Corrosion costs the DoD over $23 billion annually. In other words, between 10% and 30% of every maintenance dollar is spent to prevent or correct corrosion problems. Additionally, corrosion has a measurable and significant impact on system availability and directly causes, or is a factor in, many safety mishaps. This forum will discuss some ongoing actions that address corrosion and the impact of corrosion maintenance costs on DoD. Some of these activities include the use of Corrosion Prevention Office (CPO)-sponsored studies to identify and prioritize areas that need to be addressed, the implementation of improved materials and processes, communication and collaboration venues, information and training, and research. Finally, some examples of focused technology implementation within the military services will be presented.
1300-1309: Welcome and Overview – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MPP)
1309-1310: Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1310-1330: Military Service’s Corrosion Control & Prevention Executives- (Matt Sheehan & Glenn Carthron)
1330-1345: Cost of corrosion impact – Eric Herzberg (LMI)
1345-1400: NAVAIR Corrosion Control & Prevention – Randy Boatwright (NAVAIR)
1400-1415: F/A-18 Fleet Corrosion Concerns – Richard Lee (FRC-SW)
1415-1430: Galvanic Compatibility Assessment: New Methodology and Standardization – Victor Rodriguez Santiago (NAVAIR)
1430-1445: Corrosion and Additive Manufacturing Materials – Pat Moran (USNA)
1445-1500: Applications of Aerospace‐developed Corrosion Health Monitoring System (CHMS) – Frank Zahiri (AFMC)
1500-1515: Predictive Corrosion for CBM+ – Casey Jones (AFMC)
1515-1530: Protective Coatings – Brian Rearick (PPG)
Cost of Corrosion Impact – Eric Herzberg (LMI)
Q1. Where does the MADW data come from and how do we know the data is good?
A1. 56 data sources, all authoritative, standard maintenance reporting systems. There are too many object codes in the systems. We reduce the number by reviewing each code entry and putting in a category. We think we have a better way.
Q2. Since we know the cost and availability effects of corrosion, can we project availability gains and cost savings due to specific corrosion technology adoption?
A2. Yes we can. We have done so with inspecting tanks and voids on ships.
Q3. Comment: Linear extrapolation. Great Use case of using the data to understand costs.
Q4. Based on the data, the cost of corrosion has decreased by $800M annually since 2005. What has been the ROI for DoD’s investment in CPC?
A4. It is actually about $200M. DoD’s investment has been approximately $2M a year.
Q5. How dynamic is the corrosion “recipe”? Has it changed much since 2005?
A5. We afford the services the opportunity to modify the recipe every 3 years. If modified, we run it through historical data. The Navy has chosen to modify twice, everyone else just once.
NAVAIR Corrosion Control & Prevention – Randy Boatwright (NAVAIR)
Q1. In your opinion, what technology would have the most significant impact on NAE corrosion prevention and control?
A1. So many. Dave Hanson stated that they have made good use of CBCs and C-MRTS.
Q2. Are the C-MRTs part of the CPC office or a sub command?
A2. We did them under CPC. Our basis is training, belongs to the Naval Education and Training Command (NETC), and is still very much a part of their focus.
Q3. Is corrosion prevention and control certification part of a maintainers MOS?
A3. Yes, training is very much a part of every rate. Some MOS’ get more than others.
Q4. Slide 13 (Training) – It looks like you focused on training as your main corrosion mitigation measure. What sort of reductions in time spent inspecting and repairing corrosion do you expect for F18s?
A4. Effectiveness of training and how they apply to inspections, Actually, in some cases time will increase and result in finding more tasks to correct because the inspections are more thorough.
F/A-18 Fleet Corrosion Concerns – Jacob Nguyen & Richard Lee (FRC-SW)
Q1. How do the corrosion hot spots align with original F-18 FMECA’s and maintenance plans? Is there an opportunity to improve our corrosion predictive models based on this empirical data?
A1. We cross data with other Services and prioritize based on frequency.
Q2. What is being done in the short term to improve sealant forecasting and provisioning?
A2. We try to do Town Hall meetings with all stakeholders at the site, and find ways to improve communication.
Q3. What can NAVAIR to do to approve non-chrome primers across applicable platforms? Are platform-to-platform certifications necessary?
A3. I think they are necessary. We all operate in different environments and it needs to happen to progress. Note: There are not many opportunities to re-coat aircraft.
Galvanic Compatibility Assessment – Victor Rodriguez Santiago (NAVAIR)
Q1. Do we have any idea how much of the cost of corrosion is based on dissimilar metals as a root cause?
A1. Cost – no. We do know about 70-80% of all corrosion damage is galvanic.
Q2. Is the idea to better predict galvanic corrosion for atmospheric corrosion conditions? And, if so, are polarization curves that are generated in bulk solution the right way to go, as opposed to generating them with thin film electrolytes simulating atmospheric conditions?
A2. This is performed under immersion, not under atmospheric conditions.
Q3. Mike West. Is the corrosion modeling being done by NAVAIR done using the corrosion current and empirical equations or is the data obtained from the polarization curves fed into an alternative software?
A3. The short answer is both. We are currently doing some statistical modeling of environmental parameters in order to predict material degradation as a function of time — for that we are using corrosion currents. The polarization curves are used as input for commercial or developmental software in order to predict galvanic “hot spots” in parts and components. We are working closely with Corrdesa, LLC and Beasy to achieve the latter. The former we are doing in-house.
Corrosion and Additive Manufacturing Materials – Pat Moran (USNA)
Q1. Have we observed any inter-granular type corrosion in AM materials?
A1. Yes, in some cases we have. It is not surprising as there is segregation.
Q2. I asked Pat if anyone was working on a standard AM materials corrosion test…
A2. I don’t think anyone is working on a standard test method for corrosion for AM materials. I think that some AM materials should be put into standard long term corrosion exposure tests alongside the wrought counterpart that they are envisioned to replace. Things like pitting corrosion behavior, crevice corrosion behavior, environmental fracture behavior, and other types of corrosion could be evaluated. Seems to me like a good idea to get tests like this going for AM materials that are of the most likely interest for DOD applications. The reality is that we really aren’t very good at predicting long term performance with short term/accelerated tests. The Navy approach for many years for new alloys or new coatings or whatever was to get exposures up and running and to then remove samples every few years, but to leave others alone for long-term data.
Applications of Aerospace‐developed Corrosion Health Monitoring System (CHMS) – Frank Zahiri (AFMC)
Q1. If these LPR sensors work, why are we only accounting for a 10% ROI for their use?
A1. We are not only inspecting for corrosion. The 10% ROI is not an accurate computation.
Q2. How are the sensors internally powered? How long does that power last until sensors need replacement?
A2. Battery powered. They should last 7 years. We have seen no gradation in fielded items over the past 18 months,
Predictive Corrosion for CBM+ – Casey Jones (AFMC)
Q1. Can you do some real-time measurement or corroboration using cameras in-flight to measure surface area vs corrosivity or cumulative exposure state?
A1. It could be done, but may be expensive. However, the inflight cameras could not analyze the extent of the corrosion i.e. depth. Not sure how useful it would be.
Protective Coatings – Brian Kornish (PPG)
Q1. No Questions