Summary: ASETSDefense 2011, New

Orleans

The briefings are now posted on the ASETSDefense website at:

http://www.asetsdefense.org/SustainableSurfaceEngineering2011.aspx

Date:

February 2011

Author: Keith O. Legg

ASETSDefense Technical Manager

Contact information:
Dr. Keith O. Legg
Rowan Technology Group, 1590 South Milwaukee Ave, Suite 205, Libertyville, IL 60048
Tel: 847-680-9420, Fax: 847-680-9682
Email: [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

Agenda................................................................................................................................................ - 1 -

2.

Computational & Database Methods for Design & Prediction Side meeting .................................... - 5 -

3.

Technical sessions .............................................................................................................................. - 5 3.1.

Drivers for material replacement ................................................................................................. - 6 -

3.1.1.

DoD policy and DFARS ....................................................................................................... - 6 -

3.1.2.

REACH ................................................................................................................................ - 6 -

3.1.3.

Nanomaterials ..................................................................................................................... - 8 -

3.2.

Issues and solutions for vehicles and aircraft .............................................................................. - 8 -

3.2.1.

Vehicles............................................................................................................................... - 8 -

3.2.2.

Aircraft ................................................................................................................................. - 9 -

3.3.

Light metal protection and coating repair .................................................................................... - 9 -

3.4.

Cd Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... - 10 -

3.4.1.

Structural components ...................................................................................................... - 10 -

3.4.2.

Electronics ......................................................................................................................... - 10 -

3.5.

Hard chrome plating replacement ............................................................................................. - 11 -

3.6.

Paints and primers .................................................................................................................... - 11 -

3.7.

Accelerated test methods .......................................................................................................... - 12 -

3.8.

Other issues .............................................................................................................................. - 12 -

3.8.1.

Coating removal ................................................................................................................ - 12 -

3.8.2.

Microbially influenced corrosion ........................................................................................ - 12 -

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Effect of REACH on DoD (Yaroschak). ............................................................................................... - 7 Table 2. Qualification tests passed by LHE ZnNi (Hill AFB). ........................................................................... - 10 -

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. ASETSDefense public database (http://db.asetsdefense.org). .......................................................... - 5 Figure 2. SERDP/ESTCP investments and surface engineering. ..................................................................... - 5 Figure 3. Short term and long term responses to REACH (Alain Viola, SAFRAN, France)............................... - 7 Figure 4. Current status of chromate replacement (Matzdorf, NAVAIR). .......................................................... - 8 Figure 5. Adoption of advanced process control for anodization of Al (Matzdorf/Prado). .................................. - 9 Figure 6. Brush plating repair of wing flap (left); pitted flap (top right); flap repaired with brush Ni+ZnNi (bottom
right). ................................................................................................................................................................ - 10 Figure 7. Hardness of nCo-P vs EHC as a function of time during a 375F hydrogen bake. .......................... - 11 Figure 8. Laser measured wear of 25 mm Bushmaster barrel after firing tests. .............................................. - 11 -

ii

1. Agenda
Monday, February 7, 2011
Side Meeting: Computational & Database Methods for Design & Prediction
Keith Legg
ASETSDefense

1300

Introduction

1310

Galvanic Corrosion Vision

1340

Computational Galvanic Corrosion Prediction

1410

Coating Databases for Aircraft & Weapon Systems Design,

Incorporating Performance, Galvanic, Environmental & Cost Data

1440

Galvanic Data Acquisition

Dennis Dull
Boeing Research & Technology

1515

cWorks - Corrosion Identification and Management Software for

Aircraft Corrosion Control

Steve Gaydos
Boeing Research & Technology

1545

Corrosion Prevention and Control Database

1615

Materials by Design - Computational Alloy Design for Corrosion

Control

1645

Atoms to Airplanes: The Future

-1-

Craig Matzdorf, Farrel Martin

NAVAIR, NRL
Leslie Bortels
Elsyca (Belgium)
Patrick Coulter
Granta Design (UK)

