AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Administered by the 

Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center 
The United States military has recently tackled some tremendous

challenges, the most difficult of which being the global war on terrorism. Even while military operations are underway in Iraq and

elsewhere, the Department of Defense (DOD) is directing some of

their energies against other threats less obvious, but nonetheless

harmful and insidious. By the encouragement of the Congress

(through an amended federal law), the DOD is now waging war

against corrosion. The DOD has embraced both the spirit and

intent of the congressional action, and efforts are already underway.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has appointed a Corrosion

Executive to lead this initiative, and the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD) has established within its organization the Office of

Corrosion Policy and Oversight. A formal policy requiring all programs to develop and implement corrosion prevention and control

plans is being written. This policy will apply evenly to weapon systems, support equipment, and infrastructure. OSD has chosen this

special issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly to announce the initiative.

Effectively mitigating and controlling corrosion on a Department-wide basis requires a new and innovative process; one that

involves all stakeholders. In the past, individual Defense programs

have implemented an array of highly effective corrosion prevention

and control (CPC) processes. Unfortunately, little has been done to

transition the CPC technologies developed in support of a specific

program (and their resulting benefits) to other applicable programs,

oftentimes leaving program managers to “reinvent the wheel.” This

way of doing business must change. If we can become proactive at

transitioning technologies between programs, then the DOD will

see much greater returns on their acquisition investments. Making

our existing assets more impervious to corrosion’s effects can ultimately reduce maintenance costs, extend life (thus reducing reprocurement costs), and increase readiness. The support of all stakeholders is needed to make this strategy a reality.

Mitigating corrosion in existing systems is only part of the battle,

as it only strives to manage the vulnerabilities inherent in these systems. At the same time we must also endeavor to develop new systems that are corrosion resistant. We can only achieve this through

improved diligence on the part of Defense contractors. More rigorous materials selection practices that stress upfront corrosion analyses are needed to make this happen. But the burden is not the contractors’ alone. The DOD has a responsibility to provide them with

the requirements to ensure rigor in their design practices. About ten

years ago the Pentagon’s Acquisition Reform initiative eliminated

many standards, converted some to performance-based specifications and others to commercial “equivalents.” Today a team is examining various existing and rescinded corrosion-related specifications

and standards to identify elements that should be emphasized in

future contract requirements.

DOD also must provide the tools and information needed by

designers so they can employ the best available technology. Fully

informed materials selection decisions are needed to ensure adequate

corrosion resistance. Achieving this requires the DOD to provide

technical information directly to designers so they can quickly and

cost effectively select the best available technologies. DOD has

already invested untold millions in CPC technologies, but the data

addressing these programs are difficult to obtain and use. Providing

it directly through on-line expert systems is sure to enable real

reform of current design practices.

Changing the current culture is a long-term proposition – one

that will be facilitated if we address the very root of the problem.

Designers coming out of our universities do not have a fundamental understanding of corrosion processes and prevention. The

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) must

get involved and implement changes to college curricula that stress

a more thorough understanding of materials selection and corrosion

prevention and control. Increased sensitivity towards corrosion, coupled with improved access to DOD’s corrosion knowledgebase will

help ensure future success.

The DOD has embraced the need to improve acquisition and

sustainment practices by placing a focus on CPC, but truly solving

this difficult problem requires all stakeholders to accept the need for

change. We must collectively change our culture to reflect this

increased CPC emphasis. There certainly are some challenging times

ahead, but I have no doubt that as the DOD corrosion prevention

and control program evolves, readiness of our warfighting assets will

improve. As a consequence, our country will be in a better position

to defend against those who would like nothing more than to

destroy our way of life.

David H. Rose

AMPTIAC Director

Editorial: New DOD Policy Will 

Reduce the Cost of Corrosion

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information

Analysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively

managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to 

David H. Rose

Director, AMPTIAC

315-339-7023

EMAIL : amptiac@alionscience.com

URL : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMPTIAC

ATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK

201 Mill Street

Rome, New York 13440

PHONE: 315.339.7008

FAX: 315.339.7107

EMAIL : amptiac_news@alionscience.com

Editor-in-Chief

Wade G. Babcock

Special Issue Editor

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

Creative Director 

Cynthia Long

Information Processing

Judy E. Tallarino

Patricia McQuinn

Inquiry Services

David J. Brumbaugh

Product Sales

Gina Nash
Section I: New Law Transforms Acquisition and Sustainment

A new law requiring the Department of Defense to manage corrosion in legacy and future systems and infrastructure will alter the

way business is done. Program managers, planners, designers, engineers – everyone involved in military hardware – must stand up

and take notice.

Beating Corrosion Requires Change at the Top ... 5

Daniel J. Dunmire was appointed as the DOD’s Director of Corrosion Control and Oversight. Mr. Dunmire describes

why the DOD is acting to fight corrosion, what the Department has done so far, and what it will be doing in the near

future.

The DOD’s New Policy: A Conversation with the Corrosion Executive ...9

Michael W. Wynne is the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and is the DOD’s

principle executive responsible for corrosion prevention and control in military equipment and infrastructure.

General Accounting Office Oversees DOD Corrosion Prevention 

and Control Efforts ...13

In addition to completing the most recent assessment of what corrosion costs the DOD, the General Accounting Office

was also tasked to analyze what the Department does in response to the new law and report back to Congress next year.

Making Policy a Reality: New Integrated Product Team

Will Implement DOD-Wide Policy ...15

The DOD has set up an ongoing group to advise the Director of Corrosion Control and Oversight.

Section II: Corrosion Resources Toolbox

Now that the new DOD policy and its background are clear from Section I, here are some of the resources already or soon to be

in place that will help put that policy into practice. The Toolbox includes community building resources, management guides, and

a thorough description of corrosion types, causes, and remedies in MaterialEASE.

Improved Access to Corrosion Research Will Reduce Total Ownership Costs ...17

The corrosion community needs better access to new and legacy information in order to generate the greatest impact and

cost savings. 

Corrosion Community-Building Tools Established on Internet ...23

This web-driven collaboration tool will help the corrosion community share lessons-learned and speed the implementation of corrosion preventative measures.

Corrosion Planning in the Program Office: New CPC Planning Guidebook 

An Invaluable Tool for Program Managers ...26

Plans are underway to produce a guide to help acquisition program managers structure and develop a corrosion prevention and control program for new DOD weapon systems and infrastructure.

Standardization Is Needed To Fully Implement Corrosion Policy ...30

Specifications and standards have always helped define military systems; corrosion is no exception.

Issue Focus: Beating Corrosion
Making the Grade: Approving New Material 

and Process Technologies Faster ...36

The Coast Guard is setting the pace in corrosion-related qualified product lists and has some valuable information to share.

MaterialEASE: Corrosion – A Natural but Controllable Process ...39

AMPTIAC’s recurring MaterialEASE tackles the many forms of corrosion. Here you will learn the basics of what types of

corrosion are out there, what causes them, and how to fight them.

Section III: Corrosion Prevention and Control Success Stories

Think corrosion control and prevention is a new problem? The Services have been fighting corrosion on many fronts for decades.

Here are some of the most promising activities and projects, and descriptions of how their application is protecting our military

assets from the ravages of corrosion.

MILITARY FACILITIES 

Inter-Service Cooperation Reduces Infrastructure Corrosion ...47

This tri-Service group is attacking the problem of corrosion in every type of structure you can imagine: from buildings

and warehouses, to piers and loading docks, to buried tanks and pipelines.

MARINE CORPS 

Corps Steps Up Efforts to Fight Corrosion on Many Fronts ...54

Marines fight in some of the world’s most corrosive environments. Their equipment is not only exposed to sand, dirt and

weather in operation, but also the ravages of repeated over-water shipment to get in position.

AIR FORCE 

Material Substitution and New Sealing Technologies 

Keep Airframes Flying Longer ...57

Aircraft are being expected to serve for much longer than their original designs called for. Chief among the most critical

factors of making this possible is defeating corrosion before it starts.

ARMY

Multiple Wins Lead the Way to a Less Corroded Army ...62

The Army’s more than 350,000 ground vehicles not only have to perform in some of the most hostile land environments

on Earth, but they are also shipped over water to get there. The Army is making significant headway in fighting corrosion.

NAVY

Naval Assets Present Tough but Achievable Challenges ...66

As if the ocean environment were not corrosive enough, Naval vessels must also deal with the added corrosion of engine

exhaust fumes in below-deck areas, biological attack from various sea-borne creatures, and many other factors.

CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PRESERVATION 

Modify the Environment to Fight Corrosion ...74

If the environment is so corrosive, why not isolate stored military equipment from its environment? That is the premise

of Controlled Humidity Preservation and its implementation has been so successful, it is described here in more detail.

Corrosion Conferences ...46

Corrosion Product Summary ...80

AMPTIAC Directory ...83
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 5

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Defense (DOD) has been combating the

effects of corrosion for years, but corrosion had never been

addressed in a fully coordinated, overarching, and integrated

effort. This changed on December 2, 2002, when the President

signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003. This

new law directs the creation of a focused, Defense-wide corrosion prevention and mitigation program for both equipment

and infrastructure. It directs the General Accounting Office

(GAO) to monitor the Department, and report back to

Congress by May 2, 2004. Upcoming policy changes will require

all programs to actively consider and implement corrosion 

prevention and control planning. What this article discusses are

the details driving changes to current DOD acquisition and 

sustainment practices and how these changes impact designers,

program managers, and maintenance and research personnel.

THE CORROSION PROBLEM

Corrosion is indiscriminate, it affects all military assets.

Considering that assets include approximately 350,000 ground

and tactical vehicles, 15,000 aircraft, 1000 strategic missiles,

300 ships, and roughly $435 billion worth of facilities, the

effects are enormous. Military equipment is staying in service

longer, thus individual systems are older. As a platform or system ages, the effects of corrosion left untreated require an

increased amount of maintenance. The reduced acquisition of

new military systems further exacerbates the amount of maintenance required for equipment and infrastructure. This problem

is shared by all the services.

While it is difficult to capture the military’s direct costs of

corrosion, several studies (both internal to the DOD and external) have indicated that it is substantial and pervasive. Various

studies have reported the annual cost of corrosion to the DOD

to be between $10 and $20 billion. These are direct costs such

as manpower and materiel used to repair corrosion damage. If

the indirect costs (which are more difficult to quantify) were

factored in, the overall cost would increase significantly.

Indirect costs include things such as equipment downtime and

reduced capacity due to corrosion damage. 

CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST AND MANDATES

Congress Acts to Require DOD to Reduce Corrosion Costs

The US Congress recognized that combating corrosion was costing the DOD significant resources. To help reduce these costs,

language was placed into the FY 03 Defense Appropriation

directing the DOD to take action. Through an amendment of

Title 10 of the Uniform Service Code (U.S.C.), the public law

governing the operation of the Department of Defense, DOD is

explicitly directed to actively pursue a Department-wide

approach to combating corrosion. Section 2228 of Title 10

U.S.C. contains a number of provisions and a timeline governing what DOD must do to actively implement new processes for

combating corrosion. The new requirements are a substantial

departure from current practice and affect all weapon systems,

support equipment, and infrastructure.

New requirements direct the Secretary of Defense to designate

an official or organization responsible for prevention and mitigation of corrosion. It further directs the development of a longterm strategy for corrosion prevention and mitigation.

Subsequent requirements include delivery of an interim progress

report to be delivered to Congress at the same time as the

President’s FY 04 DOD budget. This interim report was to identify the new DOD corrosion organization or executive, as well as

provide an outline for DOD’s long-term strategy. A fully developed long-term strategy is required to be submitted one-year

from the enactment of the law. 

The amended law tasks the General Accounting Office

(GAO) to play an active role by overseeing the implementation

of DOD’s long-term corrosion strategy. GAO is directed to

provide the Congress with an assessment of the extent to which

this strategy has been implemented within 18 months of the

law’s enactment.

Contained within the amended statute are directions on what

DOD must do to effectively combat corrosion. Specific language

Daniel J. Dunmire, Director

Corrosion Policy and Oversight

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

Alexandra, VA

New Law Transforms Acquisition and Sustainment Section I
6 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

states, “The designated official or organization shall provide oversight and coordination of the efforts within the Department of

Defense to prevent or mitigate corrosion during”:

• The design, acquisition, and maintenance of military equipment.

• The design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure.

The designated “official or organization” is also directed to 

monitor DOD acquisition practices to ensure that the use and

application of corrosion prevention technologies and treatments

are fully considered during both research and development, and

the engineering and

design phases in the

acquisition process.

The statute directs

the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a long-term strategy to reduce

corrosion and the effects of corrosion on military equipment

and infrastructure and apply them uniformly across the

Department. These actions include:

• Increased emphasis concerning corrosion prevention and mitigation as it relates to infrastructure.

• DOD-wide application of requirements and criteria to ensure that new

corrosion-prevention technologies

are tested and certified in a standardized way so that they can be applied

to not only the system they were

developed for, but for other systems

with similar characteristics, missions,

and operating environments.

• Implementation of programs, including supporting databases, to

ensure that a focused and coordinated approach is taken throughout the

Department to collect, review, validate, and distribute information on proven methods and products that are relevant to

preventing corrosion. 

• Establishment of a coordinated research and development

program for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion for

new and existing military equipment and infrastructure that

includes a plan to transition new corrosion prevention technologies into operational systems.

The law further states that DOD’s corrosion strategy shall

include policy guidance, performance and milestones, and 

an assessment of the personnel and funding necessary to 

accomplish the long-term strategy. 

The General Accounting Office Weighs In

Prior to the point where the FY 03 Defense appropriations

bill was signed and 10 U.S.C. amended, Congress asked the

GAO to determine the extent of effectiveness of DOD and

the services’ approach to preventing and mitigating corrosion. Following their fact-finding investigation, the GAO

submitted a report entitled “Defense Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase Readiness”, GAO03-753 (July 2003). The GAO recommended that the Defense

Department address the following recommendations within

their strategic plan for corrosion prevention and mitigation:

• Develop standardized methodologies for collecting and analyzing corrosion cost, readiness, and safety data.

• Develop clearly defined goals, outcome-oriented objectives,

and performance measures that show progress toward achieving objectives (including return on investment and realized

net savings of prevention projects).

• Identify the level of resources needed to accomplish goals and

objectives.

• Establish mechanisms to coordinate and oversee prevention

and mitigation projects in an inter-service and service-wide

context.

To lessen concerns regarding the extent to which the

Department’s strategic plan will be implemented, the GAO 

further recommended that the secretaries of each of the military

services develop their own strategic plans consistent with the

goals, objectives, and measures found in the overall DOD plan.

In addition they recommend to the services that they establish

procedures and milestones that hold major commands and program offices accountable for managing specific weapon systems

and facilities in accordance with the

strategic plans.

The DOD Response

The first DOD action occurred when

the Honorable Dr. Paul Wolfowitz,

Deputy Secretary of Defense, appointed the Honorable Mr. Michael W.

Wynne, the Principal Deputy to the

Under Secretary of Defense (PDUSD)

for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics (AT&L), as the DOD

Corrosion Executive. Mr. Wynne is

now the Acting Under Secretary of

Defense (AT&L), but since his prior position has not yet been

filled, he remains the DOD Corrosion Executive.

Upon appointment, Mr. Wynne created and directed a task

force; designating me as the Director for Corrosion Policy and

Oversight. The task force includes my deputy, Air Force Colonel

Larry Lee, and Dr. Lewis Sloter, an acknowledged corrosion

expert and the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Staff

Specialist for Materials and Structures. This task force is responsible for developing a strategy that looks at effects of corrosion

from a long-term perspective. The strategy will address the

requirement to bound the cost of corrosion, establish metrics to

measure effectiveness, and develop sound corrosion prevention,

control, and mitigation policies for both equipment and infrastructure.

In addressing the requirements of the law and the GAO’s 

recommendations, we have developed a number of overarching

goals which seek to mitigate the effects of corrosion and improve

the Department’s coordination among the services. Currently,

the long-term strategy includes the following goals:

• Accelerate modernization (replace older equipment with new

at a faster rate).

• Close marginal facilities (reduce the burden of maintaining

under-utilized infrastructure).

The DOD must implement

a long-term strategy to

reduce corrosion

The Corrosion Policy and Oversight Task Force:

(left to right) Lewis Sloter, Daniel Dunmire, and

Col. Larry Lee.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 7

• Establish a Corrosion Information Exchange Network 

(web-based tool for sharing best practices among the Defense

community).

• Revise policy and regulations that specifically address corrosion prevention and mitigation.

• Increase support for standards and product qualification.

• Continue participation in corrosion prevention and mitigation conferences, councils, and symposia, and establish a

corrosion prevention and mitigation sharing network both

inside the Department and with the professional private 

sector corrosion-focused organizations, i.e. NACE International: The Corrosion Society (formerly the National

Association of Corrosion Engineers).

The long-term strategy for corrosion prevention and mitigation for both infrastructure and materiel also addresses the

requirement to: 

• Develop and test materials, processes, and treatments that can

reduce the down time, manpower, and cost associated with

corrosion.

• Support commercial definitions for corrosion prevention and

mitigation. Subsection 2228(d) (1) of 10 U.S.C. provides that

“the term ‘corrosion’ means the deterioration of a material or

its properties due to a reaction of that material with its chemical environment.” This is in alignment with commercial

organizations’ definition of corrosion. 

• Develop a new or augmented strategy through a survey of

current practices in each of the Services, including metrics

now in use; a review of the data exchange and coordination

efforts; an investigation of criteria for testing of treatments

and materials; an assessment of the utility of current databases and information analysis centers (IACs, of which 

AMPTIAC is one); and an estimation of the manpower 

and funding that would be required by any recommended

augmentation of the corrosion program.

Much of what I’ve discussed above was outlined in the

Department’s interim report provided to Congress with the

President’s FY2004 budget proposal. To develop the initial outline

and to develop sufficient detail to make the plan a reality, the task

force conducted a series of meetings known as the Corrosion

Forum. More than fifty people representing a broad cross-section

of the Defense community and other interested parties attended

these meetings, which

were held at the

Defense Acquisition

University. Attendees at

the Corrosion Forum included representatives from the Army,

Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, NASA, GAO,

NACE International, AMPTIAC, Management Technologies,

Inc., Logistics Management, Inc., Anteon, Inc., and Universal

Technologies, Inc. Collaboratively, the attendees helped develop

the strategy that addresses the goals outlined above, the executive

recommendations in the GAO report, the requirements put forth

in Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2228, and any additional direction

from Mr. Wynne. The final strategic plan will be delivered to

Congress no later than December 2nd of this year.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

Effectively managing corrosion will mean that many preconceived notions and existing program management practices will

have to evolve to embrace the new reality that none of us can

afford to ignore. We have started the process by involving an

integrated product team approach to develop a strategy designed

to place increased emphasis on corrosion, throughout all aspects

of the acquisition cycle.

Upcoming policy changes are going to require all programs

to implement corrosion prevention and control planning. At

the moment we are in the process of strengthening language to

reflect increased emphasis on corrosion within the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulations, internal acquisition directives, and guidebooks. We will also be recommending changes

to the DOD 5000 series. Essentially what these changes will 

do is ensure that statements of work, requirements descriptions, and evaluation criteria are constructed to fully consider

corrosion prevention and control (CPC). Policy changes will

not mandate that programs submit formal CPC plans. Rather,

policy will encourage programs to develop CPC plans in

preparation for their appearance before the Defense

Acquisition Board

(DAB). Regardless of

whether a formal plan

has been developed or

not, each program will

have to demonstrate to

the DAB that they

have accounted for

corrosion as a risk factor in design, development, manufacture,

deployment, and sustainment of their system. Further guidance

is forthcoming concerning this subject.

One thing we must all work at is ensuring a more effective

transfer of technology between programs. In focusing on a particular issue or system, we often lose the opportunity to leverage

technology for similar or new applications. ‘Stovepipe’ barriers

that restrict technology transfer must be eliminated if we are to

affordably implement the new strategy. Implementing effective

across-the-board corrosion prevention and control strategies can

only be accomplished in an atmosphere of cooperation and support. The Corrosion Information Exchange Network is an

important element in facilitating communications and removing

the barriers that exist under current practices.

Another barrier that needs to be overcome is the difficulty in

accessing the historical corrosion knowledge base. Approximately

100,000 technical reports exist, each developed to address or

solve a specific corrosion problem. These reports reside overwhelmingly in paper or microfiche media at multiple locations.

The documents can be very difficult to obtain in a timely fashion

but the information they contain has validity and utility for 

all stakeholders in the corrosion area alike; such as designers, 

program managers, and maintenance and research personnel.

State-of-the-art artificial intelligence-based information systems

are needed to leverage relevant technical information from 

Preconceived notions 

and existing program

management practices

will have to evolve to

embrace the new reality

An intelligent corrosion

information system 

must be established to

facilitate technology 

transfer from our 

existing knowledgebase
8 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

programs, past, current, and future. They are an essential element

in eliminating the ‘stovepipes’ between programs, including those

from the past. 

According to one study commissioned by the US Federal

Highway Administration, the total cost of corrosion to DOD is

on the order of $20B per year. This same study concluded that

the total cost of corrosion for all sectors of the US is in the order

of $276B per year, a staggering 3.1% of the US Gross Domestic

Product (GDP). What this implies is that corrosion is a much

bigger problem than just Defense, and significantly reducing

these costs will require a new approach. 

Many of the difficulties we face are due to educational deficiencies. College curriculums for mechanical and other design

engineers don’t sufficiently address interactions between materials

and their operating environments, which create the potential for

unanticipated but total avoidable corrosion problems. A solution

that would enable the development of corrosion resistant structures in the future should involve the Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology (ABET). It should take an active

role in requiring their accredited programs to place increased

emphasis on materials selection and corrosion. Corrosion is a

National concern and ABET is part of the solution. 

Finally, we must utilize new technologies to help solve problems. As we gain experience in a technology area, we develop

strong beliefs about what works and what doesn’t. Such

parochial thinking can become a significant barrier to progress.

New technologies are continually being developed; and something developed in one technology area may have immediate,

but unanticipated benefit in another. An example is the 3-D

visualization efforts underway at Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University (Virginia Tech). Virginia Tech has been

developing a 3-dimensional graphical immersion technology

that allows engineers, scientists, and designers to develop fully

immersive graphical representations from the molecular level to

full-up systems. This technology offers a whole new way to look

at corrosion and its effects. There are other new technologies

that could help too. We need to use them!

CONCLUSION

Effectively combating the effects of corrosion while simultaneously addressing other pressing technical and fiscal challenges

requires a change in our current acquisition and sustainment

culture. Multiple issues must be addressed. First, universities

must put more emphasis on corrosion prevention and materials

selection for the next generation of designers. ABET can play a

key role here. Second, the Department must look at how 

corrosion affects life cycle costs and insure that this is considered

during the acquisition cycle’s milestone decision process. Third,

a corrosion communication and outreach program between the

Department and industry must be established. And lastly, an

intelligent corrosion information system must be established to

facilitate technology transfer from our existing knowledgebase.

Artificial intelligence-based tools can help electronically gather

existing data and make them available for new uses. Such a 

system, accessible to designers and researchers, can ensure that

we receive full benefit from the untold millions of dollars already

invested in corrosion prevention and control. 

The Department is working to make these and many other

facets of corrosion control a reality. Corrosion prevention and

control policies, plans, and programs for both military equipment and infrastructure are being established. Multiple groups

throughout the services have been battling corrosion alone, 

but now there is a focused, Department-wide effort to leverage

these activities, increase their impact and reach, and defeat the

menace that is literally eating away at our equipment and other

assets. The DOD has actively pursued an overarching strategy 

to combat corrosion. Supporting this strategy will be policy

guidance, performance and milestone requirements, and an

assessment of the necessary personnel and funding resources

required to accomplish the overall task.

We must begin building corrosion prevention and control

into our new equipment and infrastructure to minimize future

problems. At the same time we must prevent and mitigate 

corrosion in legacy systems and infrastructure. Regardless 

of approach, our effectiveness will be inhibited if academia,

DOD, industry, and professional societies do not work together.

The task ahead is daunting but achievable. Establishing a viable

DOD corrosion prevention, control, and mitigation program 

is an exciting, rewarding, and challenging opportunity for us all.

Together we can strengthen the defense of our Nation by forging a culture that will tackle this problem and reduce the costs

that we currently endure.

Mr. Daniel J. Dunmire started his Federal service as an Office of the Secretary of Defense Presidential Management

Intern, completing rotational assignments in analysis, Joint Staff, comptroller, engineering combat developments, and the

House Armed Services Committee Professional Staff. During the past 13 years, he has been working in major systems

acquisition management, with a focus on program cost, performance, and schedule. This past August, he returned to

the Pentagon after completing a 26-month commercial practices developmental assignment with the H. J. Heinz

Company in Pittsburgh, PA. Prior to coming to Federal service, Dunmire was in food service with Anheuser-Busch

Companies, Inc., Marriott Corporation, and owned his own restaurant. Dunmire is a retired Army Reserve officer.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 9

POLICY

Some would argue that corrosion is strictly a 

maintenance problem, and a “necessary evil.” Why not

just “pay as you go”... and just live with corrosion?

I grew up in Florida and saw first hand how quickly tourist cars

could turn brown in the humid, salty air; and how washing and

common-sense measures could delay both

the visual and structural effects of corrosion.

It made me understand that we have to treat

corrosion as a kind of inorganic disease that

is always lurking around us, and will take

advantage of our inattention. Like many diseases, corrosion is both preventable and

treatable. We Floridians learned to be active

in prevention and quick treatment of rust

when we first saw it. It is simply good sense

and good management to prevent corrosion

through better design and selection of 

materials, and to reduce treatment costs by

detecting corrosion earlier and more precisely. Fighting corrosion is just one of the

things that we need to constantly do so 

that we are always ready to perform the 

fundamental mission of the Department,

which is to maintain our national security. 

How did the current initiative get started?

The DOD has a long history in the area of corrosion prevention

and control. In recent years, many aspects of DOD efforts,

though each was effective, were decentralized; and as a result,

may not have been as visible or as emphasized as would have

been desirable. I think that members of Congress began to

become concerned that the Department was not giving corrosion the executive attention that it warranted, especially in light

of our truly aging asset base. As a result, Congress directed that

the DOD provide central oversight and policy guidance for the

many valuable corrosion programs and other activities in 

the Military Departments. They want us to provide them with

better understanding of our long-range strategy for corrosion

prevention and control, and to make sure that we all understand

one another; what we were doing, where we were going, and

how best to get there. As I’m sure everyone involved now knows,

I was appointed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense to be 

the DOD corrosion official and to provide the executive 

assistance necessary to ensure that we do have the best approach

to corrosion that we can have; compatible with our mission, and

to assure Congress that we are doing our most efficient best.

What is the role of the Corrosion

Forum? 

One of the most impressive things about the

DOD and the fine people who make it work

is the ability to form a team, understand a

problem and the constraints around it, and

work toward a solution that meets identified

needs in an efficient and disciplined way.

Corrosion is a good example of a complex

problem with many stakeholders with lots of

issues and objectives. It was this group of

professionals that, in turn, became the

Corrosion Forum. I charged them to make

sure that we were not overlooking any 

common-sense approaches to alleviating

corrosion and to be sure that we would be

able to measure improvement associated

with any actions we took. The corrosion

forums were part of the machinery for 

getting this job done. There is no substitute

for going off as the team did several times to Fort Belvoir, and

intensively tackling the problem. [1]

Who are the key players within the Forum? 

