SBIR Final Report

Engineering Research and Development

May 22, 2003

CommanderNaval Sea Systems CommandAttn: Darryl Sheedlo, Code PMS 312HBldg. 197, Room 4W-26551333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington, DC 20376-1200

Subject: Final Technical Report, Option Phase Topic N99-115, Contract No. N00024-00-C-4084

Dear Mr. Sheedlo:

Enclosed is the Option Phase Final Technical Report for the above-referenced contract, “FlexibleCorrosion Preventative Coverings.” This report contains the comprehensive results from both the Baseand Option Phases of this project.

I want to thank you for all of your support in making this project a success.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached either at 603-643-3800, x359, [email protected].

Sincerely,

Dr. Nabil A. ElkouhPrincipal Investigator

6098.6/amh

Enclosures: Creare TM-2251Distribution ListForms DD250 and SF298

cc: Jeffrey J. Breedlove

DISTRIBUTION LISTContract No. N00024-00-C-4084

CommanderNaval Sea Systems CommandAttn: Darryl Sheedlo, Code PMS 312HBldg. 197, Room 4W-26551333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington, DC 20376-1200

(electronic copy via email: [email protected])

Naval Sea Systems CommandAttn: George Tabak1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington Navy Yard, DC 20376


Naval Sea Systems CommandAttn: Cathy Nodgaard 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington Navy Yard, DC 20376


Brant T. AckermanCOMPACFLT N43XFleet Maintenance Science AdvisorNAVSEA92-1196 Hulucoa PlaceKapolei, Hawaii 96707


CommanderNaval Sea Systems CommandAttn: Ms. Tammy Ryman, Code 024S1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington Navy Yard, DC 20376

(1 copy)

CommanderNaval Sea Systems CommandAttn: SEA 05R11333 Isaac Hull Avenue SEWashington Navy Yard, DC 20376

(1 copy)

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)ATTN: DTIC-OCP8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

(2 copies)

TM-2251

Final Report

Flexible Corrosion Preventative Coverings

SBIR Phase II Topic No. N99-115Contract No. N00024-00-C-4084

Period of Performance: 6/24/02–04/22/03

Submitted to:

CommanderNaval Sea Systems Command

Attn: Darryl Sheedlo, Code PMS 312HBldg. 197, Room 4W-26551333 Isaac Hull Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20376-1200

Prepared by:

Nabil A. Elkouh, Ph.D., Principal InvestigatorJeffrey J. Breedlove, Project Engineer

(603) 643-3800, [email protected]

Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only.Other requests for this document must be referred to NAVSEA 03R5.

SBIR DATA RIGHTSContract No.: N00024-99-C-4107Contractor Name: Creare IncorporatedAddress: P.O. Box 71, Etna Road, Hanover, NH 03755Expiration of SBIR Data Rights Period: 4/22/2008

The Government’s rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical dataor computer software marked with this legend are restricted during the period shown as provided in paragraph(b)(4) of the Rights in Noncommercial Technical Data and Computer Software Small Business InnovativeResearch (SBIR) Program clause contained in the above identified contract. No restrictions apply after theexpiration date shown above. Any reproduction of technical data, computer software, or portions thereof markedwith this legend must also reproduce the markings.

Creare IncorporatedPO Box 71, Etna RoadHanover, NH 03755

603-643-3800Creare #6098

May 2003

TM-2251

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of our research was to demonstrate the performance of Creare’s flexible compositecorrosion preventative coverings and to scale up the manufacturing of the coverings. Our coveringsrespond to the need of the Navy and the other branches of the Armed Forces to reduce the huge costburden associated with corrosion. Corrosion continues to be a pervasive problem despite currentmitigation techniques and efforts. The Navy is exceedingly vulnerable to corrosion from seawater, inparticular from sea spray and fog, and spends billions annually on corrosion-related duties that includeequipment and structural maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement costs. Yet despite the billions ofdollars spent each year, Naval equipment continues to be ill-protected and subject to the ravages ofcorrosion. An ability to mitigate corrosion with a robust system that is easy to implement and maintainwould allow the Navy to lower Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and ameliorate Sailor Quality of Life (SQL)by reducing the need for costly and cumbersome refurbishment and replacement of corroded equipmentand parts.

RESEARCH PERFORMED

On this project, we demonstrated that Creare’s flexible corrosion preventative coverings, calledEnvelop™ Protective Covers:

• Reduce the corrosion rate significantly of topside equipment and weapons systems.• Provide an excellent return on investment (ROI).• Reduce the rate of corrosion by 95% compared to stock Navy tarps.• Exceed the durability limits of stock Navy tarps.

Shipboard testing demonstrated that Envelop is easy to install and use. Furthermore, shipboard personnelpreferred it to the stock coverings currently in use by the Navy. A rigorous series of laboratory-scaleexperiments were used to optimize the covering structure. A small production run of coveringsdemonstrated their ease-of-manufacture and suitability for installation in the field.

RESEARCH RESULTS RELATIVE TO OBJECTIVES

We met and exceeded our technical objectives for this Phase II project. The overall objective ofthis Phase II project was to bring our development to the point of production. The goal of the Base Phasewas to arrive at an optimized covering configuration through thorough testing of coverings in realisticNavy environments. The goal of the Option Phase was to produce coverings for testing following a smallproduction run based on a sound production plan.

APPLICATIONS POTENTIAL

The Creare coverings are expected to lead directly to a reduction in TOC for the Navy. Thecoverings have broad application in the area of corrosion control of outdoor equipment and structuresranging from maritime to inland environments.

TM-2251

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................ii

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................... iv

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Need for Corrosion Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 11.2 Envelop Protective Covers ........................................................................................................... 21.3 Current Baseline Technology ....................................................................................................... 31.4 Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop ........................................................................... 41.5 Objectives of the Phase II Effort .................................................................................................. 5

2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS ................................... 6

2.1 Material Selection......................................................................................................................... 62.2 Performance of Envelop Against A-A-55308 .............................................................................. 62.3 Quantification of Envelop Protective Cover Performance ........................................................... 92.4 Shipboard Demonstrations of Covering Performance ................................................................ 11

2.4.1 Preparatory Testing ......................................................................................................... 112.4.2 Base Phase USS Barry (DDG-52) Results ...................................................................... 142.4.3 Base Phase USS Detroit (AOE-4) Results ..................................................................... 162.4.4 Base Phase USS Arctic (AOE-8) Results........................................................................ 172.4.5 Base Phase USS Anzio (CG-68) ..................................................................................... 182.4.6 Option Phase USS Milius DDG-69 Results .................................................................... 192.4.7 Option Phase USS Oscar Austin DDG-79 Results ......................................................... 212.4.8 Option Phase USS Barry DDG-52 Results ..................................................................... 212.4.9 Option Phase USS Russell DDG-59 Results................................................................... 222.4.10 Option Phase USS Cole DDG-67 Results....................................................................... 222.4.11 Option Phase USS Leyte Gulf CG-55 Results ................................................................ 222.4.12 Option Phase USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 Results .................................................................. 22

3 COMMERCIALIZATION AND MANUFACTURING PLAN STATUS ........................................ 26

STANDARD FORM 298 ........................................................................................................................... 29

TM-2251

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Performance Characteristics of Creare’s Envelop Protective Cover vs. Traditional Tarps....... 2

Figure 2 Creare’s Outdoor Test Area Dedicated to Covering Evaluation – Mid-Winter Scene............ 10

Figure 3 Average Measured Corrosion Rates for 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Envelopand 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Herculite .................................................................. 10