Matt Koch
USMC CPAC
Charlie Kuehmann
Questek Innovations
Joe Osborne
Boeing Research & Technology

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Session 1: Drivers for Material Replacement
0900

Introduction

Bruce Sartwell
SERDP/ESTCP

0915

DoD's Hexavalent Chromium Minimization Strategy and Strategic

Plan for REACH

Paul Yaroschak
OSD-ATL

0955

Effect of REACH on the Aerospace Industry

1045

Meeting the Challenge of Environmental Regulations in Europe and

North America

1110

Effect of European and US Rules on Plating and Finishing

1130

Helping the Warfighter Become Green

Scott Fetter
Lockheed-Martin F-35
Alain Viola, Roger Eybel
Safran (France)
Christian Richter
NASF
James Reed
DLA

Session 2: Issues and Solutions for Platforms

1315

Coating Systems for Army Vehicles

John Escarsega
ARL

1340

Progress in Naval Aviation Systems

Craig Matzdorf
NAVAIR

1405

Lessons Learned in Hazmat Replacement at Boeing

1430

Coating Requirements and Projects for USMC Vehicles

Joe Osborne
Boeing Research & Technology
Matt Koch
USMC CPAC

Session 3: Light Metal Protection and Repair

1515

Magnesium Finishing for OEM and Overhaul

1535

Chrome-Free Surface Treatment Technologies for Protection of

Magnesium Components in Aerospace & Defense Industries

1555

Recent Keronite Developments and Approvals on Titanium,

Magnesium and Aluminum Composites

1615

Cold Spray for Repair of Magnesium Gearboxes

1645

Clean & Green Brush Plating and Anodizing in Europe

1705

Summary of Day 1 Side Meeting on Computational and Database

Methods

-2-

Bill Elmquist
Tagnite
Ilya Ostrovsky
Aero-Magnesium Ltd.
(Israel/Germany)
Suman Shrestha
Keronite (UK)
Brian Gabriel
ARL
Jean-Pierre Chaix
Dalic (France)
Keith Legg
ASETSDefense

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Session 4: Coating Systems
Wayne Patterson
Hill AFB

0800

Progress in Powdercoat

0830

Environmental and Performance Advancements in CARC Systems

0850

Electrocoat Process for Non-Chromate Primers in DoD

Manufacturing

0910

Ultraviolet Curable Primers and Topcoats

0930

Non-Hexavalent Chromium Steel Conversion Coatings for Ground

Vehicles

John Kelley
ARL

1015

NAVAIR Progress in Assessing, Validating and Implementing NonChromate Primers

Bill Nickerson, Craig Matzdorf

NAVAIR

1050

Ultraviolet Curable Powder Coatings

John Mort
Hentzen
Thor Lingenfelter
PPG
Todd Williams
Bayer Materials Science

Chris Geib
SAIC
6+

Session 5: Hexavalent Chromium (Cr ) and Cadmium (Cd) Alternatives

1110

Low Hydrogen Embrittlement Zinc-Nickel Qualification Test Results

& Process Parameters Development

1145

Temperature Effects on Corrosion of Cr , Cr , and Non-Cr

Conversion Coatings on AlumiPlate, and AlumiPlate
Implementations

1320

Ionic Liquid Aluminum Plating for Cd Replacement

1340

Qualification of Cold Spray for Repair of MIL-DTL-83488 Aluminum

Coatings

Steve Gaydos
Boeing Research & Technology

1400

Qualification of Brush Plating Repairs for Cd, Hard Chrome &

Alternatives

Mary Gilman
Boeing Research & Technology

1420

Environmentally Compliant Sealant Removers

6+

6+

Session 6: Cr

3+

6+

NAVSEA: Cd Elimination for Electrical Connectors

1530

NASA TEERM Progress: Cr

1600

Cd and Cr

1620

Tin-Zinc for Cd Replacement on Connectors

1640

Galvanic Consequences of Using Different Cd Alternatives on

Electrical Connectors

-3-

6+

Kelly Donaldson
AlumiPlate
Toshi Murai, Tarek Nahlawi
Dipsol Chemical Co. Japan; Dipsol
of America