As the Department Corrosion Official, I retain oversight in all

activities. I have asked that Mr. Dan Dunmire be my personal

corrosion deputy. He has been ably assisted by Air Force

Colonel Larry Lee, who has an outstanding background, 

ranging from research in nondestructive inspection, through

acquisition and logistics programs to Pentagon staff positions.

The forum’s technical lead, Dr. Lewis Sloter, is an accomplished

metallurgist and corrosion authority, who hails from the Office

of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E).

They have led a team that represents the Department’s brain

Recently, the DOD’s Corrosion Executive, the Honorable Michael W. Wynne, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,

and Logistics, was able to share some of his thoughts on the new Corrosion Policy with AMPTIAC. Our questions to Mr. Wynne, and

his subsequent remarks, focused on various aspects of the Policy, how they will be implemented, and what impact they will have on the 

acquisition and sustainment of DOD weapon systems and infrastructure. For the benefit of our readers, the questions and answers are 

organized into these three topic areas.

AMPTIAC would like to thank Mr. Wynne for his time and consideration in consenting to this interview. We are confident that our

readers will take away from this issue of the Quarterly a heightened appreciation of the corrosion issue, thanks in large part to Mr. Wynne’s

insight and vision. The entire staff of AMPTIAC is particularly grateful to Mr. Wynne for having chosen us as the agent to bring to light

and promote this important change in direction for the DOD. - Editor

THE HONORABLE

MICHAEL W. WYNNE

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
10 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

trust in all aspects of corrosion, again ranging from research

through acquisition to sustainment. The services are well-represented on the forum by Dr. Robert Pohanka from the Office of

Naval Research, Mr. Hilton Mills from the Army Materiel

Command, Mr. Bob Stith from the Marine Corps Systems

Command, Major Dan Bullock from the Air Force Corrosion

Prevention and Control Office, and Mr. Vince Hock of the US

Army Engineer Research and Development Center. I want to

emphasize that all the Services already had in effect corrosion

management and oversight offices, as well as programs that

could bring current ideas and best practices to the table. I also

want to underscore that all our planning, arguing, and consensus building was accomplished in as open an environment as

possible, with the full participation of Mr. Cliff Johnson of

NACE International – The Corrosion Society; who helped us

to make sure we had a strong commercial connection, and the

General Accounting Office, which had been tasked by Congress

to look over our shoulders and keep Congress apprised of our

progress. All these fine professionals took the problem apart

into approachable pieces and have provided a fine plan and set

of recommendations on which to proceed. 

Are there any key players not associated with the Forum?

Certainly there are many stakeholders that we could not involve

directly in the corrosion forums. Among the most critical were

all the program managers of our current and developing systems

and base facilities. This also includes all the maintenance professionals and program managers who face the issue every day, and

provide the forum their “To Do” list. The job of the forum is to,

in turn; remove barriers to allow these professionals the best

knowledge and resources to accomplish their mission. This is

why I made corrosion a highlighted subject during our Program

Managers’ Workshop in June; and made sure that the attending

Service executives, program executive officers, and program

managers were acquainted with the corrosion team’s activities

and had a chance to comment and participate themselves. 

Do you envision the activities of the Corrosion Forum that

are currently underway will continue?

Yes. Current activities will continue after the initial report is

delivered to Congress in December. They will be manifested in

the continued performance of the Corrosion Prevention and

Control Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT) and the various

working IPTs that have been formed to address specific elements

of the overall program. Efforts will include the development of

roadmaps, websites, databases, plans, and procedures for implementing the outputs of the focus teams formed during the

recent corrosion forum meetings.

Are you anticipating that the new corrosion policy will 

fundamentally impact everything from acquisition to 

sustainment? Will the new policy equally apply to 

weapons systems, support equipment, and facilities? How 

will the new way of doing business differ from the past?

The effects of corrosion are not restricted to weapon systems –

they also affect facilities, support equipment, runways, piers, 

storage tanks, and distribution systems. Since the best approach is

to avoid corrosion and its effects, we need to focus on science and

technology to develop better materials and design practices. We

also need to focus on the acquisition process to assure we select

materials and approve production processes that stave off future

corrosion. The new policy will stress DOD-wide standardization;

inter-service and inter-agency cooperation and communication;

and effective metrics for evaluating systems. I really want to

emphasize that we are approaching this as a concept-to-recycling

issue, in which planning, production, sustainment, and retirement

all play important and mutually supporting roles. Corrosion is

also a good example of the value of spiral development and evolutionary acquisition, through which we can discern what

approaches are working well for us and incorporate best practices

or materials and processes into new or upgraded systems. 

Will the new policy require prime contractors to improve 

materials selection practices by paying more attention to 

corrosion prevention? 

It becomes a part of their continuing trade studies balancing

cost, risk, technology, and warfighter requirements in their

material selection and design processes to benefit overall lifecycle cost and readiness. Those issues are a consideration during

the acquisition planning process. Therefore, our statements of

work, requirements, descriptions, and evaluation criteria will

reflect greater emphasis in these areas. 

What corrosion policy type documents are you expecting 

to release? 

We are now producing a DOD Strategic Plan for Corrosion Prevention and Control that will reflect mission, policy, objectives,

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. WYNNE

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Michael W. Wynne is the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 

having recently been nominated to this position, and awaiting Senate confirmation. He presently also serves

as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The Senate 

confirmed him to this position on July 12, 2001.

Recently, he has been involved in venture capital nurturing small technology companies through their 

start-up phase as a member of the NextGenFund Executive Committee and serving in executive positions 

within two companies. 

In 1999, Mr. Wynne retired as Senior Vice President from General Dynamics (GD), where his role was in

International Development and Strategy. He spent 23 years with General Dynamics in various senior positions
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 11

strategy, and processes for effectively implementing this DODwide program. We are also developing the Corrosion Prevention

and Control Planning Guidebook to help Program Managers to

develop their corrosion prevention and control planning.

Will the DOD 5000 series be modified to reflect

increased emphasis on corrosion?

We have already modified the DOD acquisition directive to

make sure corrosion is more explicitly considered in sustainment

decisions. One of the goals of this plan will be to emphasize

within the DOD 5000 series the increased focus on corrosion in

acquisition while still providing program managers the flexibility they need to meet their military utility goals, which must

remain foremost. 

What mechanisms will the services use to ensure interservice transition of corrosion prevention and control

technologies? What mechanisms, if any, will DOD use 

to gain corrosion prevention and control technologies

from other US Government agencies such as the

Department of Energy?

The CPIPT and working IPTs will continue to meet in order to

complete planning and to implement the corrosion prevention

and mitigation roadmap. We have included other government

agencies, such as NASA and the Coast Guard, in our corrosion

forums and we will invite them to participate in future working

teams. The DOD has a long history of working closely and

effectively with other departments and agencies, and plans to

continue integrating our efforts in corrosion prevention and

mitigation, as well as the exchange of information.

IMPLEMENTATION:

We understand that program managers will be required 

to prepare corrosion prevention and control planning 

documents as part of the acquisition process. What

essential elements will be required in a plan? Will all 

programs have to create a plan or will the requirement

apply only to large programs (for example Acquisition

Category I programs)?

I have directed that all programs that come before the Defense

Acquisition Board (DAB), which I currently chair, should be

prepared to assure me that they have fully considered Corrosion

Prevention and Control planning, and have addressed any conflicts or issues that arose in the pre-DAB acquisition program

reviews. These planning documents will provide an objective

and disciplined way to assure ourselves that corrosion is getting

the attention it deserves in acquisition programs and permits us

to make conscious, objective tradeoffs. 

What guidance will program managers have in developing corrosion prevention and control plans, and how will

the plans be reviewed?

DOD policy will require all acquisition program management

offices to implement corrosion prevention and control planning

as an explicit part of Performance-Based Acquisition and

Performance-Based Logistics as defined in DOD Directive

5000.1. To help implement this policy, the Corrosion IPT is

developing a Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning

Guidebook, which will be available in the near future, to help

program managers in corrosion planning. Let me be very clear

on this point: neither the new policy nor 5000.1 is mandating

that programs submit formal Corrosion Prevention and Control

Plans. Acquisition reform has for the most part, discouraged formal plans, with a few exceptions. On the other hand, programs

are more than welcome, and in fact are encouraged to develop

such plans in preparation for their Defense Acquisition Board or

DAB reviews. 

How will the balance between proactive prevention 

and reactive mitigation be established? 

The choice between investing in prevention or mitigation will be

determined by analyzing the affordability, readiness, or other

appropriate trade-offs for each approach. Generally, up-front

investment to prevent corrosion should have far greater leverage

on reducing total ownership cost than treatment of corrosion

during equipment or facility use. In any case, we plan to assess

the impact of proposed approaches on system or facility performance, availability and life cycle cost, and try to select these

approaches that best satisfy those parameters for the life of the

system or facility.

What oversight will OSD maintain on the entire process? 

What sustaining role will OSD have to help ensure 

continued emphasis on corrosion by the services?

The Corrosion Policy and Oversight Directorate will provide

daily guidance and track progress and performance of participating groups and component organizations. I will maintain

with the Aircraft (F-16’s), Main Battle Tanks (M1A2), and Space Launch Vehicles (Atlas and Centaur). 

In between working with GD, he spent three years with Lockheed Martin (LMT), having sold the Space Systems division to then Martin

Marietta. He successfully integrated the division into the Astronautics Company and became the General Manager of the Space Launch

Systems segment, combining the Titan with the Atlas Launch vehicles. 

Prior to joining industry, Mr. Wynne served in the Air Force for seven years, ending as a Captain and Assistant Professor of Astronautics

at the US Air Force Academy teaching Control Theory and Fire Control Techniques. Mr. Wynne graduated from the United States Military

Academy and also holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology and a Masters in Business from the

University of Colorado. He has attended short courses at Northwestern University (Business) and Harvard Business School (PMD-42). He

is a Fellow in the National Contracts Management Association, and has been a Past President of the Association of the United States

Army, Detroit Chapter and the Michigan Chapter of the American Defense Preparedness Association. He has published numerous 

professional journal articles relating to engineering, cost estimating, and contracting.
12 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

top-level oversight and coordination with the Services and other

joint stakeholders like the Joint Logistics Commanders.

Will additional resources be available for programs to

develop corrosion prevention and mitigation plans?

I am currently working on specific proposals for significant 

corrosion-related budget increases for the future year’s Defense

Plan. We need to remind ourselves that there are currently very

robust projects in corrosion. One of the actions we will surely

take is to make sure that those resources are beneficial to as many

DOD systems and users as possible. The corrosion team will

play a critical part in doing this. 

The new emphasis on corrosion may be a significant 

culture change for many segments of the DOD. What

actions will be undertaken to maintain momentum and

focus to ensure that corrosion prevention and control 

continues to be seriously considered during acquisition

and sustainment?

Corrosion and its effects have been widely recognized by a large

community of operators and logisticians in the government for

a long time. Several influential organizations have been addressing this issue for a number of years – organizations such as the

Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), the Tri-Service

Corrosion Working Group that sponsors the Tri-Service

Corrosion Conference, and the Aging Aircraft Program. If there

is a culture that needs to be changed, it is the acceptance that our

equipment is aging beyond what was anticipated; and corrosion

techniques of that time need to be enhanced and improved to

ensure that corrosion is considered in light of the whole life-cycle

for equipment and facilities, and that we all endeavor to make

the smartest choices up front, incrementally, and during the

whole operational life of our systems

IMPACT:

Part of the difficulty in justifying expenditures that result in

reduced total cost of ownership has to do with the prediction of cost savings. For corrosion prevention and control,

this can be very difficult. Will guidance be made available

to help program managers determine the investments 

necessary for corrosion prevention and control?

One of the chartered working IPTs will address the need for

metrics and how to estimate the investment necessary to prevent

and control corrosion. While this will be a daunting task, the

Services have considerable experience in determining and analyzing science and technology and acquisition investments. We

need to focus on refining our investment and payoff analytic

capabilities related to corrosion prevention and control programs. We all tend to pay the most attention to those things that

can and are measured. I have continually challenged all these

smart corrosion folks to define realistic metrics that can be

assessed as part of our normal operations. I do not want to collect data for its own sake, but to help us learn what is working

and thereby do more of it. 

Over the years the DOD and other agencies of 

the Federal Government have devoted significant 

expenditures towards corrosion research. Will 

future programs have improved access to this historical

knowledge base?

One of our major corrosion prevention and mitigation policies

addresses the collection and dissemination of corrosion data and

information. Communication and outreach is a chartered working IPT, charged with the task of developing and implementing

a broad, accessible, web-accessible knowledge base. I’m pleased

that our new resource, the DOD Corrosion Information

Exchange; and your organization, the DOD’s Advanced

Materials and Processes Technology Information Analysis

Center (AMPTIAC) are both helping in this regard. 

Historically, corrosion mitigation work within the

depots/logistics centers has been buried under the 

maintenance umbrella and as a result, transition of 

technical issues back to program offices (for new 

acquisitions) has been less than successful. Will 

policies and procedures be put in-place to obtain 

the lessons learned so that new programs can benefit

from knowledge of past problems?

This is a problem that I will ask the Service Assistant Secretaries

and Joint Logistic Commanders to address and help resolve

through our Corrosion IPT. We want to use all the current feedback mechanisms in place, while building and improving our

information collection and its usefulness. I know that the Service

corrosion offices are gathering information and conducting surveys pertinent to their systems and missions. The DOD

Corrosion Exchange Site should become a helpful archive and

link for program managers and Service corrosion officers to use

in reviewing best practices and approaches that worked or did

not work in the past.

How will corrosion prevention and control be measured?

That is a good question. I think we should consider two aspects

of measurement. One refers to the impact of corrosion and its

effects – in other words, what is the cost of corrosion in terms of

safety, performance, availability, and resource consumption? The

other aspect refers to measuring the payoff from corrosion prevention and control efforts – what is the measurable improvement in CPC in terms of the same criteria (safety, performance,

availability, and resource consumption)? Our metrics working

IPT2 will address both of these aspects. I expect that the methods for both will be similar and closely associated, since we will

need to measure their before and after conditions to gauge the

extent of improvement. I also expect that the most revealing

metrics (at the macro level) will be related to system availability

and total ownership cost.

REFERENCES

[1] The Corrosion Forum met three times at the Defense

Acquisition University (DAU) in Fort Belvoir, Virginia in May,

July, and September of 2003. It was at these meetings that the

forum laid much of the groundwork for the Corrosion Policy, its

implementation strategy, and established the CPCIPT.

[2] The Impact, Metrics, & Sustainment working IPT (WIPT)

is one of the WIPTs organized by the CPCIPT’s charter. The

CPCIPT has initially stood up WIPTs to address seven identified focus areas. 
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 13

In the last decade, there have been several landmark studies conducted to assess the economic impact of corrosion on the United

States, both in the public and private sectors. While only estimates, those studies that examined the cost impact to the government, and more specifically to national defense, indicated that

corrosion was costing the Pentagon billions of dollars each year. Pursuant to a

Congressional discovery (see editor’s

note above), the General Accounting

Office (GAO) was requested by the

Senate Committee on Armed Services,

Subcommittee on Readiness and

Management Support, to review all military activities related to the prevention

and mitigation of corrosion. In its report, GAO-03-753 (July

2003)†, the GAO addressed the extent of the impact of corrosion

on the military services’ equipment and facilities, and to what

degree had the DOD and the military services implemented an

effective approach to prevent and mitigate this problem.

What the GAO found was that the full impact of corrosion to

the DOD was not quantifiable to any degree of precision due to

the limited amount of reliable data captured by DOD and the

military services. While not precise, the current cost estimates,

readiness assessments, and safety data were sufficiently overwhelming to indicate that corrosion had a substantial impact on

military equipment and infrastructure. The effects of corrosion

on DOD systems have become more prominent as the acquisition of new equipment has slowed and more reliance is placed

on aging equipment and infrastructure. The aging of military

systems poses a unique maintenance and corrosion control 

challenge for all Services. With the passage of time, the task of

keeping these systems operational becomes ever more daunting.

GAO also reported that a number of DOD and commercial

studies have identified and evaluated technologies and techniques for corrosion prevention and

control. The studies indicate that

although a number of corrosion prevention and control methods and

technologies are well known and have

been recommended for years, they

have yet to be effectively implemented. The studies also identify a number

of relatively simple solutions such as

covered storage, controlled environment, washing and rinsing,

spray-on rust inhibitors, and protective wrapping.

Another conclusion reached was that the DOD and the military

services do not systematically assess proposals for corrosion control

projects, and they disseminate project results on a limited, ad hoc

basis. Without a more systematic approach to corrosion problems,

prevention efforts with a high return on investment potential will

likely continue to be under-resourced and would most likely

proceed at a slow pace. As a result, the DOD and the military

services will continue to expend several billion dollars annually

in avoidable costs and continue to incur a significant number of

avoidable readiness and safety problems.

Since corrosion that is left unmitigated only worsens with

time, costs increase as weapon systems and infrastructure age.

Perhaps this is why the adage ‘pay now or pay more later’

After reading the first two articles of this issue, it still may not be entirely apparent what sparked the heightened interest in corrosion within

the highest echelons of government. Congress first became interested in corrosion in 2002 during a routine fact-finding tour of military assets

in the Pacific Rim. Members of the congressional tour were disconcerted by the pervasive nature and severity of corrosion observed on 

military equipment, vehicles, ordnance, and facilities. Responding to these concerns, Congress directed the General Accounting Office (GAO),

its investigative arm, to examine the impact and extent of the corrosion problem within the Department of Defense. Even while GAO was

in the midst of developing this report, Congress enacted a new law, 10 U.S.C. 2228, requiring the DOD to place increased emphasis on 

corrosion prevention and control (CPC). 10 U.S.C. 2228 required the GAO to monitor the DOD’s development and implementation of an

overall CPC strategy. This article discusses some of the GAO’s findings and further addresses how they are engaged with the DOD in the

process of developing the CPC strategy. - Editor

David H. Rose, Director and 

Christian E. Grethlein, Deputy Director

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

The data was sufficiently 

overwhelming to indicate

corrosion had a 

substantial impact on 

military equipment and 

infrastructure
Mr. David H. Rose has been with AMPTIAC since the beginning of its contract and has been its Director since June

of 1998. He retired from the US Air Force in 1996 where he worked in a variety of technical and acquisition roles

including seven years at the Air Force Research Laboratory. His research interests included micromechanical analyses

of composite materials and microelectronics. He received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of

Washington, an MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Dayton and has also completed his PhD coursework in Materials Engineering. In addition to authoring or co-authoring 12 technical papers, Mr. Rose has 

performed extensive technical editing and review of 134 papers submitted for publication in the AMPTIAC Quarterly.

Mr. Christian E. Grethlein has been the Deputy Director of AMPTIAC since December 1999. He is a proficient technical writer; having authored, edited, and peer-reviewed a number of technical publications. He is a past editor of the

AMPTIAC Quarterly, having served in that capacity for two years. Mr. Grethlein joined AMPTIAC in 1998 as a

Research Engineer, bringing with him a broad base of design, engineering, manufacturing, and engineering 

management expertise in the aerospace, automotive, and environmental industries. Mr. Grethlein holds BS and MS

degrees in Chemical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, and an MS in Manufacturing Engineering

from Syracuse University. He is also a Licensed Professional Engineer.

14 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

appropriately describes the dilemma with which the military

services are repeatedly confronted when making difficult investment decisions. Without increased attention to corrosion at the

highest levels of DOD, the military services will continue to pay

dearly for their limited corrosion prevention efforts and will be

increasingly challenged to find the funds for ongoing operations,

maintenance, and new systems acquisitions.

For the most part, the DOD has accepted the GAO’s findings.

The DOD concurred with GAO’s recommendation that 

corrosion management within the

Department could be improved by a

coordinated, department-level effort,

and added that the positive and substantive recommendations made in the

GAO’s report would ultimately prove

helpful in improving this process. There was some initial disagreement when the DOD took exception to the assertion that

the Department’s corrosion mitigation efforts were ineffective. 

In a series of constructive and fruitful interactions between

DOD and GAO representatives, it became apparent that this

assertion did not accurately reflect GAO’s findings about DOD

corrosion prevention and mitigation strategies. In fact, the

GAO report pointed out that the DOD had enjoyed its fair

share of successes in addressing specific corrosion problems on

individual programs and applications. But, it was equally true

that most of these successful efforts exclusively benefited their

particular programs, with little or no leveraged benefit across

the Department or the services. 

GAO highlighted several weaknesses which precluded the

DOD from realizing much greater benefits from their anticorrosion efforts, which could have resulted in the additional

annual net savings of several billion dollars. They concluded

that these weaknesses combined to reduce the overall effectiveness of the DOD’s current approach to corrosion control and

resulted in the services missing important opportunities to

achieve greater benefits. The Department did assert that these

efforts were sometimes constrained by operational needs, adherence to affordable maintenance schedules, compliance with

environmental regulations, and other statutory requirements.

Despite some differences in perspective, the DOD and GAO

are fundamentally in agreement that a unified CPC strategy for

the Department is the most effective way to mitigate the threat

of corrosion to national defense assets.

The Department of Defense has

embraced the validity of the concerns

expressed by the Congress and GAO.

Throughout this calendar year, an integrated product team made up of more

than fifty engineers, scientists, and other

professionals from the Government and industry have attended

a series of workshops, known as the Corrosion Forum, to begin

developing the strategy that DOD will employ to effectively

manage corrosion. 

The GAO has observed the workings of the three corrosion

forums. Mr. Allen Westheimer, the GAO’s official representative, has attended all of the Forum’s meetings, and also presented at the Program Manager’s Workshop held at the Defense

Acquisition University in June. At the workshop, he briefed

DOD attendees on the congressional interest in corrosion and

what that entailed. The Corrosion Forum has facilitated the free

exchange of information and ideas about how corrosion should

be managed within the DOD. The Department’s emerging 

policy and strategy on corrosion prevention and control will 

significantly benefit from the GAO’s contributions. 

NOTE

† The GAO’s report may be accessed and downloaded at the 

following link: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03753.pdf

The Department of Defense

has embraced the validity

of the concerns expressed

by the Congress and GAO
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 15

A TEAM IS ASSEMBLED 

As one of the most ambitious policy initiatives since acquisition

reform, developing and implementing a strategy to effect real

change in how the Department deals with corrosion will require

the insight, experience, and diligence of key technologists,

managers, and policy makers; from within the DOD, other key

agencies, and even outside the sphere of government.

As the first step on this new road, the Office of Corrosion

Policy and Oversight stood up a new working group, the DOD

Corrosion Forum. Composed of over 50 technical, management,

and policy professionals from the DOD, key government agencies, and industry, the forum’s mission has been to assist the 

corrosion office in crafting the new DOD corrosion policy. The

forum has also been tasked to develop or establish the documentation, tools and techniques, methods, technologies, outreach

programs, and other initiatives needed to successfully implement

the new policy across the DOD. The forum has fostered a 

collaborative environment where members of all professions 

and sectors can contribute to the organization’s greater goals. 

The forum will remain active until the new policy goes into

effect, at which time it will transition to a formal, Integrated

Product Team (IPT). Upon the official enactment of the corrosion policy, the Corrosion Office will stand up the new DOD

Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team

(CPCIPT). The CPCIPT will serve as the action arm of the

Corrosion Office and the DOD.

THE CPCIPT IS CHARTERED TO IMPLEMENT POLICY GOALS

The CPCIPT’s charter establishes and outlines the goals of the

organization, its responsibilities, scope of authority, and designated members. It also defines the decision-making procedures

of the team, particularly in those areas with direct impact on 

policy and implementation.

The goals of the CPCIPT are to:

• Provide strategic direction, effectively manage, and reduce the

impacts of corrosion by:

° Expanding the emphasis on corrosion prevention and mitigation within the DOD

° Ensuring uniform application of requirements, testing 

criteria, and by certification of new corrosion prevention

technologies throughout the DOD

° Establishing and maintaining a coordinated approach to

collect, review, validate, and distribute information on

proven anti-corrosion methods and products 

° Overseeing and conducting a coordinated science and

technology program that includes demonstration, validation, and transition of new corrosion technologies into

operational systems

• Develop and recommend policy guidance on the prevention

and mitigation of corrosion

° Review the corrosion programs and funding levels proposed

by the Secretary for each Military Department

° Develop a roadmap and monitor/track progress of corrosion related activities

° Develop strategies to efficiently track corrosion costs and

impact to readiness and safety

° Provide guidance for improving maintenance and training

plans

° Ensure that the use of corrosion prevention technologies

and the application of corrosion treatments are fully considered throughout the life cycle of military systems and

infrastructure.

THE CPCIPT WILL ENGENDER EXCELLENCE

FROM ITS BROAD-BASED MEMBERSHIP 

For maximum effectiveness, the CPCIPT

recruits its members from relevant DOD

components and other organizations deemed

critical or beneficial. They are senior technical, management, and policy professionals,

all of whom lend their expertise and guidance to develop and implement the DOD’s

corrosion strategy. The primary membership

of the CPCIPT comes from the organizations in Table 1.

Several critical organizations outside of the

DOD will also participate in the CPCIPT as

Christian E. Grethlein, Deputy Director

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

DOD Corrosion Forum Representatives.
16 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Associate Members (Table 2). These organizations are

considered stakeholders in the corrosion policy process,

as they have valuable input to provide and/or will be

affected significantly by the actions of the IPT. Associate

members will serve on the IPT strictly in an advisory

capacity.

THE CPCIPT HAS A FULL PLATE

The CPCIPT provides strategic direction, policy, and

guidance to prevent and mitigate corrosion of the

Department’s equipment and infrastructure. Its Chairperson is

responsible for all management function of the team, such as

scheduling and presiding over CPCIPT meetings, and facilitating the review and decision process among members. The chairperson will also stand up any subgroups and working integrated

product teams (WIPTs) as deemed necessary to address the various corrosion focus areas. The organization has established

seven WIPTs to address the following areas:

• Policy & Requirements

• Impact, Metrics, & Sustainment

• Communication & Outreach

• Science & Technology

• Facilities 

• Training & Doctrine

• Specifications, Standards, & Product Qualification 

Beyond their role of advise and consent, the individual

CPCIPT members are also responsible for representing the

interests of their respective organization (and subcomponents)

on corrosion issues, resolving issues raised by the WIPTs, 

inviting subject matter experts to discuss or raise awareness of

special/in-depth topics to the CPCIPT, and providing regular

updates on the corrosion prevention and mitigation activities

of their respective organizations.

LEADING THE WAY

The task placed before the CPCIPT is sizable, and will no doubt

provide tremendous challenges, both for its members and for

those in the defense community who must live up to the high

standards set by this body. But, its members and their associates

understand the pervasive nature of corrosion, and are dedicated

to reigning in this silent enemy to the nation’s military readiness.

Mr. Christian E. Grethlein has been the Deputy Director of AMPTIAC since December 1999. He is a proficient technical writer; having authored, edited, and peer-reviewed a number of technical publications. He is a past editor of the

AMPTIAC Quarterly, having served in that capacity for two years. Mr. Grethlein joined AMPTIAC in 1998 as a

Research Engineer, bringing with him a broad base of design, engineering, manufacturing, and engineering 

management expertise in the aerospace, automotive, and environmental industries. Mr. Grethlein holds BS and MS

degrees in Chemical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, and an MS in Manufacturing Engineering

from Syracuse University. He is also a Licensed Professional Engineer.

