Qualification of Ammunition Coatings for Renovating 

155-mm M549A1 Projectiles 

by Pauline M. Smith and Kestutis G. Chesonis 

ARL-TR-2966 May 2003 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

ARL-TR-2966 May 2003 

Qualification of Ammunition Coatings for Renovating 

155-mm M549A1 Projectiles 

Pauline M. Smith and Kestutis G. Chesonis 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
iii

Contents 

List of Tables iv

Acknowledgments v

1. Introduction 1

2. Technical Approach 2

3. Experimental 2

4. Results and Discussion 2

4.1 Spraying Properties .........................................................................................................2 

4.2 Hydrocarbon Fluid Resistance ........................................................................................2 

4.3 Water Immersion Resistance...........................................................................................4 

4.4 Flexibility ........................................................................................................................4 

4.5 Impact Resistance............................................................................................................4 

4.6 Crosshatch Adhesion Testing ASTM D 3359-93 (11) Method B...................................5 

4.7 Accelerated Corrosion Testing........................................................................................6 

5. Summary 8

6. References 9

Report Documentation Page 10
iv

List of Tables 

Table 1. Samples for testing............................................................................................................3 

Table 2. Hydrocarbon fluids and water resistance..........................................................................4 

Table 3. Impact resistance...............................................................................................................5 

Table 4. Adhesion testing results....................................................................................................5 

Table 5. GM 9540P cyclic corrosion test details. ...........................................................................7 

Table 6. ASTM B 117 results. ........................................................................................................7 

Table 7. GM 9540P results. ............................................................................................................8 
v

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Jae Shim and Leonard Pascale of Picatinny Arsenal Depot, U.S. 

Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, for 

supporting and funding this program. 
1

1. Introduction

The traditional protective coatings for mortar and artillery projectiles are based on quick drying 

enamels. The main requirements are thin coats, fast dry, corrosion resistant films, durability, and 

ease of application. Coatings on various ammunition components typically contained substances 

that were either toxic or hazardous, with high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) solvents, hexavalent chromium (Cr +6

) and other heavy metals. 

Increasingly stringent environmental regulations have forced ammunition manufacturers and 

maintenance facilities to reconsider their traditional coating processes and waste streams. The 

ammunition coatings procured to the same specifications have also evolved over the years 

(resins, pigments, and solvents) and have resulted in various coating related issues. 

Recently, a new environmentally compliant coating system (primer and topcoat) has been 

developed and implemented into ammunition manufacturing sites. However, the new coating 

system has not been evaluated for the ammunition renovation effort, which consists of different 

surface preparation and pretreatment processes. The current coating system for stripping and repainting high explosive (HE) ammunition is an alkyd enamel topcoat with high levels of VOCs 

over a pretreatment coating. 

The fast-drying enamels used on containerized mortars are military specifications MIL-E11195E (1) and MIL-P-11414E (2). They are lead and chromate free and meet federal regulation 

limits of 420 g/L of VOC. However, the topcoat MIL-E-11195E has a few limitations and 

cannot be used by itself on some projectiles due to inadequate corrosion resistance. Some 

projectiles require use of a single coat due to close dimensional tolerances, systems combining 

the functions of primer and topcoat. Generally, single coats are used on products that need only 

basic corrosion protection. 

Several manufacturers have been tasked to retrofit and renovate the M549A1 projectiles. 

Because the current coating system exceeds the limit of 3.5 lb of VOCs per gallon of coating, it 

has been proposed to use a VOC-exempt alternate coating system with a pretreatment coating. 