Figure 4 Mild Steel Disks after Five Weeks of Environmental Exposure in an Outdoor TestConducted at Creare ................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 5 Ship Administrative Message Sent by the USS Barry (DDG-52) Regarding EnvelopPerformance During the Base Phase ....................................................................................... 15

Figure 6 Station 11 Gypsy Winch at the Commencement of Testing on the USS Detroit (AOE 4)in November 2000 ................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7 Motor Operated Valve (MOV) and two MOVs Covered with Envelop at Installation........... 18

Figure 8 Envelop Coverings Shortly After Installation on the USS Milius........................................... 19

Figure 9 Two Messages from the USS Milius Detailing Covering Performance.................................. 20

Figure 10 Installed Envelop Cover on a 25 mm Machine Gun on the USS Barry DDG-52 ................... 21

Figure 11 Email from Combat Systems LCPO on USS Barry (DDG-52) Regarding EnvelopPerformance During the Option Phase .................................................................................... 22

Figure 12 0.50 Caliber Guns Covered with Envelop and Herculite Following No MaintenanceDuring Two Weeks in Rough Seas ......................................................................................... 23

Figure 13 Email from the USS Leyte Gulf Regarding Envelop Performance......................................... 24

Figure 14 Message from USS Iwo Jima Six Months After Installation .................................................. 25

Figure 15 Drawing of 0.50 Caliber Gun and Mount Envelop Covering in Support of NSNApplication .............................................................................................................................. 27

TM-2251

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop ............................................................... 4

Table 2 Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop........................................................................ 4

Table 3 Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop..................................................................... 6

Table 4 Optimized Fire Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop............................................................ 7

Table 5 Qualification Test Results and Requirements ........................................................................... 8

Table 6 Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results............................................................ 11

Table 7 Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results ........................................................ 12

Table 8 Results of Test During the Base Phase on the USS Detroit (AOE 4) ..................................... 17

CREARE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: 5/22/03

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

1

1 INTRODUCTION

This report contains the key results and information from the Base Phase (June 2000 through June2002) and Option Phase (July 2002 through April 2003) of Creare’s Phase II SBIR project to develop,test, and evaluate Envelop™ Protective Covers, a unique and simple approach to corrosion mitigation.During the full course of this project, we completed the covering development, rigorously tested thecoverings in the laboratory and on Navy ships, developed a sound manufacturing plan, produced a small-scale production run, licensed the intellectual property (US Patent Number 6,444,595), and transitionedthe technology to the licensee. At the completion of this Phase II project, Envelop Protective Covers werein the process of being transitioned to the US Navy Fleet.

Creare’s Envelop Protective Covers have very broad applicability, not only across all Navyplatforms, but also across all branches of the Armed Services and beyond. While Envelop design andtesting has been aimed at solving some of the Navy’s most serious corrosion problems encountered on theweather decks, the corrosion mitigation features inherent to Envelop find application in many other DODand Federal contexts where preservation of weapons and equipment could lead to significant reduction inmaintenance and replacement costs. In addition to Navy, Coast Guard, and Army shipboard applications,a small sample of some of the other customers having critical applications and needs include:

• DOD force pre-positioning agencies or management offices.• Navy, Army, and Coast Guard shipyards.• NASA coastal launch sites.• Special Operation Forces in the Army, Navy, and Marines.• Air Force, Navy, and Army aircraft mothballing facilities.

Because Envelop Protective Covers uniquely offer corrosion protection found in more expensive andcumbersome preservation systems while remaining simple to install like a common tarp, customers willbe able to preserve equipment in situations previously thought impractical, either due to budget orlogistical considerations.

Summary of Results. On this project, we met and exceeded our technical objectives andconclusively demonstrated that Envelop:

• Reduces significantly the corrosion rate of topside equipment and weapons systems.• Provides an excellent return on investment (ROI).• Reduces the rate of corrosion by 95% compared to stock Navy tarps.• Exceeds the durability limits of stock Navy tarps.

Shipboard testing demonstrated that Envelop is easy to install and use, while significantly reducing themaintenance requirement associated with protected equipment. Furthermore, shipboard personnel havestated that they prefer Envelop to the stock Herculite® coverings currently in use by the Navy. At theconclusion of this project, Envelop coverings are commercially available and being procured by US Navyships, such as the USS Cole (DDG 67).

1.1 NEED FOR CORROSION MITIGATION

As military maintenance budgets shrink, weapons systems and equipment are expected toperform for periods far exceeding original design expectations. One of the major factors limitingextended life cycles of equipment and weapons systems in the Navy is corrosion, which costs the Navybillions of dollars annually. Corrosion damage accelerated by the maritime environment is a tremendous



2

problem for the Navy, impacting equipment maintenance costs, availability, rework and repair, andreliability.

The Navy has spent a great deal of effort developing storage methods to reduce seawaterexposure to sensitive equipment. Equipment stored on deck, as well as on shore, is often stored inprotective storage systems that have proved to be less than optimally effective. Equipment often iscovered with waterproof tarps made from Herculite, which simply do not prevent corrosion and canactually accelerate corrosion progression because of the resulting greenhouse effect that results in themicro-environment beneath the covering.

Shipboard items, including the anchor windlass, torpedo tubes, 0.50-caliber machine gun mounts,and chaff-decoy launchers, are continuously exposed to the marine environment with little or noprotection. Even when equipment is covered by waterproof tarps, water still penetrates through or aroundthe tarp into the protected space where seawater collects, recirculates in the airspace, and corrodes theunderlying equipment and inner structures. Other techniques, such as dehumidification and vaporcorrosion inhibitors, are also used, but traditionally rely on a hermetically sealed environment to beeffective. Such an environment is difficult to achieve, expensive to create, and burdensome to implement.As such, these techniques are often eschewed and equipment and structures are ill-protected. The result isthat corrosion continues to be a significant and costly problem, requiring many man-hours dedicated torust removal, painting, repair, and refurbishment—ultimately leading to excessive cost, prematureequipment replacement, or equipment or weapons systems that are not safe. In short, until now no middleground solution for combating corrosion has existed.

1.2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVERS

Envelop Protective Covers, developed entirely under this Phase II and associated Phase Icontract, are a new way of providing flexible corrosion protection that inhibits the contact of seawaterwith the protected surface, depresses the local relative humidity, and avoids the above-listed pitfalls, asshown in Figure 1. It represents significant Total Ownership Cost (TOC) reduction potential for theNavy, in addition to improvement of Sailor Quality of Life (SQL). Equipment availability and reliabilitycould be vastly improved, operations could be simplified, maintenance programs could be scaled back,and inventory required for replacement equipment could be reduced. Envelop primarily protectsequipment and structures from seawater, rain, and condensation, in addition to tolerating global marineenvironmental conditions. Additionally, it is easy to store, install, and use while accommodating a broadrange of sizes and shapes.

Figure 1. Performance Characteristics of Creare’s Envelop Protective Cover vs. Traditional Tarps



3

Envelop Protective Covers provide corrosion prevention by absorbing moisture from beneath thecovering, storing it inside of the covering, passively releasing the moisture as water vapor back to theoutside environment, and conditioning the area beneath the covering with corrosion inhibitors. Thesefeatures are provided by four separate synergistic flexible layers:

1. Outer Shell. The outer surface of the covering is protected by a tough flexible fabric thatforms a barrier to the environmental elements like rain or snow. It also is permeable only towater vapor, thus allowing moisture to evaporate from beneath the covering.

2. Inner Wicking Layer. A layer that contacts the protected equipment and forms the innersurface is used to wick water that contacts protected equipment or structures. The layer ismade from material that is hydrophobic that has a porous structure that wicks water. Thewater is passed to the absorbent inner matrix.