Table 1. The Primary Membership of CPCIPT.

CPCIPT Member/Organization Current Designate

Director, Corrosion Policy & Oversight Mr. Daniel Dunmire (Chair), OUSD (AT&L)

Deputy Director, Corrosion Policy & Oversight Col. Larry A. Lee (USAF), OUSD (AT&L)

ODUSD(Science & Technology)/Weapons Systems Dr. Lewis Sloter 

ODUSD(Acquisition& Technology)/Defense Systems/ Mr. James Thompson 

Systems Engineering

ODUSD(Logistics & Materiel Readiness)/Maintenance Policy, Programs Mr. Jay Berry

& Resources

ODUSD(Logistics & Materiel Readiness)/Logistics Plans & Programs Mr. Anthony Stampone

ODUSD(Installations & Environment)/Installation Requirements Mr. Mahlon White

& Management

Joint Staff Logistics Directorate (JCS-J4) Lt. Col. Walt B. Eady (USAF), Staff Officer

Army Corrosion Prevention & Control (CPC) Lead Mr. Hilton Mills, HQ Army Materiel Command (AMCOPS–IEI)

Navy CPC Lead Dr. Robert Pohanka, Office of Naval Research (ONR)

Air Force CPC Lead Major Daniel Bullock, Air Force Corrosion Prevention 

& Control Office (AFCPCO)

Marine Corps CPC Lead Mr. Bob Stith, Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC)

Tri-Service Facilities CPC Lead (rotating membership between Army, Navy, Mr. Vince Hock, Engineering Research And Development 

& Air Force facilities organizations) Center, Corps Of Engineers - Construction Engineering 

Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL)

Table 2. Associate Members on the CPCIPT.

CPCIPT Associate Member/Organization Current Designate

General Accounting Office Mr. Allen Westheimer

Joint Council for Aging Aircraft Mr. Steve Spadafora, NAVAIR

National Aeronautics & Space Admin Mr. Joseph Curran

United States Coast Guard Mr. Larry Cornwell, ARINC

Federal Aviation Admin FAA designate not yet appointed

NACE International* Mr. Cliff Johnson

* Formerly the National Association of Corrosion Engineers
INTRODUCTION

Corrosion of DOD systems, equipment, and infrastructure is

an issue receiving increased attention at all levels of government. A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report

acknowledges that determining the overall cost of corrosion

prevention and control is difficult but it concludes they are very

high and references two studies, including one that projects

these costs at $20B per year [1].

Much of the activity relating to corrosion prevention and

control, including the information reported elsewhere in this

issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly, address the steps and 

technologies needed to mitigate the deleterious effects of corrosion. In this article we trace the potential for excessive corrosion

related problems back to its roots, the design process. At some

point during design, either a person or a group becomes responsible for selecting a material for a specific application. For a

complicated system there can literally be thousands of materials

that must be selected. In the case of the F/A-18 E/F it’s 

estimated that there are between three and five thousand unique

materials used to construct the aircraft, including the 278 

materials used in General Electric’s F414 jet engine alone [2]. 

If materials engineers, metallurgists, and similarly trained 

professionals were routinely involved in materials selection,

interaction of the material and its usage environment would be

adequately considered up-front. Unfortunately this is not always

the case and in fact, it’s somewhat of a rarity. 

For major selection decisions such as the wing skins used on

an aircraft, materials engineers are commonly consulted. For

less critical components, the person responsible for selecting the

material may be a mechanical engineer (ME). I know from my

formal undergraduate training as an ME that the process 

of materials selection receives only cursory coverage. MEs, as

well as other engineering disciplines, typically take a course 

in materials science but not materials selection. During our

design courses we were taught to first determine the required

mechanical and thermal properties including strength, stiffness,

thermal conductivity, etc., and to then use these requirements

to select an appropriate material from a table found in an

appendix of our design text. There was little or no discussion as

to subsequently determining whether the chosen material

would detrimentally interact with its environment. We believe

this educational deficiency is systemic within the design 

community and ultimately results in many of the corrosion

problems DOD systems experience once fielded.

Over the years, various departments and agencies of the US

Government have invested significant resources in the area of

corrosion prevention and control. Much of this work involved

either accelerated testing or field-testing of materials in corrosive

environments. Additional work has focused on corrosion detection. Many of these programs addressed specific technical issues

relating to a single system. Problems may have been solved, but

little was done to transition these solutions to other areas.

Results from these individual programs over time have increased

the corrosion knowledgebase but the overall problem remains

the same: the lack of a systemized approach to utilize past corrosion research during materials selection.

We have undertaken perhaps the first comprehensive and

panoramic survey of the US Government’s corrosion knowledgebase and there’s good news! There are literally tens of 

thousands of corrosion-related technical reports; representing

millions of dollars of research that characterize the performance

of specific material/coating combinations exposed to simulated

or actual usage environments. This information has direct relevance to today’s designs and systems, but it is seldom used

because it’s difficult to access. The importance of proper 

up-front consideration of corrosion during materials selection

cannot be understated. Once a system has made it through critical design review (CDR), replacement of a material with an

alternate one becomes an unaffordable prospect. 

If the knowledgebase were routinely consulted during materials selection, it would most definitely lead to systems that age

gracefully without experiencing adverse corrosion problems.

Also, if this information became available on-line in electronic

form, the costs associated with its use during design would be

minimal. Expanding materials selection to adequately consider

environmental interactions will reduce corrosion-related maintenance and total ownership costs.

CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL RESEARCH

As mentioned above, many Government organizations have historically sponsored corrosion research. Foremost among these

sponsors include the Departments of Defense, Energy (DOE),

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 17

David H. Rose, Director

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

George A. Matzkanin, Director

Non-destructive Testing Information Analysis Center

Austin, TX

Corrosion Resources Toolbox Section II
Table 1. US Government Corrosion Reports Identified by

Literature Searches.

Transportation (DOT), Commerce (DOC), and NASA. To

determine the extent of the US Government’s corrosion knowledgebase, we conducted a series of literature searches in an

attempt to gain an appreciation for the magnitude of existing

data. Each of these departments maintains their own technical

databases, which we consulted for this study. The results were

truly astounding. We started first by searching AMPTIAC’s collection of technical information. AMPTIAC maintains a very

large materials-related technical library comprised of approximately 220,000 technical reports, journal articles, and about a

thousand books. We determined that within this library are

nearly 23,000 reports that address corrosion. We also searched

the holdings of the Defense Technical Information Center’s

(DTIC) Defense Research, Development, Test & Evaluation

(RDT&E) Online System, or DROLS, and found nearly

38,000 references. Since both of these collections contain

Defense information there’s surely quite a bit of overlap.

However it should be safe to say that at a minimum there

should be no less than 38,000 DOD corrosion reports. 

A search of the NASA, DOE, DOT, and DOC bibliographic databases similarly yielded large numbers of corrosion

reports. NASA’s database indicated more than 27,000 reports,

DOE had nearly 43,000, DOT had more than 4,000, and

DOC had nearly

7,000. While there

is still the potential

for overlap between

these collections and

DOD’s (including

AMPTIAC), there

should be significantly less since the missions of these departments have little overlap to DOD. A portion of this data is likely journal articles, conference proceedings, and other copyrighted information. However, based on past experience this

shouldn’t represent more than 10-20% of the total, leaving the

remaining resources as high-value Government technical

reports. A reasonable and conservative estimate would place the

total number of available corrosion reports from Government

sources somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000. Considering

this massive amount of data, it is immediately apparent that if

used effectively the Government’s knowledgebase is an extremely valuable asset to help manage and control corrosion.

To better understand the actual extent of existing corrosion

knowledge and its relevance to research and design, we refined

our search parameters to consider a high-level taxonomy. We

looked for specific information that related to corrosion by

application, mechanism, environment, protection methods,

testing and inspection methods, specific materials, and design

features. Table 1 reflects the numbers of available documents we

identified employing the high-level taxonomy discussed above.

Further Inspection of Table 1 indicates that large numbers of

documents exist in many areas of the taxonomy while smaller

numbers exist in other areas. For example, literally thousands of

documents concerning corrosion of specific metals such as aluminum exist, while far fewer numbers are shown under the

‘mechanism’ or ‘application’ section of the taxonomy. We

believe this is an artifact of the information contained within

the databases we searched, and not reflective of the actual infor18 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

AMPTIAC DROLS NASA DOE DOT DOC†

Total Available Corrosion Reports: 22972 37781 27589 42745 4256 6697

By Application:

Aircraft 1645 4272 2104 442 68 444

Space 792 1650 508 1146 122 198

Ship 1045 1907 63 530 519 104

Submarine 101 498 11 49 14 9

Vehicle 336 1295 107 528 361 99

Infrastructure (bridges, dams, pier, pipeline) 368 779 456 970 1853 412

Industrial 632 9633 508 2958 108 284

Electronics 408 1791 349 882 46 54

By Mechanism:

Uniform OR General 582 332 959 827 451 578

Galvanic 901 1157 382 350 168 129

Crevice 1101 1171 315 564 105 147

Pitting 2573 2828 1085 1487 212 382

Intergranular 1800 2015 1524 1574 32 226

Selective Leaching OR Dealloying 26 44 21 43 5 6

Stress Corrosion Cracking 2546 3607 3981 1910 228 638

Erosion 770 1340 907 13630 181 260

Corrosion Fatigue 1147 1484 855 536 213 549

Hydrogen 2351 3187 1768 7660 133 474

Microbiological (biofouling) 111 171 44 75 14 50

Exfoliation 304 343 146 46 4 14

Fretting 190 226 444 117 20 40

High Temperature Corrosion 170 412 381 177 19 1011

Oxidation 2224 6000 2419 5814 170 594

By Environment:

Environmental 6700 9362 1285 3056 1182 835

Atmospheric OR atmosphere 1368 1836 969 1988 248 325

Marine 1180 6046 482 563 595 214

Seawater 1962 2802 5342 735 426 145

Tropical 64 252 45 27 16 2

Space 786 1652 508 1146 122 198

High-Temperature 2104 3596 3716 7916 100 1012

Industrial 629 9633 508 2958 108 284

Chemical 4708 5425 2842 19844 713 1309

By Protection Method:

Coating 4195 3806 1716 5654 878 591

Sealant 158 309 35 42 33 16

Primer 346 699 162 67 137 66

Inhibitor 939 1548 313 853 334 116

Cathodic 1389 1929 658 1275 613 299

Anodic 1997 2412 856 953 136 139

Protect* 2891 6435 3624 8500 2380 1297

Prevent* 1034 2031 3609 1739 1193 688

Passivation 968 1037 389 823 48 107

Mitigation 29 136 38 221 64 67

Control 2219 3831 1492 5303 864 903

By Testing and Inspection

Testing 3349 19099 1853 11560 2088 1399

Accelerated 147 324 0 31 190 92

Natural (Field Test, In-service Test) 218 378 140 121 239 145

Inspection 628 2655 634 1439 463 516

Monitoring 301 1165 362 2013 375 359

Non-destructive 550 2107 618 1274 151 310

Neutron Radiography 22 86 30 42 3 12

Digital Radiography 2 8 3 5 0 1

Guided Wave Ultrasonic 0 4 0 9 0 3

Microwave AND NDE 9 9 1 3 2 18

Magneto-optic Eddy Current Imaging 1 8 7 1 0 0

AC Magnetic Bridge Scanning 0 1 0 0 0 0

Multi-frequency Eddy Current 0 0 0 2 0 1

Thermal Imaging 9 30 10 41 3 24

Optically Aided Visual Inspection 1 2 1 0 0 0

By Material Class

Metal 7138 15331 5694 31255 874 1218

Ceramic 1148 2195 850 11120 63 380

Polymer OR Plastic 1027 4099 44715 2436 493 310

Composite 1750 5974 1040 1496 417 470

Electronic 350 1782 293 904 30 109

Optical 530 1075 599 877 28 172

By Specific Metals

Steel 9417 13163 3466 14596 2573 1615

Aluminum 6084 8844 4808 3959 369 748

Titanium 3477 4399 2184 3981 108 383

Nickel 4516 6007 2577 9329 196 514

Superalloy 695 803 523 396 8 19

Magnesium 1585 2227 780 1467 140 119

Copper 1597 2675 1031 2954 230 446

Zinc 875 1660 720 1128 325 200

Tin 223 559 249 1233 19 76

Cadmium 262 520 162 417 16 46

Refractory Metal 136 326 322 454 0 31

By System Component

Joint 1119 2003 273 916 310 139

Lap 175 191 63 4 2 18

Butt 77 93 10 7 14 3

Weld 2460 3313 394 972 399 140

Gasket 47 108 17 36 6 7

Seal 95 1305 114 297 185 55

Fastener (bolt, rivet) 210 1205 228 68 136 51

Stiffener 20 36 8 0 5 4

Valve 153 463 75 323 76 42

Connector 91 347 17 23 26 9

Skin 256 410 189 53 20 46

Hull 168 636 17 48 281 31

Armor 85 215 25 26 6 16

Bearing 470 670 287 208 82 187

Housing 87 317 30 85 25 19

Engine 4302 2966 790 517 237 134

Piping 408 844 118 1164 94 187

General Maintenance Terms

Maintenance 563 1522 682 1276 859 560

Repair 444 800 275 536 509 222

Replace* 369 764 396 916 228 270

Preserv* 90 359 68 137 79 41

General Management Terms

Manag* 162 771 218 3364 203 466

Policy (polic*) 23 56 42 475 26 48

Training 150 273 34 124 67 36

Awareness 206 23 12 22 21 9

Forum 34 92 11 146 11 19

Workshop 36 181 42 346 30 64

Conference 1161 3672 138 3285 86 117

Cost 1184 1962 898 1679 756 445

Corrosion control plan (CCP) 2 4 2 0 1 0

Corrosion prevention and control (CPAC) 46 80 459 5 11 5

Studies/Policies

Benchmark 4 11 7 48 2 8

Standard 777 1721 403 953 310 234

Specification 389 1976 109 280 321 83

Requirement* 650 2023 86 1469 290 410

Technical manual 10 12 4 3 1 3

Documentation 27 4284 59 123 128 58

Survey 350 1039 148 672 303 140

†Since 1990

The total number of 

available corrosion reports

from Government sources 

is somewhere between

50,000 and 100,000
mation contained in the reports. Since the databases searched

were bibliographic in nature, they contained at most a citation

with a paragraph or two of text coupled with the title of each

document. Therefore the data we searched was very limited.

AMPTIAC has considerable experience with full-text searching of entire documents, most notably from our experience 

constructing database modules for the National Materials

Information System (NAMIS). Using electronic tools we recently analyzed more than 400

full-text documents relating to thermal protection

systems (TPS), such as the

tiles and carbon-carbon

leading edge used on the Space Shuttle. We electronically

extracted keywords and phrases from these documents and used

them to develop a detailed technical taxonomy that was over 50

pages long. Had we constructed the taxonomy by gathering data

from the citations alone it would have been much smaller. In

other words, we have found that bibliographic searching seldom

provides enough detail to construct a well-developed taxonomy.

From this background we conclude that many of the numbers 

of documents identified in Table 1 are artificially low and that

the actual numbers in many of the lower tier areas (e.g. uniform

corrosion, etc.) are much higher. 

CORROSION DETECTION AND MONITORING 

Corrosion is a pandemic maintenance problem that plagues

military, government, and industrial sectors alike. It has been

compounded by the growing population of aging structural

components, many of which are still pressed into service long

after the end of their designed lifespan. However, even in the

case of newer systems and components, corrosion can be a 

significant problem because of operational environments. 

Recognition of the severity and economic impact of the corrosion problem by various industries and governmental agencies

has led to significant efforts over the past 50 years to prevent and

control corrosion. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) plays an

important role in this effort, mostly by providing detection of

early signs of corrosion so that corrective action can be taken

before damage becomes severe. As the cost of repair or replacement continues to increase, demands on NDE, particularly for

early detection of corrosion, will also increase. Within the

DOD, as well as other Government agencies, the need for

improved inspection methods is growing at an accelerated rate

with increasing inventory of ever-aging equipment, while budgets for adding new equipment are simultaneously reduced.

From our knowledge of past and present research, we know

that there are many different testing methodologies used to

detect corrosion. Table 2 highlights some of the methods used to

detect corrosion in aircraft, helicopters, and ground vehicles.

The great majority of information in the literature deals with

NDE of corrosion in aircraft. However, many of the methods

reported are applicable to materials used in other military systems. In specific cases, adaptation of the instrumentation to

geometries and configurations of interest may be possible. 

As shown in Table 1, there has been a tremendous amount 

of research conducted in the area of corrosion detection and 

testing. The searches we conducted indicate large numbers of

existing technical reports in the broad field of corrosion testing.

This was not the case when we searched for information concerning the specific testing methods identified in Table 2 (see

Table 1 for details). We identified few documents in these cases,

even though we know that the literature is replete with research

reports. This example illustrates our point that data contained

within bibliographic citations is of such a limited nature that

rarely does it provide the specific information needed to directly and quickly find reports providing exactly what a researcher or

designer needs. The only way around this quandary is through

full-text searching of electronic documents using advanced

information technology methods.

UTILIZATION OF EXISTING CORROSION DATA

The existing Government corrosion knowledgebase is truly an

underutilized national resource. This information would most

definitely help reduce the cost of corrosion, as it relates to both

new and updated DOD systems and infrastructure. There are

three areas that would benefit most if access to this knowledgebase were improved: materials selection, prioritization of

research efforts, and improved maintenance practices. 

Materials Selection

Greater utilization of existing corrosion knowledge during 

materials selection will, by definition, increase the ability to

leverage technology; not only between the services but also

between different departments of the US Government. As mentioned earlier, materials selection is an activity that is often

poorly conducted by designers. Upcoming changes to DOD

policy will require that program managers pay much more

attention to corrosion during the design and development of

weapons systems, support equipment, and infrastructure.

Implementing contractual requirements that force contractors

to deliver more corrosion resistant products will only succeed if

the basic problem, the lack of use and access to corrosion

knowledge among designers, is corrected. Training certainly is

part of the solution, but so too is providing the necessary information and tools needed to ensure that the materials selection

decision-making process utilizes the best available information.

Prioritization of Corrosion Research Efforts 

Corrosion research addressing prevention, mitigation, and testing technologies has long been a part of the DOD’s agenda as it

relates to sustaining existing equipment, systems, and infrastructure. Unfortunately, research efforts are often reactive in nature,

only serving an immediate need, and are thus only applied

parochially. Over time, the cumulative total knowledge accrued

by addressing these “immediate needs” has ended up providing

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 19

Table 2. Corrosion Detection Methods.

Neutron Radiography

Digital Radiography

Guided Wave Ultrasonics

Microwave NDE

Magneto-optic Eddy Current Imaging

AC Magnetic Bridge Scanning

Thermal Imaging

Optically Aided Visual Inspection

Multi-frequency Eddy Current 

There are many more

documents than our

search identified
20 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

technical solutions to a wide spectrum of application areas and

related corrosion problems; all of which are relevant and applicable to the problems of today and tomorrow. 

One of the major challenges faced by the leaders of the

CPCIPT to date has been “getting their arms around the problem.” That is, there is an absolute need to define the scope and

breadth of corrosion, in all its forms and manifestations; as well

as a full census of where it does occur or can occur. This is no

small feat, but it is necessary if the DOD is to prioritize R&D

funding for corrosion issues. Part of the solution is knowing

what questions have already been answered by past work. Thus,

by identifying what parts of the corrosion “knowledge space”

have been “filled,” it will be a more straightforward exercise to

identify the “holes.” Since this pre-existing corrosion knowledgebase has now been ‘re-discovered’, we can develop a new

methodology to help

reduce the potential of

redundant or duplicative studies within the

services. An analysis of

the existing research,

including the information developed by DOD, DOE, DOC, DOT, and NASA,

should be performed to determine what existing corrosion information is available to help meet the current need. With a 

proper up-front examination of the literature, a program manager could streamline the need for additional corrosion research

by leveraging existing technology. The major problem then

becomes how to enable a rapid examination of existing 

databases to identify existing information or determine lapses 

in coverage? Currently, this is a nontrivial process requiring

expertise found in technical libraries and organizations such as

AMPTIAC. If the existing knowledgebase were converted to

digital form, the problem would be significantly reduced, as

access to existing data would become nearly instantaneous.

Improved Maintenance Procedures 

Similar to the above discussion on prioritization of research

efforts, the existing corrosion knowledgebase can potentially

reduce the cost of maintenance by better leveraging technology

developed to maintain one system onto related systems.

‘Reinventing the wheel’ is an unaffordable way to implement

technology. Even something as straightforward as determining

the effectiveness of a new corrosion preventative compound

could benefit from increased access to the knowledgebase. 

The alternative is to rely upon an ‘expert’ that rarely has a sufficiently broad background to ensure full treatment of the entire

spectrum of corrosion mitigation technologies. Experts typically

sell what they know rather than independently provide an 

unbiased assessment of the situation at hand. Fully utilizing the

knowledgebase is the surest way to quickly find out what works

and what doesn’t.

BARRIERS TO TRANSITION

The single largest barrier restricting the engineering community’s access to the existing corrosion knowledgebase is that

the majority of the data is contained in paper documents or

on microfiche. When coupled with the fact that the total

knowledgebase is not maintained in one place, but instead

resides in multiple libraries, it makes obtaining information

all the more difficult. For routine, but time-critical materials

selection decisions, it’s easy to see why this information is

rarely consulted during design.

Community ignorance is another barrier that impedes transition. Since the engineering and design communities don’t realize

these data holdings exist, they remain an underutilized resource.

The final barrier that limits the transition of corrosion

knowledge is that some of the information has formal distribution limitations. A survey of the AMPTIAC holdings indicates that nearly 13% of the existing corrosion information has

some sort of distribution restriction, such as “Export

Controlled Data” or “Distribution Authorized to DOD and

their Contractors.” Such data can be extremely valuable when

consulted for related efforts, but distributing it carries a risk. If

data were inappropriately transmitted to ineligible parties, the

distributing organization, or even the person responsible for

the action could be liable for a variety of penalties including

fines, imprisonment, or debarment. Eligibility to receive

restricted information is a factor that must be determined upfront for each case. For this reason, distribution of this type of

information, especially to the industrial base (i.e. contractors),

is usually a highly controlled process.

IMPROVING ACCESS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE BASE

As mentioned previously, the existing knowledgebase is a national resource but one that is currently difficult to access. The

information is overwhelmingly in paper documents and microfiche and resides in various locations. In addition, bibliographic

search engines are very limited in their ability to directly locate

the right data. Specialists well versed in conducting literature

searches have been able to get around these problems but engaging their services also takes time and resources. Today, on-line,

secure information systems with intelligent search tools can be

employed to directly locate data needed to support materials

selection, system sustainment, or the conduct of research. 

Developing the National Corrosion Database

The DOD can markedly increase its return on investment for the

myriad number of corrosion prevention and control programs

sponsored in the past by developing an on-line corrosion information system. This system would augment other corrosion

resources such as the DOD Corrosion Exchange website (please

see our article on the website in this publication). Upwards of

100,000 or perhaps more Government technical reports on corrosion are available and could be included in the system. These

documents

would need to

be scanned and

converted back

into text to facilitate full-text

searching. Once completed, a web-accessible artificial intelligence-based expert system would enable designers and researchers

to easily find the knowledge they need to make appropriate decisions. There are several significant steps that must be undertaken

to make the on-line corrosion information system a reality.

DOD Corrosion Research

can be more effectively

planned and budgeted

by identifying “holes” in

corrosion knowledge

The DOD can increase its

return on investment by

developing an on-line 

corrosion information system
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 21

Digitization of Paper Documents Perhaps the most daunting task

is to compile all of the information into a single location and

then ‘digitize’ it, by first scanning the documents and converting

them back into text using optical character recognition. This

process has been employed numerous times by various civil and

government organizations. Some of these organizations have had

projects that required them to digitize larger collections than the

corrosion information discussed here. While a good deal of coordination between different government agencies and 

departments would certainly be necessary to gather the relevant

corrosion information, the process of digitization could be 

readily accomplished using existing techniques and practices to

convert the data into electronic documents.

Developing a Detailed Ontology/Taxonomy While developing

the electronic documents is necessary, the real challenge is to

develop a method for non-experts to find information. Engineers

and scientists with direct corrosion experience would have no

problem determining what they need to complete a task. For

these people, an Internet style search engine such as GoogleTM

could be used to locate information. The question becomes how

will people with little or no corrosion expertise find data meeting

their needs? Oftentimes people who don’t have domain experience in a particular technology can’t even formulate a question

expressing their need. In these cases, Internet search engines provide only a marginal improvement to current practices.

The best way to improve access to electronic information is to

employ a process using subject matter experts (SMEs) and electronic tools to develop a detailed ontology to facilitate the

process by which existing information can be retrieved to answer

a query. Ontology can be thought of as a mechanism of imparting knowledge to a word, concept, or phenomenon. Ontologies

employ four different elements, the first of which is taxonomy.

Expanding upon the taxonomy are relationships, facts, and

rules. As they relate to data mining, ontologies were once

restricted to artificial intelligence research. However,

the technology has matured to an extent that it now

can be employed at the desktop level. Medical,

financial, insurance, military intelligence, and other

communities currently utilize ontologies to facilitate

data mining. Likewise, the engineering and design

communities could substantially benefit from

advanced search mechanisms, natural language processing, and machine learning-based tools that

employ an ontology.

Developing an ontology starts by constructing a

taxonomy similar to that shown in Table 1.

However, the actual taxonomy would be much more

detailed than shown here. As mentioned before,

when AMPTIAC’s TPS taxonomy is printed it’s

more than 50 pages long. Because of the amount of

corrosion reports that currently exist we fully expect

that a corrosion taxonomy could be upwards of an

order-of-magnitude larger than the TPS taxonomy.

After establishing the taxonomy, SMEs would create

the rules, relationships, and facts needed to complete

the ontology. An expert system could then be constructed that would utilize the ontology to lead

researchers and designers to the knowledge they need, regardless

of whether or not they have a background or expertise in corrosion mitigation and research.

Construction of an Expert System Enabling a corrosion information system to meet the needs of a non-subject matter expert

requires the use of an expert system to simulate a decision 

making process. Besides being a broker of information, an expert

system functions as an expert assistant, an advisor, a librarian,

and a teacher. An expert system based upon artificial intelligence

technology and accessing an ontology can simulate the problem

solving skills of a subject matter expert. Utilizing the rules 

provided to them, an expert system interrogates the user to draw

from them the attributes of the problem they are trying to solve.

It then analyzes the requirements, consults with the knowledgebase through the ontology, and obtains a solution to the query.

An expert system also functions as a training tool. Since the 

system implements a regimented process, over time, an engineer

would gain greater familiarity on the particular steps needed to

conduct a corrosion analysis and also on what types of data

would be needed for the analysis to proceed. Figure 1 graphically depicts how a corrosion information system would work.

Bringing it all Together

Developing the corrosion information system is only part of 

the battle. One problem that has doomed many similarly wellintentioned projects in the past has been the lack of forethought concerning how the system would be maintained and

updated. At a minimum the organization developing and

maintaining the system must have an active technology acquisition program to ensure that new information is continually

added. Also, constructing the information system is only the

first step in getting it to be used. Without customer awareness,

the system would remain an unknown entity. A promotional

campaign based upon a combination of printed and on-line

Figure 1. Schematic of Materials Selection Process Using the Expert System. Existing Government Literature Knowledge Accessible through Ontology

Uniform

Galvanic

Crevice

Stress Corrosion

Cracking

Erosion Corrosion

Pitting

Selective Leaching

Intergrannular, etc.