Also, a few companies are currently renovating the same ammunition with a coating system that 

has previously been used for renovation of 155-mm projectiles, but no documented performance 

data are available. These coatings are considered too thick for dimensionally tight 155-mm 

projectiles and may not provide adequate field protection without a pretreatment coating. 
2

2. Technical Approach 

The initial effort consists of evaluating various coating candidates in a laboratory environment 

and selecting a suitable candidate for field testing at a renovation facility. The Coating 

Technology Team at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) conducted the laboratory testing 

using cold-rolled steel (CRS) (S36 and D36) panels from the Q-Panel Company. The selected 

coating candidates will be applied in the depainting and repainting line at a renovation facility 

using empty ammunition metal parts (specifically the 155-mm and M795 high fragmentation 

[HF] steel bodies) to ensure the technical practicability. The coated metal parts will then be 

sectioned by the renovation facility and sent back to the U.S. Army coating laboratory for final 

testing and evaluation. 

3. Experimental 

The standardized test surface was CRS, Type R, and Type S panels 4 H 6 H 0.032 in from the QPanel Company. Type R panels have a dull matte finish, whereas the Type S has a ground side 

that imparts a smoother surface. 

For comparison, a limited number of coatings were tested using Bondrite B952, zinc phosphate 

panels (ACT Laboratories). The test specimens were horizontally oriented during paint 

application. A conventional air-atomizing spray was used to apply the candidate paints to the 

appropriate substrates. They were allowed to cure at ambient temperature (~75 oF) and humidity 

for 7 days. Table 1 lists all coatings used in the matrix. 

The topcoats were applied at ~1.2 mil, while the primer was applied at ~0.9 mil and the 

pretreatment at 0.3 mil. 

4. Results and Discussion 

4.1 Spraying Properties 

All individual coatings when sprayed were given a satisfactory or a passing rating, presenting 

uniform films, without any surface defects.

4.2 Hydrocarbon Fluid Resistance 

After exposure for 7 days to a mixture of 75% isooctane and 25% toluene, American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 1308-02 (3) and ASTM D 609-00 (4) were used for evaluation 

of the coatings, following chemical immersion exposure tests. All coating systems passed except 
3

Table 1. Samples for testing. 

Samples for M549A1 

Sample ID Pretreatment Primer Topcoat 

A 

(Control) 

DOD-P-15328D (5) 

(Sherwin Williams) 

Wash primer -SW 

(VOC non-compliant) 

None MIL-E-52891B (6) 

(Sherwin Williams) 

Ammunition topcoat 

(VOC non-compliant) 

B E61G520 

(Sherwin Williams) 

Commercial wash 

Primer pretreatment 

(VOC compliant) 

None 12997567 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-E-11195 

F93GC353 (TYP 11) 

C None None 12997567 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-E-11195 

F93GC353 (TYP 11) 

D None 12991256 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-P-11414E 

(E90R351) 

(VOC compliant/HAP free) 

12997567 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-E-11195 

F93GC353 (TYP 11) 

E None TT-P-664 (7) 

Red oxide alkyd primer 

(VOC compliant) 

TT-E-516 (8) 

Ammunition topcoat 

(State VOC exempt–CAAA) 

F None MIL-P-11414E TT-E-516 

Ammunition topcoat 

(State VOC exempt–CAAA) 

G 02887GWP 

(Hentzen Coatings) 

Universal pretreatment 

Hentzen (low VOC) 

None 12997567 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-E-11195 

F93GC353 (TYP 11) 

H 02887GWP 

(Hentzen Coatings) 

Universal pretreatment 

Hentzen (low VOC) 

None MIL-E-52891B 

(Sherwin Williams) 

Ammunition topcoat 

(VOC noncompliant) 

I None MIL-P-11414E 

(Randolph Paints) 

E9962 QPL# 

Low VOC, HAPs free 

12997567 

(Sherwin Williams) 

MIL-E-11195 

F93GC353 (TYP 11) 

J None MIL-P-11414E 

(Randolph Paints) 

E9962 QPL# 

Low VOC, HAPs free 

TT-E-516 

Ammunition topcoat 

(State VOC exempt–CAAA) 

K DOD-P-15328D 

(Sherwin Williams) 

Wash primer 

(VOC noncompliant) 