James Tankersley
Battelle Dayton

and Cd Alternatives for Electronics

1500

6+

Craig Pessetto, Dave Frederick

ES3, USAF

Elimination for Electronics

on Connectors: Alternatives & Issues

Jerilyn Brunson
NSWCDD
Matt Rothgeb, Kurt Kessel
NASA
Gerald Tredan
Radiall (France)
Tarek Nahlawi
Dipsol of America
Alan Rose
Elsyca (USA)

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Session 7: Hard Chrome Plating Alternatives
0800

Evaluation of HVOF Applied Coatings as a Replacement for

Sulfamate Nickel-Chromium Plating on Landing Gear Structure

Mark Pollack
Boeing Research & Technology

0830

Electrodeposition of Nanovate CR Coatings as a Hard Chrome

Alternative

Ruben Prado, Diana Facchini

NADEP JAX, Integran

0900

Gun Barrel Coatings - PVD

0920

Gun Barrel Coatings - Explosive Bonding

0950

New AMS Specs for Grinding and Superfinishing of HVOF Coatings

Gennady Yumshtyk
Paradigm Shift
Frank Campo, Mark Miller
Benet Labs
Jon Devereaux
NASA

Session 8: Accelerated Test Methods

1030

Corrosion Testing and the Non-Chrome Engineering Circular

1105

Understanding the Role of Spray & Relative Humidity Conditions in

Accelerated Corrosion Testing

1130

Design of Experiment Approach to Hydrogen Re-Embrittlement

Evaluation

Craig Matzdorf
NAVAIR
Jim Dante
SWRI
Steve Gaydos, Scott Grendahl, Ed
Babcock
Boeing Research & Technology,
ARL

Session 9: Coating Removal

1315

Final Evaluation of an Environmentally Compliant Paint Remover

1345

Progress in Laser Stripping

1415

Atmospheric Plasma for Surface Modification

1435

Pulse Waterjet Coating Removal of Platings and Coating

Frank DiPofi, Jeffrey Kingsley

DLA Aviation, AFRL/RXSA
Randy Straw
AFRL
Stephen Hudak
NC State
Jay Randolph, Willy Bloom
ES3, VLN

Session 10: Beryllium and Other Issues

1515

Copper-Beryllium Alternative Development Using a Computational

Approach

1535

A Metal Matrix Composite Beryllium-Aluminum Alternative for

Optical Systems

1555

Microbially Influenced Corrosion

-4-

Eric Fodran
Northrop Grumman
Scott Fetter
Lockheed-Martin
John Stropki
Battelle Dayton

2. Computational & Database Methods for Design &

Prediction Side meeting
A summary of this side meeting is available on the ASETSDefense website.

3. Technical sessions
ASETSDefense is an initiative of SERDP/ESTCP (www.serdp-estcp.org) intended to develop information
databases and organize workshops associated with technologies in the surface engineering field. Figure 1
shows the database of technical documentation that is available http://db.asetsdefense.org. Note that this a
public database that contains unlimited distribution documents, including technical reports, authorizations,
implementations, test plans, and information about ongoing projects. The username and password (available
from [email protected]) is only necessary for access to limited distribution documents.

Figure 1. ASETSDefense public database (http://db.asetsdefense.org).

SERDP/ESTCP has invested

$30
million
in
surface
engineering technologies over
the past four years, the bulk of
which has been on projects
related
to
reduction
of
hexavalent chromium.

$9,000

Other Corrosion Projects

$8,000
Development of Accelerated
Corrosion Test Protocols

$7,000

Alternatives to Hex Chrome and

Cadmium Plating

$6,000
$5,000

Alternatives to Hex Chrome

Pretreatments, Primers, and
Topcoats

thousand

$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
FY 2008

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

Figure 2. SERDP/ESTCP investments in surface engineering.