Corrosion Mechanisms

Coatings and Sealants

Topcoats

Primers

Inhibitors

Surface Treatments

Greases

Cathodic/Anodic Protection

Corrosion Mitigation

Steel

Aluminum

Titanium, etc.

Materials

Air

Land

Sea

Space

Applications

Natural

Laboratory

Accelerated

Visual Inspection

Eddy Current Inspection

Ultrasonic Inspection

Radiography

Testing and Inspection

Training

User Input Design Features Environment

Output

Expert

System

Candidate Material

Adjacent Materials

Gaskets and Sealants

Stress and Loads

Turbulence

Coatings

Dynamic/Static Application

Temperature

Humidity

Salt Water

Radiation

Chemicals

Pollutants

Reduced Total Ownership Costs

Corrosion Resistant Structures

Informed Materials Selection

Electronic Record of Actions

Knowledge and Ru el s De ev

depol

by SMEs
22 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

media is the only way to ensure that knowledge of the system

is passed to those who need it.

CONCLUSIONS

Managing the effects of corrosion on weapons systems, support

equipment, and infrastructure is an expensive process that costs

the DOD billions of dollars each year. Corrosion can oftentimes be eliminated but in many situations the prevention

methods are either unaffordable or cause a weight penalty that

cannot be tolerated. Design approaches must therefore employ

a process that leads to the best possible material (after trading

off various technical and other requirements). Planning for

maintenance actions to affordably sustain the system/structure

over its intended lifecycle by applying corrosion preventative

compounds, coatings, or other means must also be considered.

Corrosion prevention and mitigation will always be more effective if planned for up-front during the development phase.

Also, managing corrosion requires that test techniques for corrosion detection be considered early to preclude situations

where corrosion can form without being detected.

Effective consideration of corrosion prevention and control,

starting from materials selection and ending with the development of maintenance procedures (including testing), is an 

excellent mechanism for reducing program risk and ultimately

reducing total ownership costs. The only sure way to develop

new structures and systems that maintain the best balance of

affordability and corrosion performance is to utilize a process

employing the vast corrosion knowledgebase. Current estimates

place the number of existing Government corrosion research

reports within the knowledgebase at somewhere between 50,000

and 100,000 documents. Adequately consulting this information will help ensure that appropriate materials, mitigation

methods, and testing techniques are selected for an application.

to facilitate this, we must first break the current paradigm in

which designers with little direct knowledge of corrosion 

select materials. Policy changes requiring up-front emphasis on

corrosion prevention and mitigation will provide an effective

means for this to occur. However, truly impacting this problem

requires the development of a system to assist engineers as they

make complicated materials selection decisions as well as helping

them plan for routine maintenance.

The system we envision could later be expanded to include

lessons learned from repair depots and other maintenance

activities. This information is typically not in the technical 

literature so obtaining it would require some significant work.

However, the benefit of having this type of data included is

that full life-cycle information from an existing system could

be used to help preclude problems on similar follow-on 

systems. By analyzing both corrosion research and actual 

lessons learned from existing systems, engineers and scientists

supporting the Department of Defense will leverage the untold

millions of dollars in existing corrosion prevention and mitigation technologies far more effectively.

Reducing the cost of corrosion requires two different

approaches: mitigating the problems in the systems currently

fielded and building more corrosion-tolerant systems for the

future. Increased usage of the knowledgebase will facilitate

both. Greater access and utilization of existing knowledge prior

to beginning a new activity by definition increases the ability

to leverage technology, not only between the services but also

between different departments of the US Government. The 

net result is that corrosion-related problems in upgraded and

future systems will be far less problematic, thus increasing 

reliability and readiness while at the same time reducing total

ownership costs.

REFERENCES

[1] General Accounting Office Report Entitled “Defense

Management: Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and

Increase Readiness”, GAO-03-753, July 2003

[2] Private communications with Dale L. Moore, Director,

Aerospace Materials Division, Naval Air Systems Command

Mr. David H. Rose has been with AMPTIAC since the beginning of its contract and has been its Director since June

of 1998. He retired from the US Air Force in 1996 where he worked in a variety of technical and acquisition roles

including seven years at the Air Force Research Laboratory. His research interests included micromechanical analyses

of composite materials and microelectronics. He received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of

Washington, an MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Dayton and has also completed his PhD coursework in Materials Engineering. In addition to authoring or co-authoring 12 technical papers, Mr. Rose has performed

extensive technical editing and review of 134 papers submitted for publication in the AMPTIAC Quarterly.

Dr. George A. Matzkanin is Director of the Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center (NTIAC) and Principal

Scientist at Texas Research Institute in Austin (TRI/Austin). He received his PhD in Physics from the University of Florida

in 1966. In addition to post-graduate work at the Argonne National Laboratory, Dr. Matzkanin has spent 33 years as

program manager and principal investigator for numerous NDE research, development, and application projects at

both Southwest Research Institute and TRI/Austin. Dr. Matzkanin has more than 80 publications and presentations, has

authored or co-authored 10 State-of-the-Art Reports and 5 Technology Assessments on various NDE topics, and has

3 patents. He is a Fellow of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) and has served on the ASNT

Board of Directors.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 23

INTRODUCTION

The DOD Corrosion Exchange is the heart of a state-of-theart corrosion prevention and control (CPAC) information 

management and distribution e-portal. The e-portal is sponsored by the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Maintenance Policy and has been designated as one of the

cornerstones in the DOD’s long-term strategy for corrosion

prevention and mitigation detailed in 10 U.S.C. 2228. The

website (at www.DoDCorrosionExchange.org, see Figure 1) is

life-cycle oriented and serves as a leader in corrosion research,

industry coordination, and information dissemination to all

individuals and organizations in the DOD, academia, and

industry who have an interest in corrosion related to DOD

weapon systems, equipment, and commercial assets. The 

website provides a forum for communication and cutting edge

collaboration and information sharing tools, combined with a

content-rich environment for technical information exchange

among all sectors of the CPAC community from basic research

through application. The virtual library is organized around a

taxonomy with two distinct branches – one application-based,

geared toward the war-fighter and organized by service and

weapon system, and the other research-based and populated

mainly with abstracts from published papers in the corrosion

field. The e-portal includes a research component that is led by

a team of five multi-disciplinary doctorate-level scientists and

engineers. Using state-of-the-art collaboration and information

sharing tools (such as text conferencing, voting, exploder lists,

special interest groups, calendars, FTP, and assorted corrosion

references) members can freely collaborate and share corrosion

information in an open forum or secured environment tailored

to their specific needs across the CPAC community.

Collaboration and information sharing are the first steps

toward reducing the cost of corrosion and its impact on the

readiness of DOD assets. As the primary corrosion resource for

the CPAC community, the Corrosion Exchange brings together

disparate websites, repositories, information sharing and collaboration tools, corrosion-related content, and users from research

to field operations from both the public and private sectors who

have an interest in converting corrosion problems and issues into

solutions. To this end, the goals of the exchange are to 1) support and improve communication, collaboration, and coordination within the CPAC community, 2) increase the effectiveness

of CPAC research and operations, 3) develop, maintain, and

expand the web-based information aggregation and sharing

capabilities of the website, and 4) maintain a content-rich, 

collaborative-enabled online environment for all members.

THE MEMBERSHIP AND USER LEVELS

To facilitate collaboration and help organize the website, the

exchange groups members into three general areas:

DOD/Government, Research, and Industry. All website functionality is available to each group; however, each group may

use the website in different ways or tailor it to fit their specific

needs. Membership and use is free to all, and the uses and

potential benefits of the exchange broken down by group are

listed in Table 1. 

The User Levels

Besides the group affiliation, each user is assigned one of the

following four user levels (as seen in Table 2). Public/NonMember, Registered Member, Special Interest Group (SIG),

and Administrator.

THE TAXONOMY

All users have access to the DOD Corrosion Exchange library

and unrestricted content, as seen in Figure 2. To logically 

organize the website and make it easier to locate information, the

Robert S. Kidwell, VP/Sr. Technical Director

Enterprise Integration Center, ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. 

Hinton, WV

Figure 1. The DOD Corrosion Exchange Website.
24 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

library was organized around a taxonomy and document repository system currently consisting of nine top-level folders: Military

Applications (Figure 3), Infrastructure, Specifications and

Standards, Laws and Regulations, Policy, Training, Research and

Development, and Suppliers. The Military Applications folder

represents the core of the taxonomy and is geared toward the warfighter and organized by service and weapon system. Note that

the existing taxonomy provides a foundation upon which folders

may be added or existing content is deleted/rearranged.

The library contains documents, publications, abstracts, 

manuals, a dictionary of corrosion terms, and a variety of other

corrosion references. To add content to the library, members 

e-mail the file(s) to the system administrator, who in turn

processes and uploads the file to the website. Once uploaded,

not all documents are viewable by all users. User access to a 

document or resource depends on the access permission level(s)

they have been granted.

THE TOOLS

Unlike the DOD Corrosion Exchange library, the web-centric

collaboration and information sharing tools are not available

Table 1. User Groups and Potential Benefits.

DOD/Government

This group includes military services such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and related organizations such as the Coast Guard and NATO.

Through the e-portal, all members can access a variety of corrosion information such as policy, procedures, specifications, publications, training

materials, forms, corrosion images, corrosion information on weapon systems, equipment, infrastructure, and a wealth of other information on 

corrosion, particularly as it relates to the DOD. All information can be shared within or between services and organizations, with members in

other groups, or organized in a secure environment to limit access.

Research

Both public and private sector members who are actively engaged in corrosion-related research or teaching comprise the Research group. 

Using the website collaboration and information services and tools, researchers can identify potential corrosion research topics, or pursue

research topics that “piggyback” or build on previous research. Other potential benefits for this group include reduced research duplication,

reduced time for testing and fielding new corrosion technologies, insight into corrosion problems affecting the membership, and the ability to 

circulate research to the CPAC community in a timely manner. Researchers can also pose questions to the general membership, post their

abstracts and papers on the website for review, or simply publicize their research.

Industry

The Industry group consists of companies, individuals, or organizations that provide manufactured products and/or services used in the fight

against corrosion. The exchange provides industry experts a forum to not only market their products and services to the CPAC community, 

but also to participate in collaborative activities and share their corrosion expertise with other groups or members.

Table 2. Member User Levels.

Public/Non-Member

This user level is available to the public and does not require a username or password for access. This level provides access to general site 

information, the library, and an assortment of administrative and technical support features.

Registered Member

This user level is username/password protected and requires the member to successfully complete the self-registration process. A registered 

member has all the privileges of a non-member plus access to all the tools and services the site has to offer.

Special Interest 

The SIG level is username/password protected and is available to groups and organizations that wish to restrict access to a subset of 

registered members. Only members of the SIG can access the information stored and organized by the group. This functionality requires at 

least one member of the SIG to be designated as the administrator for the group. The SIG administrator can add/remove members, 

organize the SIG’s information, and monitor the group’s activity using SIG metrics.

Administrator

This service level is username/password protected and provides access to features and functions required to maintain the site and services.

Figure 2. Top-Level Page of Library Interface.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 25

to the Public/Non-Member user. Only registered members,

SIG members, and Administrators can use the state-of-the-art

tools to freely collaborate and share corrosion information

across the CPAC community in an open forum or secured

environment tailored to their specific needs. Note that 

SIG members have access to these tools in their SIG as well 

as with the general membership. The collaboration and 

information sharing tools in Table 3 form the core of the 

website’s functionality.

CONCLUSION

The aging of military systems poses a unique challenge to

develop corrosion maintenance programs that will carry the 

various aging systems well into the 21st century. Sharing corrosion information and group collaboration will be key to this

endeavor. The Exchange fulfills this requirement by providing

web-based access and links to corrosion information, combined

with a common collaboration suite of tools to readily share

information among all members of the CPAC community.

Figure 3. Partially Expanded Military Applications Folder.

Table 3. Collaboration and Information Exchange.

Text Conferencing This web-centric tool is basically an electronic message board used to share information organized by topic (or thread). 

Text conferencing may be used by the general membership for discussing issues, sharing meeting agendas, minutes, and action items, or sharing

information by topic. Members can also post questions and receive responses from the membership using this tool.

Exploder List This service provides a list of contact information for members such as name, e-mail, phone number, organization, and expertise.

Members may use the exploder list to contact any and all members.

Document Manager This service allows users to view, download, and (as a SIG Administrator) administer documents stored on the website.

Document and folder details and attributes are visible and editable at each level of the taxonomy.

Comment Annotation Tool Using this web-centric collaboration tool, members can review and post comments on documents such as 

presentations, specifications, budget documents, and handbooks. Members must send a request to the System Administrator to add 

or remove a document for comment and can only review and add comments to documents they have access to.

Voting Tool This tool allows members and administrators to post or delete a document for vote, craft a vote, cast votes on ballots, 

and display voting results in graphic or text form. Members may only vote on ballots they have access to.

Calendar The calendar tool is accessible by all user levels and displays information such as upcoming events, meetings, travel schedule,

and milestones. Calendars within SIGs are accessible only by members of that SIG.

FTP The FTP tool allows users to upload large files to the website in lieu of e-mail.

Search The search tool searches and indexes the website content and displays the results in an easy-to-understand format. Advanced search

capabilities such as Boolean operators and wildcards are also available on the website.

Mr. Robert S. Kidwell serves as the Vice President/Senior Technical Director of ManTech Inc.’s Enterprise Integration

Center (e-IC). Mr. Kidwell also serves as Technical Chair of the NATO Integrated Technical Data (ITD) task force on

IETM interoperability. Mr. Kidwell’s career spans some 30 years as a senior program manager with emphasis 

on enterprise-wide system integration, technical and cost issues, live test demonstrations, business process engineering,

computer hardware evaluations, software engineering, and computer system performance and modeling. He 

attended American University, the University of Hawaii, and is a graduate of the senior executive program, Fuqua

School of Business at Duke University.

Military Applications

ARMY AIR FORCE NAVY MARINES COAST GUARD

Air Land Sea Munitions

F-18 C-130 H-60 HEMTT HMMWV DDG CV TUG 5 in

Proj Harpoon

PM PE

Purchasing Spec Wording CPAC Plan Cost Mgmt Cost Info Stnds

Product/Process Costs

History

S&T Maint

Materials db Corrosion db

Manuals Forms Instruct Prod Lists

Processes

Current New O-Level I-Level D-Level
26 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

It has been emphasized repeatedly throughout this issue that

the monetary cost of corrosion to the Department of Defense

is many billions of dollars annually. The root cause for most of

the specific instances of corrosion in DOD weapon systems

and infrastructure is systemic. An earlier article in this issue,

Improved Access to Corrosion Research Will Reduce Total

Ownership Costs, cites that materials engineering concerns 

(corrosion being one of them) are frequently subordinated to

the more immediate and highly visible concerns of structural

integrity and overall system performance. Since corrosion is a

longer-term concern, it may be preferentially overlooked in

favor of the nearer term requirements, with the belief that any

problems that crop up can be addressed later in time through

maintenance and repair. While corrosion costs are a major 

concern, other issues such as readiness, reliability, sustainability, safety, and others are often deemed more critical for an

effective weapons system. 

In past decades, when systems and facilities were designated

to serve pre-defined, finite lives which ended with routine

retirement and/or replacement; corrosion was a secondary or

tertiary concern. Simply put, most systems were replaced before

corrosion became a critical problem. Today, national priorities

have dictated much longer service lives for defense facilities and

systems. These changes necessitate improved designs which

account for corrosion as one of the major life-limiting factors.

To do this, materials and processes used to construct weapon

systems and infrastructure must be selected in part on the basis

of their ability to preclude, prevent, and retard the incidence of

corrosion. To be most effective, these considerations must be

included in the design and manufacturing phases of the acquisition cycle. However, corrosion-conscious designs will never be

systematically addressed without a common basis from which

Program Managers can assure that satisfactory materials and

processes are selected and employed.

THE CPC PLANNING GUIDEBOOK

The DOD Corrosion Policy itself does not provide specific steps

for implementing CPC goals and objectives through the

Department. The task of delineating such procedures is the

responsibility of the Corrosion Prevention and Control

Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT). To that end, the CPCIPT

is preparing to release its Corrosion Prevention and Control

(CPC) Planning Guidebook. The purpose of the CPC Planning

Guidebook is to provide guidance to acquisition program 

managers on how to structure and develop a Corrosion

Prevention and Control Program for DOD weapon systems and

infrastructure, as well as other corrosion-related issues that must

be addressed to produce viable designs.

GUIDEBOOK WILL FACILITATE POLICY COMPLIANCE

As Mr. Wynne pointed out in his remarks (see his interview

with AMPTIAC near the front of this issue), all new acquisition

programs must prepare and submit some form of corrosion

planning to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) as part of

their approval process. While a formal corrosion plan is not

required, it is strongly recommended as the single best way to

provide the DAB with sufficiently detailed planning. The CPC

Planning Guidebook is specifically being written for the purpose of helping program managers prepare such corrosion

plans, by providing templates of all major corrosion program

elements. It will establish guidelines for materials, processes,

and techniques; and identify the tasks required to integrate an

effective corrosion prevention and control program during the

conceptual, validation, development, and production phases of

DOD weapon systems and support equipment. It establishes

similar guidelines for the planning, design, and construction

phases of DOD facilities. The intent of these guidelines is to

minimize the corrosion impacts on life cycle cost, readiness,

reliability, supportability, safety, and structural integrity.

The CPC Planning Guidebook provides a mechanism for

defining sound selection practices for materials, processes, and

finish treatments during the design, development, production,

and operational cycles of DOD weapon systems, equipment,

and infrastructure. For each new program, it recommends the

establishment and implementation of a Corrosion Prevention

Advisory Team (CPAT) that is appropriately integrated into all

design phases (where applicable). The corrosion prevention and

control plan would delineate the organization of the CPATs,

define their basic duties and operating procedures, and identify

appropriate specifications and standards.

GUIDEBOOK CAN BE USED FOR ALL DOD ACQUISITION

The Guidebook will be applicable for use by all DOD program

offices and their respective contractors involved in design, procurement, and upgrades. The recommendation to develop a

detailed corrosion prevention and control plan and associated

finish specifications apply to all elements of DOD weapon 

systems and infrastructure, including spares. The corrosion 

Christian E.Grethlein, Deputy Director

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

Richard Kinzie

Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO)

Robins AFB, GA
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 27

prevention and control plan, when used in conjunction with

supportability, reliability, maintainability and structural integrity programs, as well as applicable specific technical guidance,

will result in reliable DOD systems that strike a balance between

acquisition costs and life cycle cost.

CPC PLANNING GUIDEBOOK REVISITS 

THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIFICATIONS

In the wake of Acquisition Reform, most military specifications

were phased out; having either been transitioned to performance

specifications, superceded by some commercial specification, or

simply cancelled. As part of reform, the acquisition community

took a “hands-off” approach with contactors, defining system

needs in a series of high-level performance specifications, which

only defined requirements at the system level. In essence, this left

all material, design, and manufacturing decisions entirely in the

hands of the contractors. This approach did achieve the stated

objective of reducing acquisition costs for new systems, but at

times, at the expense of sustainment and ultimately total life cycle

costs. In the post-Acquisition Reform world, requirements for

mitigating corrosion (as well as other environmental threats)

became “suggestions,” and were consequently given low priority

or disregarded altogether. As part of implementing the Corrosion

Policy, the CPCIPT is in the process of examining current and

past standards and specifications to identify those with CPCcritical information, and extract that information for future use.

In most cases, relevant CPC guidance from these specifications

and standards would be incorporated into acquisition documentation (including this Guidebook). In isolated instances, it may

also be used as the basis of (or be included in) a new specification.

The renewed interest in old specifications and standards does

not in any way signify a return to the old ‘Mil-Spec’ system, nor

does it represent a repeal of Acquisition Reform, but rather, is an

adjustment to account for the elevated need for corrosion mitigation as DOD systems are pressed into service for extended

durations. For example, Military Specifications and Standards

that migrated to commercial standards (such as those maintained by SAE, ASTM, or NACE) will remain “commercial”.

Military Specifications and Standards that were cancelled and

have no commercial equivalents would not be reactivated, but

rather, their corrosion-specific language would be incorporated

into other documents, as discussed above. The CPC Planning

Guidebook will provide a listing of many of the relevant specifications and standards identified by the CPCIPT which might be

useful and beneficial during the preparation of a plan. Once

again, adherence to current or past specs and standards will not

be, in most cases, compulsory; but incorporating pertinent

aspects of those documents into a corrosion plan will prove

invaluable when it comes time to answer to the DAB.

Compiling some of this recovered information into new specifications would constitute an exception to this rule, and would

only be considered when other options have been exhausted. As

before, active Specifications and Standards will be maintained

and updated in accordance with the Department of Defense

Index of Specifications and Standards (DODISS).

Specifications examined by the CPCIPT will include (but not

be limited to) the types of documents shown in Table 1.

To the maximum degree possible, the CPC Planning

Guidebook will rely on existing, applicable commercial specifications, and standards. Some examples are shown in Table 2.

The CPC Planning Guidebook will set definitions for corrosion-related terminology and their usage within the DOD. For

those familiar with existing DOD corrosion documents, this

portion of the Guidebook will look very familiar, as it will be for

the most part, a compilation of the corrosion glossaries from the

individual services – both for weapons systems and facilities.

THE CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM

The new DOD Corrosion Policy states that all acquisition programs must institute some form of corrosion prevention and 

control planning as a key step in the early stages of program acquisition. By doing so, the primary elements of the program will be

integral parts of the product definition and design phases. To 

facilitate compliance, the CPCIPT will publish the CPC Planning

Guidebook to provide direction and guidance to program offices

on how to do this in an organized and accountable manner. 

So, what is a Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, what

does it entail, and how will its individual elements impact the

acquisition cycle and the way contractors develop new systems?

As defined in the Guidebook, there are four major elements to

a corrosion prevention and control program. They are:

• The Corrosion Prevention Advisory Team

• Program Documentation

• Materials and Process Considerations in Design

• Submission Schedule

The detailed aspects of each element are provided in the sections

that follow.

The Corrosion Prevention Advisory Team

Establishment and Scope To ensure a successful program, the

Program Manager should establish a Corrosion Prevention

Advisory Team (CPAT) during the conceptual design phase of

the program prior to technology development. The CPAT

would be actively involved in reviewing all design considerations

and documentation relating to corrosion prevention and control

throughout the life of the system. 

Table 1. Examples of Government Corrosion-Related

Specifications and Standards.

Type Examples

Federal Specifications QQ-N-290, QQ-P-416

Military Specifications MIL-S-5002, MIL-F-18264, MIL-P-23377

Military Standards MIL-STD-454, MIL-STD-808, MIL-STD-883, 

MIL-STD-889

Table 2. Typical Commercial Specifications.

ASTM INTERNATIONAL 

(formerly the American Society For Testing And Materials)

(Corrosion documents controlled by ASTM Committee G-01)

ASTM G47 Determining Susceptibility to Stress-Corrosion Cracking 

of High-Strength 7XXX Aluminum Alloy Products

ASTM G64 Standard Classification of Resistance to Stress-Corrosion 

Cracking of Heat-Treatable Aluminum Alloys

AEROSPACE MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

(SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers)

AMS 3267 Sealing Compound, Low Adhesion, Corrosion Inhibiting, 

for Removable Panels and Fuel Tank Inspection Plates

AMS 3374 Aircraft Firewall, Sealing Compound, One-part Silicone
28 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Membership The CPAT should be chaired by an engineering

representative from the program office. Each CPAT should

include members from the contractor’s organization and from

the DOD. The Prime contractor members should be functional

representatives of the contractor’s organizations necessary to

insure that proper materials, processes, and treatments are selected, applied, and maintained from the initial design stage to the

final deliverable hardware. 

DOD members on the CPAT should be designated by the

applicable Program Manager. If the item being procured is to be

used by multiple services (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force), then representatives from each participating service would support the

CPAT to ensure their specific operating and environmental

conditions are considered in the plan. Membership from those

services should include, but not be limited to, engineers from

the program office, the individual service corrosion program

offices (or equivalent), materials engineering staff members

from the individual service laboratories, corrosion personnel

from the user commands, and operational test personnel.

CPAT Duties The primary function of the DOD members would

be to interface with the contractor’s corrosion team (described

next section) to insure the goals of the Guidebook are met. The

CPAT would monitor the contractor’s activity during design

engineering, and construction/production. The DOD members

would attend those contractor team meetings deemed appropriate and, if necessary, advise the Program Manager on technical

issues to be resolved.

The Program Manager would maintain authority to conduct

periodic reviews to evaluate the adequacy of the efforts in corrosion prevention and control. The Program Manager can, when

deemed necessary, review relevant aspects of the contractor’s

design. They can also review contractor and subcontractor facilities, where critical parts and assemblies are fabricated,

processed, assembled, and readied for shipment. Discrepancies

would be documented and submitted for review to be resolved

by the team. The reviews would be scheduled as frequently as

deemed necessary by the chairman. 

The Contractor’s Corrosion Team

Just as it is important for the government to stand up a multidisciplinary team to address corrosion issues upfront, it is 

equally important that the contractor stand up a similar organization. The Guidebook defines this group as the Contractor’s

Corrosion Team (CCT). The CCT should include one or more

representatives from the project design integrated product team,

materials and process engineering, operations (or manufacturing), quality control, material (or subcontractor procurement),

and contracts. This representation is flexible and the recommended membership may be altered.

The primary function of the CCT would be to insure that

adequate corrosion prevention and control requirements are

being implemented during all phases of procurement. The CCT

would be responsible for assuring that all relevant program 

documents (outlined above) are prepared and submitted in

accordance with acquisition requirements and schedule. The

team would also obtain the necessary design reviews, clarifications, resolutions of any differences in technical position and

final approval of the documentation. 

A chairman would be selected to serve as the manager of the

CCT and that person would also be the contractor’s focal point

for the program. The chairman or his designees would sign off

on all production drawings after review of materials selection,

treatments, and finishes. He or she would also establish the 

principal tasks to be accomplished to implement corrosion 

prevention and control procedures in the contractor and subcontractor manufacturing facilities.

Program Documentation – A Typical CPC Plan

A corrosion prevention and control program would produce the

following documents. 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan The plan defines 

corrosion prevention and control requirements, and makes other

considerations for system definition, design, engineering development, and production and sustainment phases; all of which are

consistent with the design life of the system. More specifically, the

plan describes the specific corrosion prevention and control

measures the contractor would implement (Table 3). As part of

its scope, it would include plans and procedures for assuring vendor and subcontractor compliance with the contractor’s corrosion

approach (which is approved by the Program Manager). The plan

also applies to the installation of any government furnished

equipment. Various entities can prepare the CPC plan, but the

Program Office is responsible for delivering it.

Finish Specification Prime contractors should prepare a finish

specification which identifies specific organic and inorganic 

surface pretreatments and coatings and other CPC materials and

processes intended to protect weapons system and their components against corrosion. The finish specification would apply

only to those materials already identified in the corrosion 

prevention and control plan. After this document is approved 

by the responsible DOD program office, the requirements contained therein would be included in all applicable production

drawings and maintenance documents.

