Taber abrasive wear resistance of organic offshore wind power coatings at varying normal forces


Thirteen organic coatings with three base polymers (epoxy, polysiloxane, polyurethane) were tested in a load-controlled Taber abrasion tester at different normal force levels (2.5 to 25 N). Abrasive wear functions, as well as two partial abrasive wear resistance coefficients, were estimated. Results of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) investigations indicated that both plastic deformation mechanisms and fracture mechanisms caused material removal during the abrasive wear of the materials. The predominant and rate-controlling mechanism depended on normal force and polymer type. Abrasive wear in terms of coating layer thickness loss, as well as the probability of fracture/cracking-based material removal mechanisms, increased with increasing normal force. The ranking of abrasive wear resistance was as follows: epoxy > polysiloxane > polyurethane. The relationship between abrasive wear and normal force followed a power law with power exponents between 0.45 and 1.4. The power exponents were found to depend on the polymer types. The type of polymer was very important for low normal forces, whereas the importance of polymer variation vanished for the higher normal forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9


a, b:

Abrasive wear function constants

d1, d2 :

Abrasion path diameters

FN :

Normal force

FNc :

Threshold normal force for microfracturing

h0 :

Initial coating thickness

HC :

Coating material hardness

HM :

Material hardness

hN :

Coating thickness after abrasive wear

HP :

Polymer material Vickers hardness

K, K1, K2 :

Abrasive wear resistance parameters

KIc :

Mode-I fracture toughness


Number of abrasion cycles

VA :

Volume removed due to abrasive wear


Geometry parameter


Coating layer thickness loss due to abrasive wear




  1. 1.

    Momber, AW, “Quantitative Performance Assessment of Corrosion Protection Systems for Offshore Wind Power Transmission Platforms.” Renew. Energy, 94 314–327 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Müller, H, "Langzeiterfahrung mit Beschichtungen FINO 1." HTG-Tagung 2013, Hamburg, Hafentechnische Gesellschaft e.V., 23.10.2013, Hamburg

  3. 3.

    Munoz, PM, “Marine Corrosion: A Major Challenge for Offshore Wind.” In: Presentaciones del Symposium on Marine Corrosion, CTC, Santander, Spain (2018)

  4. 4.

    Momber, AW, Marquardt, T, “Protective Coatings for Offshore Wind Energy Devices (OWEAs): A Review.” J. Coat. Technol. Res., 15 (1) 13–40 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Briscoe, BJ, Sinha, SK, “Scratch Resistance and Localised Damage Characteristics of Polymer Surfaces - a Review.” Mat.-wiss. u. Werkstofftech., 34 (10/11) 989–1002 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rossi, S, Deflorian, F, Fiorenza, J, “Environmental Influences on the Abrasion Resistance of a Coil Coating System.” Surf. Coat. Technol., 201 7416–7424 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Scrinzi, E, Rossi, S, Deflorian, F, “Effect of Slurry Mechanical Damage on the Properties of an Organic Coating System.” Surf. Coat. Technol., 203 2974–2981 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cambruzzi, A, Rossi, S, Deflorian, F, “Reduction of Protective Properties of Organic Coatings Produced by Abrasive Particles.” Wear, 258 1696–1705 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Reyes-Mercado, Y, Rossi, S, Deflorian, F, Fedel, M, “Comparison of Different Abrasion Mechanisms on the Barrier Properties of Organic Coatings.” Wear, 265 1820–1825 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Toubia, EA, Emami, S, “Experimental Evaluation of Structural Steel Coating Systems.” ASCE J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 28 (12) 04016147 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rossi, S, Deflorian, F, Fontanari, L, Cambruzzi, A, Bonora, PL, “Electrochemical Measurements to Evaluate the Damage due to Abrasion on Organic Protective Systems.” Prog. Org. Coat., 52 288–297 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bello, JO, Wood, RJ, “Micro-abrasion of Filled and Unfilled Polyamide 11 Coatings.” Wear, 258 294–302 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zhang, SW, Wang, D, Yin, W, “Investigation of Abrasive Erosion of Polymers.” J. Mater. Sci., 30 4561–4566 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Zhang, SW, He, R, Wang, D, Fan, Q, “Abrasive Erosion of Polyurethane.” J. Mater. Sci., 36 5037–5043 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Momber, AW, Irmer, M, Glück, N, Plagemann, P, “Abrasion Testing of Organic Corrosion Protection Coating Systems with a Rotating Abrasive Rubber Wheel.” Wear, 348–349 166–180 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Momber, AW, Irmer, M, Glück, N, “Investigation into the Performance of a Dual-layer Thin-film Organic Coating During Accelerated Low-temperature Offshore Testing.” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Engng., 139 041402 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Briscoe, B, Pelillo, E, Sinha, SK, “Scratch Hardness and Deformation Maps for Polycarbonate and Polyethylene.” Polymer Engng. Sci., 38 (24) 2996–3005 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hutchings, IM, “Ductile-Brittle Transitions and Wear Maps for the Erosion and Abrasion of Brittle Materials.” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 25 A212–A118 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ikramov, U, Machkamov, KC, Berechnung und Bewertung des abrasiven Verschleißes. VEB Verlag Technik, Berlin (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Momber, AW, Irmer, M, Marquardt, T, “Effects of Polymer Hardness on the Abrasive Wear Resistance of Thick Organic Offshore Coatings.” Prog. Org. Coat., 146 105720 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Engel, PA, Impact Wear of Materials. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hutchings, IM, Shipway, P, Tribology, Friction and Wear of Engineering Materials, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Evans, AH, Abrasive Wear in Ceramics: An Assessment. Report LBL-8608, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA (1979)

