Post on 02-Oct-2020
Implementation of Corrosion Control
Technologies within the U.S. Department of
Defense
The 19th International Congress on
Marine Corrosion and Fouling
Melbourne, Florida
Rich Hays
Senior Corrosion Engineer, Excet Inc.
How Many Laws Govern Corrosion?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
“Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of
the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit,
i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the entropies remains unchanged.”
(Planck)
10 U.S.C. 2228
“…the deterioration of a material or its properties due to a reaction of that
material with its chemical environment.”
Corrosion Examples
General and Crevice Corrosion of Steel
Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete
Environmentally Influenced Cracking
uV Degradation of Organic Coating System
3
Degradation of fabrics in tropical environment
4
Impact of Corrosion on the U.S. DoD*
Fiscal
Year(s)
Segment Annual Cost of
Corrosion
($B)
Corrosion as a
% of
Maintenance
2009-2011 Facilities 3.0 14.4
2016 Army Aviation and
Missiles
1.1 15.2
2016 AF Aircraft and Missiles 5.7 19.5
2016 Navy Ships 3.5 20.1
2016 Army Ground Vehicles 1.2 14.7
2016 USMC Ground Vehicles 0.5 25.3
2016 Navy and USMC
Aviation
3.4 27.9
2016 Other 2.2 16.7
Total 20.6 20.7
*LMI study – to be published
DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control
Strategy
Activities
– Policy Development and Implementation
– Acquisition Oversight and Risk Reduction
– Workforce Development
– Corrosion Metrics Collection and Analysis
– Specifications and Standards
– Communication and Outreach
Project and Research Sponsorship
– Demonstration/Implementation Projects through
Military Departments
– Technical Corrosion Collaboration
Technology Demonstration/Implementation Projects
Objective – Implement mature corrosion control
technologies in new and existing weapon systems and
facilities
Military Department-generated projects to qualify products and processes
Demonstrate effectiveness in operational systems
Update technical and logistics documentation
Execution – 310 Projects funded from 2005-2017 with
>$100M Investment
Results - ~17:1 Return-on-Investment
TECHNICAL BARRIERS
Use of standard testing protocols?
Tailoring protocols for the technology and intended application
Inherent inaccuracy with respect to predicting performance under
operational conditions
Testing and performance assessments must be synchronized with operational
schedules
Usually costly to perform – low number of replications
Lack of control over (and sometimes knowledge of) the actual operating
environment
7
Develop comprehensive plans addressing the following
questions:
– Will the testing provide sufficient data to demonstrate performance
effectiveness in the operational environment?
– Will the testing elucidate any risks associated with the technology?
– Will the tests verify the operational suitability of the technology?
– Do the tests address the impact of implementing the technology on
system operation and maintenance? In the case of new coatings for
example, will the tests include reparability and strippability?
– Are there other tests such as occupational health and safety and
environmental compliance that need to be performed?
Engage with the approving authority!
OVERCOMING TECHNICAL BARRIERS
8
ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS
What standards must be met or
developed?
Costly and/or time consuming
Desire for multiple suppliers
Introduction of product to logistics
activities
(e.g., obtaining NSNs)
Does implementing the technology place a training
burden on the user?