Environmental Test and Verification Plan This plan would define

the types and levels of planned environmental testing during

development and validation phases. Test conditions would be

representative of the operational environment experienced at

both the system and component levels. The plan would provide

the rationale for the corrosion-mitigating aspects of the system

design, and how testing would verify design recommendations.

Integral to this plan is a projection of the environmental spectrum the system would be exposed to over its service life. It

would also discuss the methodology for monitoring and tracking

total system exposure such that environmental effects on service

life may be evaluated.

Corrosion Maintenance Documentation and Guidance The CPAT

would provide recommendations to the Program Manager as to

the adequacy of the corrosion maintenance documentation and

guidance (corrosion technical manual guidance, corrosion maintenance concept definition, and specifics) as they are developed.

Materials and Process Considerations in Design 

Selection Considerations The primary consideration in the design

and construction of DOD weapons systems and facilities is 

compliance with structural and operational requirements. In
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 29

Mr. Christian E. Grethlein has been the Deputy Director of AMPTIAC since December 1999. He is a proficient technical writer; having authored, edited, and peer-reviewed a number of technical publications. He is a past editor of the

AMPTIAC Quarterly, having served in that capacity for two years. Mr. Grethlein joined AMPTIAC in 1998 as a

Research Engineer, bringing with him a broad base of design, engineering, manufacturing, and engineering management expertise in the aerospace, automotive, and environmental industries. Mr. Grethlein holds BS and MS

degrees in Chemical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, and an MS in Manufacturing Engineering

from Syracuse University. He is also a Licensed Professional Engineer.

Mr. Richard Kinzie graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in Chemical Engineering and worked for

16 years in the development and manufacture of coatings and corrosion inhibitors. He has worked in the Air Force’s

Corrosion Prevention and Control Office for the past 19 years focusing on materials and processes for new aircraft

design, costs of corrosion, corrosion as a structural integrity issue in aging aircraft, environmental monitoring, and corrosion maintenance practices and their impact.

addition, these systems are expected to perform reliably with minimal maintenance over a specified lifetime, which dictates that

these systems deteriorate at the slowest possible rate. Therefore, in

selecting suitable materials and appropriate processing methods to

satisfy system requirements, consideration must also be given to

those materials, processing methods and protective treatments

which reduce failures due to deterioration. Deterioration modes

which contribute to failures include but are not limited to: pitting

corrosion, galvanic corrosion, exfoliation corrosion, stress corrosion, corrosion fatigue, thermal embrittlement, fretting fatigue,

oxidation, hydrogen embrittlement, weathering, and fungus

growth. In the entire design phase, attention should be given to

precautionary measures that minimize deterioration of individual

parts and assemblies, as well as the entire system. 

General Design Guidelines for Corrosion Prevention The 

CPC Planning Guidebook will be rife with tables, charts, and 

diagrams containing useful materials information which can be

invaluable when making CPC decisions during the design

process. There are numerous guidelines to critical material selection criteria, such as alloy selection, appropriate heat tempering

of metals, coating rules of thumb, chemical conversion coating

processes, properties of most classes of metals, welding guidelines, rules for cathodic protection, and others.

Submission Schedule 

The initial draft of the corrosion prevention and control plan

would need to be submitted to the program office prior to the conceptual design. Submission dates for the finish specification, environmental test and verification plan, and the corrosion technical

manual guidance and corrosion maintenance concept documents

would be determined by the program office with advice from the

CPAT. Document revisions would be made as required to properly record any changes in selected CPC materials and processes. One

major improvement in corrosion management called out in the

Policy is providing feedback to the contractors on the corrosion

performance of fielded systems. Through this process, data would

be collected through design studies, failure analysis reports, and

weapons systems inspections; and fed back to the program office

and the contractor for analysis. When warranted, program documents could be revised to reflect newly acquired use data, and thus

be changed to improve corrosion performance.

SUMMARY

As described here, the Corrosion Prevention and Control

Planning Guidebook is being written to help program managers

implement new processes that will help reduce the incidence 

of corrosion in weapon systems, infrastructure, and other equipment. The Guidebook is specifically geared towards helping 

programs implement the DOD’s new corrosion prevention and

control policy. The Guidebook is currently being written and 

it should be considered as a living document, one that will 

constantly be revised and updated as new information becomes

available. The DOD Corrosion Office and the CPCIPT welcome

and encourage all comments, questions, additions, or revisions

offered to make this document more useful to the community.

You can access and download a copy of it at the DOD Corrosion

Information Exchange: http://www.dodcorrosionexchange.org.

Table 3. Typical CPC Measures Considered in a Corrosion Plan.*

CPC Measure Facilities Weapon Systems

Materials selection ✔ ✔

(corrosion-resistant materials selected)

Corrosion-conscious designs ✔ ✔

(designs that thwart corrosion initiation)

Cathodic protection ✔

(eliminates electrochemical reactions 

which cause corrosion)

Industrial water treatments ✔

(reduces corrosion, scaling, & biological 

growth in heating & cooling systems)

Protective coatings (reduces atmospheric/ ✔ ✔

aqueous corrosion or needed level of 

cathodic protection)

Chemical conversion coatings ✔ ✔

(passivates chemical activity of metal 

surfaces, thwarting corrosion reactions)

Analysis of logs & records ✔ ✔

(for failure prediction & selecting 

corrective action)

Incorporation of corrective actions ✔ ✔

in successor projects

* List Not Exhaustive
At first glance, many managers and engineers might ask, “why

are we talking about specs and standards – aren’t those things

dead?” Since acquisition reform, Military Specifications and

Standards (commonly known as Mil-Specs) have lost their primacy as requirement documents. Having once dictated many

aspects of system procurement to program offices and contractors (e.g. engineering, design, materials, manufacturing, repair

& maintenance, etc.), Mil-Specs often today are at best, reference documents, which are becoming obsolete due to neglect

and indifference. DOD policy (as written in DOD 4120.24-M)

requires a waiver approved by the Milestone Decision Authority

to require the use of any Military or Federal specification or standard in a solicitation or contract. Today, the view towards MilSpecs is split: most professionals who once dealt with them

would agree that while these documents could be misused out of

scope to impose an excessive degree of cost and “technical orthodoxy” (which many claimed limited their options to effect solutions), many of these same Mil-Specs were also considered

invaluable technical resources.

In the rush to reform the Mil-Spec system, in some cases, we

may have “thrown out the baby with the bathwater” – that is, in

the fervor to remove a bureaucratic burden, a legitimate and

important resource was diminished. The Corrosion Prevention

and Control Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT) have recognized the value of this information asset, and are revisiting 

Mil-Specs for the purposes of making some of this information

available to the corrosion community.

As was discussed in some of the preceding articles, this reexamination of corrosion-related Mil-Specs is not an attempt to

return to the old Mil-Spec system (current acquisition requirements would prohibit that, anyway); but rather is an effort to

reinvigorate their usefulness and relevancy. In the past, one could

argue that Mil-Spec users served the Mil-Spec system. If the

CPCIPT is successful in their efforts to revitalize relevant facets

of the Mil-Spec system, then the system would instead serve the

users; which would greatly aid all those actively supporting corrosion prevention and control. It would serve as a model to similar DOD initiatives, showing them how to tap this wealth of

information, and thus reclaim an important part of the

Department’s technical heritage.

SOME BACKGROUND (HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE)

Between 1994 and 2000, Acquisition Reform radically changed

the way that new weapon systems, support systems, and infrastructure were procured. As part of this process, the DOD

engaged in an aggressive campaign to reform the Mil-Spec 

system. The objective was to break down barriers posed by

“how-to” military-unique requirements, reduce procurement

costs, remove impediments to inserting state-of-the-art technology into our weapon systems, and provide better access to the

commercial industrial base.

During that six year period, the DOD reviewed over 29,000

detailed military specifications and standards with an eye

toward eliminating those that were no longer needed; or if the

requirements were still valid, replacing them with commercial

non-government standards or performance specifications. Only

when it was absolutely necessary to retain a detailed military

specification or standard was the document kept.

As a result of Mil-Spec reform, 9,600 military specifications

and standards were canceled (nearly 6,100 were canceled without

replacement and 3,500 were canceled and superseded by nongovernment standards, performance specifications, commercial

item descriptions, and guidance handbooks). In addition, over

8,100 military specifications and standards were inactivated 

and retained only to support the reprocurement of parts and

components for legacy equipment and systems. While Mil-Spec

reform did not eliminate the Department’s need for detailed 

military specifications and standards, it did dramatically shift the

balance towards more commercial and performance-oriented

specifications and standards. The before and after demographics

of the different types of specifications and standards used by the

DOD are depicted in Figure 1.

How to Address the Problem of Specifications and Standards

In the view of the CPCIPT (and many others), the path for

introducing new materials and processes into developing systems

is facilitated and enhanced through the use of specifications and

standards. In the area of corrosion control, specifications and

standards provide guidance regarding the use of materials and

processes during the design phase, system fabrication, and maintenance of military systems and infrastructure.

Christian E.Grethlein, Deputy Director

AMPTIAC

Rome, NY

Various Contributors: 

Specifications, Standards, and Qualification Processes Working Integrated Product Team

Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team

DOD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight

30 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 31

Selection, introduction, and management of design

approaches, materials of construction, protection measures,

(e.g., coatings, cathodic protection, etc.), application procedures, inspection and assessment, and maintenance relating to

corrosion control are all areas once overseen by Mil-Specs.

While strict interpretation and application of these requirements could be stifling at times (as discussed above), they also

provided valuable and needed direction to fledgling programs.

This was the case with mitigating corrosion, just as it was in

many other technology areas.

Factors affecting corrosion often impact other performance

areas. For example, coatings are often multifunctional; used to

address fire, abrasion and wear resistance, aesthetics and camouflage, thermal properties, non-skid properties, biofouling control, solar absorbance, stain resistance, and survivability.

Acquisition Reform proponents predicted that the DOD could

coordinate with industry to produce standard commercial documents, allowing the military to procure needed items on an ‘off

the shelf’ basis, which could have the most positive long-term

implications for reducing life cycle costs (i.e. total ownership

costs). Furthermore, the DOD would utilize commercial specifications, standards, (and products) to meet performance requirements to the degree possible. When commercial specifications

were not available, programs were to modify commercial

approaches to suit. It was only when no other approach was available would the Department consider developing new specifications, standards (or products) to meet the need. While there are

certainly numerous successful examples of this approach that one

could point to, it has not worked at all times for all technologies.

It is important to note here that the mass commercial migration or cancellation of Mil-Specs was not specifically directed by

the reform act. The act directed the services (and their commands) to evaluate their specifications and identify those that

were no longer useful, or not of direct use, for cancellation or

migration. Depending on circumstances, Mil-Specs deemed

worth retaining, were kept, but usually converted to another

type of specification or standard, such as a performance specification (i.e. MIL-PRF-xxx), or a detail specification (i.e. 

MIL-DTL-xxx). Each service and command approached this

task differently – ranging from fully evaluating and categorizing their relevant specifications and standards, to canceling them

wholesale. While mass cancellations may

have best served their particular organization,

it did make the CPCIPT’s job of locating this

information more challenging. 

It is from within this frame of reference that

the CPCIPT is hoping to “tweak” the current

Mil-Spec system; to effect the modest, but

absolutely necessary changes needed to revitalize this latent compilation of corrosion information, all while staying within the letter and

spirit of Acquisition Reform. 

DOD Policy and Its Evolution

As a direct result of Mil-Spec reform, many

corrosion-related specifications and standards were cancelled outright, with many

more shifted to third parties. While this is compliant with present acquisition policy, it leaves a number of questions to be

answered: how does the acquisition community adequately

address Defense corrosion needs, how are qualified materials

and processes selected (i.e. is there a Qualified Product List or

QPL), and what is the mechanism (if any) for accreditation? 

An example of successfully using specifications and standards

in this post-Acquisition Reform world comes from the infrastructure community. They have made proactive strides to find

and work with responsible and willing civil organizations to

address most defense infrastructure needs. Their efforts exemplify how to successfully transition specifications and standards to

third parties. Some examples follow.

Architectural Finishes The infrastructure community started

transitioning many of its product specifications to the Master

Painters Institute (MPI) in the NFGS-09900M Guide

Specification, September 2000. The Army, Navy and Air Force

jointly completed the move to the MPI product specifications in

September 2001 (UFGS-09900). When completed, this had

removed all remaining references to federal and military specifications. The MPI standards include an “Approved Products

List,” which is analogous to a QPL.

Contractor Qualification for Industrial Coating Applications In

1995, the Navy instituted the use of a contractor qualification

program run by the Society for Protective Coatings (SSPC, 

formerly the Steel Structures Painting Council) such as for

UFGS-09971 (formerly NFGS-09971). The success rate for

industrial coating projects dramatically improved as evidenced

by the jump from virtually 0% to greater than 70%. Success was

measured by coating conditions considered good to excellent

after 5 years (not after just the one year “warranty” period).

Other Activities Efforts have continued to evolve to include

other participants and other aspects of coatings projects; such as

shop contractors, coatings inspectors, and paint removal 

contractors (who would be collocated on base). The facilities

organizations are working with SSPC and the Painting and

Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA) on developing a

Figure 1. Acquisition Reform Significantly Changed DOD Specifications and Standards.

July 1994

(45,500 Specs & Stds)

January 2001

(26,000 Specs & Stds)

NGS

13% DOD Std

3%

CID

12%

Fed Spec & Std

7%

HDBK

1%

Mil-Spec & Std

67%

NGS

40%

CID

12%

Fed Spec & Std

7%

HDBK

1%

Detail Spec

28%

Perf Spec

9%

NGS = Non-Government Standard

CID = Commercial Item Description
32 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

qualification/certification program for the coating applicator.

They are also working with SSPC to develop standards for

industrial finishes. Lastly, they are collaborating with MPI 

to institute a “clearing house” program for the SSPC coatings

standards similar to what we use for the architectural finishes.

Unique Requirements Drive Sustained Need 

for Military Specifications and Standards

Acquisition Reform did allow for retention of certain specifications, providing they were for Defense-unique requirements

without commercial counterparts. Two examples are provided in

the following sections.

Chemical Agent Resistant Coatings (CARC) In addition to civil

considerations such as corrosion performance, durability and

environmental compliance, some coatings must meet additional

military requirements, such as chemical agent resistance and

camouflage. These coatings are applied to combat vehicles and

ground equipment in the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force,

and serve as a primary means of corrosion prevention and control, as well as fulfilling their function as a chemical barrier. Most

aspects of this group of coatings are defined by one of the

retained Mil-Specs: MIL-C-53072 (CARC System Application).

It is an overarching specification that addresses materials (i.e.

pretreatments, primers, and topcoats), and processes (application of CARC components to combat systems). Additional

information may be found by contacting the Army Research

Laboratory’s Weapons and Materials Research Directorate via

their website: http://www.arl.army.mil/wmrd/coatings.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Seals In addition to civil performance considerations, military systems operate in an intense

electromagnetic environment far exceeding civil environments.

Many of these systems must perform specialized functions in 

harmony with an increasing amount of electronic components;

or must in some manner mitigate EMI effects. What’s more,

avionic systems are increasingly critical for all DOD systems,

and the number of digital systems has increased steadily in the

past two decades. This places extra demands on these materials,

as they must coexist with these systems, simultaneously carrying

out their own function while not hampering the function of

other systems. In many cases, it is incumbent on these materials

to provide the necessary EMI protection for this array of electronic hardware. 

To compound the problem further, EMI seal approaches 

that have the best performance are also the most susceptible to

corrosion. This is because EMI seal materials are made with a

conductive filler (usually a metal), which then serves as a conductive “bridge” between surfaces, thus allowing the flow of

electric current across the seal (recall that corrosion is an electrochemical reaction driven by a gradient in voltage potential).

Some other specific demands placed on these specialty coatings

include communication (minimizing interference) and lightning strike protection.

Qualification

Military, federal, and commercial specifications all require 

continual work to stay current and be effective. The old Mil-Spec

system provided an update mechanism to accomplish that.

Under this new system, it is incumbent upon the would-be users

of this knowledgebase to innovate a new approach to achieve the

same end result. Corrosion technologies are evolving constantly;

thus it is necessary to keep specifications and standards up to

date. They must reflect and accommodate the influx of emerging

materials and technologies. Table 1 illustrates some examples.

THE PATH FORWARD

New Working IPT Takes on a Sizable Task

The CPCIPT (as mentioned in an earlier article) established

working integrated product teams, or WIPTs, to address aspects

of corrosion policy in seven focus areas. One of these teams, the

Specifications, Standards, & Product Qualification WIPT, has

taken on the task of addressing the Mil-Spec issue, and other

matters related to standardization and product qualification.

Their specific objectives are to:

• Develop methods to assess, apply, revise, improve, or develop

specifications and standards.

• Identify, update, and/or consolidate databases for application

and historical reference by DOD and contractors.

• Collect, assess and prioritize specifications to establish a specifications and standards roadmap by categories.

• Establish, refine, and develop qualification process steps to

effectively introduce products into DOD systems.

• Develop a decision tree (define major decision points of qualification process and assign responsibilities).

• Improve interservice standardization, communication, and

coordination by requiring accreditation and implementing a

website.

Table 1. Specifications Require Constant Review and 

Update to Be Effective.

Evolving Corrosion Technology

• Materials 

° High solids coating

° Appliqué

• Processes

° Sensors

° Needle Gunning

• Philosophy

° Performance based specifications

° Condition based maintenance

Evolving defense needs

• Longer-lived systems

• New requirements, e.g., survivability (CARC, etc.), 

electromagnetic interference seals

• New material systems e.g. 

° Bismaleimide (BMI) composites on aircraft

• Old material systems in new applications e.g. 

° Urethane/glass fiber composite deck stanchion that is 

less costly than stainless steel stanchions

° Composite electrical/avionic boxes to replace metallic boxes

• Emphasis on reducing total ownership cost

Clarification and improvement of existing specifications

Corrosion Preventive Compounds should exemplify needs and

approach
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 33

Specification Database

One of the challenges facing engineers is to identify and obtain

copies of specifications and standards that can address corrosion

control issues. The Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (ASSIST) database can help address

these challenges. ASSIST not only provides a search capability

for military, federal, and adopted non-government specifications

and standards, it also makes available free-of-charge, online

copies of the most recent and historical military and federal

specifications, standards, handbooks, qualified products lists,

and other standardization documents. 

If you are only interested in obtaining a copy of a document

online, you can use the ASSIST QuickSearch, which does not

require a user identification or password. The URL is

http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/. The best way to search

for a document is to enter only the basic document number in

the document number field without any other information. So

for example, if you were interested is reviewing MIL-DTL24441/24A, you would only enter the basic number “24441” in

the document number field. This would give you a table of all of

the versions of the document for you to select the one you want

to review.

If you are interested in having full access to the complete

ASSIST database, which includes not only online copies of the

documents but points of contact, information on whether a 

document update or cancellation project is underway, an alert

service to advise users of changes to documents, and much more

information, you will need a user identification and password.

You can register online at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/online/start/.

Information about other specifications and standards automated

tools offered by the Defense Standardization Program Office can

be obtained from their website at www.dsp.dla.mil.

Establishing a Roadmap: Identifying, Assessing, 

and Prioritizing Corrosion Specifications

The Joint Council on Aging Aircraft Corrosion Steering Group

(JCAA CSG) identified corrosion preventive compounds (CPCs)

and associated military specifications as a technology/problem

area. CSG has developed an integrated CPC roadmap and

Program Objectives Memorandum (POM), which identifies

future needs and technology requirements. Identified within this

roadmap are Military Specification CPCs in need of update and

performance enhancement characteristics such as water displacement, penetration, durability, and compatibility. 

Additional considerations are identified for development of

the next generation of CPCs to include new inhibited versions,

pigmented versions, ultraviolet stable and high temperature

resistant CPCs. Stress corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue

characteristics of CPCs on high-strength alloys are also

addressed by this roadmap along with a common CPC information system. Serving as a conduit, this integrated CPC roadmap

has in part contributed to the development of an Air Force 

web-based CPC information system.

Qualification 

While the term ‘qualification’ means different things to different people, to us it is the process that answers the question,

“how do we bring in corrosion-mitigating materials and

processes from outside the government world and implement

them in our new and existing systems?” While qualification is a

complex process, with many parallel and sequential (and occasionally iterative) paths, it still serves a basic and fundamental

function: it determines through a series of screening, testing,

evaluation, and implementation steps what new technologies

are suitable for use on a given system. Each service, and many

Figure 2. Naval Aviation Certification of Materials Technologies.

Supplier/Customer Technology Developer/NAWCAD Naval Air Warfare Center 

Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

Fleet

NADEP EI

NAVICP-P

Contractor

CRI/PIP

V/LECP

IPT, EDT, ET

Identify

Candidate

Materials

Technologies

Prioritize & Downselect

Preferred Materials

Technology

Develop & Optimize

Materials Technology

Characterize

Materials Technology

Demonstrate

Materials Technology

Full Scale Manufacturing

Demonstration

Full Scale Manufacturing

Inspection

Full Scale Manufacturing

Section

Translate Customer Needs

into Performance Based

Materials Technology Requirements

Establish Customer

Cost, Schedule Constraints

Materials

Technology

Standardized

Materials

Technology Fully

Characterized

Materials

Technology Fully

Demonstrated

Yes Yes Yes

No No No

Materials Technology

Certified

Flight Clearance

Full Scale Section Authorization

Post Test Inspection(s)

Full Scale Test(s)

Full Scale Inspection(s)

Full Scale 

Test Article(s)

Test Criteria

&

Sponsorship

Agreement
of their commands and constituent organizations, has developed their own process for qualifying corrosion-mitigating

materials. They ultimately all perform the same function, but

each comes at it from a different perspective. For example, the

Naval Air Systems Command’s (NAVAIR) material qualification process is shown in Figure 2. For comparison, please refer

to the next article in this issue, which deals with the qualified

product list (Making the Grade, Figure 2). There you will find

the Coast Guard’s material qualification process. It is quite

telling to see how differently technical professionals in different

organizations can approach similar problems!

Develop Standard Methodology The examples of the NAVAIR

and USCG material qualification processes are indicative of the

challenges the WIPT faces. Developing a standard materials and

processes (M&P) qualification methodology that would be

applicable to all the services is no small task. The WIPT is currently examining these two examples of M&P qualification

processes along with those from the other services and their

commands; and from this analysis, synthesize a universal DOD

process. Accomplishing this will require a serious “meeting of the

minds” between the principals of each stakeholder. First, it will

be necessary to define a ‘high-level’, set of common steps which

would be required to successfully transition new CPC M&Ps

onto programs. Table 2 lists the fundamental steps necessary in

any qualification process. These steps translate into a series of

“building blocks” which boils down the qualification process to

its most basic representation, as seen in Figure 3.

Improve Standardization and Communication The Defense

Standardization Program has three automated tools under 

development that will greatly help program offices, buying activities, and engineering organizations choose the most appropriate

specifications and standards for their application, determine

usage, and identify qualified sources of supply.

While the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization

Information System (ASSIST) provides an online index and

document access tool for military and federal specifications,

standards, and other related standardization documents, it does

not provide any guidance for the application of these documents. Users must search and read potentially many documents

to determine suitability for a particular application. To help in

this search, the Defense Standardization Program Office

(DSPO) is developing the Program Manager Tool (PMT). The

PMT will help program managers easily identify specifications

and standards that apply to their programs. For the most part,

the documents are “preferred” ones that program managers

should consider using, but a small number of documents included in the PMT are mandated by law, directive, or regulation. 

The PMT categorizes documents by importance and by 

product category using a modified work breakdown structure

(WBS). A WBS serves as a framework to define a program by

breaking a system into its component product parts and clarifying the relationships among those parts. In other words, a WBS

defines a program in terms of hierarchically related, productoriented elements.

In addition to listing those “preferred” specifications and 

standards that should be considered by the program manager for

applications identified in the WBS, the PMT provides information on why the document is preferred and the possible consequences if the document is not used. This information will allow

the program manager to make informed tradeoff decisions. The

PMT will also provide a seamless link to a copy of the document

in the ASSIST database as well as other useful information about

the document, and if the program manager creates a WBS 

listing of selected documents, there will be online notification of

all future updates to these documents.

The initial PMT release is scheduled for the second quarter of

34 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Figure 3. Developing a Universal Methodology Requires a

‘Building Block’ Approach.

Table 2. Major Steps in Transitioning Materials and Processes 

to Programs.

• Start with determination of requirements, and the ability of the 

candidate material/process to meet requirements

• Perform series of tests of increasing realism:

° Initial steps are laboratory tests performed on small samples 

under carefully controlled conditions

° Escalates to field demonstrations on the end item in the intended

environment

• Building blocks include:

° Marketing/Screening – guide to vendors and services, initial 

assessment

° Qualification – testing typically under laboratory conditions 

intended to assure reproducibility, conformity to established 

requirements, and generic service performance 

° Certification – testing typically to specific system requirements 

and conditions, often exceeding specification minimums

° Authorization/Implementation – includes associated logistics 

documentation (e.g., manuals, technical orders), health and safety

considerations, supply chain support, and all issues supporting

who/what/where/when/how material/process is to be used

° Post-fielding assessment – monitoring to assure performance is 

as intended

• Qualification is formally defined as testing prior to approving 

materials & processes for use on new and existing systems

° Qualification is one step in path to transitioning CPC materials 

& processes to service use

° Qualification establishes eligibility for use

Marketing/Screening

Qualification

Certification

Authorization/Implementation

Post-Fielding Assessment
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 35

FY04. The PMT will be a work in progress for many years. The

initial release will primarily focus on international standardization agreements and their US implementing documents that are

considered necessary to promote materiel interoperability

between the US and its allies. For the corrosion control community to ensure that program managers consider the most

applicable specifications and standards for specific applications,

having corrosion control specifications and standards included

in the PMT would be a valuable asset.

The second tool under development by DSPO is called the

Weapon System Impact Tool (WSIT). The WSIT provides a

quick search of existing government databases, such as the

Federal Logistics Information System, to identify which

weapons systems require the use of a specific specification or

standard, or which specifications and standards are used in a

specific weapon system. This tool will allow the corrosion 

control community to determine what specifications and 

standards are being called out on which weapon systems. Right

now, the WSIT is in a concept phase and is unlikely to be available before 2005.

The final automated tool under development by DSPO is an

online QPL/QML database. Although qualified product lists

(QPLs) and qualified manufacturers lists (QMLs) are available

online through ASSIST, they are PDF document images and not

actively maintained listings. As a result, users may be using lists

that do not reflect current information. The QPL/QML database effort will create a more standardized appearance and information fields, and will allow the qualifying activity to maintain

the currency of the listings online. The QPL/QML database will

be available in 2005.

Accreditation is Also Key For there to be universal acceptance 

of standardized methodology, there must also be a universal 

protocol for accrediting individuals and organizations. In other

words, who is eligible to test, evaluate, assess, analyze, and 

recommend materials for consideration and inclusion on new

programs, or as replacement/upgrade materials for fielded 

programs? This is one of the major challenges facing the 

standards team.

Changes Will Be Implemented Via Our Website The Corrosion

Office’s official website, the DOD Corrosion Information

Exchange, will be the home for all specification and standards

information regarding corrosion. The specifications and 

standards section of the website will focus on two major areas:

harmonization of requirements (development of uniform

requirements across the services), and communication of results

(from test, evaluation, and development efforts). For more information on corrosion specifications and standards, or the

CPCIPT, please visit the DOD Corrosion Information

Exchange website at http://www.dodcorrosionexchange.org).

