For more than one hundred years U.S. Navy sailors have been defending the nation from under water within the completely enclosed and close-quartered submarine vessel environment, often for months at a time. As a result of their dedicated service under the ocean surface, submariners are usually eager to return to port where they can reunite with the expansive outside environment to stretch, refresh, and re-energize.
When submarines come to port to give the sailors and officers a much deserved respite, the dock that hosts the submarine must be properly equipped to handle the vessel, which unlike surface ships, sits very low in the water. (See Naval Submarines: The Original Stealth Weapon System.) To prevent damage to the vessel and port structures as the submarine is berthed and moored to the pier, special floating structures separate the underwater vessel from the pier. These steel and wood barrier structures are
known as deep draft camels.
Camels protect various parts of the submarine from being damaged including the hull, diving planes, screws, fairings, special skin treatments, and other appurtenances. As the submarine moves during berthing and mooring, the camels compress and deflect to absorb its energy.
The Navy has been using many different types of submarine camels. Many factors, including environmental conditions, pier and fender system designs, and operational requirements, led to the use of the different types of camels. The variety of camels, however, is problematic from a procurement standpoint, but more importantly the steel and wood construction, which is almost completely submerged in seawater, is subject to corrosion and degradation.
As a result of the variety of submarine camels, the Navy set out to standardize them to increase efficiency, reduce inventory, and potentially reduce life-cycle costs. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Atlantic was tasked with studying the option of going to a universal camel design that could handle all of the Navy’s submarine classes. According to Frank Cole, Special Assistant for Waterfront and Harbors with NAVFAC Atlantic, the common design would be a universal solution. “We designed the camels so they are one-size fits all. For instance, they were designed for all classes of submarines and intended to be used at all ports in the world.”
A Virginia-class submarine moors at Naval Submarine Base New London in New London, Connecticut. Photo by Steven Myers, Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class.
Fast-attack submarine USS Los Angeles is secured at the port of Los Angeles against deep draft camels. Photo by Jeffrey Wells, Chief Mass Communication Specialist.
The new camels were also designed to eliminate the problem of corrosion and therefore minimize maintenance. A fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) composite material was chosen for the new design because it offered all of the properties and characteristics to build a resilient and long-lasting camel structure. “The corrosion resistance of FRP composite material is the perfect solution for the constant seawater and salt conditions [to which these camels are subjected],” said Scott Reeve, president of Composite Advantage, the contractor selected to design and build the first set of the new composite camels.
Prototyping the Composite Camel Design
To test the technology and design, a set of prototyped composite camels was deployed at the Navy’s submarine base in New London, Connecticut. “The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center did a one-time demonstration project just over 10 years ago,” said Cole. “In 2000, we put a set of
composite camels in the water as part of the research and development effort.”
The demonstration project showed that the new camels lived up to their low-maintenance expectations. “For now, we do periodic inspection and maintenance as needed, but very little has been required so far,” said Cole. “For example, in late 2008 we pulled the [prototype] camels out of the water, which had been deployed since 2000. They were in great shape.”
Cole noted that the Navy transitioned the prototype design into a more universal design for use with all classes of Navy submarines. “We used that technology to come up with a more generic product.”
“For the new composite camels, we plan a once-annual visual inspection to ensure the camel is floating correctly,” Reeve added. “Every five years, the divers should go in and inspect the camel by looking around at the part under the water. There is no scheduled or planned maintenance, and no reason to pull them out.”
Overall, A Lower Cost Solution
Although the initial cost of the composite camels is higher than traditional camels, the life-cycle costs are expected to be lower due to the reduced maintenance needs. As noted above, after 10 years demonstrating the prototype camels during which they required no maintenance, the camels were removed from the water for a more complete inspection. Unlike their traditional steel counterparts, no corrosion or degradation was found. There was only some minor algae buildup on the exterior surface. The outstanding resilience to the harsh underwater environment can be attributed to classic polymer-based materials.
“There are composite chemical tanks that have almost 50 years of life without degradation,” said Reeve. “They don’t need maintenance from exposure to water and chemicals. Ideally we’d like to make sure that the camels last the Navy 25 years, but they should last longer. Based on what we have seen from the prototype and other uses of composites, the camels should go longer than 25 years.”
An assembled deep draft composite camel being placed in the water. Photo courtesy of NAVFAC, Atlantic.
Two composite camels are submerged in preparation for a submarine mooring. Photo courtesy of NAVFAC, Atlantic.
Corrosion Office Tests Functionality of Cloud-Based Beta Site
By Cynthia Greenwood
Since 2005 the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office has partnered with corrosion experts from DoD and industry to advance a seminal goal—to educate and train tomorrow’s defense acquisition workforce in controlling and preventing corrosion. DoD relies on a powerful online tool known as CorrDefense to carry out its multi-faceted training mission. Housed at CorrDefense.org, the Web site houses key corrosion databases, member and working group forums, policy documents, podcasts and videos aimed at program managers and engineers, and CorrDefense e-magazine.
Whereas CorrDefense remains DoD’s established repository for corrosion-related resources, it is largely preferred by government personnel. In order to comply with a congressional mandate to coordinate its corrosion training with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and interact effectively with industry, agencies, associations, and educational institutions, the Corrosion Office has begun testing a new Web site called CorrConnect. Developed by Game Services Group, Inc. (GSGI) of Sunnyvale, California, for the Corrosion Office, CorrConnect is envisioned as a portal allowing the DoD corrosion community to reach out to industry, offering easy student access to courses and tutorials in basic and advanced corrosion, cathodic protection, coatings and coating inspection, and other sub-specialties of corrosion science.
According to a lesson inside CorrConnect's "Courses" section, galvanic corrosion, as its name implies, is corrosion due to the galvanic action between two or more dissimilar metals or electrically conductive nonmetals. This is one of the more common forms of corrosion in complex components because of the wide use of dissimilar metals in the design and manufacture of equipment and structure.
“We have a mandate to reach out to industry and academic institutions, and the CorrConnect portal gives us a way to do this,” said Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.
Using Cloud-Based Technology
CorrConnect, housed at www.corrconnect.org, is undergoing software testing as developers maximize its accessibility, content offerings, and functionality. “While it is true that government, industry, and academia have pushed for many years to perfect the art of learning in cyberspace, CorrConnect offers us the latest cloud-based technology so that all students seeking corrosion training have an equal advantage,” said Dunmire. “For training purposes, we are seeking to modernize our online training portal, and CorrConnect will give us this opportunity.”
“As we increase the number of DoD-sponsored corrosion courses that are accredited by the Defense Acquisition University for government use, we are aiming to improve the accessibility of these courses online,” said Dunmire. “CorrConnect has the ability to provide quick access and ease of navigation our online users within DoD and industry, and it allows us to make instant changes to course content, if necessary.”
“We believe that CorrConnect is one of the first cloud-based projects executed for the Department of Defense that uses commercially available, off-the-shelf technology,” noted Isabel Manalac, vice president of GSGI. CorrConnect is also bolstered by a corrosion simulation application called CorrSim, which is available on the Web and Facebook, she explained. “CorrSim demonstrates the scalability that cloud-computing gives us in terms of being able to support thousands of users.”
CorrConnect is organized according to various general tabs or button links that refer to services or products created for the public, DoD acquisition workforce, and users developing products for the Corrosion Office. These organizational tabs include News, Courses, Videos, CPO (Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office), Akron (referring to DoD-sponsored corrosion projects handled by the University of Akron), Simulations & Tools, and Community.
Corrosion Courses and Tutorials
Several courses will be available to industry users on CorrConnect by August 1, 2011. They include the DAU-accredited Corrosion Learning Module (CLM) 038 Corrosion Prevention and Control Overview; Cathodic Protection (CP) 01 Inspect and Protect; Cathodic Protection (CP) 02 Maintain and Protect; and Coatings 1. Military engineers and program managers will eventually be able to access a series of modules on CorrConnect that is comparable to college-level engineering courses in materials science and corrosion prevention. The Corrosion Office will be securing DAU accreditation for each of these courses to meet the needs of defense acquisition learners.