3. Absorbent Inner Matrix. A superabsorbant-based absorbent matrix stores water within itsstructure. Water is only released back to the environment when humidity is less than 100%.Water vapor passes through the outer shell. The superabsorbants can also slightly depress thehumidity beneath the cover, thereby preventing condensation when the dew point for theambient air is reached.

4. Corrosion Inhibiting Layer. A layer that contains corrosion inhibitors is used to condition themicro-environment beneath the covering to displace, in particular, chlorides from the surfaceof the protected structure. Because the outer shell is impervious to the corrosion inhibitors,the corrosion inhibitors can only escape through any openings at closure points. Also, whenwater vapor might be driven through the outer shell, water vapor must pass through thecorrosion inhibitors first, where it picks up corrosion inhibiting compounds before it mightcontact the surface of the protected equipment.

1.3 CURRENT BASELINE TECHNOLOGY

Strengths and Weaknesses of Baseline Technology. Currently, there are two general classes ofsystems that are employed in an attempt to preserve equipment and prevent the onset of corrosion. Thefirst category is tarps. These are quite often the first and only line of defense against corrosion in virtuallymost applications. While tarps are easy to install and can prevent rain or other elements from directlycontacting equipment, they offer practically no protection from corrosion progression and in most casescan lead to accelerated corrosion beneath the tarp because of the establishment of the greenhouse effect.In effect, then, tarps should not be considered corrosion protection despite their nearly universal presence.

The other class of systems is categorized by the creation of a controlled environment that is cutoff from the ambient environment. The controlled environment is then either dehumidified or treatedwith corrosion inhibitors. Both methods can be used to great effect, but are cumbersome, costly, and notoften practical to implement. Dehumidification systems completely shelter the equipment or materials tobe protected and are connected to dehumidification equipment that controls and monitors the space toguarantee relative humidity levels lower than 50%. At a relative humidity level of 50% or less, corrosioncan be prevented indefinitely. Such systems can cost upwards of $100/ft2 of protected material.

Corrosion inhibitor systems also rely on a sealed environment to be effective. Corrosioninhibitors are high vapor pressure compounds that fill the enclosed environment and deposit on thesurface of the protected materials. The deposited material forms a monolayer that displaces water vaporand chlorine, thereby breaking the galvanic coupling with the base metal and inhibiting corrosion. Forsituations where a closed environment must be formed, costs for such systems are greater than $20/ft2.Because the environment must be sealed, corrosion inhibitor systems are not frequently a practical



4

solution for corrosion mitigation, especially for equipment that is frequently in use. As such, a great needexists for a means to mitigate corrosion that is technically cost effective and simple to implement.

Comparison of Baseline with Envelop. Envelop Protective Covers are designed to incorporatethe performance benefits associated with the cumbersome and expensive controlled atmosphereprotection systems while remaining simple and practical to implement like a tarp. When compared tocompeting protection systems, Envelop is a fraction of the cost, effective for several years, and allowseasy access to protected equipment. For the comparison in Table 1, it was assumed that topsideequipment such as a chaff-decoy launcher would be protected. It should be noted that Envelop is the onlymethod that can provide a practical solution for this assumed scenario.

1.4 FEATURES, ADVANTAGES, AND BENEFITS OF ENVELOP

Envelop Protective Covers have been designed to offer the performance advantages usuallyassociated with dehumidification or corrosion inhibitor systems in a tarp-like package. As such, Envelopoffers true corrosion protection hoped for in a tarp, while remaining simple and easy to use. Table 2 liststhe features, advantages, and benefits of Envelop.

Table 1. Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop

Characteristics DehumidificationSystems

Corrosion Inhibitors Envelop ProtectionSystem

Average Approximate Cost/ft2 >$100 >$20 $10 to $15Sealed Environment Required YES YES NOCompact Stowage NO (single use) YESEasy Access to Equipment NO NO YES

Table 2. Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop

Features Advantages BenefitsLightweight and flexible Easy installation and access to

equipment; compact stowageMinimal installation costs;no training required

Weather-resistant materials Protection in severe environments Life of Envelop longer thanHerculite

Passively regenerative Continuous protection No Envelop maintenance costsAutomatic water removal Keeps equipment surfaces dry to

reduce surface corrosionLower maintenance costs for outersurfaces

Humidity depression Eliminates condensation—amajor route to corrosion

Less down time for majormaintenance and replacement

Resistant to oil, hydraulicfluid, diesel, jet fuel, etc.

Protection not affected bycommon contaminants

Replacement of Envelop notimmediately required

Integrated vapor corrosioninhibitors

Corrosion mitigation for surfaceand internal structures

No hassle corrosion inhibitorprotection; lower install costs

Synergetic compositelayers

Sealed environment not required No environmental monitoring;operate equipment while protected



5

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE II EFFORT

We met and exceeded our technical objectives for this Phase II project. The overall objective ofthis Phase II project was to bring the development to the point of production. The goal of the Base Phasewas to arrive at an optimized covering configuration through thorough testing of coverings in realisticNavy environments. By the end of the Base Phase of this project, we planned to have and achieved:

• An optimized and refined family of corrosion preventative coverings. We tested andevaluated hundreds of materials in laboratory-scale tests to optimize the corrosion mitigatingfeatures of Envelop, as well as the structural integrity of the coverings. To prove out theoptimized designs, we installed coverings on four different Navy ships. At the conclusion ofthe Base Phase of this project, we had an optimized covering suitable for installation on theweather deck of Navy ships.

• A preliminary production plan and coverings that are ready for full-scale production. Wechose materials in our optimization process that could easily be sewn together using standardindustrial sewing techniques. As such, the plan reduces to, simply, quilt all layers togetherexcept the outer shell and then sew the quilted layers and outer shell together. Coverings thatwere installed on ships were all constructed in this manner to prove the manufacturingfeasibility of our innovation. At the conclusion of the Base Phase, we were in a position totransition our technology directly to our licensee for production.

Our Base Phase provided a smooth transition to the Option Phase and beyond to full production.The goal of the Option Phase was to produce a complete manufacturing plan to enable seamless transitionto production in Phase III. We met and exceeded our goals. Namely, by the end of the Option Phase, wehave:

• A finalized production plan for our covering family. We produced a final list of materials andmanufacturing practices to produce the coverings. AutoCAD® drawings were generated forthe 0.50 caliber gun and 25 mm gun covers. The Sail Loft Office at Pearl Harbor was trainedto produce the coverings. In addition to the baseline configuration of the Envelop ProtectiveCovers, we also specified the materials needed to meet the fire retardancy guidelines inNFPA 701A. Furthermore, the chosen materials for both the baseline and fire-retardantversions of Envelop were subjected to the requirements of A-A-55308.

• Completed a small-scale run of product. We transitioned the production plan and otherinformation related to the production of Envelop Protective Covers to the licensee. With thisinformation, Creare assisted the licensee in producing a small production run that yielded testcoverings that were installed on 11 ships on a variety of equipment and weapon systems. Weproduced over 4,000 ft2 of coverings, which exceeded the 3500 ft2 specified in our contract.



6

2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS

Our test and evaluation program goals were to (1) down-select covering materials to optimizeperformance, (2) quantify covering performance, and (3) demonstrate covering performance throughshipboard testing. The following subsections describe our tests and results in support of these goals.

2.1 MATERIAL SELECTION

Baseline Envelop Formulation. Through a series of laboratory-scale tests, we optimized thematerial combinations that form the layers of Envelop Protective Covers. In particular, the materials inour optimized coverings must:

1. Function together to mitigate corrosion.2. Withstand harsh marine environments.3. Allow for simple manufacturing based upon standard industrial sewing practices.4. Cost less than alternative corrosion prevention practices.