SUMMARY

The Specifications, Standards, & Product Qualification WIPT

hope to reclaim the volumes of valuable CPC knowledge

which fell into obscurity with the advent of Acquisition

Reform. By assuming this responsibility, the team has taken on

the task of addressing the dispositioning of Mil-Specs, and

other matters related to standardization and product qualification. As part of this process, the WIPT is preparing a roadmap

to collect, assess, prioritize, and categorize these specifications

and standards.

Beyond the task of reviving Mil-Spec CPC information, the

team plans to pursue avenues that would facilitate access to this

information by DOD principals and contractors, in terms of

products, documentations, and databases. It is also pursuing an

effort to develop universal M&P qualification process steps to

effectively introduce new CPC products into DOD systems.

Ultimately, the team is doing their part to ensure successful

implementation of the DOD corrosion policy by improving

standardization, communication, and coordination between

both the services, and the greater defense community. 

Mr. Christian E. Grethlein has been the Deputy Director of AMPTIAC since December 1999. He is a proficient technical writer; having authored, edited, and peer-reviewed a number of technical publications. He is a past editor of the

AMPTIAC Quarterly, having served in that capacity for two years. Mr. Grethlein joined AMPTIAC in 1998 as a

Research Engineer, bringing with him a broad base of design, engineering, manufacturing, and engineering 

management expertise in the aerospace, automotive, and environmental industries. Mr. Grethlein holds BS and MS

degrees in Chemical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis, and an MS in Manufacturing Engineering

from Syracuse University. He is also a Licensed Professional Engineer.
INTRODUCTION

Until recently, there has been no formalized standard or mechanism to define or regulate how new materials and processes

(including those related to corrosion prevention) are introduced. In response the Coast Guard recently approved and

adopted a new aeronautical engineering maintenance process

guide entitled Evaluation and Service Testing of Materials and

Processes Prior to Application on Coast Guard Aircraft [1]. This

new publication establishes a standard set of guidelines for the

introduction of new materials and processes into Coast Guard

aviation. Instituting these new guidelines will allow many new

materials and material-related processes to be accepted for

potential incorporation into new and upgraded Coast Guard

systems. A standardized process will also expedite the approval

cycle for acceptable candidates.

When a new material or process not covered by an existing

standard (such as a military specification, Federal Test Method

standard, ASTM standard, or other recognized standard) is

introduced by a manufacturer, it is essential that a review 

and supporting tests be performed. The results of the review and

tests are then properly analyzed to ascertain the new technology’s

suitability and adaptability (including performance, quality, and

reliability requirements) to the particular intended application.

This process is necessary to provide a control on all service tests,

prevent duplication of efforts, prevent damage to Coast Guard

aircraft, equipment, and materials; and decrease undesirable 

or unsafe conditions such as corrosion, personnel hazards, and

pollution. 

THE MANUFACTURER’S APPLICATION

Any manufacturer or supplier desiring to introduce new materials or processes into Coast Guard aviation, whether solicited by

the Coast Guard or of their own accord, is required to submit 

a completed Manufacturer’s Application for Introduction of

Materials and Processes. This application is a formal three-page

document that must be filled out in its entirety before the Coast

Guard will consider the merits of a new material or process 

technology. The application and instructions on how to submit

it can be found on the Coast Guard’s Aircraft Repair & Supply

Center’s (ARSC’s) website [2]. Considered the first step in 

the screening of a new material or process, the purpose of the

application is to provide sufficient information to indicate

whether the proposed material or process represents an innovative approach to an aerospace or process problem experienced 

in Coast Guard aviation. Beyond that, the application should

convince the Coast Guard that the material or process has a 

reasonable chance of meeting the objective, that the approach is

innovative, and that the manufacturer has the capability to

implement the material or process. 

The Manufacturer’s Application is the crux of the new process

guide. (The first page is represented in Figure 1.) The application integrates four factors considered fundamentally necessary

to determine if the material or process warrants consideration by

the Coast Guard. These factors include technical performance,

supportability, cost, and general considerations. The questions

that must be answered throughout the body of the application

address the following four factors. 

Technical Performance 

For the technical performance factor, the applicant should refer

to the essential performance parameters and reliability objectives

of the material or process. Included in this area are safety 

and health hazards, environmental risks, and compliance with

regulations and law. 

Supportability 

The Supportability section addresses the availability of support

resources, which allow the material or process to effectively and

Lawrence E. Cornwell, USCG Technical Support Manager

ARINC Engineering Services, LLC

Robins AFB, GA

One way to reduce costs and the time spent on materials selection, and in the overall design cycle, is to have the ability to select an appropriate corrosion preventative technology from a list of pre-approved materials and processes. There is a tremendous economy to establishing

and maintaining a list of approved materials (often called a qualified products list or QPL), where all programs may benefit from past 

testing and evaluation efforts. It also ensures that personnel will develop a familiarity with new technologies, which will pay off in lower 

manufacturing costs up-front and lower sustainment costs over the system’s life cycle. - Editor

36 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 37

efficiently perform its assigned mission over time. An important aspect

of supportability is the ability of an

item to be retained in, or restored 

to, a specific condition when maintenance is performed by personnel having specified skill levels, procedures,

and resources, at each prescribed

level of maintenance and repair.

Cost

In addressing cost, the applicant

should discuss the reasonableness,

affordability, and cost advantage of

the proposed material or process as

compared to an existing material or

process. 

General Considerations

The fourth fundamental factor

addresses general considerations,

which contribute to an integrated

assessment of the material or process.

Included herein is an assessment of

the manufacturer or supplier’s past

and present performance record to

establish a level of confidence in their

ability to provide the material or

process. 

THE PROCESS

Receipt of the Manufacturer’s

Application by the ARSC sets into

motion a review process whereby the

Coast Guard’s subject matter experts

are engaged for initial screening of

candidate materials and processes.

Figure 2 provides an overview of the

process. The ARSC Industrial

Systems Manager (ISM) conducts

the initial screening of all Manufacturers’ Applications. The ISM

reviews the application to determine material or process 

compliance with all national, state, and local environmental regulations. The ISM also scrutinizes the application to identify

hazardous materials, determine potential health hazards, and

ascertain whether any Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) and workplace safety rules apply.

Once a specific Manufacturer’s Application receives preliminary approval from the ISM it is forwarded to the ARSC Aging

Aircraft Branch. At least three members of that Branch, including the Chief (or his designate), then conduct their own review

to reach a consensus on disposition of the application. Only

materials and processes that have received preliminary approval

by both the ISM and Aging Aircraft Branch become candidates

for application on Coast Guard aircraft.

Following these two approvals, a joint review by both the ISM

and Aging Aircraft Branch is conducted for the purpose of determining what laboratory, field, and shop service testing is

required. If laboratory testing is deemed necessary, the application is returned to the manufacturer or supplier indicating the

testing requirements. The burden of such testing, including

logistical issues and costs, are the sole responsibility of the manufacturer or supplier. After the testing has been completed the

manufacturer or supplier resubmits the application for further

consideration. If the joint review team deems that the material

or process is eligible for field or shop service tests, the Aging

Aircraft Branch coordinates them. Failure of a material or

process to meet any of the requirements of the field or shop 

service tests becomes sufficient grounds to discontinue testing

and reject the material or process. 

If the joint review by the ISM and Aging Aircraft Branch

deems that the material or process requires no testing prior to

application on Coast Guard aircraft, or if the material or process

successfully passes the field or shop service tests, the

Manufacturer’s Application is forwarded to the ARSC contracting office for procurement consideration. The contracting office

Figure 1. Manufacturer’s Application (Page 1).
38 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

then considers budgetary requirements and other relevant procurement issues in rendering a decision to accept or reject the

application.

THE MANUFACTURER’S APPLICATION REVIEW

Review of the application is a judgmental assessment in the areas

of technical performance, supportability, cost, and general considerations. This assessment results in the identification of risks

and critical issues leading to a risk rating for each. Through the

assignment of ratings, a risk assessment is accomplished to assist

in determining the overall value of new material or process technologies to satisfy Coast Guard needs.

An Application Review document and Risk Rating Matrix are

provided as part of the process guide to document and assist the

reviewers of the Manufacturer’s Application in identification of

risks and critical issues, assignment of probabilities and consequences, and determination of risk ratings. A completed and

signed Application Review document is

retained, along with the Manufacturer’s

Application for Introduction of Materials and

Processes for a period of three years to serve as

a source document for future reference. 

CONCLUSION

The methodology outlined here addresses a

formal coordinated process used to introduce

new materials and processes, including corrosion mitigation technologies, into Coast

Guard aviation. The process is structured to

increase the probability of a timely and successful employment of a new material or

process while simultaneously posturing the

Coast Guard for maximum benefit at minimum risk. The Process Guide also provides

manufacturers and suppliers with a uniform

vehicle with which to introduce new materials

and processes into Coast Guard aviation.

Once a new material or process is reviewed

and deemed worthy it is placed on the Coast

Guard’s Authorized Chemical Use List, containing other products/vendors that are approved for use aboard Coast Guard aircraft.

Although the process guide discussed here was developed in

response to a need of the Coast Guard’s aviation community, the

methodology could potentially have broader application and

may serve other engineering communities as well. Beyond that,

the guide may function as the framework for a coordinated

DOD-wide policy for product qualification, overcoming fragmentation where the policy and management decisions are scattered throughout and across multiple organizations.

REFERENCES

[1] CGTO-PG-85-00-110, Evaluation and Service Testing of

Materials and Processes Prior to Application on Coast Guard

Aircraft

[2] http://www.uscg.mil/hq/arsc/Contracting/GUIDE.HTM

Figure 2. Flow Chart for Review of Applications for New Materials or Processes.

Mr. Lawrence E. Cornwell is a principal analyst with ARINC Engineering Services, LLC. In this capacity, he provides

program management and technical support to the US Coast Guard’s Aging Aircraft Branch of the Engineering and

Industrial Support Division. A retired Coast Guard Commander, Mr. Cornwell was a naval aviator and designated

aircraft maintenance officer, having served most recently as the Coast Guard’s C-130 Depot Maintenance Program

Manger. Mr. Cornwell received a BS degree in Industrial Technology from Eastern Washington University and an MS

degree in Aeronautical Science from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Start End

Manufacturer’s

Submission of

Application

Request

Laboratory 

Testing

Contracting for

Procurement

Determination 

of Genre of Tests 

(Joint Action by the 

ISM & Aging 

Aircraft Branch

ARSC

Aging Aircraft

Branch Application

Review

ARSC ISM

Application

Review

End End

End

Field/Shop

Service Test

Laboratory

Testing

Requirements

Apply to

Aircraft

Accept Accept

Accept

Reject Reject

Reject

No Testing

Required

Testing

Required

Pass

Fail

Return to

Manufacturer for

Accomplishment
INTRODUCTION

Corrosion is a naturally occurring phenomenon commonly defined as the

deterioration of a substance (usually a metal) or its properties because of

a reaction with its environment. [1] Like other natural hazards such as

earthquakes or severe weather disturbances, corrosion can cause dangerous and expensive damage to everything from vehicles, home appliances,

and water and wastewater systems, to pipelines, bridges, and public buildings. Unlike many natural disasters however, there are time-proven methods to prevent and control corrosion that can reduce or eliminate its

impact on public safety, the economy, and the environment.

With its many forms, causes, and associated prevention methods, corrosion obviously is highly complex and requires extensive expertise and

significant resources to control. The 2001 US Federal Highway

Administration-funded cost of corrosion study, “Corrosion Costs and

Preventive Strategies in the United States,”[2] which was initiated by

NACE International and conducted by CC Technologies, Inc., determined

the annual direct cost of corrosion to be a staggering $276 billion – or

3.1% of the gross domestic product. This finding was based on an analysis

of direct costs by industry sector. When based on the cost of corrosion 

prevention and control, the study found that $121 billion is attributed to

corrosion control methods, services, research and development, and 

education and training. Corrosion is so prevalent and takes so many 

forms that its occurrence and associated costs never will be completely

eliminated; however, the study estimates that 25 to 30% of annual 

corrosion costs could be saved if optimum corrosion management 

practices were employed. 

The science of corrosion prevention and control is highly complex,

exacerbated by the fact that corrosion takes many different forms and is

affected by numerous outside factors. Corrosion professionals must understand the effects of environmental conditions such as soil resistivity,

humidity, and exposure to salt water on various types of materials; the type

of product to be processed, handled, or transported; required lifetime of the

structure or component; proximity to corrosion-causing phenomena such

as stray current from rail systems; appropriate mitigation methods; and

other considerations before determining the specific corrosion problem

and specifying an effective solution. 

The first step in effective corrosion control, however, is to have a thorough knowledge of the various forms of corrosion, the mechanisms

involved, how to detect them, and how and why they occur. [3]

BASIC FORMS OF CORROSION

There are 10 primary forms of corrosion, but it is rare that a corroding

structure or component will suffer from only one. The combination of

metals used in a system and the wide range of environments encountered

often cause more than one type of attack. Even a single alloy can suffer

corrosion from more than one form, depending on its exposure to different environments at different points within a system. 

All forms of corrosion, with the exception of some types of hightemperature corrosion, occur through the action of the electrochemical cell

(see Figure 1). The elements that are common to all corrosion cells are an

anode where oxidation and metal loss occur, a cathode where reduction

and protective effects occur, metallic and electrolytic paths between the

anode and cathode through which electronic and ionic current flows, and

an electrical potential difference that drives the cell. The driving potential

may be the result of differences between the characteristics of dissimilar

metals or surface conditions, and the environment, including chemical

concentrations. There are specific mechanisms that cause each type of

attack, different ways of measuring and predicting them, and various

methods that can be used to control corrosion in each of its forms.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 39

Material EASE

CORROSION—A NATURAL BUT CONTROLLABLE PROCESS

Gretchen A. Jacobson, Managing Editor

Materials Performance

NACE International

Houston, TX

24AMPTIAC

Figure 1. The Electrochemical Cell.

Electron Flow

Electrolyte

Voltage Difference

Corrosion Occurs

Here

No Corrosion

Occurs Here

Ion Flow

+

-

Current [+] from

Anode Metal

[Corrosion]

Current [-]

from Cathodic

Reduction

A

N

O

D

E

C

A

T

H

O

D

E
40 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Material EASE

General Attack Corrosion

Also referred to as “general corrosion” or “uniform corrosion,” general

attack corrosion proceeds more or less uniformly over an exposed surface

without appreciable localization (see Figure 2). This leads to relatively

uniform thinning on

sheet and plate materials and general 

thinning on one side

or the other (or both)

for pipe and tubing. It

is recognized by a

roughening of the surface and usually by the

presence of corrosion

products. The mechanism of the attack 

typically is an electrochemical process that takes place at the surface of the material.

Differences in composition or orientation between small areas on the

metal surface creates localized anodes and cathodes that facilitate 

the corrosion process. 

Most often caused by misapplying materials in corrosive environments, general corrosion often can be tolerated because the effect of

metal loss is relatively easy to assess and allowances can be made in the

initial design. Protective coatings are particularly effective in controlling uniform corrosion. Cathodic protection (CP) – an electrochemical

technique used for corrosion control (see “Methods of Corrosion

Control” later in this article) – can be used in underground or immersion situations.

Localized Corrosion

Unlike general attack corrosion, localized corrosion occurs at discrete

sites on a metal surface. Types of localized corrosion include pitting,

crevice, and filiform corrosion.

Pitting Pitting is a deep,

narrow attack that can

cause rapid penetration of

the substrate (metal) wall

thickness. It is characterized by corrosive attack in

a localized region surrounded by noncorroded

surfaces or surfaces that

are attacked to a much

lesser extent (see Figure

3). Pits initiate at defects

in a protective or passive

film. The corrosion is

caused by the potential difference between the anodic area inside the pit

– which often contains acidic, hydrolyzed salts – and the surrounding

cathodic area. Pitting corrosion is controlled by using more pitresistant materials, protective coatings, and/or CP, or by modifying the

environment (i.e., by introducing deaeration, chemical corrosion

inhibitors, etc.).

Crevice Corrosion Crevice corrosion occurs at localized sites where free

access to the surrounding environment is restricted, such as crevices

where materials meet – either metal-to-metal or metal-to-nonmetal.

Crevices also can form under deposits of debris or corrosion products.

Also called “concentration cell corrosion,” crevice corrosion is caused by

two basic mechanisms: oxygen concentration cell corrosion and metal

ion concentration cell corrosion. In the first mechanism, the difference

in oxygen concentration between the areas inside and outside the crevice

causes a potential difference between these areas. The area within the

crevice becomes anodic with respect to the outside area, where the high

oxygen content drives the cathodic reaction and causes corrosion to

occur deep within the crevice. In metal ion concentration cell corrosion,

the difference in potential between the inside and outside of the crevice is

caused by a difference in metal ion concentration. When this mechanism

occurs, corrosion usually is concentrated at the entrance of the crevice. 

Crevice corrosion control is complicated by the difficulty of reaching

the environment within the crevice. The principal options for corrosion

control in this instance are appropriate materials selection, improved

design (by eliminating as many crevices as possible), the use of coatings

to seal crevices, and CP.

Filiform Corrosion Filiform corrosion is a special form of oxygen cell

corrosion occurring beneath organic or metallic coatings on materials.

This form is recognizable by the appearance of a fine network of 

random “threads” of corrosion product beneath the coating material

(see Figure 4). Filiform corrosion is associated with mild surface 

contamination of solid particles deposited from the atmosphere or

residue on the metal surface after processing. When exposed to humid

conditions (relative humidity greater than 60%), these surfaces often

will suffer filiform corrosion. Corrosion proceeds because of the potential difference between the head of the advancing filament, which

becomes anodic, with a low pH and lack of oxygen compared to 

the cathodic area

immediately behind

the head. This type 

of corrosion, particularly on painted surfaces, can be prevented by proper cleaning

and preparation of

the metallic surface

and then applying a

protective coating to

a clean, dry surface.

Figure 2. General Corrosion of a Steel

Storage Tank.

Figure 3. Pitting Corrosion Inside of a Pipe. Figure 4. Example of Filiform Corrosion.
Galvanic Corrosion

Galvanic corrosion occurs because of the potential differences between

different metals when they are in electrical contact and exposed to an

electrolyte. It also can occur between a metal and an electrically conductive nonmetal such as graphite. The rate of attack of one metal or alloy

usually is accelerated; in contrast, the corrosion rate of the other usually

is decreased. Galvanic corrosion often is pronounced where the different

materials are immediately adjacent to one another. The mechanism is a

classic electrochemical cell – electrons flow through a metallic path

from sites where anodic reactions are occurring to sites where the electrons cause cathodic reactions to occur. At the same time, there is a

migration of ions (charged particles) in the electrolyte. The positive ions

are charged metal particles dissolved at the anode; loss of these ions

causes the corrosion of the anode. The negative ions come from the

cathodic reactions. Thus, the anode corrodes and the cathode does not –

in fact, the cathode is protected against corrosion. There also is a voltage,

or potential, difference between the anode and cathode (Figure 1). The

cell is driven by the potential differences between metals or electrically

conductive nonmetals when exposed to an electrolyte. 

A galvanic series can be used to determine the likely interactions

between adjoining metals. Table 1

shows an example of a galvanic series

for metals in seawater. When two

metals are connected together, the

more active one becomes the anode

(corroding) and the less active one

the cathode. 

Galvanic corrosion can be controlled with materials selection, barrier coatings, CP, modification of the

environment, electrical isolation (the

connection between dissimilar metals

is insulated to break the electrical

continuity), and design. When designing the system, unfavorable area

ratios should be avoided by using metal combinations in which the more

active metal or alloy surface is relatively large. Rivets, bolts, and other fasteners should be of a more noble metal than the material to be fastened.

Environmental Cracking

Unlike many other forms of corrosion where corrosion occurs over long

periods of time, environmental cracking can occur very rapidly. Because

it is unanticipated, it can be catastrophic. Environmental cracking is the

brittle failure of an otherwise ductile material caused by the combined

action of corrosion and tensile stress. It can be identified by tight cracks

that are at right angles to the direction of maximum tensile stress. Types

of environmental cracking include stress corrosion cracking (SCC),

hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), liquid metal embrittlement (LME),

and corrosion fatigue (CF). There are many ways to control the various

forms of environmental cracking, including materials selection, modification of the environment, protective coatings, CP, reduction in residual

surface stress, and by changing the design to lower tensile stress levels.

Stress Corrosion Cracking An anodic process, SCC occurs in metals

exposed in an environment where no damage would result if tensile

stresses were reduced or absent. Examples of media that promote SCC

of specific alloys include strongly alkaline solutions with carbon steel

(CS), chlorides with stainless steel (SS), and ammonia (NH3

) with copper alloys. Usually there is incubation period during which cracking

initiates on a microscopic level, followed by propagation (see Figures 5

and 6). Typically there is little metal loss or general corrosion associated with SCC.

Hydrogen-Induced Cracking HIC results in the brittle failure of 

otherwise ductile materials when exposed to an environment where

hydrogen can enter the metal. It is caused by the combined action of 

tensile stress and hydrogen. A cathodic phenomenon, HIC occurs when

the normal evolution of hydrogen at cathodic sites is inhibited and the

atomic hydrogen in the cathodic reaction enters the metal. Higherstrength alloys (those with a tensile strength of 1,034 MPa or greater)

are more susceptible to HIC than lower-strength alloys. Sulfide stress

cracking (SSC) is a specific form of HIC wherein the presence of sulfides

suppresses the evolution of hydrogen. This is a common problem in

sour service – processes or conditions involving wet hydrogen sulfide

(H2

S) such as in oil fields.

Table 1. Galvanic Series for Metals in Seawater.

Active (More Negative) End Magnesium

Zinc

Aluminum Alloys

Carbon Steel

Cast Iron

13% Cr (Type 410 SS (Active)

18-8 (Type 304) SS (Active)

Naval Brass

Yellow Brass

Copper

70-30 Copper-Nickel Alloy

13% Cr (Type 410) SS (Passive)

Titanium

18-8 (Type 304) SS (Passive)

Graphite

Gold

Noble (More Positive) End Platinum

Source: NACE International Basic Corrosion Course Handbook, p. 2:17.

A DVANCED M A TERIALS AND P ROCESSES T ECHNOLOGY

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 41

AMPTIAC

Figure 5. Micrograph of SCC Fracture Surface. Figure 6. SCC Induced Failure of a Tube.
42 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Material EASE

Liquid Metal Embrittlement

LME is defined as the decrease in strength or ductility of a metal or alloy

as a result of contact with a liquid metal. A normally ductile material

under tensile stress while in contact with a liquid metal may exhibit brittle fracture at low stress levels. Unlike fracture by SCC, LME is not time

dependent – cracking can begin immediately upon application of stress.

Embrittling agents cause different reactions depending on the alloy; for

example, SS are quite resistant to degradation when contacted by liquid

metal whereas mild CS and copper-based alloys can become severely

embrittled.

Corrosion Fatigue

Corrosion fatigue (CF) is caused by the combined action of a cyclic tensile stress and a corrosive environment (see Figure 7). It is characterized

by a premature failure of a cyclically loaded part. The petroleum industry encounters CF problems in the production of oil – the exposure of

drill pipes and sucker rods to brines and sour crudes causes costly failures

and loss of production.

Flow-Assisted Corrosion

Flow-assisted corrosion is caused by the combined action of corrosion

and fluid flow. This includes erosion-corrosion, impingement, and

cavitation. 

Erosion-Corrosion This form of corrosion can occur in flowing liquids

or gases with or without abrasive particles (see Figure 8). The velocity of

the flow is sufficient to remove weakly adhering corrosion products from

the surface or by damaging the protective oxide film, reducing the 

protective effect of each, and also pit or otherwise remove substrate.

Mechanical erosion is caused by hard particles impacting the surface,

causing craters in the metal. If erosion-corrosion can be identified and

there is no evidence of particle impingement, a possible solution is to

reduce the flow rate or remove flow-disturbing surface discontinuities.

Impingement Impingement is caused by turbulence or impinging flow

(directed at roughly right angles to the materials). Entrained air bubbles

tend to accelerate this action, as do suspended solids. This type of corrosion occurs in pumps, valves, and orifices; on heat exchanger tubes; and

at elbows and tees in pipelines. It usually produces a pattern of localized

attack with directional features. When a liquid is flowing over a surface,

there usually is a critical velocity below which impingement does not

occur and above which it rapidly increases. Impingement first received

attention because of the poor behavior of some copper alloys in seawater.

Cavitation This mechanical damage process is caused by collapsing

bubbles in a flowing liquid, usually forming deep aligned pits in areas of

turbulent flow. Cavitation occurs when protective films are removed from

a metal surface by high pressures generated by the collapse of gas or

vapor bubbles. In general, higher-strength alloys are more resistant to

this type of corrosion than lower-strength alloys. When cavitation damage is caused primarily by corrosion following the removal of protective

films, the corrosion portion of the damage may predominate. Under

extreme cavitation conditions, the cavitation itself is capable of removing

the metal directly and corrosion effects are insignificant.

With all forms of flow-assisted corrosion, proper materials selection

for a particular environment is crucial to preventing damage. Other

methods include modification of the environment, protective coatings,

CP, and controlling flow velocity and patterns through design.

Intergranular Corrosion

Intergranular corrosion is the preferential attack at, or adjacent to, the

grain boundaries of a metal. Almost all engineering metals are composed of individual crystals, or grains, that meet at areas of relative

Figure 8. Failure of an Impeller Due to Erosion Corrosion.

Figure 7. Example of a Fracture Surface Resulting From

Corrosion Fatigue.
A DVANCED M A TERIALS AND P ROCESSES T ECHNOLOGY

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 43

AMPTIAC

impurity and misalignment. Intergranular corrosion occurs when the

grain boundries or areas directly adjacent to them are anodic to the surrounding grain materials. This can happen because of differences in

impurity levels or strain energy of the misalignment of atoms in the

grain boundaries. In some cases, individual grains are loosened and lost

from the material. In other cases, the localized loss of grain boundary

material causes localized attack similar in appearance to cracking.

Intergranular corrosion can be controlled using proper material 

selection, design, fabrication, and weld procedures; modification of the

environment; and heat treatment to dissolve the undesirable constituents at the grain boundaries.

Dealloying

Dealloying is a corrosion process in which one constituent of an alloy is

removed preferentially, leaving an altered residual structure. Many alloys

consist of mixtures of elements (i.e., zinc and copper are alloyed to produce brass), where one element can be anodic with respect to the other

element(s) and can selectively corrode by galvanic action. This phenomenon is commonly detectable as a color change or drastic change in

mechanical strength. For example, brasses will turn from yellow to red

and cast irons will turn from silvery gray to dark gray. Various laboratory techniques, such as cross-sectioning the part in question, can provide

evidence of color changes. Metallographic examination at high magnification and x-ray spectroscopy also can provide positive identification. 

It can be controlled through materials selection, modification of the

environment, protective coatings, CP, and design (e.g., controlling 

temperature to minimize hot-wall effects in heat exchangers).

Fretting Corrosion

Fretting corrosion is defined as metal deterioration caused by repetitive

slip at the interface between two surfaces in contact that were not intended to move in that fashion. The motion between surfaces either removes

protective films or, combined with the abrasive action of corrosive 

products, mechanically removes material from surfaces in relative

motion. For fretting to occur, the interface must be under load and the

motion must be sufficient for the surfaces to strike or rub together.