None MIL-E-52891B 

(Marcus Paints) 

Ammunition topcoat 

(VOC compliant) 

Experimental 

L None None MIL-E-52891B 

Note: The group of candidates was generated based on general use. 
4

for coating B and coating J. Coating B softened after exposure and exhibited wrinkling on the 

exposed panel surface. Coating J showed color and gloss changes and did not recover even after 

24 hr. These two coatings were rated unsatisfactory for gloss and color. Coatings F, G, H, and I 

showed some wrinkling, but recovered after 24 hr. The remaining coatings (A, C, D, E, and K) 

satisfied the specification requirements, displaying no coating defects upon exposure to this fluid 

immersion test. 

4.3 Water Immersion Resistance 

ASTM D 1308-02 involves exposing an organic coating to a reagent to determine adverse 

affects. Fifty percent of the coated panels were immersed in deionized water at room 

temperature (23 ± 5 °C) for 7 days. The panels were examined for any defects, such as 

blistering, loss of adhesion, color and gloss change, immediately upon removal and after a 24-hr 

recovery period. All panels passed the water immersion test. Results are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2. Hydrocarbon fluids and water resistance. 

Sample ID Hydrocarbon Fluid Resistance Water Immersion Resistance 

A Pass Pass 

B Fail Pass 

C Pass Pass 

D Pass Pass 

E Pass Pass 

F Conditional/Pass Pass 

G Conditional/Pass Pass 

H Conditional/Pass Pass 

I Conditional/Pass Pass 

J Fail Pass 

K Pass Pass 

4.4 Flexibility 

The Mandrel Bend Test was performed on all coatings in accordance with ASTM D 522-93 (9). 

The purpose of this test is to rate each coating’s resistance to cracking and to rate the flexibility 

of each coating. This test demonstrated that all coatings were generally flexible. Except for J 

and F, when bent over a 1/4-in mandrel diameter, none showed any signs of cracking. Coatings J 

and F had fine cracks within the paint after being bent over the 1/4-in mandrel. However, 

Sample F did not show cracks through to the metal, but sample J coatings could be best 

described as brittle because cracking was evident through the entire thickness of coating. 

4.5 Impact Resistance 

The standard test for resistance to deformation (impact) was performed using an impact tester. 

Impact resistance can be described as a paint property that quantitatively characterizes the 

durability of a coating with respect to a rapid impact event. After curing 7 days at ambient 

laboratory conditions, the impact resistance test based on ASTM D 2794 (10), using 40 lb/in, 

was performed on all coatings. All coatings passed using 40 lb/in. Increasing to 60 lb/in, 
5

coatings A, B, C, G, H, and K maintained relatively high-impact resistance. Coating J failed for 

cracks while coating I, F, and D showed fine cracking but were rated borderline/satisfactory. 

Table 3 lists results for the 60 lb/in. 

Table 3. Impact resistance. 

Substrate 

CRS 

R36 

CRS 

D36 

Bondrite 

B952/ P60 

Control Pass Pass Pass 

B Pass Pass Pass 

C Pass Pass Pass 

D Pass 

Minor cracks 

Pass/B 

Cracks 

Pass 

Minor cracks 

E Pass Pass Pass 

F Fails Pass/B 

minor cracks 

Pass/B 

minor cracks 

G Pass Pass 

cracks 

Pass 

H Pass Pass Pass 

I Pass Pass Fail 

J Fail 

Cracks 

Pass 

Minor cracks 

Pass 

K Pass Pass Pass 

L Pass Pass Pass 

Minor cracks 

4.6 Crosshatch Adhesion Testing ASTM D 3359-93 (11) Method B 

The ASTM cross cut adhesion testing was performed with 2-mm line spacing, appropriate 

for dry film thickness between 2 and 5 mil (1 mil = 0.001 in). All samples passed the dry 

adhesion test. Table 4 lists the results. 

Table 4. Adhesion testing results. 