Tests were conducted to determine water wicking ability, permitted regeneration cycles, andwater vapor permeability. Qualitative assessments were made of the relative corrosion mitigating abilitiesof both the individual layers and the layered composite structure and the ability to tolerate long-termexposure to the marine environment. As a result of our tests and associated optimizing criteria, weselected the materials shown in Table 3 for our final covering configuration.

Fire Retardant Envelop Formulation. Based upon the specifications listed in A-A-55308, Clothand Strip, Laminated or Coated, Vinyl Nylon or Polyester, High Strength, Flexible, we developed aversion of Envelop that is fire-retardant. This version of the coverings passes NFPA 701A, whilemaintaining all of the corrosion mitigating abilities of the baseline Envelop coverings. The specificationsfor this set of materials is shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop

Component Material CommentsOuter Shell Cordura® bonded to copolyether

filmWater repellent, UV resistant, abrasionresistant, excellent puncture strength

Wicking Layer K-Too® Hydrophobic knitted material; abrasionresistant; excellent water uptake

Water Storage Matrix Multilayer, bonded nonwovencontaining superabsorbantpolymers, natural and syntheticfibers

Flexible layer with good water retentionthat can be sewn; excellent passiveregeneration properties

Corrosion Inhibitor Combination of polyethylene, andvapor/contact corrosion inhibitors

Long-life form of corrosion inhibitor;flexible and can be sewn

Thread #542950 Fil-Tec Premofast UVRPolyester Monocord Tex 90,Series 92

Suitable for long-term outdoor exposurein marine environments

Seam Seal Bemis 4220 Heat Seal Tape Prevents seepage of water at seams



7

Table 4. Optimized Fire-Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop

Component Material CommentsOuter Shell Sunbrella Firesist® bonded to

copolyether filmFire Retardant, water repellent, UVresistant, abrasion resistant, excellentpuncture strength

Wicking Layer K-Too® treated with NationalFireproofing Co., Flame Stop I-DS

Fire Retardant, hydrophobic knittedmaterial; abrasion resistant; excellentwater uptake

Water Storage Matrix Multilayer, bonded nonwovencontaining superabsorbantpolymers, natural and syntheticfibers

Flexible layer with good water retentionthat can be sewn; excellent passiveregeneration properties

Corrosion Inhibitor Combination of polyethylene, andvapor/contact corrosion inhibitors

Long-life form of corrosion inhibitor;flexible and can be sewn

Thread #542950 Fil-Tec Premofast UVRPolyester Monocord Tex 90,Series 92

Suitable for long-term outdoor exposurein marine environments

Seam Seal Bemis 4220 Heat Seal Tape Prevents seepage of water at seams

2.2 PERFORMANCE OF ENVELOP AGAINST A-A-55308Even though, as shown in the sections below, Envelop out-performs Herculte in shipboard testing

and is preferred by the Fleet, we chose to perform the qualification tests that are required for protectivecovers and tarpaulins that are listed in A-A-55308, Cloth and Strip, Laminated or Coated, Vinyl Nylon orPolyester, High Strength, Flexible. It is unclear whether Envelop must comply with this specification.A-A-55308 is a commercial item description, which the General Services Administration has authorizedthe use of in preference to MIL-C-43006, which has been canceled. The tests required by thisspecification are listed below with the reference to the standardized test procedure that must be followed:

• Weight per ASTM-D-3776 Method C• Initial breaking strength per ASTM-D-5034• Breaking strength per ASTM-D-5035 after abrasion resistance per ASTM-D-4157• Breaking strength per ASTM-D-5035 after accelerated weathering per FED-STD-191, M 5804• Tearing strength per ASTM-D-2261• Hydrostatic resistance per ASTM-D-751• Stiffness per TAPPI Method T-451• Coating adhesion per ASTM-D-751• Flame resistance per NFPA 701 Small Scale Test• Blocking per ASTM-D-751

SGS U.S. Testing Company Incorporated (www.ustesting.sgsna.com), located in Fairfield,New Jersey, performed all of the required tests. For each test, SGS tested Envelop and the Herculitematerial that the Navy currently uses to fabricate shipdeck coverings. The qualification test results andrequirements are summarized in Table 5.



8

Table 5. Qualification Test Results and Requirements

Test Results Test RequirementsTest Identification Envelop Herculite Heavy Duty Medium Duty

Weight [oz/yd2] 27.3 17.8 19.8 (max)17.1 (min)

11.0 (max)9.0 (min)

Initial Breaking Strength [lbs]Warp DirectionFill Direction

464394

273263

295 (min)295 (min)

90 (min)90 (min)

Breaking Strength after Abrasion [lbs]Warp DirectionFill Direction

242141

166142

177 (min)177 (min)

45 (min)45 (min)

Breaking Strength after Weathering [lbs]Warp DirectionFill Direction

230137

192158

162 (min)162 (min)

49 (min)49 (min)

Tearing Strength [lbs]Warp DirectionFill Direction

7163

NA104

93 (min)93 (min)

32 (min)32 (min)

Hydrostatic Resistance [psi] 677 367 425 (min) 180 (min)Stiffness [cm]

At 70°FAt 20°F

13.013.0

9.59.0

18.0 (max)25.0 (max)

9.0 (max)15.0 (max)

Coating Adhesion [lbs]Warp DirectionFill Direction

2626

14.110.8

25.0 (min)25.0 (min)

15.0 (min)15.0 (min)

Flame ResistanceBaseline Materials (Table 3)Flame Retardant Materials (Table 4)

FailPass

PassNA

PassPass

PassPass

Blocking 1 1 2 (max) 2 (max)



9

The test data show that Envelop Protective Covers exceed most of the qualification testrequirements for heavy duty materials. In addition, Envelop performed as well or better than Herculite inmore than half of the tests. Specific observations are as follows:

• The breaking strength of Envelop significantly exceeds the breaking strength of Herculite andthe minimum required values except when the Envelop protection system is tested in the filldirection after either abrasion testing or accelerated weathering. Although the breakingstrengths for these two cases are slightly less than the minimum required values for heavyduty materials, they are nearly equal to the measured Herculite values.

• The measured tearing strength of Envelop is less than the measured tearing strength ofHerculite and the minimum required values for heavy-duty materials. However, shipboardtests have demonstrated that Envelop coverings are significantly more durable than Herculitecoverings, which brings into question the value of this measurement.

• The hydrostatic resistance of Envelop is nearly two times greater than the hydrostaticresistance of Herculite. As a result, Envelop is able to prevent water penetration significantlybetter than Herculite.

• Envelop is about 50% heavier than Herculite, and its weight exceeds the maximum requiredvalue for heavy duty materials by 7.5 oz/yd2. It should be noted that we receive no complaintsfrom the Fleet regarding the weight of the Envelop coverings during shipboard testing.

• Table 5 indicates that the baseline Envelop configuration (Table 3) did not pass theNFPA 701 flame resistance test. As a result, we developed an alternative combination ofmaterials for Envelop (Table 4) that did pass the NFPA 701 test.

2.3 QUANTIFICATION OF ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER PERFORMANCE

To quantify covering performance, we conducted tests according to ASTM Standard Practice forPreparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens G1. We attached ten (10) 1.6 inchdiameter, 1018 mild steel disks to each of the faces of two 2-foot Styrofoam cubes. We covered one cubewith Envelop and the other with Herculite, which is the standard stock covering material used by theNavy. The cubes were placed outdoors at Creare’s facility (Figure 2) and experienced the full gammet ofNew England weather: rain, fog, sun, snow, extreme temperature and humity fluctuations, and highwinds.