-5-

3.1. Drivers for material replacement

Replacement of materials, coatings and processes continues to be driven by Environmental Safety and
Occupational Health (ESOH) requirements, including:

The DoD memo of 2009 Minimizing the Use of Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+)

European REACH and RoHS regulations

US EPA and OSHA regulations

US state regulations

DoD policy and DFARS

3.1.1.

The DoD 2009 memo was described by Paul Yaroschak as a policy designed to minimize the use of hexavalent
chromium:

The DoD policy does not ban the use of hexavalent chromium

The policy does provide a strong forcing function to use substituteswhere they can meet performance
requirements

New systems: use requires executive level approval; must certify no acceptable substitute

Legacy systems: evaluate substitutes during system modifications & maintenance, as practical

The intent of the memo will be enforced on OEMs and suppliers through the use of a Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), which will be included in future defense contracts. The wording of
the DFARS has not yet been completely decided, but it will incorporate the following principles

Purpose: Implement the DoD policy and prevent unwanted/unknown hex chrome products from
entering the system

DoD contracts/specs cannot result in deliverables with Cr

Exceptions:

greater than 0.1% by weight

Legacy systems those past Milestone A

6+

But alternatives should be considered during system mods, overhauls, maintenance procedure
updates
6+

Sustainment contracts (parts, services) for systems where Cr

6+
Does not include Cr produced as a by-product of a process

previously approved

The DFARS is likely to be issued in the Federal Register in the first quarter of 2011.
To help DoD agencies adopt green products, DLA is involved in a number of HAZMIN projects, and has created
an Environmental Attribute Code (ENAC). At the present time there are codes for non-asbestos, non-Cd, and
non-Hg. However there is not yet a non-chromate ENAC, since that is still under discussion.

3.1.2.

REACH

REACH continues to be a serious concern for both DoD and for the supply chain, not just because there are no
Europe-wide Defense Exemptions, but also because of its effect on materials used in defense systems. DoD
has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Chemicals, Materials, and Impacts to Readiness from REACH.
Paul Yaroschak summarized the effect of REACH on DoD, which will include supply chain disruptions and
increased costs (see Table 1).

-6-

Table 1. Effect of REACH on DoD (Yaroschak).

EXPECTED OUTCOMES ON COMMERCE

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO DoD

Limiting/eliminating some chemical availability

Negative effects on U.S. military operations and

maintenance in the EU

Decreased material availability and increased costs

for certain chemicals/articles

Disruption to defense supply chains outside the EU

due to the global nature of supply

Undisclosed substitution of chemicals in

Commercial, Off-the-Shelf items

Failure or marginal performance of weapon

systems or components of weapon systems

Increased equipment costs passed on to foreign

customers when substitute materials are available
to satisfy individual country requirements

Increased equipment costs eventually passed on to

DoD

Different interpretations of REACH by each of the

EU / participating states (30)

Disruption of U.S. and NATO interoperability (e.g.,

FMS)

Accidental release of proprietary information

Accidental disclosure of classified or controlled

unclassified information

Accelerating the need to test and evaluate

substitute materials

Increased DoD research and development costs

Scott Fetter of Lockheed-Martin provided an OEM viewpoint on REACH. The aerospace and defense industry is
very small compared to the chemical industry and general manufacturing. As a result, the markets for some
chemicals that are critical to DoD and aerospace are too small to make it worthwhile for the chemical companies
to register them under REACH for aerospace and defense use. At the same time producers of aerospace and
defense products may not be able to afford registration, especially for products that represent only a small part of
their business. The result is that the aerospace and defense industries are losing critical materials from the
supply chain, such as Click Bond adhesive, which is used throughout the F-35.
Chemicals are often withdrawn from the worldwide market very quickly if they are put forward as candidates for
authorization (REACH Annex XIV) or as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) (Annex XVII). The result is
that alternatives must be found, qualified and implemented far faster than system safety would dictate. Any
problem or qualification failure is likely to leave OEMs without critical materials.
Under the REACH Article
Exemption most products that
contain SVHCs can still be
imported into Europe, even
though
they
cannot
be
manufactured in Europe. This
situation is not expected to last
a great deal longer.
European
companies
are
using a similar approach to US
companies in meeting the
requirements
of
REACH.
Figure 3 shows the approach
being taken by SAFRAN to
deal with short-term and longterm
development
of
alternatives.
Note also
Objective 4 in this figure,