Each course found on CorrConnect will offer a mix of text, videos, and games in order to maximize the potential for interaction. Certain courses will offer a final exam to help students gauge their comprehension of material. CorrConnect will eventually house the Analysis of Alternatives for Hexavalent Chromium VI and other Analysis of Alternatives tools designed for acquisition program managers and engineers.
CorrConnect’s video library features a variety of tutorials about corrosion, some of which are currently housed at CorrDefense.org. The new library at CorrConnect.org will offer users a fast, seamless, and error-free experience viewing or downloading the following videos and tutorials: Corrosion Comprehension: Combating the Pervasive Menace; Corrosion Comprehension: Portraying Polymers; Corrosion Comprehension: Specifically Ceramics; and Intro to Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Process. “The videos are organized into chapter modules, each of which includes quizzes for comprehension evaluation.”
One of the subtitled video modules inside CorrConnect's "Videos" section is called Corrosion Comprehension Portraying Polymers, starring LeVar Burton. Each chapter can be unlocked as the student takes the concluding quiz.
“Each video tutorial has a different user interface, which allows us to distinguish each one from the others,” Dunmire explained. “For example, Corrosion Comprehension: Portraying Polymers will comply with Defense Acquisition University requirements.”
News and Information-Sharing
In addition to serving as DoD’s leading source of virtual corrosion training, CorrConnect is being configured as an up-to-the-minute news source and medium for information-sharing. “To provide our users with daily corrosion news updates, we are changing the way the news is viewed on CorrConnect,” said Dunmire. “In an upcoming redesign of the Web site the news section will appear on the home page, and featured articles will be shown prominently in the middle. At the same time, the news will also be viewable on the left-hand side when users are searching other pages.”
The Simulations & Tools section currently features a corrosion simulation game called CorrSim created for the Facebook platform. CorrSim is now undergoing beta-testing and can be played via the Web site. “GSGI will be adding new simulations and tools in the future,” said Dunmire.
Experts within the DoD community will be able to stay current on corrosion-related policy, technology, and research by accessing reports, articles, and videos under the CPO Office tab. “The CPO page is a good way to keep track of the latest activities of the CPO office,” Dunmire said. The Community section will allow CorrConnect members to post comments and suggestions about each product, while also allowing for member interaction and chatting.
“Whereas the Community section promotes news-sharing and dissemination, it also supplements the needs of our course administrators,” Dunmire noted. “Administrators are free to modify content according to student feedback. In addition, each course has its own topic in the forum and is linked to the specific course page.”
The Akron section of CorrConnect contains materials that GSGI is currently developing for the DoD Corrosion Office in partnership with the University of Akron, which will receive DoD funding in fiscal year 2011 to continue its development of the National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance.
The National Center is committed to supporting UA’s corrosion engineering undergraduate program, as well as corrosion research and training programs and activities dedicated to cultivating the next generation of experts within DoD and industry in corrosion and related fields, Dunmire explained.
Finally, CorrConnect’s calendar section provides members with a monthly reminder of the corrosion events and seminars that will take place during that month.
Since 2005 the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office has benefited from expert support committees representing all military services, NASA, and the Coast Guard. These committees, known as WIPTs (working integrated product teams), have partnered with industry to realize DoD’s mission to expand corrosion prevention and control training to scientists, researchers, engineers, and technicians who preserve and maintain military weapon systems and facilities.
“The Training WIPT is at the forefront of our effort to design, launch, and test CorrConnect this year,” Dunmire said.
Scenes from the CorrSim tutorial can be played on CorrConnect and are also available as a Facebook application.
1) CorrDefense: As CorrConnect is launched in its final version, how will the news and event calendar sections look and operate?
GSGI: We are in the process of changing the way the news is viewed. In the redesign of the Web site the news section will appear in the middle of the home page in the middle section with a featured article being first. The news will also be viewable on the left-hand side when you are visiting other pages. The Event Calendar will offer an online calendar within the page that reminds you what the upcoming events are. You can browse through the calendar to view all the corrosion events from the past, present, and those that are coming up.
2) CorrDefense: Can you elaborate on the news crawler functionality?
GSGI: We are currently in the process of updating how we generate Corrosion News. We will hire a dedicated human editor to crawl the Web for relevant corrosion and DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office news. We will also include a summary of each article to highlight key points as well as blog about current corrosion news. At present we are improving the way the news feed is being viewed and will place the news feed with an archive on the home page. The home page can be viewed when you click on the CorrConnect logo.
3) CorrDefense: I understand that CorrConnect allows students to more easily download courses, and users don't experience the same kinds of delays that are often found with some types of servers. Can you discuss how CorrConnect’s cloud-computing functionality allows for these improvements?
GSGI: We believe CorrConnect is one of the first cloud-based Department of Defense project, using commercially available off-the-shelf technology. The advantages of cloud-based infrastructure lie in its reliability, scalability, and economies of scale. We can guarantee reliability because we are using Amazon’s services for our cloud technology. Amazon is one of the biggest Web service providers and has the resources to acquire and maintain a vast amount of servers to handle heavy Web traffic worldwide. This allows the site to be functional and seamless 24/7. Second, Amazon offers affordable rates that allow room for scalability. We only pay for the bandwidth that we use. For example, while CorrConnect is in beta-testing mode, there are only a handful of users. Because CorrConnect runs on the cloud, we only pay for the resources that the handful of users utilizes. Had CorrConnect been architected like a normal service, we would have had to buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of hardware and bandwidth even during the development and test phases. Similarly, if CorrConnect becomes popular enough in that dozens of servers are needed, the Cloud will make these servers available immediately and transparently. Third, we can offer economies of scale because Amazon has the resources to maintain dozens of data centers throughout the world. CorrConnect users will have a uniformly good experience irrespective of where they are in the world, while keeping costs to the U.S. Defense Department at a minimum.
4) CorrDefense: We’d like to understand the way in which courses will be modularized on the Web site and DoD's ability to make changes anytime, in contrast to making changes to DVD-based courses, which are not easily updated because of the medium and because the experts cannot easily be reached.
GSGI: CorrConnect is organized around seven major tabs: News, Courses, Videos, CPO, Akron, Simulations & Tools, and Community. Each tab is a collection of independent products; for example in Courses we have Continuous Learning Module 038 Corrosion Prevention and Control Overview, Cathodic Protection-01, Cathodic Protection-02, and Coatings 1. This product modularization allows us to add new courses, for example, very quickly without impacting the Web site as a
whole. In addition, hosting a modular product in CorrConnect allows the principal author to update the product on a timely basis to ensure that the content remains accurate and relevant.
5) CorrDefense: I understand that the site allows DoD to instantly make changes to lessons and exams in training courses and get feedback from student users. Can you explain the technical capability that allows DoD to do this?
GSGI: Student feedback is fundamental to the design of CorrConnect. We solicit feedback in two major ways. First, we solicit indirect feedback or data mining?when a user takes a test, information on what answers they got wrong is stored in a database. This helps our course administrators figure out the level of difficulty for each course, down to each sub-topic. This way the course administrators can either fine-tune the questions or make revisions to the course materials. Secondly, we solicit direct feedback?users can post comments and suggestions in the community forum. Each course has its own topic in the forum and is linked to its specific course page. When a user gives feedback, a course administrator can instantly view his or her comments and make any necessary revisions to the Web site content.
6) CorrDefense: What are some innovations that you expect to build into the site in the future?
GSGI: We will continue to improve and update content on CorrConnect. Our future innovations include CorrSim, one of the first Facebook games, which will demonstrate the scalability that cloud-based architecture allows us. It is an outreach game designed to teach users about corrosion in a fun and engaging way. It will eventually be played via the Facebook platform to allow users to connect with their friends, offering the potential to reach millions of users and generate increased public awareness about corrosion. Stage two of the game design will consist of a city building element, where users can build and maintain their own city on a larger scale.