We briefly removed the coverings once each week to examine the corrosion status of the steeldisks to gain a qualitative feel for the test progress. After four months of testing, we removed 15 disksfrom each cube and etched the discs according to ASTM G1 to remove the rust. Discs were subsequentlyweighed. The mass that was “lost” during the test is the amount of material that was sacrificed to formcorrosion. The mass loss rate is determined by dividing the mass loss by the exposure time. According toASTM G1, the mass loss rates are to be divided by the material density and the exposed surface area tocalculate the corrosion rate in units of mils (of thousandths of an inch) per year (MPY).

Figure 3 displays the average measured corrosion rates for the 15 steel disks that were protectedwith Envelop and the 15 steel disks that were protected with Herculite. These results show that Envelopreduces the corrosion rate by approximately 95% compared to Herculite.



10

Figure 2. Creare’s Outdoor Test Area Dedicated to Covering Evaluation – Mid-Winter Scene

Test Duration [Days]

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Cor

rosi

on R

ate

[Mils

per

Yea

r]

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

EPSHerculite

Figure 3. Average Measured Corrosion Rates for 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected withEnvelop and 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Herculite

Herculite Disk

Envelop Disk



11

2.4 SHIPBOARD DEMONSTRATIONS OF COVERING PERFORMANCE

We successfully demonstrated the superior performance of Envelop Protective Covers comparedto the Navy’s current practices of topside equipment preservation under both the Base and Option Phasesof this project. Coverings were installed on four ships in the Base Phase to begin to give Envelop wideexposure to the Fleet. The purpose of the tests, in addition to demonstrating corrosion preventionperformance, was to determine covering durability, ease of use, and acceptance by shipboard personnel.In the Option Phase, we installed more than 23 coverings on 11 ships. The purpose of these tests was to(1) continue verifying covering durability, ease of use, and acceptance by shipboard personnel, (2) verifyif small production runs of coverings perform as well as prior coverings in the field, and (3) increase theFleet-wide visibility of Envelop. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7.Details for some of these tests are given in the subsections that follow.

2.4.1 Preparatory Testing

Prior to our first shipboard tests, we tested coverings outdoors at Creare to acquire a qualitativeunderstanding of covering performance. Coverings were subjected to naturally occurring atmosphericconditions (snow, rain, fog, sun, wind, temperature and humidity fluctuations, etc.) and artificiallygenerated sea spray. These tests minimized the risk of poor covering performance during shipboard tests.A typical result after five weeks of environmental exposure is shown in Figure 4.

Table 6. Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

Ship Equipment Duration (months) Results and CommentsUSS BarryDDG-52

0.50 Caliber Gun andMount

6 • Envelop eliminated the 1hr/day ofrequired maintenance associatedwith Herculite covers

• Estimated ROI > $10K• Envelop durability excellent

USS DetroitAOE-4

4 @ Motor OperatedValves

19 • Envelop dramatically reduced visiblecorrosion

• Envelop still functioning well at theend of 19-month testing period

USS ArcticAOE-8

Boom Hook WireControl Stand; GypsyWinch; Topping LiftWinch

19 • Envelop still functioning well at theend of 19-month testing period

USS AnzioCG-68

Anchor WindlassControl Station

4 • Attempted to quantify corrosion rateaccording to ASTM G1

• Poor choice of equipment to protect• Inconclusive results



12

Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

Ship Equipment Duration (months) Results and CommentsUSS MiliusDDG-69

25 mm Gun, 0.50Caliber Gun andMount

6 • Ship confirmed superiorperformance noted on the USSBarry in the Base Phase

• Envelop outperformed Herculiteduring sandstorms during GWIIbecause of the many holes thatdeveloped in Herculite

• Eliminated daily rust checks, whichbecame weekly

• Rust that does develop just wipesaway

• Oil on gun remains, unlike Herculite• After 6 months, Herculite coverings

were replaced 3 times beforeEnvelop had to be replaced (veryrough seas)

USS Oscar AustinDDG-79

2@ 25 mm, 2 @0.50 Caliber Gunand Mount, MK32 TorpedoTubes

6 • Ship received first production runcoverings

• Early reports were very positive• Ultimately seam sealing during

production was not adequate, whichhas since been corrected

• Seam sealing problems led to non-optimal performance of thecoverings

• New coverings were sent along witha digital camera, but were neverreceived by the ship

USS BarryDDG-52


4 • As in the Base Phase, the shipcontinues to prefer Envelop overHerculite

• SIMA was very pleased with thecondition of the guns upon theirscheduled retrieval.

• Noted that the coverings should bea little looser for convenience.



13

Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results (continued)

Ship Equipment Duration (months) Results and CommentsUSS RussellDDG-59

25 mm, 0.50Caliber Gun andMount

4 • For a two-week period, nomaintenace on any guns in test andpictures clearly show benefit

• Ship did 30 knots during the two-week deployment and guns weresoaked

• USS Russell already ordering morecoverings

• One sailor said, “We should wrapour ship in it.”

USS ColeDDG-67

0.50 Caliber Gunand Mount

2 • Ship liked the covering so much thatshe purchased 56 Envelopcoverings for 23 unique applicationson the weather deck

USS Leyte GulfCG-55


4 • Ship noted reduced maintenanceand better than Herculite

• “Great product”USS Iwo JimaLHD-7


6 • Envelop holding up very well• Envelop drastically reducing routine

maintenanceUSS ReubenJamesFFG-57

2 @ 0.50 CaliberGun and Mount

9 • Little feedback except that Envelopsurvived and protected guns verywell during a storm with 70 knotwinds, 8 foot waves, and 13 degreelisting of the ship.

USS HawesFFG-53

MK 32 TorpedoTubes

6 • No report back.

USCG ShearwaterWPB 87349


1 • Covering supplied to ship byW. Scott Johnson of NSWC Crane,Mgr., Armament Systems Branch

• No report at time of writing• Cover gives exposure to the Coast

GuardUSNS DahlT-AKR 312

2 @ 0.50 CaliberGun and Mount

1 • No report at time of writing• Covers give exposure to MSC ships



14

Protected with Herculite Protected with Envelop

Figure 4. Mild Steel Disks after Five Weeks of Environmental Exposurein an Outdoor Test Conducted at Creare

2.4.2 Base Phase USS Barry (DDG-52) Results

Definite proof that Envelop provides vastly superior protection of topside equipment wasprovided by the USS Barry (DDG-52) in a test facilitated by Bath Iron Works, a General DynamicsCompany. The USS Barry tested an Envelop Protective Cover for the duration of a six-monthdeployment on a 0.50 caliber gun and mount. The performance was compared directly to Herculite. Aship administrative message was issued by the USS Barry and is reproduced in Figure 5. The test detailsare as follows:

• One 0.50 caliber gun and mount was covered with a fitted Envelop Protective Cover.• Five 0.50 caliber guns and mounts were covered with fitted Herculite covers.• Guns were checked daily to determine maintenance requirements.

The USS Barry reported the following results:

• Little to no maintenance was required on the gun protected by Envelop. The gun showedlittle or no corrosion, and the nonabrasive nature of Envelop did not disturb the oil on thegun.

• Envelop still looked and performed like a new covering at the deployment completion. Thecovering remained flexible and unblemished.

• One hour per day per gun spent maintaining guns protected by Herculite. Corrosion had to beremoved daily and the gun had to be re-oiled. Herculite was very abrasive and quicklyremoved oil and other protective coatings from the guns.

• All of the Herculite coverings had to be replaced at the end of the deployment. The coveringswere brittle, cracked, and worn.

Based upon this result, Bath Iron Works estimates that for a single Envelop 0.50 caliber gun andmount cover, the ROI is greater than $10K. Furthermore, the payback period is between 30 and 40 days.