Substrate 

CRS 

R36 

CRS 

D36 

Bondrite 

B37 P60 

Control 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

B 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

C 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

D 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

E 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

F 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

G 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

H 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

I 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

K 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

L 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 5B (pass) 

Note: 5B rating means no removal. 

4B rating means <5% removal. 

3B rating means 5%–15% removal. 

2B rating means 15%–35% removal. 

1B rating means 35%–65% removal. 
6

4.7 Accelerated Corrosion Testing 

Accelerated corrosion testing was performed using both a neutral salt spray test per ASTM B 

117 (12) and an accelerated cyclic corrosion test per General Motors (GM) 9540P (13). 

Salt spray resistance is widely used by the paint industry as a quality control test and is not 

necessarily indicative of the long-term performance of a coating. Our test used three steel panels 

for each system with two intersecting scribes (“X”) through the coatings to the substrate. The 

panels were “X” scribed using a standard carbide-tipped hardened steel scribe. The painted 

panels (three each) for each coating were exposed for 168 hr of salt spray. All the painted panels 

appeared visually identical before testing. Panels were evaluated using ASTM D 1654 (14) 

for evaluation of painted or coated specimens subjected to corrosive environments and 

ASTM D 714-87 (15) for evaluating degrees of blistering of paints. Final detailed ratings for the 

168 hr duration, using ASTM D 1654 quantitatively, indicate the damage caused by pitting or 

delamination outwards from the scribe. 

GM 9540P is an accelerated cyclic corrosion test that was developed by the automotive industry 

to more accurately replicate long-term outdoor performance of coatings than the conventional 

salt spray test. A cyclic corrosion test chamber (CCTC) was used to perform the GM 9540P test. 

The test consists of the repetition of one cycle with 18 separate stages including salt (1.25% by 

mass: 0.9% NaCl, 0.1%CaCl2, 0.25% NaHCO3) water mist, humidity, drying, ambient, and 

heated drying. The environmental conditions and duration of each stage for one complete 9540P 

cycle are given in Table 5. This process repeated 80 times to a scribed panel is claimed by 

industry specialists to be equivalent to 10 years of field exposure in South Florida. For this test, 

the groups of scribed coupons were exposed until failure or completion of 80 cycles. 

The criteria for failure was either creep from scribe of >10 mm (ASTM D 1654 rating of <3) or 

an ASTM D 714 rating for blistering in excess of 6M in the unscribed regions. Upon removal, 

coupons were rinsed in deionized water. In addition, standard plain carbon steel calibration 

coupons described in GM 9540P and supplied by GM were initially weighed and subsequently 

monitored for mass loss at intervals set by the specification. Mass losses measured for steel 

coupons used for this test were within parameters stated in the GM specification. For each 

coating tested, three panels were subjected to CCTC testing. As in salt spray, the panels were 

“X” scribed. The scribed panels were placed into the chamber and tested using GM 9540P, 

Method B10, which provides a more realistic accelerated environmental test than conventional 

salt spray. 

The analysis of the panels exposed in ASTM B 117 for 168 hr indicated that, for most panels, the 

rating was >5, meaning that creepage at the scribe was <3 mm. The only exception was sample 

C and sample H, which failed on both CRS substrates. Sample C passes on zinc phosphate 

panels. At the final inspection at 168 hr, coatings A, B, D, E, G, K, L, and M performed the best, 
7

Table 5. GM 9540P cyclic corrosion test details. 