In the future we expect to track visitors to the site using Google Analytics, a free tool from Google. Google Analytics will provide an in-depth report showing statistics about specific visitors to CorrConnect. It will also provide an overview of the visitor’s country and city of origin; how visitors arrived at the Web site (e.g., directly, via a search engine, or via referral from another site, etc.); and which pages of the site visitors actually viewed and how long they stayed on the site.
Marine Corps Cost of Corrosion Declines by $85 Million
Service Tackles High Cost Drivers Outlined in DoD-Sponsored Report
Since the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight began issuing yearly reports that track what the military services spend on corrosion prevention and control, the Marine Corps has studied the numbers. Between fiscal years 2005 and 2008, the Marine Corps’ cost of corrosion decreased by $85 million, which included $68 million in vehicle maintenance expenditures and $17 million in the percentage of depot-level and field-level maintenance attributed to corrosion. To understand why, Cynthia Greenwood, CorrDefense editor-at-large, interviewed three officials in the Marine Corps’ Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC) Program Office. In the interview below, Matt Koch, CPAC Program Manager; Bernard Friend, CPAC Operations and Sustainment Manager; and Andrew Sheetz, Engineering Agent for CPAC Acquisition Engineering, reviewed the secrets of their success.
CorrDefense: Based on the 2005 DoD cost of corrosion study, the Marine Corps spent $545 million on corrosion-related maintenance. Between 2007 and 2008, the service spent only $460 million on maintenance. What has the Marine Corps been doing to achieve this $85 million cost reduction?
Matt Koch: There isn’t any one thing in particular that we have done; it was a broad range of actions that has brought about this reduction. First off, the CPAC implemented our Inspect, Repair and Maintain philosophy for corrosion. When we really ramped up the program in 2004, we didn’t know how bad the corrosion problem was. You could walk around base and see tons of corrosion on vehicles, but there were no metrics telling us how many vehicles were affected and how severe it was. At that point we developed the Corrosion Category Codes that provided a rating of 1 to 5 for corrosion, based on the level of repair needed. Then we had teams of marines, civilians, and contractors assess the condition of the whole fleet. We were quite surprised to see that we had less than five percent of vehicles in Category 1 (the healthy category that does not require corrosion work). Once we had that data in hand, it was time to actually do something about it, i.e., repair the damage. This was done via our corrosion repair facility, which performs field-level maintenance consisting mainly of blasting and painting, and our corrosion service teams, which perform organizational-level maintenance such as touch-up painting and applying corrosion prevention compounds.
CorrDefense: Can you explain more about the process of getting these teams and systems in place? What were some of the challenges?
Koch: While the corrosion repair facilities have been around for a while, implementing the corrosion service teams was a new concept to the Marine Corps. Both Bernard Friend and I had to fight really hard to secure funding to get these teams established at all Marine Corps bases, as well as traveling teams to service the reserve bases’ sites. It didn’t take long for the Corps to realize a good thing when they saw it. Within one year the corrosion codes assigned to the ground vehicle fleet had significantly improved and fewer vehicles needed extensive repair. Furthermore, active duty marines didn’t have to worry about corrosion and whether their vehicles worked properly. They could focus on their war-fighting mission and not worry about corrosion.
CorrDefense: What other strategies did you use to achieve the cost savings in your latest reports?
Koch: The final part of our strategy is to maintain—simply put, “now that we’ve fixed it, let’s keep it that way.” Most of the success of the “maintain” part of that equation is due to the work of the corrosion service teams. By continually servicing and reassessing the vehicles, we keep the corrosion from degrading the equipment to a higher level of repair. Furthermore, we established a Controlled Humidity Protection system that stores gear in a dehumidified environment, keeping it in a ready-to-roll status. It doesn’t take a corrosion engineer to understand that metal doesn’t just rust in a desert.
CorrDefense: Describe some of the support that you received from outside the immediate auspices of the CPAC.
Koch: During this time frame we ramped up our acquisition engineering support. We sought out all program managers who were working on a new procurement and provided them assistance to ensure that newly fielded products were more corrosion resistant. These included contract wording, prototype testing, production line audits, and fielded inspections. I was pleasantly surprised to see how many program managers were willing to take our assistance to get a better-fielded product. Finally, we ramped up our R&D efforts through partnerships with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division and Naval Research Laboratory. We focused on applied engineering and looked at products and processes that could actually be implemented to increase corrosion protection and decrease cost. By focusing our efforts on applied engineering, we were able to implement multiple product and process changes that helped the overall cause.
There are many other specific examples of what we have done to correct the corrosion issue; however, the main take-away would be that the success stems from an all-inclusive, cradle-to-grave, team effort based on the mantra, “Identify, Correct, and Maintain.”
CorrDefense: Based on your recent figures, depot-level costs decreased by 22 percent, whereas field-level maintenance efforts decreased by an impressive 46 percent. Can you outline specific corrosion prevention efforts that helped you reduce costs at the field-level?
Bernard Friend: In 2004 a Marine Corps-wide equipment assessment was conducted to establish a corrosion condition baseline. Since that time, corrosion category 3 and 4 assets have been sharply lowered as a direct result of the servicing and repair efforts of corrosion service teams operating throughout the Marine Expeditionary Forces, and supplemented by the benefit gained from dehumidified shelters, protective covers, and automated wash-racks. The effects of these CPAC Program initiatives have resulted in reducing the overall number of Corrosion Category 4 assets from 13.5 percent to only 0.5 percent today. By the same token, Corrosion Category 3 assets have been dramatically reduced from 57.0 percent to only 15.5 percent of all equipment assessed today. On the other hand, the total number of assets resulting in either a Corrosion Category 1 or a Cat 2 assessment has increased from just 29.3 percent to an impressive 83.9 percent. Obviously, this drastic improvement in the overall condition of tactical ground equipment translates into substantial savings to the Marine Corps by extending the useful service life of these assets. The Marine Corps CPAC Program has become a major contributor in sustaining equipment for the long haul.
Sergio Velasco, a corrosion service team member, applies a coating to an up-armored Humvee (high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle) at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Hawaii, formerly Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay. Photo by John Repp.
CorrDefense: The Marine Corps has established a precedent for working closely with weapon systems program managers through the acquisition process. Can you explain why this is important and discuss how these kinds of partnerships have translated into success for a specific corrosion prevention and control platform?
Koch: It’s been known for quite some time that it is more cost effective to build something right from the start, than it is to correct it after the fact. The problem has been that many weapon systems program managers didn’t know what to require or what could be expected of the OEM [original equipment manufacturer] for corrosion control. Furthermore, many program managers do not have the funding to staff a materials or corrosion control engineer; therefore they went without any advice and did things to the best of their ability. When I took over the position of program manager, I budgeted for multiple corrosion engineers (including myself) that could provide assistance to any platform that needed support. Being as how the Marine Corps is relatively small, it didn’t take long before every new acquisition and program manager was coming to the CPAC program office for advice and assistance. Additionally, the position in which I sit is in the Systems Engineering division of Marine Corps Systems Command and every program has to go through our office to pass gate reviews. I like to think that we never make the process hard for program managers. Working with them, I always like to use the philosophy that “I’m here to support you,” rather than, “You must follow my requirements.” That way of thinking has paid great dividends in bringing new programs to our office. Now, program managers contact us at the very beginning. It’s a great working relationship.
CorrDefense: Specifically, in working with program managers and original equipment manufacturers, how have you gone about identifying testing with a specific pass/fail criterion? Please discuss how this has been done successfully on a specific weapon system.
