243b4a8db137ec379c7ada662020-11-25T00:56:22ZengMDPI AGPolymers2073-43602019-04-0111466310.3390/polym11040663polym11040663Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar PerformanceBradley Donnelly0Ian Bedwell1Jim Dimas2Andrew Scardino3Youhong Tang4Karl Sammut5Centre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, AustraliaDefence Mission Systems, Thales Australia, New South Wales 2116, AustraliaMaritime Division, Defence Science & Technology, Victoria 3207, AustraliaMaritime Division, Defence Science & Technology, Victoria 3207, AustraliaCentre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, AustraliaCentre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, South Australia 5042, AustraliaThere is a rising imperative to increase the operational availability of maritime vessels by extending the time between full docking cycles. To achieve operational efficacy, maritime vessels must remain clear of biological growth. Such growth can cause significant increases in frictional drag, thereby reducing speed, range and fuel efficiency and decreasing the sensitivity of acoustic sensors. The impact that various stages of fouling have on acoustic equipment is unclear. It is also unclear to what extent antifouling techniques interfere with the transmission of acoustic signals. In this study, to examine this effect, neoprene samples were coated with three antifouling coatings, namely, Intersmooth 7460HS, HempaGuard X7 and Hempasil X3. Other neoprene samples were left uncoated but were imbedded with the biocide, 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) during the mixing and curing process. Uncoated nitrile samples that had varying levels of fouling from immersion in Port Phillip Bay, Australia, for 92, 156 and 239 days were also extracted. The acoustic properties of these samples were measured using an acoustic insertion loss test and compared to uncoated neoprene or nitrile to ascertain the acoustic effects of the applications of antifouling coatings as well as the fouling growth itself. A T-peel test was performed on all coated samples in an attempt to understand the adhesive properties of the coatings when applied to neoprene. It was found that the application of antifouling coatings had little effect on the transmission characteristics of the neoprene with approximately 1 dB loss. The embedment of DCOIT, however, has a chance of causing aeration in the neoprene, which can heavily hamper transmission. An assessment of the effect of the fouling growth found that light and medium fouling levels produced little transmission loss, whereas more extreme fouling lead to a 9 dB transmission loss. The adhesion properties of the coatings were investigated but not fully ascertained as tensile yielding occurred before peeling. However, various failure modes are presented and discussed in this study.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/11/4/663foulingacoustic sensorsantifouling coatingstransmission loss |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Bradley Donnelly Ian Bedwell Jim Dimas Andrew Scardino Youhong Tang Karl Sammut |
spellingShingle |
Bradley Donnelly Ian Bedwell Jim Dimas Andrew Scardino Youhong Tang Karl Sammut Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance Polymers fouling acoustic sensors antifouling coatings transmission loss |
author_facet |
Bradley Donnelly Ian Bedwell Jim Dimas Andrew Scardino Youhong Tang Karl Sammut |
author_sort |
Bradley Donnelly |
title |
Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance |
title_short |
Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance |
title_full |
Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance |
title_fullStr |
Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance |
title_full_unstemmed |
Effects of Various Antifouling Coatings and Fouling on Marine Sonar Performance |
title_sort |
effects of various antifouling coatings and fouling on marine sonar performance |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Polymers |
issn |
2073-4360 |
publishDate |
2019-04-01 |
description |
There is a rising imperative to increase the operational availability of maritime vessels by extending the time between full docking cycles. To achieve operational efficacy, maritime vessels must remain clear of biological growth. Such growth can cause significant increases in frictional drag, thereby reducing speed, range and fuel efficiency and decreasing the sensitivity of acoustic sensors. The impact that various stages of fouling have on acoustic equipment is unclear. It is also unclear to what extent antifouling techniques interfere with the transmission of acoustic signals. In this study, to examine this effect, neoprene samples were coated with three antifouling coatings, namely, Intersmooth 7460HS, HempaGuard X7 and Hempasil X3. Other neoprene samples were left uncoated but were imbedded with the biocide, 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (DCOIT) during the mixing and curing process. Uncoated nitrile samples that had varying levels of fouling from immersion in Port Phillip Bay, Australia, for 92, 156 and 239 days were also extracted. The acoustic properties of these samples were measured using an acoustic insertion loss test and compared to uncoated neoprene or nitrile to ascertain the acoustic effects of the applications of antifouling coatings as well as the fouling growth itself. A T-peel test was performed on all coated samples in an attempt to understand the adhesive properties of the coatings when applied to neoprene. It was found that the application of antifouling coatings had little effect on the transmission characteristics of the neoprene with approximately 1 dB loss. The embedment of DCOIT, however, has a chance of causing aeration in the neoprene, which can heavily hamper transmission. An assessment of the effect of the fouling growth found that light and medium fouling levels produced little transmission loss, whereas more extreme fouling lead to a 9 dB transmission loss. The adhesion properties of the coatings were investigated but not fully ascertained as tensile yielding occurred before peeling. However, various failure modes are presented and discussed in this study. |
topic |
fouling acoustic sensors antifouling coatings transmission loss |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/11/4/663 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT bradleydonnelly effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance AT ianbedwell effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance AT jimdimas effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance AT andrewscardino effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance AT youhongtang effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance AT karlsammut effectsofvariousantifoulingcoatingsandfoulingonmarinesonarperformance |
_version_ |
1725227634315493376 |