15

From: DMDSOPR (CNSL)Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:57 PMTo: N81 Message Traffic; N002B Message Traffic; N412 Message Traffic;N431 Message Traffic; N434 Message Traffic; N6 Message Traffic; Cassidy,Patrick T CAPT (RSG Mayport N00); N65 Message Traffic; ALL Naval MessageTraffic (DMDS); MSGIN; SDO; N7 Message Traffic; N43 Maintenance Duty OfficerMessage TrafficSubject: R 091600Z APR 02 USS BARRY OP EVAL OF THE CREARE CORROSIONCOVERING FOR THE .50 CAL// UNCLASImportance: LowATTENTION INVITED TO ADMINISTRATIVE MESSAGEROUTINER 091600Z APR 02 ZYB PSN 573232L22FM USS BARRYTO COMNAVSURFLANT NORFOLK VA//N653/N65//INFO PEO CARRIERS WASHINGTON DC//PMS312H//ZEN/COMGWBATGRUZEN/COMDESRON TWO SIXBTUNCLAS //N08000//MSGID/GENADMIN/BARRY//SUBJ/OP EVAL OF THE CREARE CORROSION COVERING FOR THE .50 CAL//REF/A/EMAIL/BARRY/04APR2002//AMPN/REF A IS EMAIL FROM DARRYL B SHEEDLO (NSSC) TO GMC WENTWORTH(USS BARRY) REQUESTING INFORMATION ON THE CREARE CORROSION COVER.//POC/CROSS/ORDO/USS BARRY/LOC:(757) 445-1152/EMAIL:CROSSJ(AT)BARRY.NAVY.MIL//RMKS/1. SINCE SEPTEMBER 11 ORIG HAS HAD TO KEEP THE .50 CAL MACHINE GUNS ONSTATION 24/7. FOR YEARS CORROSION HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH .50 CAL.MACHINEGUNS, EVEN WHEN COVERED. GUNNERSMATES ARE REQUIRED TO WIPE DOWN AND RE-OIL THECOVERED WEAPONS DAILY. EVEN WITH THIS PREVENTATIVE ACTION THE RUST WOULD RETURN BY THENEXT MORNING. WHEN ORIG CAME OFF DEPLOYMENT IN 2000, CG DIVISION HAD TO ORDER ALL NEW .50CALS DUE ONLY TO THE EXTENSIVE ORROSION OF THE WEAPONS, DESPITE PMS BEING MAINTAINED.LAST FALL ORIG WAS GIVEN ONE NEW PROTOTYPE CORROSION COVERING FOR ONE .50 CALMACHINEGUN BY BIW. ORIG PLACED THE PROTOTYPE ON THE FORWARD PORT WEAPON THAT SEEMED TOGET THE MOST ABUSE. AFTER SIX MONTHS OF 24/7 USE THE WEAPON THAT HAD BEEN OUT ON STATIONWITH THE NEW COVER SUFFERED VERY LITTLE CORROSION COMPARED TO THE OTHER THREE ONSTATION WEAPONS. THE SHIP HAS BEEN UNDERWAY SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE SIX MONTH TESTPERIOD AND CG DIVISION HAD TO REPLACE THE OTHER COVERS AT LEAST ONCE DUE TO RIPPING ORBEING BLOWN OFF THE WEAPON BY HIGH WINDS. AFTER SIX MONTHS, THE NEW PROTOTYPE COVER STILLLOOKED LIKE NEW AND HAD NOT COME OFF. ALSO NOTED WAS THE EASE IN REMOVING THE COVERDURING QUICK REACTION DRILLS COMPARED TO THE OLDER COVERS. THE PROTOTYPE COVER DOES NOTRETAIN MOISTURE UNDERNEATH AS THE OLD ONES DO. FURTHER, IT ALLOWS THE OIL TO STAY ON THEWEAPON UNLIKE THE OLDER COVERS THAT SEEMED TO WIPE THE OIL OFF.2. SINCE RETURNING THE PROTOTYPE TO THE MANUFACTURER, ORIG HAS BEEN UNDERWAY FOR PRE-DEPLOYMENT EXERCISES. THE PROTOYPE COVER IS SORELY MISSED AS CG DIVISION'S GUNNERSMATESNOW SPEND ALMOST AN HOUR A DAY PER WEAPON TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE CORROSION FORMINGON THE .50 CAL. MACHINEGUNS. ORIG WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSES THE FIELDING OF THIS ROTOTYPE.50 CAL COVER.3. TEAM BARRY...WE ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION.//BT#0854NNNNRTD:000-000/COPIES:

Figure 5. Ship Administrative Message Sent by the USS Barry (DDG-52)Regarding Envelop Performance During the Base Phase



16

2.4.3 Base Phase USS Detroit (AOE-4) Results

Testing on the USS Detroit proved that Envelop covers are durable, easy to use, and accepted byship personnel. Creare covered a gypsy winch, boom hook wire control box, and a topping lift winch.Coverings were installed in November 2000. Pictures of the gypsy winch and the associated Envelopcover at the time of install are shown in Figure 6. Coverings were checked in port (Naval WeaponsStation Earle) by Creare personnel on at least two occasions over a 16-month installation period.

Envelop-covered hardware was located on Station 11 of the weather deck. Identical hardware waslocated on Station 6, where it was left uncovered—coverings were scarce on the ship. As such, the focusof our comparison was to determine to what extent corrosion could be prevented by the use of Envelop,durability of the coverings, and acceptance by personnel.

Although the hardware in both stations was refurbished prior to test commencement, theStation 11 test hardware exhibited significantly more corrosion than the Station 6 control hardware at thetime of installation. Detroit personnel explained that the Station 11 environment is more corrosive thanthe Station 6 environment because:

• The ship architecture shelters Station 6 from sea spray better than it shelters Station 11 fromsea spray.

• Corrosive stack gases are emitted near Station 11.

Table 8 shows the results of our test on the USS Detroit. As can be seen in the table, Envelopappears to mitigate corrosion well. Visual comparison to pictures and video taken of the equipment atinstallation showed that corrosion had not progressed much, if at all, on the equipment protected by theEnvelop coverings. At the end of the 16-month test period, the coverings were in excellent shape; that is,the coverings remained flexible, were clean, and continued to absorb water. The Boatswain in charge ofmaintaining the equipment in these stations remarked that Envelop lasted longer than Herculite basedupon his experience. The ship planned to continue to use the coverings to protect the equipment.

Original Condition Envelop Protective Cover

Figure 6. Station 11 Gypsy Winch at the Commencement of Testingon the USS Detroit (AOE 4) in November 2000



17

Table 8. Results of Test During the Base Phase on the USS Detroit (AOE 4).Condition of Equipment after 16 Months of Exposure on the Weather Deck.

Boom Hook WireControl

Control Box

Boom Hook WireControl

Base

Gypsy WinchView 1

Gypsy WinchView 2

EnvelopStation 11

No covering(standardprotection)Station 6

It should be noted that the Envelop Protective Cover for the topping lift winch was damagedshortly after installation because it was used improperly. The winch was operated with the coverinstalled. As a result, the winch cable dragged the covering into the winch spool and destroyed it.

2.4.4 Base Phase USS Arctic (AOE-8) Results

The only result that can be drawn from tests conducted on the USS Arctic is that EnvelopProtective Covers are more durable than Herculite covers.

In November 2000, Creare personnel installed Envelop coverings on four Motor Operated Valves(MOVs). The other twelve MOVs were covered using Herculite. Figure 7 shows a picture of an MOVand two Envelop-covered MOVs at the time of install.