“Corrosion takes time”
Resources can be diverted to tech with shorter development
time
9
Recognize their existence – and which ones apply to a specific
technology
Communicate with the stakeholders that have the ability to
define, remove, or lower a given barrier
Include resources (time and funding) for overcoming the
barriers as a part of the plan
OVERCOMING ADMINISTRATIVE BARRIERS
10
11
In-Situ Coatings for Steel Pilings
Objective – Demonstrate In-Situ
Application of a High-Build, Water
Tolerant Epoxy to Preserve Sheet Pile on
Dam Structures
Technology:
• Limpet Cofferdam – self-sealing,
rapidly movable
• Coating System
o 2K amine epoxy
o 100% solids
o Cures underwater
o Single coat – sprayable up to 40
mils
Lessons Learned:
• Perform comprehensive pre-job
inspection – damage to sheet pile was
greater than expected; repairs
impacted schedule and cost
• Develop rapid method for sealing
leaks
• Pin holes in coating were observed
in areas of severe pitting
12
High-Performance Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Composites For Water Control Structures
Objective – Demonstrate the use of
custom designed high-performance fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) thermoplastic
and thermoset composite materials on a
spillway dam structure
Technology:
• Replace deteriorated concrete with
thermoplastic composite materials -
good toughness and can be installed
as modular units)
• Replace spillway gates with
thermoset composite materials - good
water resistance, high stiffness, and
easily formable to the shape
Lessons Learned:
• Structural design criteria had to be
developed
• The wide range of FRP materials
available makes specifications
challenging
• Hardware still susceptible to
corrosion
13
Tank Monitoring for Ship Ballast Tanks
Objective – Replace the current time-
based tank and void inspection method
(open, gas-free, and inspect) with a Tank
Monitoring Systems (TMS).
Technology:
• Three major components:
o Instrumented zinc anode
o 3-6 Ag/AgCl reference electrodes
o Waterproof enclosed datalogger
system
• Measured potentials and magnitude
of anode current output provides
information on the condition of the
coating system
Lessons Learned:
• Implementation required major
changes to the Navy’s tank
maintenance strategy
14
Rapid Cure Coatings for Well Decks
Objective – Transition products
identified/developed under the ONR
FNC/TOC Single Coat program, as well
as incorporate newly developed products
and processes specifically designed for
well deck applications
Technology:
• Rapid cure solvent free plural
component epoxies and
polyurethanes.
• Cure times:
o Standard epoxies 8-12 hrs
o Rapid cure epoxies 1-3 hrs
o Polyurethanes ~30 minutes
• Improved production rates and
rapid return to service
Lessons Learned:
• Polyurethanes required the use of
an impingement mixing gun and
highly trained applicators
• Slower curing epoxies were more
forgiving from an application
standpoint
• Performance-based specification
had to be updated
15
Single-Component Polysiloxane Topside Coating
Objective – Implement a single-
component, easy to apply, and long-term
exterior durable (color and gloss
retentive) topside coating for touch-up
and repair on Navy ships
Technology:
• Low VOC single-component
polysiloxane coating
• Depot or field level touch-up and
repair of topside coatings
• Applied direct-to-metal or over an
epoxy primer
Lessons Learned:
• Small percentage changes (e.g.,
0.25 wt. %) in catalyst had significant
effects on the dry times and resulting
appearance when applied under hot
conditions
• Single-component system
eliminated mixing errors during
application
16
Polyurethane Gaskets for Topside Ship Applications
Objective – Determine the efficacy of
installing polyurethane conductive
gaskets for antennas that require
electrical connectivity with the ship's
ground
Technology:
• Polyurethane gaskets with an
embedded aluminum mesh
• Successfully implemented on
aviation systems prior to this project
• Galvanic isolation while
maintaining electrical conductivity
between antenna and mounting base
Lessons Learned:
• Implementation required:
o Development of a new procurement
specification
o Changes to ships’ preventative
maintenance system
o Inclusion of the gaskets in the Navy
supply system
17
Low Voltage Anodes for Corrosion Protection of High
Strength Materials
Objective – Develop low voltage anodes
to prevent hydrogen embrittlement of
high strength components
Technology:
• Conventional anodes
• Resistor-modified cabling
• Demonstrated successfully both in
the laboratory and aboard a USCG
vessel
Lessons Learned:
• The vendor that assembled the
prototype circuit was acquired by
another company and the
development of the circuit was halted
• The Navy’s CP design criteria
required modification
• A parallel program developed an
alloy composition that met
requirements
Technology development is difficult but is necessary to assist
in reducing the impact of corrosion on assets
Sometimes, technology implementation can be more difficult
than the development
Understanding the types of barriers to implementation that can
be encountered and having plans for overcoming them
significantly improves the chances that technologies will be
adopted and implemented.
Communicating with the approving authorities and users
before, during, and after engaging in a technology program is
key – “It’s a Team Sport”
18
Summary