Results of fretting include metal loss in the area of contact; production 

of oxide and metal debris; galling, seizing, fatiguing, or cracking of 

the metal; loss of dimensional tolerances; loosening of bolted or riveted

parts; and destruction of bearing surfaces. Techniques for controlling 

this type of corrosion include materials selection, designing to 

avoid motion between surfaces, and the use of lubricants such as 

molybdenum disulfide.

High-Temperature Corrosion

Direct chemical reactions, rather than the reactions of the electrochemical cell, are responsible for the deterioration of metals by 

high-temperature corrosion. The actual temperature at which corrosion

occurs depends upon the material and the environment, but corrosion

usually starts when the temperature is within approximately 30 to 40%

of the alloy’s melting point. High-temperature corrosion usually is associated with the formation of thick oxide or sulfide scales, with reactions

that cause internal swelling of the metal. It is dependent on reactions

that include oxygen effects, sulfidation, carburization, decarburization

(hydrogen effects), halide effects, and molten-phase formation. Methods

to control this type of corrosion are largely confined to materials selection and design, although limited modification of the environment can

be achieved and protective coatings can be effective.

METHODS OF CORROSION CONTROL

As is true of the various forms of corrosion, there are many different

methods of corrosion prevention and control. Each offers its own complexities and purposes. In general, the approach to control most 

corrosion is to understand the corrosion mechanism involved and

remove one or more of the elements of the corrosion cell; for example, by

electrically separating the anode and cathode from each other or from

the electrolytic environment by reducing the driving potential. The most

commonly used corrosion control methods include materials selection

and design using corrosion-resistant alloys, plastics, and polymers;

organic and metallic protective coatings; CP; and corrosion inhibitors.

All of these methods are appropriate for controlling corrosion in certain

situations and not for others. They often are used together to solve a 

particular corrosion problem (for example, protective coatings and 

CP are a common and effective combination).

A complete description of all the variations of corrosion control

methods and systems is beyond the scope of this article. Brief descriptions

of the most common methods follow.

Materials Selection & Design

There is no one material resistant to all corrosive situations but 

materials selection is critical to preventing many types of failures. When

selecting a material, the required characteristics need to be defined in

advance. If no material has every characteristic that a specific project

requires, a corrosion control system will be needed or the service 

conditions must be adjusted to meet the characteristics of the candidate

material. Factors that influence materials selection are listed in Table 2.

Appropriate system design also is highly important for effective 

corrosion control. Design includes the consideration of many factors,

such as materials selection, process and construction parameters, 

geometry for drainage, avoidance, or electrical separation of dissimilar

metals, avoiding or sealing of crevices, corrosion allowance, operating

lifetime, and maintenance and inspection requirements.

Protective Coatings

Putting a barrier between a corrosive environment and the material to

be protected is a fundamental method of corrosion control. There are

many organic and metallic coating systems to choose from, and they

are available in various combinations. Coating system selection is similar to materials selection in that many factors need to be considered as

seen in Table 3.

Common coating application methods include brush or roller, spray,

and dipping. In addition to proper coating selection and application
methods, substrate preparation is critical to the success of the coating.

The majority of coating failures are caused either completely or partially

by faulty surface preparation, [3] such as leaving contaminants on the

surface or having an inappropriate surface morphology.

Cathodic and Anodic Protection

CP is an electrochemical technique used on facilities like pipelines,

underground storage tanks, and offshore structures that makes the

structure to be protected a cathode relative to an external anode that 

discharges protective current to all exposed surfaces. The source of the

protective current may be an active (impressed current) or passive 

(sacrificial) system of galvanic anodes (usually magnesium, 

aluminum, or zinc) (see Figure 9). CP is widely used in several 

environments, including water and soil. It often is used in combination

with coatings that reduce the exposed surface area to receive protective

current.

Anodic protection has more limited, but important, applications 

in chemical environments. It is achieved by maintaining an activepassive metal or alloy in the passive region by an externally applied

anodic current.

Corrosion Inhibitors

Corrosion inhibitors are substances that, when added to an environment,

decrease the rate of attack. Inhibitors are commonly added in small

amounts to acids, cooling waters, steam, and other fluids, either continuously or intermittently. They generally control corrosion by forming

thin films that modify the environment at the metal surface. Some 

retard corrosion by adsorption to form a thin, invisible film only a few

molecules thick. Others form bulky precipitates that coat the metal and

44 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Material EASE

Table 2. Factors Affecting Materials Selection.

• Corrosion resistance in the environment

• Availability of design and test data

• Mechanical properties

• Cost

• Availability

• Maintainability

• Compatibility with other system components

• Life expectancy

• Reliability

• Appearance

Founded in Houston, Texas, in 1943 by 11 pipeline corrosion engineers, NACE

International now has approximately 15,000 members worldwide and is involved in 

every industry and area of corrosion prevention and control. With the mission of providing

education and communicating information to protect people, assets, and the environment

from the effects of corrosion, NACE offers a wide variety of activities, services, and benefits

to the corrosion control community:

• More than 1,500 NACE members participate in the activities of more than 250 

technical committees to write and publish reports and standards, and exchange 

technical information.

• The NACE Annual Conference and Exhibition, held each spring, attracts approximately

6,000 attendees from around the world for a week of technical symposia, meetings,

training opportunities, and exhibits of the latest products and services for corrosion 

control. Other conferences and symposia, including the popular Pipeline Integrity

Management Symposium series, are held on a recurring basis.

• NACE education and training courses, including the renowned Coating Inspector

Program, cover a variety of corrosion control technologies and levels of certification 

and are held all over the world. To date, more than 10,000 people have been certified

or professionally recognized by NACE.

• NACE members receive the monthly journal Materials Performance and many subscribe

to CORROSION, the journal of corrosion science and technology. NACE offers the

world’s largest selection of books on corrosion control, along with software and other

products.

• NACE Public Affairs is working with industry, academia, and government to increase the

visibility of the Society and the critical importance of corrosion prevention and control.

For more information about NACE, visit www.nace.org. 

NACE International –

The Corrosion Society
protect if from attack. A third mechanism consists of causing the metal

to corrode in such a way that a combination of adsorption and corrosion

product forms a passive layer.

CORROSION CONTROL OF THE FUTURE

Society will continue to face critical challenges in corrosion prevention

and control, where aging equipment and infrastructure, new product 

formulations, environmental requirements, and strict budgets require

corrosion control programs that are designed by highly skilled professionals for specific situations. The fields of corrosion science and 

engineering are of utmost importance to develop the experience and tools

necessary to successfully reduce the incidence, problems, and expense

caused by corrosion. By following appropriate strategies and obtaining

sufficient resources for corrosion programs, the best engineering 

practices can be achieved. The payoff includes increased public safety,

reliable performance, maximized asset life, environmental protection,

and more cost-effective operations in the long run.

REFERENCES

[1] Corrosion Basics – An Introduction, L.S. Van Delinder, ed. (Houston,

TX: NACE, 1984)

[2] G.H. Koch, M.P.H. Brongers, N.G. Thompson, Y.P. Virmani, J.H. Payer,

“Corrosion Costs and Preventive Strategies in the United States”

(Washington D.C.: FHWA, 2001)

[3] NACE International Basic Corrosion Course Handbook (Houston, TX:

NACE, 2000)

A DVANCED M A TERIALS AND P ROCESSES T ECHNOLOGY

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 45

AMPTIAC

Table 3. Coating System Selection Factors.

• Types of exposure

• Operating conditions

• Substrate

• Ambient conditions during application

• Environmental regulations

• Cost

• Application during operation or shutdown

• Time constraints

• New construction or maintenance

• Shop or field application

• Design/fabrication considerations

Ms. Gretchen A. Jacobson has been in the business of magazine writing, editing, and production for more than 

20 years. She began her career at Petersen Publishing Company in Los Angeles, California, where she worked 

for several specialty automotive and outdoor enthusiast magazines. She was production manager of a group 

of lifestyle, business, and arts magazines in California before moving to Houston, Texas, in 1994. She was the 

science writer and editor for a National Science Foundation-funded Science and Technology Center on parallel

computation research that was based at Rice University with affiliated universities and government laboratories

around the country. She has been the managing editor of NACE International’s membership magazine, Materials

Performance, since 1997. 

Figure 9. Cathodic Protection Methods.

Ion Flow

Electron Flow

A. Impressed Current CP

Power Source Offset Current

Provides Electrons

Galvanic

Anode

+

-

Cations [+] from

Anode 

A

N

O

D

E

B. Galvanic Anode CP

Cation [+] from

Anode Metal 

Cations [–] from

Cathodic Electrons 

Protected

Structure

[Cathode]

Ion Flow

Electron Flow

Cations [–] from

Cathodic Electrons 

Protected

Structure

[Cathode]

+

-
46 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

ASIP 2003 USAF Structural Integrity

Program

12/02/03 - 12/04/03

Savannah, GA

Contact: J. Jennewine

Universal Technology Corporation

1270 North Fairfield Road

Dayton, OH 45432-2600 

Phone: 937.426.2808

Fax: 937.426.8755

Email: jjennewine@utcdayton@com 

Web Link: http://www.asipcon.com

10th Annual New Orleans Offshore

Corrosion Conference “NOOCC 2003”

12/02/03 - 12/04/03

New Orleans, LA

Contact: Robin Fiest

Champion Technologies, Inc.

3520 General DeGaulle Ste.3090 

New Orleans, LA 70114

Phone: 504.365.1900

Fax: 504.365.1911

Email: robin.fiest@champ-tech.com

31st Annual International Waterborne,

High-Solids, and Powder Coatings

Symposium

02/18/04 - 02/20/04

New Orleans, LA

Contact: Rick Durden, Waterborne Coordinator

Phone: 601.266.4475

Fax: 601.266.6265

Email: waterborne@usm.edu

10th Middle East Corrosion Conference &

Exhibition

3/7/04 – 3/10/04

Kingdom of Bahrain

Bahrain Society of Engineers

P.O. Box 835

Manama, Kindom of Bahrain

Phone: +(973) 727100

Fax: +(973) 729819

Email: bseng@batelco.com.bh

Web Link: http://www.mohandis.org

2004 TMS Annual Meeting & Exhibition

03/14/04 - 03/18/04

Charlotte, NC

TMS Meeting Services

184 Thorn Hill Road

Warrendale, PA 15086 

Phone: 724.776.9000 ext 253

Fax: 724.776.3770

Email: ckobert@tms.org 

Web Link: http://doc.tms.org

NACE CORROSION/2004

03/28/04 - 04/01/04

New Orleans, LA

NACE International 

1440 South Creek Drive 

Houston, TX 77084-4906 

Phone: 281.228.6200 

Fax: 281.228.6300

Web Link: http://www.nace.org 

Corrosion, Computers on the Web

03/28/04 - 04/01/04

New Orleans, LA

Contact: R.A. Cottis

UMIST

Corrosion & Protection Centre 

United Kingdom 

Email: r.a.cottis@umist.ac.uk 

Coatings for Corrosion Protection

4/14/04 – 4/16/04

Biloxi, MS

Contact: Dr. David Olson

Colorado School of Mines

Phone: 303.273.3955

Email: dolson@mines.edu

The International Conference On

Metallurgical Coatings and Thin Films

ICMCTF 2004

04/19/04 - 04/23/04

San Diego, CA

Contact: Mary Gray

ICMCTF

Suite 136

14001-C Saint Germain Drive

Centreville, VA 20121 USA; 

Phone: 703.266.3287

Fax: 703.968.8877

Email: icmctf@mindspring.com

38th Annual Western States Corrosion

Seminar

05/04/04 - 05/06/04

Pomona, CA

Contact: Sylvia Hall

Ameron International

8627 S. Atlantic Avenue 

South Gate, CA 90280

Phone: 323.564.6626

Fax: 323.563.8208

Email: info@westernstatescorrosion.org 

205th Meeting of The Electrochemical

Society

05/09/04 - 05/14/04

San Antonio, TX

The Electrochemical Society 

10 S. Main Street 

Pennington, NJ 08534-2896

Phone: 609.737.1902

Fax: 609.737.2743

Email: ecs@electrochem.org 

Web Link: www.electrochem.org

Corrosion and Cracking of Welds

05/12/04 - 05/14/04

Contact: Alan Turnbull

National Physical Laboratory

Teddington United Kingdom

Email: alan.turnbull@npl.co.uk

6th International Symposium on High

Temperature Corrosion and Protection of

Materials

05/16/04 - 05/21/04

Les Embiez, France

Fax: +33 (0)3 83 68 46 11

Web Link: http://www.htcpm-2004.uhp-nancy.fr

Coatings, Colour & Corrosion 2004

6/22/04 – 6/24/04

Manchester, UK

Web Link: http://www.surfex.net

4th Kurt Schwabe Corrosion Symposium

07/13/04 - 07/17/04

Contact: Prof. Ole Forsen

Helsinki University of Technology

P.O. Box 6200

02015 HUT

Finland

Phone: +358-9-4512798

Email: schwabe2004@hut.fi;

Web Link: http://kerppu.hut.fi/kscs2004/

EUROCORR 2004

9/12/04 – 9/16/04

Nice – Acropolis

CEFRACOR

28, rue Saint-Dominique

F-75007 Paris, France

Phone: +33 (0)1 47 05 39 26

Fax: +33 (0)1 45 55 90 74

Email : eurocorr2004@scifrance.org

The Fourth International Conference

Advances in Corrosion Protection by

Organic Coatings

09/13/04 - 09/17/04

Contact: Dr. David Scantlebury; UMIST

Manchester United Kingdom

Phone: (44) 161-200 4841

Fax: (44) 161-200 4865

Email: Scantlebury@umist.ac.uk 

Web Link: www2.umist.ac.uk/corrosion/

206th Meeting of The Electrochemical

Society

10/06/04 - 10/08/04

Honolulu, HI

The Electrochemical Society 

10 S. Main Street 

Pennington, NJ 08534-2896

Phone: 609.737.1902

Fax: 609.737.2743

Email: ecs@electrochem.org 

Web Link: www.electrochem.org

Mark Your Calendar

Recurring Corrosion Conferences and Workshops:

• The Tri-Service Corrosion Conference (Occurs every other year, Last held Nov. 2003)

• Society of Protective Coatings Conference (Last held Oct. 2003)

• Joint DOD/FAA/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft (Last held Sep. 2003)

• SeaHorse: The Marine Corrosion Conference (Last held Aug. 2003)
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 47

INTRODUCTION

The Tri-Service Facilities Corrosion Working group (TSFCWG)

is composed of Army, Navy, and Air Force experts with many

years of combined corrosion control experience concerning all

aspects of facilities components. Their corrosion prevention

expertise ranges from direct buried utility distribution systems,

cathodic protection, waterfront structures, water treatment systems, and a wide variety of coating applications. The group has

championed the need to provide centrally funded corrosion control training to all levels of facilities acquisition and maintenance

personnel. Other problems addressed by the group include:

eliminating poor contractor and acquisition performance,

improving Tri-Service guidance criteria, ensuring the inclusion

of corrosion control criteria in future system acquisition, and

centrally funding large scale corrosion control technology

demonstrations. The working group has also reviewed issues

related to the major DOD sectors, including aerospace 

systems/aerospace weapons, marine platforms and weapons 

systems, ground platforms and weapons systems, and facilities.

In addition to providing technical input to OSD, the group

has developed and implemented a number of successful policy

initiatives and technology demonstrations at DOD facilities

around the world. Representative highlights of the group’s effort

to implement corrosion control and prevention at DOD facilities are presented here.

AIR FORCE INITIATIVES

Establishing Corrosion Programs at Installations and Facilities

It is highly important that DOD installations have an in-house

technical representative with a background in corrosion control

in order to adequately oversee corrosion control projects. The

TSFCWG is working to expand an Air Force instruction (a procedural document) to establish corrosion control programs at

installations. 

The Air Force first pioneered a corrosion control instruction

to delineate responsibilities and requirements for facility corrosion control programs at major commands and bases. This

instruction applies to personnel involved in design, construction, acquisition, operations, and maintenance of real property

assets and installed equipment at installations and facilities. The

instruction implements Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations,

and guidelines pertaining to corrosion control activities. It also

follows selected industry standards published by NACE

International (formerly National Association of Corrosion

Engineers). The primary goals of the corrosion control program

are to:

• Develop and maintain dependable and long-lived structures,

equipment, plants, and systems.

• Conserve energy.

• Reduce costs due to corrosion, scale, and microbiological 

fouling.

• Ensure compliance with EPA, DOT, and OSHA regulations

and guidance, among others.

The program includes corrosion control by design and materials selection, use of cathodic protection to eliminate electrochemical reactions, and use of industrial water treatment to

reduce corrosion, scale-forming deposits, and biological growths

in heating and cooling systems. The program also mandates the

use of protective coatings to reduce atmospheric corrosion,

cathodic protection current requirements, and the analysis of

logs and records for failure prediction and selection of corrective

actions. It also dictates the incorporation of corrective actions in

repair and construction projects when corrosion, scale, or material deterioration is detected.

In-Situ Pipe Coating for Corrosion Control 

in Water Supply Piping

Severe corrosion products and high metal concentrations were

found in the water of supply and distribution systems in a new

DOD medical facility at an Air Force Base. The most serious

form of corrosion (iron corrosion) occurred in the unlined steel

Vincent Hock, Sean Morefield, Susan Drozdz, Michael McInerney,

Dr. Charles Marsh, Dr. Larry Stephenson

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

Engineer Research and Development Center

US Army Corps of Engineers

Nancy Coleal, Soloman Williams

Technical Support Directorate

Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency 

Thomas J. Tehada

Daniel A. Zarate

Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center

Corrosion Prevention and Control Success Stories Section III
48 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

water main leading to the Medical Facility. As a result, water

from most any fixture in the new building had some degree of

rust color to it as well as high levels of copper and lead. Despite

efforts to prevent corrosion by adding a zinc phosphate corrosion inhibitor, some corrosion persisted because of low flow in

portions of the system and a slightly acidic water supply. 

A pipe coating was applied to the water distribution system in

situ. Corrosion of the existing steel piping was minimal, thus

none needed to be replaced. The chosen solution for preventing

additional corrosion in the steel water main and cooling water

supply was to apply an epoxy coating on the interior of the steel

piping. (See Figure 1.) The epoxy coating formed a protective

barrier to prevent the water from contacting the steel surface.

Non-Chemical Water Treatment Technology

Most pieces of base equipment are susceptible to the deteriorating effects of corrosion to some degree. Hardware that uses water

in one form or another

are particularly at risk –

heat exchangers, boilers,

steam pipes, water pipes,

pumps, tanks, and others. One of the more

effective ways to prevent

corrosion is to pre-treat

the water to remove

some of the more corrosive chemical and biological components.

There are a number of

ways to treat water to remove these contaminants; both chemical and non-chemical. Non-chemical water treatment technology has been in use since the 1930s. Lack of reproducible results

and company secret performance characteristics have prevented

engineers from specifying non-chemical technology in standard

government contract documents. Government-wide downsizing

and reduced expertise at installations have resulted in program

managers seeking new methods and technologies to ensure mission success. This initiative provides a model measurement and

verification procedure for evaluating the technology’s performance under Energy Savings Performance Contracting.

The method focuses on a specific model procedure recommended for the measurement and verification of non-chemical

technology. Four objectives are sought in this model procedure:

water conservation, energy conservation, pollution prevention

(reduction in chemical use and disposal of chemically treated

water), and equipment life extension (Figure 2).

ARMY INITIATIVES

Robotic Inspection for Corrosion Condition Assessment of

Underground Storage Tanks

Nationwide it is estimated that there are more than 300,000

metallic underground storage tanks (USTs). Replacing all aging

and failing USTs would be prohibitively expensive. One alternative is to retrofit existing USTs with cathodic protection for 

continued use. However, there is a need for more cost-effective

and reliable UST condition assessment methods in order to 

support better informed management decisions.

To meet this need, a remote robotic UST condition inspection/assessment system named “Fury” was developed and is 

currently undergoing field testing and validation. (See Figure 3.)

Fury enters the UST through an existing opening (4 inch diameter minimum) and navigates using magnetic wheels to access

virtually a tank’s entire interior. A sensor sled takes multiple

(approximately 90,000 per hour) ultrasonic thickness measurements while in motion, and relays the readings along with 

position information to a computer. In its final form Fury is

intended for immersion into fuel, thus allowing no interruption

of normal operations.

In addition to providing a non-destructive evaluation tool

which delivers considerably more quantitative data compared to

existing assessment technologies, a Fury UST inspection is also

a significantly faster alternative compared to pumping the tank

dry and preparing it for human entry and inspection. An equally important benefit is the avoidance of the expense and danger

associated with confined space entry.

Fury was developed by the US Army Engineer Research and

Development Center’s Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory (ERDC-CERL) in conjunction with RedZone Robotics,

Inc., of Pittsburgh, PA. The effort

was funded by the Small Business

Innovation Research Program

(SBIR), the Environmental Security

Technology Certification Program

(ESTCP) and the Army Petroleum

Center.

Electro Osmotic Pulse Technology

for Preventing Water Intrusion into

Below Grade Spaces

Intruding water in below-ground concrete structures, such as

basements, raises the interior relative humidity thereby accelerating the corrosion rate of mechanical equipment in the area and

creating unacceptable air quality due to the rapid growth of bacteria and mold. Structural damage can also result from chronic

water seepage through floors and walls. (Water causes corrosion

of steel reinforcement, cracks concrete walls, and erodes mortar.)

Concrete is subject to moisture intrusion, primarily due to 

the hydraulic pressure on the water. Conventional solutions to

moisture control in below-grade structures may be grouped into

either positive-side or negative-side waterproofing. (Positive

refers to waterproofing that is applied to the outside [wet] face

of a buildings substructure, and negative is applied to the inside

[dry] face of the buildings substructure.) Both positive- and negFigure 1. Potable Water Pipe Before and After In-Situ Coating.

Figure 2. Electrostatic Water Treatment.

Figure 3. FURY Robotic

Inspection Tool.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 49

ative-side methods consist of coatings and membrane barriers.

Some common materials used in positive-side waterproofing

include bentonite clay, modified bitumen sheets, liquid applied

membranes (LAMs), built-up bituminous membranes, prefabricated elastomeric sheets, prefabricated thermoplastic sheets, and

cementitious or crystalline coatings. Some common materials

used in negative-side waterproofing include crystalline coatings,

cementitious coatings with metallic oxides, and cementitious

coatings with various densifying additives. When applied as

either initial construction or as a retrofit solution, both positiveand negative-side waterproofing methods generally have high

installation costs and a short lifespan; failures are mostly due to

designer error, negligent construction practices, and defective

materials. Additionally, some urban areas have restrictions that

limit or prevent the application of some types of coatings as they

present an environmental hazard due to their constituent volatile

chemicals.

Both positive- and negative-side waterproofing techniques

require drainage, where a drain tile system is installed around the

base of the foundation to divert or remove water. Positive-side

drainage usually fails within 10 years due to clogging and breakage of the tiles. If a sump pump is employed, it requires routine

maintenance and is subject to failure.

A basic waveform of the electro-osmotic pulse (EOP) technique consists of a positive voltage pulse (as seen from the dry

side of the concrete), a negative voltage pulse, and a period of

zero voltage. Figure 4 illustrates an example waveform. The vertical scale in this figure is 10 volts/division and the horizontal

scale is 1 second/division. The positive voltage pulse has the

longest interval and the negative voltage pulse has the shortest

interval. The amplitude of the signal is typically between 20 and

40 Volts DC (VDC). The positive electrical pulse causes the positive ions and associated water molecules to move from the

anode (interior or dry side) towards the cathode (exterior or wet

side), against the direction of flow induced by the hydraulic 

gradient, thus preventing water penetration through the structure. One of the most critical aspects of this technology is the

negative voltage pulse (polarity reversal). Note that the negative

pulse is of very short duration as compared to the positive pulse.

During the time of the negative pulse the water flows

in the opposite direction. This allows some moisture

to be retained in the application matrix between the

anode and cathode, thus preventing overdrying of

the material and maintaining the structural integrity

of the matrix. Another advantage of the short negative pulse is the reversal in the chemical reactions at

the electrodes (the anode becomes the cathode for an

instant and vice versa). This eliminates electrode

polarization, and guarantees that the system will continue to operate efficiently.

An EOP system is installed by inserting anodes

(positive electrodes) into the wall or floor on the

inside of the structure and by placing cathodes 

(negative electrodes) in the soil directly outside the

structure. The number of anodes and cathodes 

and their placement is determined from an initial

electrical resistivity test of the material and soil. The

objective is to achieve a certain current density and thus create an

electric field strength in the material sufficient to overcome the

force exerted on the water molecules by the hydraulic gradient

from outside the structure. 

Note the asymmetric dual polarity pulsed power supply

(Figure 4). This waveform is a significant advancement over the

constant direct current (DC) waveform that has been used in the

past. By combining EOP with standard crack and defect repair

techniques, EOP can solve the problems of active water intrusion (for example, due to a high water table) and saturation (for

example, caused by rising damp vertical flow of water through a

permeable wall) caused by the hydrologic pressure of the ground

water table, causing the water to permeate through capillary

action. In the case of a repaired crack or void, EOP can extend

the life of the repair by controlling the amount of water reaching the repair material. Because EOP technology works within

the material itself, it is the only method of preventing rising

damp and water infiltration though floor slabs.

Moisture intrusion into below-grade and on-grade structures

that causes “damp basements” is a common and costly maintenance problem. In older buildings, where the exterior waterproofing has either completely deteriorated or was never

installed, severe “damp-basement” problems can ruin expensive

equipment (e.g., Heating Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning

[HVAC] equipment), can increase maintenance requirements

(e.g., frequent repainting or cleaning to combat mold growth),

and can make affected areas uninhabitable or even unusable

(e.g., by causing poor air quality).

Groundwater intrusion through a building’s foundation that

causes such damage requires immediate action. In problem

areas, the usual approach is to “trench and drain,” that is, excavate to expose the wall area and the base of the foundation, and

then to replace damp-proofing on the wall surface and to install

a drain tile system around the building or affected area. This

process is expensive and can be further complicated by the fact

that most contractors limit their warrantees against future seepage in areas with high water tables. Any interior application that

can mitigate some of the water-related problems will save the

cost, inconvenience, and disruption of excavation.

Figure 4. General Schematic of EOP Operation.

Cathode - Copper Ground

Rod Embedded in Soil 

3 to 6 Feet From 

Basement Wall

Soil Side of

Basement Wall

Basement Wall Cross Section

Inside Surface

of Basement

Wall

Anode - Mortared

Into Basement

Wall and/or Floor

Volts

Cations

Water

Pulsed DC Power Supply

(+)

(–)
50 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

The EOP technology installed in a facility at Fort Jackson, SC

successfully prevented water seepage and reduced the relative

humidity of the concrete to 70 percent (Figure 5). The cost of

installation has been determined to be 40 percent lower than the

cost of the conventional “trench and drain” approach. The operating, or energy cost, of the EOP system is negligible – about

that of continuously burning a 60W light bulb.

Previous to the installation of the EOP system at Fort Jackson,

the basement mechanical room contained approximately

$275,000 in hot water equipment to support the barracks.

Accelerated corrosion due to the high moisture environment

severely shortened the lifetime of this equipment, forcing its premature replacement, sometimes as short as two years. Because of

this successful demonstration, two additional water tanks have

been added, increasing the value of the equipment to over

$500,000. 