Unfortunately, during the course of the 16-month test period, all of the coverings wereinterchanged multiple times from their original install locations. Thus, no conclusions could be drawnrelative to corrosion mitigation performance. Although long-term testing on the USS Arctic did notgenerate useful corrosion prevention performance data, the test demonstrated that the Envelop coveringsare durable, easy to use, and accepted by ship personnel. The Envelop coverings were in excellentcondition and performing normally after 17 months of exposure to the rugged weather deck environment.Conversely, the Herculite MOV coverings had relatively large holes and rips, even though they wereinstalled after the Envelop coverings were installed. The USS Arctic crew was pleased with performance,durability, ease of use, and visual appearance of the Envelop coverings.



18

Figure 7. Motor Operated Valve (MOV) and two MOVs Covered with Envelop at Installation

2.4.5 Base Phase USS Anzio (CG-68)

We could not draw any conclusions based upon the results from our tests on the USS Anzio. Theintent of these tests was to quantify the reduction of the rate of corrosion by using Envelop compared toHerculite via ASTM G1, as described in Section 2.2. The equipment that was to be covered for theduration of the test (three months) was covered, we believe, at best only 50% of the time. As such,determining corrosion mitigation performance, as compared to Herculite, was not possible. Nonetheless,valuable lessons were learned regarding the performance of shipboard tests, such as:

• Quantification of corrosion prevention performance according to ASTM G1 is not reliable ona working Navy ship. Enforcement of the strict protocols related to exposure and handlingweight-loss samples required for accurate performance quantification is difficult. Theseweight-loss samples must be very carefully exposed to the environment, and the exposuremust be closely monitored. Despite a DFS procedure having been submitted by the ship, theship personnel’s first priority, and rightly so, is the safe operation of the ship, not the carefulmonitoring of weight loss samples that must take place.

• Equipment that is not normally covered should not be used to test the performance of acovering. Unless the ship’s crew is already familiar with covering a particular piece ofequipment, we will not provide coverings for testing in the future. On the USS Anzio, weand the ship personnel chose to cover the anchor windlass control stands. Unfortunately,these control stands did not have a covering history prior to the commencement of testing.As a result, the ship personnel, despite their best intentions, did not always keep the coveringsin place because such a protocol did not exist prior to our experiment. As a result, in theOption Phase we only evaluated Envelop’s performance on equipment that already usesHerculite coverings, which minimizes the disruption to the ship’s crew and their routines.



19

2.4.6 Option Phase USS Milius DDG-69 Results

Both a 25 mm cover and a 0.50 caliber cover were installed on the USS Milius, as shown inFigure 8. We provided the ship with a digital camera to obtain pictures of evidence of Envelop’sperformance relative to Herculite. Despite many wonderful photographs taken, direct comparisonsof performance were not possible. Nonetheless, the ship reported excellent results for Envelop. Inparticular, (1) Envelop eliminated the daily rust checks required with Herculite, making the checksweekly, (2) rust that did form under Envelop easily wiped away and did not require the extensivemaintenance required for rust formed under Herculite, and (3) Envelop survived the sandstorms andprotected equipment from sand, which Herculite did not. The email messages detailing these results areshown in Figure 9.

Finally, after six months, the ship reported that the 0.50 caliber Herculite coverings had to bereplaced three times and the 0.50 caliber Envelop finally needed to be replaced. These coverings were inthe forward position of the ship. Thus, Envelop was shown both to reduce maintenance significantly andlast three times longer than Herculite.

Figure 8. Envelop Coverings Shortly After Installation on the USS Milius



20

From: Broglia, P. GM1 [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 3:18 AMTo: 'Tom Nelson'Subject: RE: weapon cover on USS Milius DDG69

Hi TomSorry for the delay, the work load is heavy. The tears are just random andare not expanding. I will try the silicone idea and let you know. I havenever heard of a DFS, would the ship have that on board? Is it a standardNavy form? I would be happy to fill it out for you. As far as the maintenanceit has been lighter. The weapon will still develop rust on it but it takeslonger to do so, and it is considerably less. When we had the cover off itwas hard to determine the difference but since the cover has been on for awhile it is clear the cover has benefits. It does not eliminate maintenancebut does stop the daily rust check. As it stands with proper oil on theweapon my checks have been once a week and it has been more of a weeklyoiling rather than a cleaning. The occasional surface rust shows up but itjust wipes away. I will continue to gather the data you need.

Sincerely Philip Broglia GM1

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: weapon cover on USS Milius DDG69

Dear Tom

You may have heard about the recent sand storm that hit the area here.Just to let you know we were in two. The first made the news and was quitelarge. It was so bad a helicopter made an emergency landing on our ship toavoid crashing. As for the Envelopes, no problem. The covers kept the sandout and no maintenance was required of either the 25mm or 50 cal. The stockcovers let some sand in and those weapons needed to be cleaned. I am tryingto start the departure from spec ducument but with all that is happening (thewar thing) it has been difficult. I am hoping to have more time availableduring the trip home.

SincerelyPhilip

Figure 9. Two Messages from the USS Milius Detailing Covering Performance



21

2.4.7 Option Phase USS Oscar Austin DDG-79 Results

The shipboard testing on the USS Oscar Austin illustrated the need for the licensee to improve theseam sealing during production of the coverings. All other coverings installed during the Option Phasewere made with improved seam sealing, as recommended by Creare. During the month of October 2002,the ship encountered very rough seas for an extended period. As a result, the 0.50 caliber Envelop coverbegan to take on a lot of water because of waves over the bow. The 25 mm gun faired better and did nottake on much water. New coverings were sent to the ship as replacements. However, as of six monthsafter the installation of the coverings, the ship still had not received the replacement coverings or digitalcamera that were sent to FCCM(SW) Mark A. Palmer, SURFLANT N6512/N602A, Combat Systems(757-836-3297), who was facilitating in arranging the shipboard testing out of Norfolk. According theMaster Chief, the coverings and camera were shipped to the USS Oscar Austin in December 2002, whichat the time was in the Mediterranean. We will continue to try to replace the coverings on the ship.

2.4.8 Option Phase USS Barry DDG-52 Results

The most recent reports from the USS Barry support the earlier results outlined in Section 2.4.2.During the Option Phase, the USS Barry received two Envelop covers, one for the 25 mm machine gun(Figure 10) and another for a 0.50 caliber machine gun and its mount. Both guns were well-protected andthe ship was very happy with Envelop’s performance after four months of installation on the ship. Theship reports that SIMA was also happy with the condition of the guns. The ship does suggest making thecoverings a little larger. An email message detailing the testing results is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 10. Installed Envelop Cover on a 25 mm Machine Gun on the USS Barry DDG-52



22

>>> "Wentworth, Clayton GMC (DDG52 N65 CG)" <[email protected]>04/30/03 13:34 PM >>>Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I had to wait for my GM1 toget back to update me. Over the cover did real good, we have already sentthe guns back to SIMA for overhaul and won't get them back till next year.Don't worry we kept the cover. My guys were real pleased with how thecover kept the corrision off of the gun, it allowed the the gun to breathand kept the mositer off. They did say the cover was real tight and nottoo easy to put on or off, needs to be a little losser.Other than that it did real good, SIMA was very pleased at the conditionof the gun when they took it back.

If I can help any other way, let me know.

GMC(SW) Clay WentworthUSS BARRY DDG-52Combat Systems LCPO

Figure 11. Email from Combat Systems LCPO on USS Barry (DDG-52)Regarding Envelop Performance During the Option Phase

2.4.9 Option Phase USS Russell DDG-59 Results

The USS Russell performed an excellent test. One set of 25 mm and 0.50 caliber guns werecovered with Envelop and another with Herculite. No maintenance was performed for a two-weekdeployment during which the ship traveled at an average of 30 knots. Pictures were taken at the end ofthe two-week period. It can be seen from the photographs taken by the ship (Figure 12) that Envelopclearly functions as intended. As a result of this test and the use of the coverings over a four-monthperiod, the ship is in the process of purchasing coverings from the licensee of Envelop.