-7-

Objective 1
Ensure Registration

Objective 2
Manage Authorisations
Identification of
middle-term
obsolescences

Identification of
short-term
obsolescences

Objective 3
Substitution
Chemical products:
Paint schemes
Mastics/Sealing Pdt
Alodine/Alochrom

Objective 4
Define Chemicals
Traceability tool for
MD articles

R&T Programs:
CADFREE
Nano-HVOF
Aluminium Surf. Treat.

Figure 3. Short term and long term responses to REACH (Alain Viola,
SAFRAN, France).

which is an issue also raised by US manufacturers. It is often very difficult to know what materials are actually in
the product; one may know from the MSDS what the precursor chemicals were, but these are not necessarily to
be found in the product itself.
A great many non-chromate and cadmium-free products are being used in Europe but not in the US, and vice
versa. In general, however, European and North American companies are gravitating towards similar
approaches in finding alternatives to restricted chemicals.

3.1.3.

Nanomaterials

There is increasing concern over the potential ESOH risks of nanomaterials, and Europe is beginning to regulate
them under REACH. However the definition of what constitutes a nanomaterial has not yet been decided, and
some suggested definitions are so loosely formulated as to encompass not just those made with nanoparticles,
but essentially all materials.
In an attempt to improve the corrosion performance of primers, paints, and other coatings, formulators are
beginning to incorporate nanoparticles to carry inhibitors, limit the permeation of fluids, or improve the wear and
abrasion resistance. Restrictions on use of nanomaterials may reduce the performance of chromate alternatives,
inhibiting their adoption and forcing continued reliance on chromates.

3.2. Issues and solutions for vehicles and aircraft

Alternatives Implemented/Niche Chromate Use Remains
Limited Implementation/Near Term Validation
No Implementation/Very Limited Implementation

Components/
Structure
Avionics/
Electronics

Bond
Primer

Painting

Bonding

Aluminum
Pretreatment

Cadmium

Zinc-Nickel

Aircraft &
Components
Support
Equipment
Chrome
Plating

Hexavalent chromium
alternatives

Sacrificial Coating
Post Treatment

Aluminum
Anodizing

Type IC Type IIB

Seal
Seal
MIL-A-8625
Anodize
Type II
Seal

Magnesium/Titanium
Conversion
Phosphating

Aluminum
Rinse (Steel)

Rinse
(Aluminum)

Figure 4. Current status of chromate replacement (Matzdorf, NAVAIR).

6+

From NAVAIR's viewpoint the current status of Cr replacement is summarized in Figure 4. The most important
remaining issues are bond primers and painting of aircraft and components. NAVAIR has recently released a
6+
Non-chromate Coatings Engineering Circular to define how Cr alternatives should be transitioned into Naval
aircraft. This circular can be made available to DoD organizations.

3.2.1.

Vehicles

Vehicles are moving towards e-coats and Zn-rich primers, while silica flattening agents have been eliminated
from all MIL-DTL-53039 and MIL-DTL-64159 CARC topcoats. In the future the Army will be looking for more ecoating and powder coating, as well as low solar absorbing CARC.
For USMC vehicles a Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP) is becoming an integral and essential part
of the acquisition process. USMC Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) Program is testing various potential
solutions. Among the initiatives that have paid premiums is an Accelerated Corrosion Durability Road Test
(ACDRT), in which an initial production vehicle is extensively road-tested so that design flaws that lead to

-8-

corrosion can be corrected before large numbers of vehicles are produced.