  24. 24.

    ISO 14577-1, “Metallic Materials—Instrumented Indentation Test for Hardness and Materials Parameters—Part 4: Test Method for Metallic and Non-metallic Coatings.” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)

  25. 25.

    ISO 7784-2, “Paints and Varnishes—Determination of Resistance to Abrasion—Part 2: Method with Abrasive Rubber Wheels and Rotating Test Specimen.” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)

  26. 26.

    ISO 2178, “Non-magnetic Coatings on Magnetic Substrates—Measurement of Coating Thickness—Magnetic Method.” ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2016)

  27. 27.

    Momber, AW, Irmer, M, Glück, N, “Performance Characteristics of Protective Coatings Under Low-temperature Offshore Conditions. Part 2: Surface Status, Hoarfrost Accretion, and Mechanical Properties.” Cold Regions Sci. Technol., 127 109–114 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rossi, S, Parziani, N, Zanella, C, “Abrasive Resistance of Vitreous Enamel Coatings in Function of Frit Composition and Particle Presence.” Wear, 332–333 702–709 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Pedersen, LT, “Advances in Commercial Marine Coatings Through Fibre Reinforcement.” In: SMM Marine Coatings Conference, Hamburg, Germany (2008)

  30. 30.

    Wang, X, Luo, S, Liu, G, Zhang, L, Wang, Y, “Abrasion Test of Flexible Protective Materials on Hydraulic Structures.” Water Sci. Eng., 7 (1) 106–116 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Moore, MA, King, FS, “Abrasive Wear of Brittle Solids.” Wear, 60 123–140 (1980).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Zum Gahr, KH, “Wear by Hard Particles.” Tribol. Int., 31 (10) 587–596 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The investigations were funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the frame of the innovation initiative “Wachstumskerne—Unternehmen Region,” sub-program: “OWS-MV: Offshore Wind Solutions-Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.” Thanks are given to Fraunhofer IFAM, Bremen, Germany, where the hardness measurements were performed. Thanks are also addressed to Kathrin Hasche of Fraunhofer IGP, Rostock, Germany, who conducted the SEM inspections.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. W. Momber.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Momber, A.W., Irmer, M. Taber abrasive wear resistance of organic offshore wind power coatings at varying normal forces. J Coat Technol Res (2021).

Download citation


  • Coatings
  • Durability
  • Offshore
  • Polymers
  • Taber test