Interval Description Interval Time 

(min) 

Temperature 

(±!3 °C) 

1 Ramp to salt mist 15 25 

2 Salt mist cycle 1 25 

3 Dry cycle 152 30 

4 Ramp to salt mist 70 25 

5 Salt mist cycle 1 25 

6 Dry cycle 15 30 

7 Ramp to salt mist 70 25 

8 Salt mist cycle 1 25 

9 Dry cycle 15 30 

10 Ramp to salt mist 70 25 

11 Salt mist cycle 1 25 

12 Dry cycle 15 30 

13 Ramp to humidity 15 49 

14 Humidity cycle 480 49 

15 Ramp to dry 15 60 

16 Dry cycle 480 60 

17 Ramp to ambient 15 25 

18 Ambient cycle 480 25 

with the least amount of creep from the scribe and no blisters. Coatings F, J, and I trailed behind 

with increased creep and blister formation. Coating H also showed small blisters. Results are 

listed in Table 6. 

Table 6. ASTM B 117 results. 

Sample 

ID 

R36 

Scribed 

Area 

R36 

Unscribed 

Area 

D36 

Scribed 

Area 

D36 

Unscribed 

Area 

B952 

Scribed 

Area 

B952 

Unscribed 

Area Rank 

A 8, 6 6, 6 — — — — Pass 

B 6, 5 9, 10 5 9 — — Pass 

C 0, 1 6, 7 0 3 — 10 Fail 

D 5, 6 10, 8 — — 8 10 Pass 

E 6, 7 9, 8 6 10 — — Pass 

F 5 8 6, 5, 7 10, 9, 9 8 9 — 

G 7 10 6 10 8 10 Pass 

H 1, 0 3, 2 0 0 — — Fail 

I 6, 5 9, 9 8, 7 9, 9 — — Pass 

J 4, 6, 5 9, 8, 7 — — 7 9 Pass 

K 5, 8 8, 9 8, 8 7, 8 — — Pass 

L — — — — 8, 8 6, 5 Pass 

The analysis of the panels exposed in GM 9540P for 38 cycles indicated that most samples 

passed the criteria. As with the salt spray results, an exception was sample C, which failed on 

both CRS substrates. Sample C passes on zinc phosphate panels. At final inspection, coatings 

A, B, D, and G performed the best, with the least amount of creep from the scribe and no blisters. 
8

Initially, coating B looked the best, but after scraping the scribed areas with a blunt knife, 

coatings A, B, D, and G were visually equivalent. Results are listed in Table 7. 

Table 7. GM 9540P results. 

Sample 

ID 

R36 

Scribed 

Area 

R36 

Unscribed 

Area 

D36 

Scribed 

Area 

D36 

Unscribed 

Area 

B952 

Scribed 

Area 

B952 

Unscribed 

Area Rank 

A 5, 6 8, 9 5 9 NA NA Pass 

B 5, 6 9, 9 4 9 NA NA Pass 

C 0 5 0 4 7 7 Fail 

D 3, 3 9, 10 — — 7 8 Pass 

E 4, 2 8, 7 5 7 NA NA Pass 

F 6, 3 10, 10 5 8 NA NA 

G 9 10 5, 6 6, 6 8 10 Pass 

H 3, 3 7, 10 3 8 NA NA Pass

I 4, 6 8, 5 5 6 NA NA Pass 

J 4, 3 9, 9 4 7 NA NA Pass 

K 6, 4 7, 5 5 6 NA NA Pass 

L — — — — 9, 8 6, 5 Pass 

5. Summary 

Eleven candidate off-the-shelf coatings were tested in the laboratory and analyzed using rigorous 

test methods. 

The performance of coatings B, D, and G indicates outstanding performance. Coatings D and G 

are suitable replacements for the current system. They are applied at the smallest film thickness 

of applied coating and would be the easiest to implement. 

Sample D could be a practical coating, but there are some issues with the tight tolerances on 

some projectiles that would have to be addressed. This coating combination is considered too 

thick for the dimensionally tight 155-mm projectiles and may not provide adequate field 

protection without a pretreatment coating. 

Samples B and G will be applied to the ammunition parts at the production sites. After 

assessment, the parts will be shipped to the ARL facility for final evaluation. 
9

6. References 

1. MIL-E-11195E. Enamel, Lusterless, Fast Dry, VOC Compliant. Federal Specifications. 

1993. 

