【Haichuan Anti-corrosion Knowledge】Anti-corrosion coating tenders: Which ones are those \"certifications\" actually screening out?

Thread Content

A couple of days ago, a customer asked me a question: Does your paint have UL and CE certifications? The matter itself isn’t complicated, but it reminds me of a phenomenon that is quite common in the industry. Over the years, whether it was handling customer inquiries or participating in project bids, you have most likely encountered situations like this: in addition to the standard technical specifications such as corrosion resistance levels, coating systems, and thickness, the documents often include a separate section listing various \"certifications,\" \"licenses,\" and \"reports.\" Some are standard, such as quality management systems and environmental management systems; they are basically standard features ； But there is also a part that, to be honest, may not be necessary in actual projects, yet it is still included in the documents. With enough experience, you’ll realize that these things are not only used to determine whether you’re competent or not, but also to decide whether you can enter the field. To put it bluntly, it’s filtering people out. But if you look deeper, you’ll find that the concept of “authentication” itself is also hierarchical, with significant differences among the different levels. There is one category that is best known to everyone, such as management systems like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. It addresses whether a company has basic processes and management capabilities, which can serve as a threshold, but it does not directly answer a key question: how long the coating will last in the field. There is also another category, which consists of various test reports, such as salt spray tests and cyclic corrosion tests. These things seem intuitive, and the data from thousands of hours is quite convincing, but essentially they are still \"simulated tests\" on samples under laboratory conditions. It shows that the system performs well under specific conditions, but it cannot be simply equated to its service life in actual use. What truly gains significance is another type – international systems that are closely tied to specific application scenarios. For example, ISO 12944 is almost a \"universal language\" in the field of heavy corrosion protection. From environmental classification (C3, C4, C5, CX) to the accompanying coating systems, it essentially defines one thing: under what corrosion conditions what level of protection is required. Another example is NORSOK M-501. In the field of oceans and oil platforms, it is famously strict. It’s not just a simple test; rather, it combines a range of extreme testing conditions such as salt spray resistance, cyclic corrosion, and cathodic stripping, to simulate a situation more closely akin to long-term operational performance. There are also standards related to NACE, as well as certification schemes from classification societies such as DNV, which enjoy great credibility in the offshore engineering, shipbuilding, and energy sectors. It is these types of items that are truly directly related to how long they can be used. But that’s exactly where the problem lies. On one hand, these systems each have clear use cases, with logical structure ； On the other hand, in many tender documents or specifications for process pricing, they are often listed together with certifications for completely different purposes. Such as UL, CE, and the like. UL focuses more on safety, such as insulation, flame resistance, and electrical risks ； CE is more about market access; it is a basic requirement for products to enter the European market. There is nothing wrong with them, but the issue they address is not one related to corrosion resistance or lifespan. Thus, you will observe a quite interesting situation: an ordinary steel structure anti-corrosion project that involves neither electrical safety nor export to foreign countries, yet the documents mention anti-corrosion standards such as ISO 12944 and NORSOK, as well as safety or compliance certifications like UL and CE. They all seem to be called “authentication,” but in reality they are answering completely different questions. What is this kind of like? Go buy a bottle of mineral water; the seller requires it to meet drinking water standards as well as purity standards suitable for laboratory chemical reagents. It’s not that these standards are unimportant; it’s just that they’re not appropriate to use here. So in the end, are these certifications useful? Yes, and it’s very useful in the right scenarios. But the problem is that in many projects, they are used together, eventually turning into a single filtering tool. Part of it is to reduce the difficulty of making decisions ； Part of it is to control the scope of participation. Add to this the practical reality that foreign brands have more comprehensive certifications under these international systems, while many domestic manufacturers are relatively weaker in this regard; thus, the matter of \"certification\" is not just a technical issue. I believe that certification can help you get in the door, but it is your on-site performance that truly determines whether you can complete the project. The certificate determines whether one is qualified to participate, while performance in the job determines whether one can stay in the position over the long term. If you have been working on projects and encountered certification requirements that seem \"advanced\" but have little relevance to real-world scenarios, consider this further: is it actually addressing technical issues or merely serving as a means of screening?