Aircraft

3.2.2.

Joe Osborne of Boeing provided an overview of lessons learned in material substitution. He pointed out that all
technologies must meet requirements. However the term may mean different things in different situations.

For new technologies for which there are no established specifications, the performance requirements
are defined by the new material capabilities (e.g. composites for B787), just as the requirements for
most legacy materials are dictated by the capabilities of high-strength steel, Cd plate, hard chrome
plate, etc.

However, requirements may be met or exceeded by materials currently in use. When changes are
driven by new regulations, it is important to understand what the technical requirements really are

Is the real requirement the spec limit, which is often the lowest acceptable performance?
Or is the requirement equal to or better than the performance of the existing material?

In this case, if the performance of the substitute falls below the current material, it may cause
downstream failures, especially when the minimum spec requirements are barely adequate
and designs rely on the performance level of existing materials.

If there is no problem with existing materials, there is no incentive for an engineer to accept changes. Joes
recommendations were to solve a problem on one component, and use the experience gained there to drive
broader acceptance.
Craig Matzdorf noted that although non-chromate surface treatments and primers are improving, many
6+
applications still require Cr , and NAVAIR has designed a waiver process to meet this need as required by the
hexavalent chrome memo. The Metalast non-chromate anodizing process has been validated, and in fact FRCSE and NAVAIR have been finding better SO2 salt fog performance with trivalent sealers than with chromated
sealers on anodized 2024 and 7075 aluminum. Non-chrome primers are improving, although their performance
is not yet equal to chromated primers. Resin systems still need Improvement; MIL-DTL-23377 high-solids
solvent-borne primers provide superior protection, but MIL-DTL-85582 water-borne primers have better
application characteristics. Craig pointed out that many people have the misconception that water-borne primers
contain fewer volatiles than solvent-borne, whereas in both cases the spec permits up to 340 g/L.

3.3. Light metal protection and coating repair

The Tagnite process has proved to be very effective for magnesium gearboxes. Until recently it has only been
possible to apply it to new
10%
gearboxes since steel inserts are
5%
50%
incompatible with the process.
However Tagnite has now
15%
14%
developed the capability to apply
the process as an overhaul
1%
5%
method for gearboxes that still
80%
70%
contain steel inserts and threads.
Type II
Type II
50%
Type III
Type III
The method is being used to
Type IC
Type IC
refurbish very old magnesium
Type IC Fatigue Critical
Type IC Fatigue Critical
components from the B-52 and
KC-135.

Type II
Type IC

FRC-SW (NI)
FRC-SE (JAX)
FRC-E (CP)
Both FRC-SE and FRC-E have
Integra tion in Process
Fully Integra ted
Fully Integra ted
adopted an advanced process for
control of aluminum anodization
Figure 5.
Adoption of advanced process control for anodization of Al
(see Figure 5), while FRC-SW is
(Matzdorf/Prado).
in the process of doing so. The
6+
process eliminates Cr , while
improving process quality and reducing energy usage.

Cold spray aluminum and aluminum alloys are proving to be an excellent way of refurbishing magnesium
gearboxes, as well as repairing IVD and AlumiPlate coatings. Boeing has qualified the use brush ZnNi for Cd
plating repair, and a portable cold spray system for repair of MIL-DTL-83488 pure Al coatings, providing a way to
repair coated components at the depot or operational level. ARL has validated high velocity cold spray for repair
of magnesium gearboxes under an ESTCP program. With this method it appears to be possible to reclaim some

-9-

of the structural strength of the

material, a capability that other
coating methods do not provide.
In Europe brush plated Ni
followed by brush plated ZnNi (for
galvanic compatibility) has proved
to be an effective way of
reclaiming wing slats whose
leading
edges
have
been
damaged by pitting corrosion,
creating a surface that is more
resistant to damage than the
original material (see Figure 6).
The equipment used for this type
of repair is compact and designed
to prevent the leakage and rundown commonly associated with
brush plating repairs.