Andrew Sheetz: It wasn’t until the late 1990s that the military had any real requirements or methods for evaluating corrosion on ground vehicles other than panel testing. Although panel testing is still an important part of our evaluation of corrosion control technologies, when practical we prefer to use an Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test on prototype/Low Rate Initial Production vehicles. In the late 1990s, this type of testing really started taking off, specifically with the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles for the Army and the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement for the Marines. However, this testing was largely based on commercial automotive standards and requirements. That’s why in the early 2000s a Marine Corps-specific Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test was developed using data from fielded vehicles and matching the test conditions to various corrosion environments that the Marines operate in. While the test does not guarantee “no failures,”—we are continually being deployed to new terrain and climates—it does help produce vehicles that are more robust and reliable against the punishment the military subjects them to. We have also used this data to help guide our panel testing and evaluations of proposed corrosion control methods. We use laboratory panel tests to evaluate the corrosion performance of unknown systems or new vendors to highlight quality and general concerns and then use the Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test to test the vehicle as a system, as all of these technologies are brought together.
A great example of this can be seen with the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement. The CPAC Program was engaged early-on in this particular acquisition and helped the program manager develop corrosion prevention and control acquisition language, which included specific requirements for panel and vehicle testing. The OEM submitted panels representative of their production processes to the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division for initial test and evaluation, the results of which were communicated back to the OEM (through the program manager). These were then incorporated into the vehicle’s construction. During Low Rate Initial Production, a vehicle was then subjected to the Accelerated Corrosion/Durability Road Test. The OEM was contractually required to address any deficiencies that were identified and correct them to the satisfaction of the government.
Mike Meek-Canom applies primer to an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected) vehicle inside the corrosion repair facility at MCB Hawaii. Photo by John Repp.
CorrDefense: What are some ways in which you have successfully engineered or considered corrosion holistically into the design of a particular weapon system?
Sheetz: Again, the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement is the perfect example of a recent program where corrosion was considered holistically for the acquisition program. This started with the contractual wording that the CPAC developed for this vehicle. It included specific requirements for corrosion coverage, severity and overall requirement of form, fit and function for the vehicle. By establishing these requirements from the beginning, the OEM is incentivized to consider corrosion control as part of their design, especially when (as was the case with the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement) they are required to correct any deficiencies that are identified to the satisfaction of the government and ensure that those requirements are retrofitted into any vehicles they have already delivered, if already in Low Rate Initial Production. In addition to
identifying the issues, we work jointly with the OEM (on behalf of the program manager) to assist them in identifying materials and processes to correct these deficiencies. We truly view this as a team approach to developing vehicles for the military that are inherently corrosion resistant. Basically, we have engaged people early in the process and provided them with the tools to specify, evaluate, and correct the issues identified.
CorrDefense: What are the benefits of the Marine Corps’ corrosion condition database for equipment? When did you establish your vehicle inspection protocol?
Friend: Recognizing a continuing corrosion problem with its ground equipment assets, in 2004, the Marine Corps invested in establishing a formalized corrosion inspection and reporting process that would provide accurate and repeatable results. This led to the development of the CPAC Corrosion Assessment Checklist, which contains standardized data collection elements, as well as the CPAC Program Management Tool, which serves as a corrosion data repository and reporting tool. Once developed, a Marine Corps-wide equipment assessment was completed later in 2004, which established a corrosion condition baseline for these equipment items. A major key to our continued success is the configuration management of the inspection protocols, which is the responsibility of the CPAC Program Office.
CorrDefense: How exactly does the vehicle inspection protocol operate?
Friend: The CPAC Corrosion Assessment Checklist identifies equipment as falling into one of five corrosion categories: Category 1 is the best condition and Category 5 is the worst. The checklist is an effective management tool leading to cost reduction through improvements in how the CPAC program office is able to “Identify, Correct, and Maintain” assets. It is used to locate problem areas on equipment end items, identify component failure trends, determine root-causes of these problems, identify candidates for induction into a corrosion repair facility for field-level maintenance activities, and aid in identifying effective solutions to assist in countering their negative impact on equipment life-cycle longevity. Approximately 73,000 corrosion assessment records of existing assets are maintained in the CPAC Program Management Database today.
CorrDefense: Can you provide an overview of the Marine Corps’ corrosion service teams and corrosion repair facilities, which are currently in place at bases such as Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton, for example?
Friend: The CPAC Program Office places great emphasis on maintaining the quality of corrosion assessment data contained in the CPAC Program Management Tool. In 2009, the Marine Corps CPAC Program effectively implemented enhanced data verification and validation procedures conducted by CPAC personnel during the data collection and reporting process. The improved accuracy of the data records provided unit commanders with the ability to better assess equipment availability and readiness, identify corrosion trends and problem areas, budget for CPAC maintenance dollars, and identify candidate assets for corrosion service team maintenance, or induction into a corrosion repair facility.
Seven corrosion service teams located throughout the Marine Corps provide organizational-level maintenance via the completion of surface preparation and touch-up paint operations, the application of corrosion prevention compounds, and the collection of corrosion assessment data. There are four corrosion repair facilities on the other hand, which provide
Jordan Kobashigawa removes the existing coating to prepare the sub-frame surface of an M105 cargo trailer at the corrosion repair facility at MCB Hawaii. Photo by John Repp.
field/intermediate through limited depot-level corrosion related repairs on fielded assets to mitigate corrosion repair issues beyond the capability of a corrosion service team.
CorrDefense: Have there been any changes to the corrosion service team organization and training since the CorrDefense e-magazine covered that program’s success in 2009? (See One of DoD’s Smartest Corrosion Programs is Driven by the Marine Team.)
Friend:Since the last article, the Marine Corps has stood up three mobile corrosion repair facility operations that supplement the throughput of fixed-site corrosion repair facilities located throughout the Marine Expeditionary Forces. The mobile facilities provide greater flexibility in repairing assets located in outlying units, and eliminate the need for transportation costs.
Since 2008, the knowledge base of our contracted field personnel has been increased through required corrosion-related training (e.g., DAU course CLM038—Corrosion Prevention and Control), and various levels of professional certification obtained through NACE International and Star 4D. The CPAC Office operates under the philosophy that a better-educated workforce is more effective because it produces a higher quality product, leading to increased productivity and cost savings.
CorrDefense: There are several factors that seem to account for the success of the Marine Corps Corrosion Program, which the other services might emulate. These factors include the program’s small community, annual interaction that considers the needs of active duty personnel, and support at the command level. Can you highlight any or all of these factors and discuss additional factors that account for the Marine Corps’ success in lowering the cost of corrosion?
Friend: The threat of future budget reductions across the DoD services, including the Marine Corps, has compelled the CPAC Program Office to find new ways to do “more with the same.” Identifying better practices and courses of action that will lead to a more effective and efficient management approach in the use of limited CPAC funding is our priority. This has been accomplished in part by identifying and addressing Marine Expeditionary Force issues and concerns at an annual CPAC Working Group Conference; maintaining regular communication with the Marine Expeditionary Forces on current CPAC program initiatives to obtain buy-in and feedback; developing standardized operating procedures and quality assurance practices for use by the corrosion service teams and repair facilities; consolidating multiple contractor logistics support contracts for similar work into a single contract to gain the benefit of economies of scale; identifying equipment that no longer requires services; and reporting weekly to the marines on the current status of equipment for use by unit commanders in management decisions. These are not all-inclusive but are factors that have contributed to lowering the cost of corrosion. Our foundation is built on how we “Identify, Correct, and Maintain” equipment, a system which could be emulated across all the services in some manner.
Bernard Friend (left), Matt Koch, and Andrew Sheetz manage the Marine Corps Corrosion Prevention and Control Office program, headquartered in Quantico, Virginia.
For two years the Department of Defense (DoD) has sought to minimize the use of hexavalent chromium (also known as hex chrome), a heavy metal compound used to manufacture aircraft, ships, ground vehicles, and other weapon systems. To guide military program managers in the practical and safe use of the compound, the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office is developing a tool to help program managers decide when to use it as they supervise the design and engineering of new weapon systems.