2. MIL-P-11414E. Primer, Alkyd, Fast Dry, Corrosion Inhibiting, Lead and Chromate Free, 

VOC Compliant. Federal Specifications. 1992. 

3. ASTM D 1308-02. Standard Test Method for Effect of Household Chemicals on Clear and 

Pigmented Organic Finishes. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 2002. 

4. ASTM D 609-00. Standard Practice for Preparation of Cold-Rolled Steel Panels for Testing 

Paint, Varnish, Conversion Coatings, and Related Coating Products. Annu. Book ASTM 

Stand. 2000. 

5. DOD-P-15328D. Primer (Wash), Pretreatment. Federal Specifications. 1992. 

6. MIL-E-52891B. Enamel, Lusterless, Zinc Phosphate, Styrenated Alkyd Type. Federal 

Specifications. 1988. 

7. TT-P-664. Primer Coating, Alkyd, Corrosion-Inhibiting, Lead and Chromate Free, VOC 

Compliant. Federal Specifications. 1988. 

8. TT-E-516. Enamel, Lusterless, Quick-Drying Styrenated Alkyd. Federal Specifications. 

1993. 

9. ASTM D 522-93. Standard Test Methods for Mandrel Bend Test of Attached Organic 

Coatings. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 1993. 

10. ASTM D 2794. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Organic Coatings to the Effects of 

Rapid Deformation (Impact). Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 1993. 

11. ASTM D 3359-93. Standard Test Method for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test. Annu. 

Book ASTM Stand. 1998.

12. ASTM B 117. Standard Method of Salt Spray (Spray) Testing. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 

1990. 

13. GM 9540P. Accelerated Corrosion Test. 1997. 

14. ASTM D 1654. Standard Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected 

to Corrosive Environments. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 1984. 

15. ASTM D 714-87. Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of Blistering of Paints. 

Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 1987. 
10

Report Documentation Page Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

May 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

December 2001–August 2002 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

DAAD17-02-P-0152 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Qualification of Ammunition Coatings for Renovating 155-mm M549A1 

Projectiles 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

AH80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Pauline M. Smith* and Kestutis G. Chesonis 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-WM-MA 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-2966 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

U.S. Army ARDEC 

WECAC MMDT 

AMSTA AR WEA 

Bldg. 355 N 

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

*Independent contractor, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD. 

14. ABSTRACT 

Increasingly stringent environmental regulations have forced ammunition manufacturers and maintenance facilities to reconsider 

their traditional coating processes. The demands on the ammunition coating specifications have changed over the years. The 

treatments of hazardous emissions and waste generation at all levels of production are very costly, and any reduction in 

emissions through improved coatings will save money. The current coating system for high explosive ammunition is an alkyd 

enamel topcoat, which contains high levels of volatile organic compounds applied to a pretreated surface. The need to reduce or 

eliminate these hazardous substances is dictated by federal and state environmental regulations, controlling the amount and types 

of solvents and methods for waste disposal, and by changes in the coating process. This regulatory and performance-driven 

process led to a major consolidation effort by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Coatings Team and the U.S. Army Armament 

Research, Development, and Engineering Center Munitions Metal Parts to eliminate coatings with hazardous materials and high 

levels of polluting solvents. Eventually, these improvements will reduce life-cycle costs. Experimental stress tests such as 

corrosion resistance, impact resistance, and adhesion were used to characterize and identify the optimal coatings. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

coatings, ammunition, corrosion 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Pauline M. Smith 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 18 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-306-0899 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
11

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1

 2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 INFORMATION CENTER 

 DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

 MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH 

 THAYER HALL 

 WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL D 

 DR D SMITH 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 2 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

2

 3 US ARMY ARDEC COMMANDER 

 WECAC MMDT 

 AMSTA AR WEA 

 P SMITH 

 BLDG 355 N 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 3 DIR USARL WM MA 

 K CHESONIS