Figure 6. Brush plating repair of wing flap (left); pitted flap (top right);
flap repaired with brush Ni+ZnNi (bottom right).

3.4. Cd Alternatives
3.4.1.

Structural components

A major advance has been with the qualification of low hydrogen embrittlement (LHE) ZnNi as an alternative to
cadmium for landing gear at Ogden ALC. The process qualified at Ogden uses the Dipsol IZ C-17+ ZnNi plating
3+
chemistry with a Cr sealer in place of chromate conversion. The coating, deposited in a 325 gal prototype tank,
successfully passed all of the qualification tests (Table 2), with performance equal to or better than Cd plating in
all cases:

Requirements for Non Destructive Inspection (NDI) were validated to work without removal of the
plating: FPI, Ultrasonic, Eddy
current, X-ray
Table 2. Qualification tests passed by LHE ZnNi (Hill AFB).
A trivalent sealer was optimized
Adhesion
Embrittlement:
and used in place of a chromate
Hydrogen Embrittlement
conversion coating
Primer adhesion
Environmental embrittlement
Brush plated ZnNi was developed
Liquid and Solid Metal Embrittlement
for repair of damaged LHE Zn-Ni
Fatigue
Corrosion:
coatings (Touch Up)
B117 salt fog
Torque Tension
An
accelerated
hydrogen
G85 SO2 salt fog
embrittlement test procedure was
developed.

Ogden plans to install a production line and implement LHE ZnNi in place of Cd plating throughout the depot.
Interest has been growing over the last three years in the use of ionic liquids for electrodeposition. Dipsol of
Japan is developing an ionic liquid electroplating chemistry for deposition of Al, Al-Zr and Al-Zr-Mn's coatings.
Although this approach does obviate the requirement for a toluene bath, it nevertheless must be done in a
nitrogen-purged atmosphere to eliminate oxygen and water.

3.4.2.

Electronics

Electrical connectors remain an important use of Cd plating, while aluminum electrical equipment cabinets
remain a particularly difficult problem for eliminating chromate conversion since they must remain unpainted.
The NASA TEERM project team held a side meeting at the workshop and reported on their progress in validating
chromate conversion alternatives for aluminum electrical cabinets.

Alodine 1600 (Baseline)

Metalast HF

Metalast HF/EPA

- 10 -

SurTec 650

SurTec 650 C

Alodine T 5900 RTU

Iridite NCP

The project began in 2010 and atmospheric corrosion testing is getting underway.
Radiall of France reported on their difficulties in finding Cd and chromate alternatives that would meet the
requirements for the new finishes required in the MIL-DTL-38999 spec that was recently updated. They
evaluated electrodeposited Al, ZnNi and electroless Ni-PTFE, not just for their corrosion resistance, but for
meeting all the other requirements of the specification. They settled on high phosphorus electroless nickel-PTFE
as the finish that best met the spec on their products. Note that other manufacturers have also adopted the
same finish, but Radiall found that it was important to specify a high phosphorus electroless nickel, which
generally has better as-deposited corrosion resistance.

3.5. Hard chrome plating replacement

FRC-SE is validating nanophase Co-P (nCo-P,
known commercially as Nanovate CR), as a hard
chrome replacement under an ESTCP project. The
Joint Test Protocol has been developed and the test
program is about to begin. nCo-P was developed
under a SERDP project, and a significant amount of
data has already been obtained. It is interesting to
note that the hardness of this coating rises with bake
time during hydrogen baking, while the hardness of
hard chrome falls (Figure 7). The result is that,
although nCo-P remains a little softer than EHC, the
difference in hardness (and hence the expected
difference in wear resistance) is quite small.
Two very different technologies were reported that
demonstrated performance superior to hard chrome
for gun barrels, an application where previous
coatings had always failed. One of
these was an explosively clad Ta-W
liner (shown in Figure 8), and the
electromagnetically
other
an
enhanced physical vapor deposited
coating of a similar alloy. In both
cases the new coatings showed very
much lower wear than hard chrome
in firing tests.
(The explosive
cladding project received the SERDP
2010 Project of the Year Award.)