“We are in the process of creating this simplified, accessible tool using cost and performance parameters so that program managers can make smart decisions about using hex chrome as systems are designed,” said Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.
Hex chrome is a known carcinogen, harmful to humans and the environment. A waiver is now required for any use of hex chrome in military applications. While alternative materials have been developed, none meet the performance standards of hex chrome, and most are largely unproven in fielded weapon systems. “The use of alternatives can present risks to the performance, cost, schedule, and safety of developing, producing, and operating weapon systems,” Dunmire said. “This places a significant burden on program managers, who are left with the daunting task of minimizing the use of hex chrome without negatively impacting the weapon system.”
“The tool will guide program managers through a series of steps and decision points for assessing the technical and manufacturing maturity of a hex-chrome alternative, helping them determine whether the alternative is an appropriate substitute in a given application,” Dunmire said. “The process helps program managers carefully account for factors such as performance, cost, schedule, and safety within a systematic, detailed comparison of alternatives, which would, in turn, justify their choice of material.”
The tool, appearing in the form of an analysis of alternatives report, also covers the necessary measures program managers need to obtain a waiver to use hex chrome, Dunmire explained. (See Hex Chrome Report Undergoes Peer Review.) The decision process included in the report offers a methodical approach to screening the
alternatives to hex chrome. For example, it helps the user identify the current functions that hex chrome serves in a certain application and offers alternatives that have been considered for that function. Other elements of the report’s process include environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) screening; a technical and manufacturing maturity assessment of alternatives; component, subsystem, and system testing; total ownership analysis; final materials selection; engineering and manufacturing development; and production and deployment.
Hex Chrome—Providing Corrosion Protection and Flight Safety
Before departing as DoD acquisition chief in April 2009, John J. Young, Jr. took an extraordinary step to strengthen DoD policy related to the military’s use of the compound. Requiring all services to use substitutes for this material whenever
The F-14D “Tomcat” is one of several legacy DoD aircraft that benefits from the corrosion prevention properties of hex chrome. Aviation Structural Mechanics Aaron Prescod and Jeck Maigue conduct painting and preservation maintenance on an F-14D "Tomcat" assigned to the “Jolly Rodgers” of Fighter Squadron One Zero Three. Photo by Jessica Davis, Navy Photographer's Mate Airman.
possible, Young directed the military departments to further minimize their use of hex-chrome salt. Young also directed them to take several actions to “more aggressively mitigate the unique risks to DoD operations posed by hex chrome.”
Hex chrome offers important corrosion prevention and control qualities in organic pre-treatments and primers used to coat a variety of military aircraft. For example, most coatings and primers used on legacy cargo and fighter aircraft such as the Air Force C-130, C-5, and F-16 contain hex chrome, as well as the Navy’s F-18 and F-14. Likewise, coatings and primers used on the Army’s H-60 Black Hawk helicopter also contain hex chrome.
There are seven variants of the element of chromium. The differences in the seven variants occur in the arrangement of the chromium ions. The variant of chromium, known as chromium 6—an effective corrosion inhibitor—is also the variant that is harmful to humans and the environment.
Hex chrome offers unequaled corrosion protection in unique applications and can be safely used with the necessary containment and personal protection technologies and processes. Once applied, this material remains on a structure and can provide corrosion protection, sometimes for the life of that structure, without subsequent risk to the environment. When proper procedures for handling hex chrome are not used, the material can become a hazard to personal safety and the environment.
“Young’s memo is a good one because it allows us to use hex chrome when nothing else is available, and it allows us to continue to search for other alternatives,” said Dunmire. “This requirement allows the services to use hex chrome on both legacy and new weapons systems when nothing else is adequate to protect the substrate.”
Military Requirements in Young’s Directive
In the directive, Young asked the services to spend money to develop substitutes for hex chrome; fund testing to qualify suitable materials and processes; approve alternative materials that offer equivalent performance in certain applications; and update technical documents and specifications to allow alternatives to hex chrome.
In particular, Young’s memo requires the Services to “document the system-specific hex chrome risks and efforts to qualify less toxic alternatives in the Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation for the system.” These analyses should compare cost and scheduling risks and life-cycle costs for the use of hex chrome compared with specific alternatives.
In addition, Young asked each of the military departments to share their research and development knowledge about suitable alternatives with one another. However, before banning the use of hex chrome, the Program Executive Officers (PEOs) are required to coordinate with their respective Department’s Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive to certify that an acceptable substitute in certain applications is indeed available.
According to the memo, the PEOs and Service corrosion executives are required to consider the cost effectiveness of alternative materials or processes; the feasibility of alternative materials or processes; environmental, safety, and occupational health risks associated with the use of hex chrome or any material substitute in a particular application; the potential for achieving a manufacturing readiness level of at least 8 (eight) for any qualified alternative; the proposed alternatives over the projected life span of the system; and the difference in corrosion performance of alternative materials or processes.
“For such applications where acceptable alternatives to hex chrome do not exist, hex chrome may be used,” Young’s memo states.
A joint effort to understand possible technology alternatives to the use of hex chrome includes the Joint Group on Pollution Prevention, the military departments, the Defense Logistics Agency, and NASA. The group will consider gaps in available technology and alternatives with good potential for future use.
Aviation Electrician's Mate Josh Beaudin conducts painting and preservation maintenance on an F-14D “Tomcat” assigned to the “Jolly Rogers” of Fighter Squadron One Zero Three. Photo by R. David Valdez, Navy Journalist 2nd Class.
Restrictions and controls on the general use of hex chrome have become more widespread. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulates hex chrome emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) also monitors use of the metal.
Editor’s Note: A portion of this article originally appeared in the July 2011 issue of Coatings Pro.
The University of Akron Breaks Ground on New Corrosion Education Facility
By Kathy Riggs Larsen
In May 2011, The University of Akron (UA) College of Engineering broke ground for its new $14.8 million research facility that will integrate industrial research space within the academic environment and provide industry and UA faculty and students with the opportunity to collaborate on joint research.
In addition to providing teaching and collaborative research space for UA’s College of Engineering and laboratories for sensors research funded by the Ohio Third Frontier Initiative, the facility will also serve as the home for the National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance. The Center includes laboratories and faculty offices that support UA’s corrosion engineering undergraduate program introduced in fall of 2010, the nation’s first bachelor’s degree program in corrosion and reliability engineering.
“The National Center will really make a difference in the corrosion community,” said Joe Payer, a UA corrosion research professor. “More importantly, it will address the needs of industry, government, and the public by helping to do a better job of controlling corrosion costs and making things more safe, secure, and reliable.”
The National Center grew out of a far-reaching initiative launched at UA about five years ago. While creating a curriculum for the corrosion-engineering baccalaureate, UA’s College of Engineering was collaborating with the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to develop programs aimed at educating defense acquisition personnel about corrosion mitigation practices and corrosion research. The college was also working with industry on other corrosion-control projects. “It made sense to establish a center as a central organizing unit around which to focus all of these corrosion activities,” said Susan Louscher, executive director of strategic partnerships and government programs at UA’s College of Engineering.
Corrosion-related activities coordinated through the National Center will be sponsored through funding from either industrial or governmental clients. In fiscal year (FY) 2010 and 2011, UA received funding from DoD to initiate the launch of the corrosion research center, as well as support corrosion research projects and develop corrosion-based training courses for DoD personnel.
“We believe that the congressionally mandated National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance created at The University of Akron will foster a new generation of university-educated corrosion engineers and subject-matter experts who can work for or in tandem with the Department of Defense to advance our corrosion-control mission,” said Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. “Because we expect that the center will foster a generation noted for their ability to engage with DoD and industry, technology-sharing among the three entities will become critical.”
Joe Payer (left) and Daniel J. Dunmire prepare for the UA College of Engineering's groundbreaking ceremony for its new research facility, home of the National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance. Photo courtesy of The University of Akron.