2.4.10 Option Phase USS Cole DDG-67 Results

As will be discussed in Section 3, the USS Cole issued a purchase order for 56 Envelop coveringsfor 23 unique pieces of equipment on the weather deck. Their purchase was based on reports from theexcellent reports from other ships and evaluation of a sample 0.50 caliber gun mount covering.Installation of these coverings is to take place in May 2003.

2.4.11 Option Phase USS Leyte Gulf CG-55 Results

Excellent results were noted by the ship. Reduced maintenance and acceptance by gunner mateswas highlighted in an email four months after installation on the ship (Figure 13). Unfortunately, despitebeing provided with a digital camera, no pictures were provided by the ship.

2.4.12 Option Phase USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 Results

As with the other ships, maintenance reduction and ability to withstand deployment are noted bythe ship. Details are given in the email in Figure 14.



23

Figure 12. 0.50 Caliber Guns Covered with Envelop and Herculite Following No MaintenanceDuring Two Weeks in Rough Seas



24

From: WEPS [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:25 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Envolpe covers

Mr. Nelson,Sorry that you have not gotten any feedback on the covers so far. I wasunder the impression that my Leading Gunners Mate had already sent youfeedback.

The cover is great. We have used it since the day we received it, and havehad great results. In comparison, to the other type we have onboard. Themount that we have placed your cover on seem not be rusting where the othersare. My impression on the cover is that it takes all the condensation awayfrom the gun and keeps it dry. This keeps the gunners from having to domaintainance on the weapons as much as they have to on the mounts with outyour cover. I think that it would be a great asset to have them for all the50 cal mounts and would like to see one for the M60 mounts. The cover is avery good product.

Thank you for all your assistance.

V/rLTjg Wilkerson, JasonWeapons / Force Protection OfficerUSS LEYTE GULF (CG-55)[email protected]@leytegulf.navy.smil.mil757-444-6620 (WR)757-444-6674 (WEPS/SUPPO)

Figure 13. Email from the USS Leyte Gulf Regarding Envelop Performance



25

"Lynskey, Jason P. GM2"<[email protected]>04/13/2003 11:31 AM

To: "'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>cc:Subject: USS Iwo Jima weapon covers

Mr. Laskey,I am off the USS Iwo Jima, and currently we have a cover for the25mm and the .50 cal. Fortunately the 25mm has been in full service sincewe left and with daily maintenance it is hard to judge how well the coverwould be doing. From my perspective though when it was on, the barrelespecially required less maintenance. For rain we have a foul weather coverthat fits over the feeder for the 25mm to keep the electric componentssomewhat dry. I was wondering if you had anything like that in yourmaterial.

I am personally responsible for the .50 cal that your cover is on.It is holding up better than any other cover I've seen. With my dailychecks on it I have drastically reduced my preventive maintenance time.There is no longer the daily rust wipe off that we have become accustomedto. I like the size of the cover so I don't need to wrestle with it to putit on or take it off. I think the barrel section could be made a littlewider though. Another favorite is the clips that secure it, the rope on theother covers becomes worn and frayed to easy. So far they're holding upwell, and I really like the one for the .50. I will be sure to keep youupdated as the months go on. Any problems or questions please write.

RespectfullyGM2 Jason LynskeyCG DivisionUss Iwo Jima

Figure 14. Message from USS Iwo Jima Six Months After Installation. Message is toMr. Steve Laskey of Bath Iron Works, who at the time was helping to facilitate testing on ships.



26

3 COMMERCIALIZATION AND MANUFACTURING PLAN STATUS

During Phase II, we conducted a number of commercialization and manufacturing/technologytransfer activities to maximize the likelihood that Creare could commercialize the results of this project.As a result of these activities, we have already sold our product to the Navy, even before the completionof this project. Key activities are described below.

Commercialization Activities. On this project, we:

• Received US Patent Number 6,444,595 “Flexible Corrosion-Inhibiting Cover for a MetallicObject” and have applied for several more. These patents form the basis for internationalpatent applications that will be sent immediately following the completion of this project.

• Received a Trademark to protect the term “Envelop” for use associated with our invention.This trademark and associated logo clearly define our product.

• Licensed the intellectual property and trademark to Industrial Crating Incorporated, Itasca,Illinois. Industrial Crating is currently transferring Envelop to a spin-off company calledFoldy Pac Protective Systems, whose sole product will be Envelop. Industrial Cratingproduced all of the coverings in the Option Phase as part of our technology transfer.

• Promoted the results of our project at the annual Navy Corrosion Forums through thepresentation of technical results and in dedicated product booths, other corrosion conferences,meetings with Science Advisors of SURFLANT, PACFLEET, COMPAC, Army, Marines,and Air Force. These meetings have significantly raised the awareness of Envelop in all ofthe service branches. As a result of these meetings, the Army will purchase coverings for theROWPU (reverse osmosis water purification units).

• Sold our first product, through our licensee, to the USS Cole DDG-67 and the Sail LoftOffice at Pearl Harbor. The USS Cole purchased 56 coverings for 23 unique items on theweather deck through contract No. N00406-03-P-4292 for $79,066. The Sail Loft Officepurchased the raw material to fabricate coverings under contract No. N00604-03-P-A158 for$8,262.78. At the end of this project, the USS Russell, Barry, and O’Kane (DDG-77) wereeach ready to buy Envelop coverings to protect all topside weapons systems.

• Began the process of applying for NSNs. The first NSN will be for the 0.50 cal gun covering.The drawing, currently under review by Scott Johnson who is the Manager of the ArmamentSystems Branch at NSWC Crane, is shown in Figure 15.

• Sent 20 M16 Machine Gun coverings to Charlotte Lent, Industrial Engineer, US ArmyMateriel Command, Logistics Support Activity, Tobyhanna Army Depot, for testing againstother candidate coverings. If chosen, Envelop would be used to cover all M16 guns in theMarines and possibly the Army.

Manufacturing Plan/Technology Transfer. At every step of development of Envelop, we focusedon ways to simplify manufacturing, which in turn simplifies the technology transfer to both the licenseeand the government entities that wish to produce Envelop coverings. As a result, each of the materialsthat form our covering are now available in rolls that are suitable for industrial sewing procedures, whichin essence is the manufacturing plan. As proof that our plan is sound, our licensee was able to produce allof the coverings in the Option Phase of the project for a total of about 4,000 square feet. It is thesecoverings that provided the final proof that Envelop indeed works well and will be a valuable tool for notonly the Navy, but all of the Armed Services.



27

Figure 15. Drawing of 0.50 Caliber Gun and Mount Envelop Covering in Support of NSN Application



28

Furthermore, we worked with the licensee to train the Pearl Harbor Sail Loft Office (NSY &IMF) to make Envelop coverings for the Pearl Harbor shipyard. This training session was organized bythe CINCPAC Fleet Maintenance S&T Advisor and took two days, during which the coveringsfabricators worked on individualized projects to gain experience with the composite Envelop structure.At the end of the training session, the Sail Loft Office was in a position to produce coverings if they couldmake the capital investment in a seam sealing machine. Nonetheless, this is proof that the technology canbe easily transferred to multiple parties provided they are trained by either the licensee or Creare subjectthemselves to periodic monitoring of covering quality.

29

Date post:	16-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ronhutton
View:	309 times
Download:	2 times

SBIR Final Report

Documents