3.6. Paints and

primers

Max Hardness (750 VHN)

achieved at 550F w/ 5hr

Figure 7. Hardness of nCo-P vs EHC as a function

of time during a 375F hydrogen bake.

Ta-10W
BONDED

Virtually No Erosion
On ID Of Gun Steel

CHROME
PLATED

Worn region
below bore ID
steel surface

Craig Matzdorf reported that, while

Figure 8. Laser measured wear of 25 mm Bushmaster barrel after
non-chrome paint systems are still
firing tests of explosively clad gun barrel.
showing somewhat inferior corrosion
results compared to chromated
systems, non-chrome (Class N) systems are improving and becoming closer to chromated primer performance.
ESTCP has funded a number of non-chrome primer projects. Rather than continuing to fund individual projects,
they have now funded an overarching initiative, to be run by Craig Matzdorf and Julia Russell of NAVAIR. This
program is intended to evaluate non-chrome primers currently on the market and to develop test protocols for
qualifying new coatings. Its purpose is to bring alternatives into production as soon as possible for low risk
applications, while developing the data and experience needed for more difficult situations.
A great deal of progress is being made in electrocoat (e-coat) and powder coat alternatives to liquid painting.

- 11 -

Low-temperature cure powdercoats have been validated that cure at temperatures <300F. Ultraviolet curable
coatings have been demonstrated for use on aircraft, and a robotic curing system has been developed for use on
large area UV cure coatings. E-coating, which is widely used for commercial vehicles and for some military
vehicles, is now being evaluated for use on aircraft.

3.7. Accelerated test methods

The pace of change demanded by environmental regulations such as REACH requires the adoption of new
coatings in a very short time compared to the typical 20 year adoption cycle for most aerospace and defense
materials. The old accelerated test methods, such as ASTM B117, are known to be poor predictors of in-service
corrosion performance, but are nevertheless used almost exclusively for that very purpose simply because there
are no good alternatives for accelerated corrosion testing. NAVAIR has been developing an accelerated test
protocol using a combination of beach exposure and cabinet testing. An ongoing SERDP project is evaluating
the role of humidity in accelerated corrosion test methods.
Another critical test that has never been well defined is environmental embrittlement, for which the current test
specification is ASTM F519. Under SERDP funding ARL and Boeing are using a Design of Experiment
approach to improve and validate the test procedures in conjunction with the ASTM F07.04 committee.

3.8. Other issues

3.8.1.

Coating removal

Both laser stripping and pulsed waterjet stripping are proving viable ways of removing coatings. While laser
stripping has now been validated for paint removal, pulse waterjet is capable of removing HVOF coatings, which
have previously been strippable only by the use of chemical solutions. A new technique that is showing some
promise, and is being evaluated by FRC-E, is atmospheric plasma stripping. Like laser stripping this is a small
area technique, whereas waterjet is a large area method.

3.8.2.

Microbially influenced corrosion

Although we tend to think of corrosion as being purely due to water, salt, galvanic coupling, etc., there is
evidence that corrosion can be accelerated by microbial and fungal attack. It is quite common (e.g. in F-16
cockpits) for water to accumulate on organic surfaces, including paints and insulation, leading to the growth of
microbes and fungi. Their waste products can be acidic and lead to corrosion with the characteristic tunneling
morphology. This type of attack is inhibited by chromated primers, and while some non-chromated primers also
appear to inhibit this type of corrosion, not all do so. As more non-chrome finishing systems are being adopted,
this is an issue that we should be considered.

- 12 -