One of the Research Center’s key commitments is to support UA’s undergraduate corrosion engineering program. “In order to sustain a good, solid academic program, we need to have accompanying research activities for professors and students,” said Louscher. The center is finishing its first year of participation in a research program funded by the DoD Corrosion Office known as the Technical Corrosion Collaboration, which directs a group of six American universities in tackling corrosion-related issues through applied research. The center is also securing research projects from industry as well as focusing on contract research, Payer explained.
“Within the center, we have a research mandate to carry out top-level research and add to the knowledge base that we have, and our research portfolio is growing,” said Payer. “We want to focus on projects that we believe will fill a recognized need—issues that are going to have an impact—and our work will make the world a better place,” he added. The center is currently focusing research expertise and resources on performance assessment and risk-based management of corrosion control; damage evolution and the overall corrosion cycle over time; and advanced materials and their impact on corrosion mitigation.
In addition to its research efforts, the National Center will develop and manage corrosion training and education activities targeted toward the workforce in government and industry to support its mandate of cultivating the next generation of experts in corrosion and related fields. “We intend to address workforce development—and the need for new subject-matter experts in corrosion—head on,” Payer noted. “This is one of the biggest reasons why our undergraduate degree program was founded and it is the single largest reason why the DoD is here and supports us.”
The center also is teaming up with NACE International, SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings, and other associations to offer those organizations’ certification courses at UA. As part of its partnership with the DoD Corrosion Office, the university will continue to develop corrosion education and training courses for military personnel, including Web-based courses for CorrDefense and the Defense Acquisition University, while also providing NACE and SSPC certification training.
Another one of the National Center’s main focus points is outreach and public policy—helping the nation’s leaders, decision-makers, and general public become more aware of the need for corrosion prevention and control. “One of the challenges we have faced in the corrosion industry is the general feeling among a number of people that corrosion is inevitable and we just have to live with it,” Payer observed. By organizing and participating in public forums, workshops, and other meetings, the center will reach policy- and decision-makers and introduce white papers, policy statements, and presentations that emphasize the importance of corrosion prevention and control in terms that can be easily understood and accepted.
“The National Center will enable tomorrow’s technical experts to educate decision-makers within all levels of government to address corrosion challenges, while preserving our transportation and public works infrastructure,” said Rich Hays, deputy director of the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. “It is our hope that through the new center, the DoD corrosion office’s policies and programs can be applied toward the preservation and sustainment of public works and transportation assets by local municipalities, cities, and state governments. Preservation projects like these are outside the purview of DoD, but they remain vital to the long-term interests, well-being, and safety of the general public.”
The building is expected to open in December 2011, while laboratories will be equipped through spring of 2012. “We feel that this has been a unique public/private partnership and we’re excited about the opportunity to conduct leading research, educate students, and help shape the future of the industry,” Louscher said.
The front of the UA College of Engineering's forthcoming research building on Wolf Ledges Parkway is set to be built between the Buckingham Building and the Gas Turbine Testing Facility on campus. Image courtesy of The University of Akron.
Bridge-Monitoring Technology Plays Critical Role Following Barge Crash
By Megan Holland
A recent Mississippi River barge crash gave a new structural health monitoring (SHM) technology a chance to shine when the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) called for backup to ensure that motorists could safely cross the river bridge connecting Vicksburg, Mississippi, with the state of Louisiana. The structure, which had been hit by a grain-filled barge in April 2011, was closed for hours as state employees scrambled to quickly assess the damage.
The SHM system was conceived and developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and a team of contractors as part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Army Corrosion, Prevention and Control program. The SHM technology monitors, in real time, the long-term degradation of steel bridges and determines any effect on the structure when conditions such as corrosion, fatigue, or other forms of deterioration undergo change. Such information gives inspectors a head start in biannual assessments and aids in maintenance and repair planning. A similar system is installed on the Swing Span of the Government Bridge at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, to monitor the many dynamics and loads this century-year-old bridge section experiences in everyday service, as well as long-term changes in
condition.
“The I-20 Mississippi River bridge was selected as one of the two SHM demonstration sites because it is a critical crossing of the Mississippi, with the next closest bridge about 50 miles away,” said Steven Sweeney, a structural engineer at ERDC’s Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) and SHM project engineer. “It is also part of the Defense Strategic Highway Network and close to ERDC-Vicksburg,” he said. “Following the barge impact, LA DOTD called upon the system, along with subcontractor support, to check for any indication of structural problems.”
The I-20 Bridge SHM was installed in November 2010. The technology observes structures on which it is installed continuously to provide real-time monitoring and dynamic assessment of structural health. The dynamic assessment part of the SHM system is achieved through a set of algorithms that contain pre-set limits for each structural variable based on a finite element model of the bridge. For example, if the bridge design parameters do not exceed the pre-set limits, the traffic light indicator will remain green, indicating no problems with the bridge operation. Information the SHM provides on sudden changes makes it a perfect fit for post-crash needs.
“Bridge engineers were en route but were still a distance away when we received the call for help,” said Sweeney. “We checked for structural problems in the strain, displacement, and tilt data. In addition, the system includes three cameras, and we were able to look for visible problems.”
Following a barge crash in April 2011, the I-20 Mississippi River Bridge connecting Vicksburg with Louisiana benefitted from the testing of new structural health monitoring technology developed by the Army’s Engineer Research Development Center. Photo courtesy of Army ERDC-CERL.
After a barge hit the I-20 bridge in Madison Parish, the Louisiana DOT conducted salvage operations. Photo courtesy of Army ERDC-CERL.
In the aftermath of the recent crash, the ability to see the river bridge at close range proved particularly useful. After the 30-barge tow vessel struck the old U.S. 80 bridge in the river’s annually flooded waters, the offending barge floated downstream and didn’t simply strike one of the I-20 structure’s piers—it also lodged against it. The barge eventually sank but remained lodged against that pier, leading to a multiple-week effort to remove the wreckage.
“In the hours following the crash, we monitored the system closely, continuing throughout the night, and our subcontractor provided the LA DOTD with updates every three hours. We have continued to closely watch the structure and have offered our services as the cleanup efforts continue,” said Sweeney.
Nearly 23,000 vehicles cross the I-20 bridge each day.
Naval Submarines: The Original Stealth Weapon System
By Ben Craig
Attack and missile submarines cruise the ocean depths executing missions all over the globe without being seen or heard. These technologically advanced systems are capable of submerging to depths of approximately 800 feet and remaining underwater for months. There are essentially three types of submarines currently in the U.S. Navy fleet.
Attack submarines (SSN) are designed to move quickly and engage other submarines, surface ships, and shore facilities with mines, torpedoes, and missiles. These small and fast vessels are also capable of conducting intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions and providing critical support to special operations. Attack subs are approximately 360 feet long, can travel at more than 28 miles per hour, and typically carry about 140 officers and crew members.
Fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) are larger vessels that roam the under waters stealthily and carry long-range nuclear warhead missiles. These powerful, precision, and long-mission duration subs are designed to deter enemy action with their nuclear attack capability. With a length of approximately 560 feet, these vessels typically carry 155 officers and crew members.
Guided missile submarines (SSGN) are transformed SSBNs that provide a strategic weapon system platform capable of carrying out strike and special operations for the
Navy. These subs are armed with torpedoes and missiles, and have technologically advanced communications equipment. Through several design considerations during transformation, these SSGNs are capable of carrying 66 special-operation forces personnel, and are particularly equipped for tactical and clandestine insertion and retrieval of these specially trained units.
As a result of the variety of submarine camels, the Navy set out to standardize them to increase efficiency, reduce inventory, and potentially reduce life-cycle costs. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Atlantic was tasked with studying the option of going to a universal camel design that could handle all of the Navy’s submarine classes. According to Frank Cole, Special Assistant for Waterfront and Harbors with NAVFAC Atlantic, the common design would be a universal solution. “We designed the camels so they are one-size fits all. For instance, they were designed for all classes of submarines and intended to be used at all ports in the world.”
The new camels were also designed to eliminate the problem of corrosion and therefore minimize maintenance. A fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) composite material was chosen for the new design because it offered all of the properties and characteristics to build a resilient and long-lasting camel structure. “The corrosion resistance of FRP composite material is the perfect solution for the constant seawater and salt conditions [to which these camels are subjected],” said Scott Reeve, president of Composite Advantage, the contractor selected to design and build the first set of the new composite camels.
The Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Chicago off the coast of Malaysia. Photo by Kevin H. Tierney, Navy Photographer's Mate 1st Class.
To test the technology and design, a set of prototyped composite camels was deployed at the Navy’s submarine base in New London, Connecticut. “The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center did a one-time demonstration project just over 10 years ago,” said Cole. “In 2000, we put a set of composite camels in the water as part of the research and development effort.”
The demonstration project showed that the new camels lived up to their low-maintenance expectations. “For now, we do periodic inspection and maintenance as needed, but very little has been required so far,” said Cole. “For example, in late 2008 we pulled the [prototype] camels out of the water, which had been deployed since 2000. They were in great shape.”
Cole noted that the Navy transitioned the prototype design into a more universal design for use with all classes of Navy submarines. “We used that technology to come up with a more generic product.”
“For the new composite camels, we plan a once-annual visual inspection to ensure the camel is floating correctly,” Reeve added. “Every five years, the divers should go in and inspect the camel by looking around at the part under the water. There is no scheduled or planned maintenance, and no reason to pull them out.”
Overall, A Lower Cost Solution
Although the initial cost of the composite camels is higher than traditional camels, the life-cycle costs are expected to be lower due to the reduced maintenance needs. As noted above, after 10 years demonstrating the prototype camels during which they required no maintenance, the camels were removed from the water for a more complete inspection. Unlike their traditional steel counterparts, no corrosion or degradation was found. There was only some minor algae buildup on the exterior surface. The outstanding resilience to the harsh underwater environment can be attributed to classic polymer-based materials.
“There are composite chemical tanks that have almost 50 years of life without degradation,” said Reeve. “They don’t need maintenance from exposure to water and chemicals. Ideally we’d like to make sure that the camels last the Navy 25 years, but they should last longer. Based on what we have seen from the prototype and other uses of composites, the camels should go longer than 25 years.”
The Ohio-class fleet ballistic-missile submarine USS Nevada launches an unarmed Trident II D5 missile. Photo by Navy Seaman Benjamin Crossley.
An aft view of the USS Georgia, which was converted from a ballistic missile submarine to a guided-missile submarine. Photo by Navy Lt. Rebecca Rebarich.
In Redundancy Report, GAO Singles Out Cost-Avoidance Potential of Corrosion Office
By Cynthia Greenwood
Within a federal audit that cites 34 areas in which government agency and office objectives are overlapping or redundant, efforts by the DoD Corrosion Office to improve military corrosion prevention and control are being held up as means for government to save money. "Improved corrosion prevention and control practices could help [the Defense Department] avoid billions in unnecessary costs over time," noted a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled “Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenues.” The report found that addressing duplicative efforts on even one issue could save taxpayers billions.
The GAO report, released March 1, also summarizes 47 additional areas in which federal agencies or Congress could potentially reduce government costs or enhance revenue. GAO prepared the report after President Obama sought a review of all federal regulations in an effort to increase.
For example, in its review, GAO found that 31 entities within DoD are in charge of responding to urgent needs of the warfighter. Multiple intelligence organizations within DoD contribute to “unnecessary redundancies” in the practice of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The report also found that a department-level “acquisition strategy could reduce costly duplication in purchasing tactical-wheeled vehicles.” (These include the mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, or MRAP.)
Explaining how the government could potentially save taxpayers billions, the GAO report reviewed DoD’s assessment of the far-reaching effect of corrosion upon the federal budget and on military readiness, based on data from fiscal year 2006. While corrosion costs the Defense Department $23 billion annually, one-fourth of the $80 billion spent on maintaining ships, aircraft, missiles, and vehicles is absorbed by corrosion costs, the report said. In addition, $1.9 million of the $10 billion that DoD spends to maintain 577,000 military facilities is spent on corrosion.
A new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle goes for a spin during a training course at Camp Liberty in western Baghdad. Photo by Sgt. Mark B. Matthews.
The report stated: “According to DoD, increased corrosion prevention and control efforts are needed to adequately address the wide-ranging and expensive effects of corrosion on equipment and infrastructure. However, DoD did not fund about one-third of acceptable corrosion projects for fiscal years 2005 through 2010.”
Acknowledging that Corrosion Office research and technology demonstration projects aimed at preventing corrosion offer taxpayers a return on investment of 50 to 1, the report outlined opportunities for corrosion-related cost savings. Specifically, the report noted: “If the corrosion prevention and control projects accepted [by the DoD Corrosion Office] from fiscal years 2005 through 2010 had been fully funded, DoD potentially could have avoided $3.6 billion in corrosion-related costs—assuming those projects achieved the same level of cost-effectiveness as was estimated for all accepted projects in those years.”
“Similarly, by under-funding all of its estimated corrosion prevention and control requirements, DoD may be missing an opportunity for additional cost avoidance totaling $1.4 billion,” the report said.
Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD Corrosion Office, stated that he was unaware that the Office’s initiatives would be highlighted in the GAO report. “Without the hard work of the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team comprising DoD and industry corrosion experts, the Corrosion Office would not have widened its influence to the extent that GAO has recognized in this report,” Dunmire said.
Report Addresses Food Safety Oversight, Among Other Areas
Included in the 47 areas of federal oversight examined by auditors were food safety, homeland security and law enforcement, teacher quality, and transportation. Under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the two key agencies managing food safety, are joined by 15 other agencies. For example, the report characterized the food safety system as fragmented, a system that has led to “inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources.”
In 2010 GAO reported on the “fragmented nature of federal food safety oversight” after the government recalled 500 million eggs contaminated by Salmonella. Here’s an example of the fragmentation cited: FDA ensures that shell eggs are “safe, wholesome, and properly labeled;” FSIS oversees the safe processing of eggs into egg products; USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Services sets the standards for Grade A eggs, but doesn’t test them for microbes such as Salmonella, the report noted. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services watches the health of young chicks supplied to egg farms, while FDA oversees whether chicks are fed safely.
An MRAP with improved suspension is designed to better tackle the harsh terrain found in Afghanistan. The MRAP is one of many tactical-wheeled vehicles whose acquisition is managed by multiple agencies within DoD, according to GAO. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army.
Aviation Electrician's Mate Joe Jenkins checks for corrosion on the tail rotor of an MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS Cleveland on a Pacific-region tour including Papua New Guinea. The Navy participates in joint service projects funded in part by the DoD Corrosion Office. Photo by Mass Communication Specialist Michael Russell.
DoD Upgrades News and Search Features at CorrDefense.org
By Paul Chang
The CorrDefense Web site is a central repository for all DoD-related articles, policies, and projects. Daniel J. Dunmire, Director of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, created www.CorrDefense.org as a means to connect industry and academia to DoD. CorrDefense presents networking opportunities for prospective corrosion engineers, those who develop methods to fight corrosion, and those who shape DoD policy. The current membership breakdown is as follows:
The Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office and the DoD corrosion community have begun efforts to expand the capabilities of CorrDefense.org in order to transform it into a far-reaching source of information about military corrosion and corrosion prevention.
By late fall of 2011 CorrDefense.org will be upgraded to include members-only and public discussion threads. A forum open to the public will allow and encourage direct interaction between members and non-members. Discussion categories will include Introduction and New Arrivals, Technical Discussions, DoD Policy, Corrosion Events, Industry News, Academic News, DoD News, and Pictures/Video.
With more than 3,400 current members, CorrDefense.org administrators plan to build a robust cross-section of backgrounds and experience levels to ensure a self-perpetuating forum of questions, feedback, and discussions that would benefit the population. Moreover, one of DoD’s communications and outreach goals is for corrosion control to become an essential part of acquisition planning by military commanders, program managers, policy officials, and subject matter experts, instead of an afterthought.
Additionally, the CorrDefense.org home page will become more user-friendly and will allow members to more easily navigate to their preferred sections of interest. A News Feed section of corrosion-related articles will be continuously scrolled in a corner of the home page and updated weekly. Events will be listed and made easily visible in the sections, Highlights and You Should Know. The Web site’s search functionality will become more extensive, offering a clean user interface for simple use and navigation. Finally, the intellectual documents will be grouped by publisher, providing a clear path for members to find a needed document.
The enhancements to CorrDefense.org will be in place by spring of 2012.
DoD Coatings Expert Honored as Top NAVSEA Engineer
Navy coatings and corrosion expert Mark Ingle was one of four engineers from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to be named as 2011 Federal Engineer of the Year Agency Award winners by the National Society of Professional Engineers on February 24, 2011, at the National Press Club in Washington.
Ingle, a coating and corrosion control technical warrant holder in the NAVSEA Engineering Directorate, has led the Pentagon-level committee overseeing corrosion-related training efforts under the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.
"NAVSEA engineers are the best in the world," said Rear Adm. Thomas Eccles, NAVSEA Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander for Naval Systems Engineering. "The successes we have made over the past few years are directly related to the talented and resourceful people we have committed to a common goal. It's an honor to have our men and women recognized, and I'm extremely proud of their achievements."
Ingle's leadership led to the development and fielding of an advanced tank coating system for Navy ships. The new coating system cures rapidly and can be applied in a single coat instead of the previous requirement of three to five coats. The rapid-cure, single-coat paint supports
the Navy's performance goal of a 20-year tank coating service. The new coating cures in less than 12 hours at 77 degrees Fahrenheit, and reduces the time required to paint a tank by more than 50 percent.
"It's always great to see talented people being recognized for the outstanding work that they do,” said Stephen Spadafora, Corrosion Executive for the Department of the Navy. “Mark Ingle is one of NAVSEA's technology warriors in the Navy's continuing battle against corrosion. I congratulate him and wish him well as he continues his endeavors to support DoD's war on corrosion."
“I've known Mark Ingle for more than 20 years, and he is one of the most dedicated and driven engineers that I’ve worked with,” said Rich Hays, Deputy Director of the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office. “This award is well deserved, not only because of the particular technology development it is based on, but also for its recognition of Mark’s career of excellence and achievement.”
In addition to Ingle, the engineering society recognized Willard Calvert, an in-service submarine supervisory engineer of the NAVSEA Engineering Directorate; Michael Rousseau, an anti-submarine warfare technology mechanical engineer with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island; and Barry Whaley, a remote operated weapons systems project manager with the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana.
Calvert was recognized for his efforts to reduce projected life-cycle costs in two submarine classes by more than $40 million. Calvert's work also provided a comprehensive examination of submarine hull castings, including the creation of new testing techniques, acceptance criteria, and thorough inspection plans for hundreds of components installed throughout the fleet.
Mark Ingle
"Mark Ingle is one of NAVSEA's technology warriors in the Navy's continuing battle against corrosion."
Rousseau was lauded as a leader in the field of anti-submarine warfare technology and noted for overseeing a team of engineers in the measurement and analysis of fleet sonar self-noise for all surface ship, hull-mounted sonar systems. Rousseau is also the lead engineer in the development of a new composite dome material that is expected to significantly reduce life-cycle costs, increase the safety of maintenance personnel, and reduce environmental impacts.
The engineering society selected Whaley as an Agency Award recipient for his achievements in establishing the Mk 49 Remote Operated Small Arms Mount (ROSAM) program. Mk 49 ROSAM is integrated into the Shipboard Protection System and completely removes the need for sailors to fire the weapon from the weapon's location.
Hex Chrome Analysis of Alternatives Report Undergoes Peer Review
By Ben Craig
Hexavalent chromium is widely known as an excellent corrosion inhibitor, but it is harmful to the environment and the humans who must handle it. In 2009 the DoD was instructed to use alternatives to hex chrome whenever possible. (See New Tool Slated to Help DoD Make Smart Decisions about Hex Chrome Alternatives). Balancing this directive with performance requirements, cost, and other factors that go into developing and sustaining our military’s weapon systems is not an easy task for program managers. Moreover, how would a program manager go about determining whether an alternative is either suitable or extant?
The DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight (CPO) Office has been working diligently to facilitate the development of an informational reference aimed at guiding program managers through steps needed to evaluate when and where hex chrome should be used.
An analysis of alternatives report is being developed by members of the DoD Corrosion Prevention Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT). The report will serve as a foundation for decision-makers seeking to use hex chrome responsibly. The report will contain background information on hex chrome, policies and regulations, and the reasons why it is important to seek suitable alternatives. The report will guide decision-makers about obtaining a waiver in instances when the metal is critical to an application.
One valuable aid within the report is the flow chart process, which moves the program manager through decision points showing where hex chrome alternatives can be validated or eliminated. The report also details alternatives to products and processes that incorporate hex chrome in some form.
Even if an alternative does not attain the same corrosion performance of hex chrome, it should not necessarily be disregarded. Decision-makers must perform a business case analysis that considers the life-cycle costs of the alternative versus hex chrome. Users may also take advantage of the report’s cost assessment section in order to weigh an alternative’s cost impact in contrast with the costs of hex chrome.
In addition to the report, the DoD Corrosion Office is developing video-based training to raise awareness of the issues surrounding hex chrome, clarifying policies, and ultimately making program managers aware of the report. The draft report will be peer-reviewed this fall and is expected to be released in spring of 2012.
The keystone of the hex chrome report is a process flow chart, designed to aid program managers in navigating the decision process required to assess whether an alternative to hexavalent chromium can be used for a particular application. The diagram shown above is a notional representation of the overall flow chart.
DoD Corrosion Conference July 31-August 5, 2011 Palm Springs, California http://www.nace.org/dod2011
AUGUST
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies 2011 August 8-11, 2011 Portland, Oregon http://www.aiaa.org
SEPTEMBER
EUROCORR/2011 The European Corrosion Congress September 4-8, 2011 Stockholm, Sweden http://www.eurocorr.org
Aviation Week MRO Military Europe Conference and Exhibition 2011 September 27-29, 2011 Madrid, Spain http://www.aviationweek.com/events/current/meu/index.htm
OCTOBER
Deep Offshore Technology International October 11-13, 2011 New Orleans, Louisiana http://www.deepoffshoretechnology.com/index.html
Materials Science & Technology 2011 Conference and Exhibition (MS&T '10) October 16-20, 2011 Columbus, Ohio http://www.matscitech.org
International Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless Technology October 26-29, 2011 Beijing, China http://www.icptt.org/index.php/Submission/en_index
ASM Heat Treating Society Conference and Exposition October 31-November 2, 2011 Cinncinnati, Ohio http://www.asminternational.org/content/Events/Heattreat
NOVEMBER
Aviation Week MRO Asia 2011 Conference and Exhibition November 8-10, 2011 Beijing, China http://www.aviationweek.com/events/current/mas/index.htm
2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition November 11-17, 2011 Denver, Colorado http://www.asmeconferences.org/congress2011
2011 DoD Maintenance Symposium & Exposition November 14-17, 2011 Fort Worth, Texas http://www.sae.org/events/dod
SNAME 2011 Annual Meeting and Expo Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers November 16-18, 2011 Houston, Texas http://www.sname.org/SNAME/SNAME/Events/2010AnnualMeeting/Default.aspx