EOP technology has a low maintenance cost, contributes to

low cost of ownership per year and to long system lifetime. EOP

technology is a much less intrusive repair technology than conventional methods. It is an environmentally sound solution

when compared to many alternative coating systems high in

volatile organic compounds. Because EOP is capable of acting as

a negative side waterproofing technique, and because it works

within the porous material itself, the technology may be especially effective when applied to counteract water seepage caused

by rising damp. 

EOP is an innovative technology that can mitigate most

water-related problems from the interior of affected areas without the cost of excavation. By lessening water seepage through

concrete, masonry, and stone walls and floors, indoor humidity

is reduced, thereby alleviating corrosion damage to mechanical

equipment, reducing or eliminating mold problems, and

enhancing indoor air quality.

New Environmentally Friendly Water Treatment for Corrosion

Prevention in Heating and Cooling Systems

Developing up-to-date selection criteria for chemicals which

promote corrosion inhibition, as well as accomplish all conventional water treatment requirements is essential. Only through

the development of such a process will DOD installations

become “smart buyers” of new and existing heating and cooling

systems. This includes central plant heating and cooling systems,

and building HVAC systems. Specifically, treatment for cooling

towers, steam boilers, condensate return systems, and closed

heating and cooling systems needs to be addressed.

Manufacturers continue to introduce new corrosion control

chemicals and treatment programs for steam, condensate and

chill water systems onto the market, and old products have been

discontinued, creating a need to inform DOD installations of

the effectiveness of available treatment technologies.

The lack of current and consistent guidelines has resulted in

poor control of water treatment at many facilities, and subsequently reduced system reliability and efficiency. There have also

been increased maintenance costs due to premature failure of

systems and components.

There have been a significant number of new corrosion 

control chemical formulations introduced in the last several

years, most notably in the areas of: 1) phosphonates and phosphonate alternatives and new, highly effective polymers for scale

inhibition, and 2) microbiocides for inhibition of bacteria and

algae. There has been an increased interest and emphasis on

environmentally friendly chemicals. The term “environmentally

friendly” refers to the environmental persistence of the chemical

and the measure of environmental impact from the time of

compound production to the time of disposal of the spent

chemical mixture. 

Steam condensate containing dissolved carbon dioxide

and/or oxygen can cause severe corrosion of the return line system. Carbon dioxide is introduced into the system by thermal

decomposition of the natural carbonate and bicarbonate in the

water. The carbon dioxide travels from the boiler with the

steam and, once dissolved in the condensate, forms the weak,

but destructive carbonic acid. Oxygen also enters the system in

the makeup water or by air infiltration. The combination of

carbon dioxide and oxygen will result in the rapid destruction

of the steam condensate return system. (See Figure 6) A

biodegradable, vegetable-based filming inhibitor based on

ethoxalyated soya amines was formulated. The film forms a

barrier to protect the return lines from the corrosive effects of

the condensate. These new formulations are highly effective for

Figure 5. Building 3265, Fort Jackson, South Carolina (Before and After) EOP System Installation.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 51

microbiological, corrosion, and mineral scale control.

Some of the most promising of these green corrosion

inhibitors, such as the new ethoxalyated soya amines, have been

demonstrated in steam condensate systems at Ft. Stewart and Ft.

Hood. The Ft. Hood DPW has fully implemented the treatment

program for condensate systems. This technology could save the

DOD millions of dollars by preventing premature replacement

of condensate lines due to corrosion. 

Remote Monitoring of Water Storage Tank 

Cathodic Protection Systems

Cathodic protection is used to prevent internal corrosion of

potable water storage tanks by applying a negative potential to

the structure from an external source. Cathodic protection (CP)

systems for water storage tanks must be periodically tested in

order to ensure proper performance. Remote monitoring units

(RMUs, as seen in Figure 7) provide the ability to monitor CP

system performance data from remote locations using modemequipped personal

computers. RMUs

allow continuous monitoring of CP systems

from a central location,

and will provide personnel with immediate

warning of potential

corrosion hazards.

These units are available as a commercial

off-the-shelf technology in the $500 to

$1000 price range. 

The technology has been implemented at Ft. Hood, a very

large installation with 8 potable water storage tanks and many

miles of piping that use ceramic-coated anode, cathodic protection systems. ERDC-CERL determined RMU requirements for

CP systems on two potable water storage tanks at Ft. Hood, and

developed performance specifications based on a site visit in

December 2000. In July 2001, ERDC-CERL installed two

RMUs on water storage tanks of 1.5 and 2 million gallon capacities. The units remotely monitor the cathodic protection system’s current and “instant-on” and “instant-off” potentials,

which are displayed at the utility control system administrator’s

office. Procurement specifications were developed, and training

was provided to Ft. Hood staff on operation and maintenance of

these systems. Based on the success of these units, ERDC-CERL

is in the process of implementing this technology at two similar

water tanks at Ft. Carson, CO.

The primary benefit of remote monitoring is ensuring protection of facility assets. Additionally, the implementation of the

RMUs saves the cost of traveling to remote sites to check each

rectifier, and they add the capability of instant notification when

there is a malfunction in the cathodic protection system. With

the implementation of remote monitoring, tank life is expected

to be extended by 20 years. 

NAVY INITIATIVES

High Performance Waterfront Maintenance Coatings

Waterfront structures are particularly susceptible to corrosive

attack, as seen in Figure 8. A typical waterfront coatings system

is an epoxy system topcoated with an aliphatic polyurethane and

for immersion service, coal tar epoxy is still a preferred system.

Other coating systems have

been developed that show

promise for much longer

life cycles (up to twice as

long) thereby reducing life

cycle costs of the structure.

Up to 80% to 90% of the

total cost for a coatings

project is surface preparation and application.

Coating maintenance on

waterfront structures in

immersion service is very expensive and historically has not

occurred due to lack of funding. By extending the service life of

the protective coating then the service life of the structure will be

extended. Investigations will include ambient temperature cured

(ATC) coatings. 

Heat Resistant Pavements and Joint Sealants

The Navy needs heat resistant pavements to withstand the high

temperatures of VSTOL and similar aircraft which direct hightemperature jet exhaust downward. Some success has been

obtained with lightweight concrete pavements. Alumina and

magnesia based refractory (heat resistant) concretes have been

tested in the past, but have also had limited success at very high

temperatures. Newer, very high temperature zirconia, yttria and

spinel based refractories (and composites of inorganic borides

and nitrides) should also be tested and evaluated because of their

much higher thermal resistance properties.

Airfield pavements for high temperature VSTOL aircraft

require flexible pavement joint sealants that can withstand 

temperatures from 300°F to more than 800°F. A recent demonstration/validation (DEMVAL) project indicated that several

materials are stable to 500°F and a few at 600°F (for short 

periods of time). However, newer commercial elastomers (principally fluorinated polymers) are being developed for aerospace

applications that may be stable at temperatures of 700°F or

higher. The proposed advanced technology development 

program (6.3) would allow testing and validation of these 

materials for high temperature airfield pavement use.

Research and Development to Increase Fly Ash 

Concentrations in Concrete up to 30%

Under the RPM DEMVAL Program, the Navy Facilities

Engineering Service Center (NFESC) has completed a 3-year

project to demonstrate construction of Navy concrete facilities

Figure 6. Groove in Steam Condensate Return

Line Due to Corrosion and Improper Water

Treatment.

Figure 7. Remote Monitoring Unit (RMU) for

Cathodic Protection Systems.

Figure 8. Improved Coatings are

Needed to Extend the Design Lifetime

of New Waterfront Structures.
52 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

using up to 30 percent fly ash as a partial replacement to

Portland cement. The technology promises many benefits

including:

• Improved long term durability.

• Improved workability of fresh concrete.

• Lower construction costs.

• Reduction in cement production thereby reducing CO2 emissions, one of the gasses involved in global warming. 

• Use of fly ash constitutes affirmative procurement of recovered

materials as directed by EPA.

Material Savings Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of concrete

are used annually in Naval construction. Use of 30% fly ash

allows an immediate reduction in the material cost of concrete

by $5 per cubic yard, for an annual savings in Naval construction of $305,000. The fly ash (HVFA) concrete is expected to

have twice the life of ordinary concrete. Subsequently, doubling

the life will halve the replacement cost of concrete in Naval construction for an annual cost savings of $9,500,000. Note that

these are material savings only, and do not include operational

savings that will result through reduction in disruption in operations during replacement of facilities. Savings are assumed to

begin in year four at the conclusion of the demonstration and

validation of the HVFA concrete and continue for the next 17

years. In fact, annual savings will continue to accrue into the

future. Projected onto a national level, the savings are estimated

to be greater than $1 billion per year. 

Epoxy Coated Rebar

Steel reinforcement corrosion is the most common form of deterioration in marine concrete structures and often results in the

spending of millions of dollars to repair damage to a single pier.

The use of epoxy-coated rebar (Figure 10) to delay the onset of

rebar corrosion has been a popular choice since it was introduced

in 1973. However, it was not until NFESC developed a User’s

Guide for Epoxy-coated Prefabrication Steel Reinforcing Bars in

Marine Concrete, A Naval Facilities Guide Specification, and

the acceptance of a new ASTM standard (A-934A) that standard

practices were established. The epoxy-coated rebar technology is

the result of NFESC research in affiliation with the American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). This is just one

example of how addressing a DOD infrastructure problem can

have a national impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The initiatives pioneered by members of the Tri-Service Facilities

Corrosion Control Working Group have made significant contributions to maintain DOD facilities and infrastructure. The

group has worked hard to bring the best practices of corrosion

control from industry to the DOD, as well as validate their inhouse research and development products at DOD facilities, to

plot a path forward in corrosion control. Tri-Service representation on the working group is helping to ensure the broadest possible transfer of corrosion prevention and control, as they relate

to facilities and infrastructure, between the Army, Navy, Air

Force, and Marine Corps.

Figure 9. A Joint US Navy, Army and Air Force Study Investigated

Severity of Alkali Silica Reactions and Recommended Methods of

Mitigation.

Figure 10. Epoxy Coated Rebar in Pier Construction.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 53

The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) provides corrosion prevention and control

expertise to the US Army Corps of Engineers worldwide. ERDC corrosion control experts, and the chemists at

the ERDC Paint Technology Center provide technical assistance to Corps activities through R&D, technical consultation, training, failure analysis, and contract and design review. 

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at ERDC are:

Mr. Vincent F. Hock, Corrosion Technical Expert

217.373.6753, vincent.f.hock@erdc.usace.army.mil

Ms. Susan A. Drozdz, Chemist, Paint Technology Center

217.373.6767, susan.a.Drozdz@erdc.usace.army.mil 

The Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA), Tyndall AFB, Florida provides Air Force policy, guidance and technical support in the areas of cathodic protection, protective coatings, industrial water treatment,

and non-destructive testing for corrosion control.

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at AFCESA are:

Ms. Nancy Coleal, Air Force Facility Corrosion Control Engineer

850.283.6215, nancy.coleal@tyndall.af.mil

Mr. Soloman Williams, Air Force Industrial Water Treatment Program Manager, Boiler/Unfired Pressure

Vessel Inspection Program Manager, and a certified Level 2 Cathodic Protection Technician

sol.williams@tyndall.af.mil

www.afcesa.af.mil 

The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) is the home for many of the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command (NAVFAC) specialized experts who provide world-wide technical support to Navy

field activities and other customers. Public Works Technical Consultants are individuals and organizations recognized as having the technical ability and resources to best provide unique technical expertise to the Navy

shore establishment. Corrosion control expertise is provided by the technical consultants for “Paints and

Protective Coatings” and “Cathodic Protection/Corrosion” for Naval shore installations. 

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at NFESC are:

Mr. Daniel A. Zarate, SSPC Protective Coatings Specialist, NACE Certified Coating Inspector 

NAVFAC Paints and Protective Coatings Technical Expert

805.982.1057, zarateda@nfesc.navy.mil

Mr. Thomas Tehada, PE, NAVFAC Cathodic Protection/Corrosion Technical Expert

808.472.1254, tehadatj@nfesc.navy.mil

answers materials engineering questions

CALL : 315-339-7090

EMAIL : amptiac_inquiries@alionscience.com

O R

VISIT : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com/Help/inquiry.html

AMPTIAC
INTRODUCTION

The US Marine Corps (USMC) trains and operates in an

extremely harsh environment from a corrosion perspective. The

combination of coastal basing, amphibious operations, and

extended shipboard deployments produce an environment

unique among the military services and commercial industry.

The impact of corrosion can be felt on several fronts:

• Reduced Readiness – Corrosion negatively impacts systems’

operation.

• Increased Maintenance Costs

– Repair of corroded assets

impacts maintenance budgets

from both monetary and

manpower perspectives.

• Warfighter Morale –

Continuous “rust busting”

reduces available time for

training and warfighter

morale.

As a result, the USMC is

engaged in the fight against 

corrosion at all levels from

research and development to

system and equipment maintenance. The spectrum of corrosion

prevention and control activities currently being performed by

the USMC is graphically depicted in Figure 1.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Under the Total Ownership Cost Reduction Program, the Office

of Naval Research (ONR) is sponsoring a six-year initiative

aimed at developing corrosion technologies that will minimize

the life cycle cost of USMC vehicles and systems. The program

has two main thrusts, including the development of a corrosion/durability road test that will accurately and repeatably evaluate the corrosion resistance of whole-vehicle systems, and the

development of a performance-based specification for advanced

anti-corrosion coating systems. These efforts are underpinned by

a vehicle tracking program quantifying the corrosivity of the

USMC environment through monitoring coupons on more

than 450 vehicles in the operational Fleet.

The corrosion/durability road test protocol includes a variety

of corrosion stressors such as salt spray, salt water fording, a grit

trough, and humidity chamber exposure with durability stressors

such as rough terrain driving to mimic actual USMC operation.

Figure 2 shows a High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicle

(HMMWV) going through

the salt spray and salt water

fording portions of the corrosion/durability road test.

Results of these tests will be

used to make the design

and/or material changes necessary to produce vehicles

capable of more than 20 years

service with minimal corrosion impact.

The advanced anti-corrosion coatings task is evaluating the performance of substrate pretreatments and

primers with the goal of developing a performance-based specification for coating systems that will be applied to USMC vehicles. A wide variety of coating systems are currently being tested

in both natural environments and accelerated test chambers.

ACQUISITION

Since corrosion impacts life cycle cost and logistics supportability requirements, individual Product Group Developers

(PGDs) at the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) continually assess the corrosion performance of assets under their

cognizance. The goal of these assessments is to balance investment in corrosion preventative measures with ultimate performance in the Fleet. 

PGD acquisition managers and engineers are typically not

Rich Hays, Marine Corrosion Branch Head

Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center

West Bethesda, MD

Robert L. Stith

Marine Corps Systems Command

Quantico, VA

Figure 1. Corrosion Prevention and Control Activities within the

USMC.

54 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Acquisition Programs

Product Group

Developers

Total Ownership 

Cost Reduction

Office of Naval Research

Corrosion Prevention 

and Control

Marine Corps Systems

Command

Corrosion Control 

and Coatings

USMC Logistics

Command

R&D

Acquisition

Operation &

Maintenance
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 55

corrosion experts, and therefore obtain support from government laboratories and from industry. Corrosion prevention

activities include sponsorship of small business innovative

research (SBIR) programs, drawing and materials reviews by

corrosion engineers, corrosion inspections of existing systems,

component testing, and prototype testing. 

For example, the Direct Reporting Program Manager –

Advanced Amphibious Assault has convened a Corrosion

Control Working Group; comprising members from the

Program Manager’s office, the prime contractor, the Naval

Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, the Naval Air

Systems Command, and a support contractor. This group meets

periodically to address corrosion issues, has designed a cathodic

protection system for the vehicle, and is performing tests on

anti-corrosion coatings, as seen in Figure 3.

MCSC CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL

(CPAC) PROGRAM

The Corps’ CPAC program is mandated by Marine Corps

Order 4790.18. The program is managed by the Office of the

Chief Engineer and has two primary goals:

• To extend the useful life of all Marine Corps tactical ground

and ground support equipment.

• To reduce maintenance requirements and associated costs.

Working with the Carderock’s Corrosion Control Center of

Excellence, the program has developed several thrust areas

including cross-platform components, pre-deployment hardening, storage methods, training, and rapid qualification.

Corrosion Engineering for Reduced Maintenance

The Corrosion Engineering for Reduced Maintenance (CERM)

task seeks to address corrosion problems in high cost, cross-platform components. The components are identified using a “cost

of corrosion” tool developed previously by the CPAC Program.

Corrosion engineers then work with representatives from the

effected PGDs, users, maintenance activities, and manufacturers

to resolve problems. Components currently being worked

include radiators, hydraulic cylinders, battery boxes, and pushpull control assemblies.

Pre-Deployment

The Pre-Deployment task is developing procedures and materials that can be applied to vehicles and systems immediately

prior to deployment with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).

The intent is to “corrosion harden” vehicles through the use of

corrosion preventative compounds, touch-up painting, and

application of vapor phase corrosion inhibitors. This is done

prior to experiencing the extremely harsh environmental conditions during transport on amphibious assault ships. 

Rapid Qualification

Rapid qualification and implementation of commercial products that will assist in the fight against corrosion is the goal of

the Corrosion Prevention Products and Materials Program. This

program is developing test protocols for various classes of corrosion prevention materials that address critical performance, environmental, and safety characteristics of individual products.

Products that successfully pass the protocol are given interim

approval for Fleet use, while the more comprehensive (and time

consuming) tests required for inclusion in military specifications

are conducted. As importantly, products that do not pass the

protocol are excluded from use in the Fleet. Figure 3. Marine Atmospheric Tests of Coatings for the Advanced

Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Figure 2. Salt Spray and Salt Water Fording Components of Corrosion/Durability Road Test. 
56 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

MAINTENANCE

Headquarters Marine Corps, Installations and Logistics supports

corrosion prevention and control in the Fleet through the

Corrosion Control and Coatings (C3) Program. Under this program, funds are provided directly to Fleet commanders for corrosion-related maintenance. This gives them the flexibility and

discretion to apply resources to their most pressing needs.

Corrosion control services are provided by Marine Corps

Logistics Bases at Albany, GA and Barstow, CA, by on-base facilities, or by contractors. (Figure 4)

SUMMARY

The US Marine Corps operates in a severe and unique environment. Combined with a high operational tempo and constrained maintenance budgets, the severe service environment

can result in extensive corrosion of assets. In recognition of this

problem, the Corps is addressing corrosion over the entire life

cycle of its systems, from research and development through

field maintenance. Where possible and logical, USMC corrosion

programs integrate with the Army, Navy, private industry, and

academia to address all aspects of corrosion prevention and control. The focus of all corrosion programs within the USMC is to

provide greater return on investment, increased readiness, and

reduced maintenance.

Figure 4. Paint Booth at Camp Lejeune.

Mr. Rich Hays received both undergraduate and Master’s degrees in Materials Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). He has been working in the field of corrosion control and metallic materials characterization for the US Navy for approximately 20 years. Mr. Hays is currently head of the Marine Corrosion

Branch, Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Mr. Robert L. “Bob” Stith is a systems engineer and program manager for the Marine Corps’ Corrosion Prevention and

Control program. He holds a BS in Electronics Engineering from the University of Kentucky, and an MBA from Xavier

University in Cincinnati, OH. Mr. Stith has extensive experience in military systems, systems integration, and corrosion

prevention. Additionally, he worked for IBM Federal Systems on electronics display systems for military aircraft, command and control systems, and NASA flight control systems.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 57

INTRODUCTION

Corrosion is one of the most pressing issues associated with

aging aircraft. The USAF C-130, C- 141, KC-135, and other

aircraft have experienced and continue to experience stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in primary structural components.

Legacy aircraft in the other services, such as the Navy’s P-3

Orion, suffer the same problem. These components have been

manufactured primarily from aluminum 7075-T6 forgings,

extrusions and plate products. One of the more apparent solutions to these problems involves material substitution. New

7000 series aluminum alloys (Al 7055-T74, Al 7055-T76, Al

7249-T76 and Al 7150-T77) have been developed as ‘drop in’

replacements for Al 7075-T6 product forms.

The USAF Aeronautical Enterprise Program Office (AEPO) is

sponsoring an ongoing materials substitution program to facilitate appropriate equivalency decisions. The goals are to reduce

maintenance and downtime burden associated with older, corrosion-prone aluminum alloys

prevalent in DOD legacy aircraft.

The program is being coordinated with technical and logistics

teams at the depots and within

the Aircraft Structural Integrity

Program (ASIP).

Aluminum alloys are the most

commonly used of all airplane construction materials. Clad aluminum sheet (the cladding improves their corrosion resistance)

are used where beneficial, such as for fuselage skins. Corrosionresistant aluminum alloys and tempers are frequently employed

to prevent exfoliation corrosion (EXCO) and SCC. In addition,

major structural forgings are shot-peened to improve the fatigue

life of aluminum and steel parts and also to reduce their susceptibility to SCC*.

Today more than ever, new alloys and tempers are available

that provide increased corrosion resistance without sacrificing

strength. In support of this effort, a web-accessible software tool

is being developed to aid in comparisons of 7000-series aluminum alloys in various product forms. In order to provide the

latest information, newly available 7055 tempers were evaluated

to provide MIL-HDBK-5-type data. User heat-treatable tempers

have been developed for sheet and extrusions that provide an

excellent combination of strength, fracture toughness, and corrosion resistance.

THE PROBLEM WITH LEGACY ALLOYS

Legacy airframes are rife with corrosion susceptible alloys, in

particular, 7075-T6, 7178-T6, and 7079-T6. These high

strength alloys are particularly susceptible to intergranular (IG)

attack, which can lead to exfoliation or SCC, depending on the

structure and loading conditions. Exfoliation on the upper wing

skins of 707-type airframes,

such as the KC-135 and the E8 (JSTARS), does not necessarily present a safety issue but

does constitute a significant

maintenance burden.

Corrosion in primary structure, such as the C-130 sloping

longeron (7075-T6511 extrusion) presents both safety issues

and maintenance burdens.

Over time, corrosion resistant

aerospace aluminums have been developed. A paper by Bucci,

Warren, and Starke reviews the progress of aerospace aluminum

development and applications utilizing newer materials [1].

Although legacy aircraft have been upgraded through a number of material substitution programs, many hundreds of parts

are still manufactured from corrosion susceptible alloys. A

review of material usage at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center

indicated that approximately $4M was spent on material acquisition over the last two years. Plate and sheet stock made up

about 79% of the expenditure, and of that number, approxiTo effectively fight corrosion, it is necessary to bring a variety of tools and techniques to bear in combating its numerous manifestations. The

following shows how the Air Force is addressing two very distinct and different problems. - Editor

AGING AIRCRAFT GET A NEW LEASE ON LIFE VIA MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION 

Compiled by AMPTIAC Technical Staff 

from materials provided by the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office
58 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

mately 22% was 7075-T6. The recent availability of potential

drop-in replacement alloys for high-strength legacy materials

provides an opportunity to facilitate material substitution, not

only for specific problem parts, but also for raw material inventories at the depot facilities. Before inventory replacement is

considered, full ‘vetting’ of corrosion resistant substitute materials is

recommended. 

Because there are a number of corrosion resistant alloys and tempers

available for material substitution, a

user-friendly software tool is being

developed for quick comparisons.

The tool will incorporate MILHDBK-5 data, a subset of data from

the Damage Tolerance Design

Handbook (DTDH), as well as corrosion resistance and crack growth

data. The evaluation process for a

material substitution needs to take

into account application-specific

requirements. A review of material

substitution requirements and newly

available alloys is incorporated in a

KC-135 material substitution program (sub-contracted to Boeing).

The KC-135 program is a multi-task

effort that will consider material

logistics issues and also develop an application-based prioritized

list of approved materials for part replacement.

NEW ALLOYS ARE EVALUATED AS REPLACEMENTS

An initial goal of the first year of the program (2001) was to

facilitate the MIL-HDBK-5 property development of two

potential drop-in replacement materials: 7055-T76 and 7055-

T74. As shown in Table 1, these materials have equivalent or

better static mechanical properties compared to 7178-T6 and

7075-T6. The EXCO (ASTM G34) ratings indicate both 7055

tempers have superior resistance to IG attack.

The 7055 material produced by Alcoa in the T77 proprietary

temper has been flying on commercial jets since 1995. Properties

for this temper were added to MIL-HDBK-5 in the October

2001 change notice. Data is now available for the 7055-T76511

and –T74511 extrusions in thickness ranges of 0 – 0.249 in.,

0.25 – 0.499 in., and 0.5 – 3.00 in. The 7055-T76 material in

sheet form is also being evaluated.

In addition to the 7055 materials,

the 7150-T77511 and 7249-T76511

alloys are also being evaluated. The

7150 material has been used as a

replacement alloy for 7075-T6 on a

number of legacy airframes. The

7249 material, manufactured by

Universal Alloy Corporation, is now

available in extrusion product form,

and they are currently generating

material data for submission to MILHDBK-5. The 7249-T76511 extrusion is being promoted by Universal

Alloy as a drop-in replacement for

7075-T6511 for the production of

C-130 sloping longerons.

THE FUTURE FOR ALUMINUM

ALLOYS

Legacy aircraft contain many parts,

both primary and secondary structure, made from corrosion-prone

alloys. Corrosion inspection and

repair of parts made from these alloys amounts to a considerable

maintenance burden across the Air Force’s aging fleet. Newer

alloy/tempers are available that represent potential drop-in

replacements for legacy alloys. These newer materials have equivalent or better mechanical properties and improved corrosion

resistance. Qualitative tests, like EXCO, indicate that the newer

alloys are significantly more resistant to IG attack than the legacy alloys. Quantitative analyses are underway to better quantify

the crack-growth properties of these materials tested in corrosive

environments. This quantitative data, along with MIL-HDBK5 and data from the Damage Tolerant Design Handbook are

being captured in a web-accessible material selector tool whose

initial focus will be the 7000-series of aluminum alloys.

Table 1. Comparison of 7xxx Extrusion Materials for a Thickness < 0.25 Inch.

Alloy

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength [ksi]

(basis)

Ultimate

Tensile Yield

Strength [ksi]

(basis)

Percent

Elongation

(%)

Compressive

Yield Strength

[ksi]

(basis)

K1C

L-T‡‡

ksi(in)1/2

EXCO, 

ASTM G34

7055-T76511 89 (A) 85 (A) 7 91 (B)† 28‡ EB††

7055-T74511 83 (A) 76 (A) 8 80 (B)† 35‡ EB††

7075-T6511 78 (A) 70 (A) 7 77 (B) 30‡ ED††

7178-T6511 88 (B) 80 (B) 5 79 (B) <18 ED††

† Temporary values, may change with completion of MIL-HDBK-5 testing

‡ Typical based on 0.5 inch extrusions

†† ASTM G34 exfoliation grades (EA – no exfoliation, through ED – extreme exfoliation)

‡‡ Long-Transverse
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 59

One of the primary ways to protect critical components on airframes (and other vehicles or complex systems) from the ravages

of corrosion and material degradation threats is thorough the use

of environmental seals. Traditionally, they have been employed

either in the form of coatings or sealants. Coatings typically protect vehicles by serving as an environmental barrier on the external surfaces. In contrast, sealants provide similar environmental

protection to the natural gaps and crevices created at the joints

of assembled components. Generally compounds of polymer

blends, sealants remain flexible in use to fill and bridge these

gaps, even deforming to accommodate dimensional mismatches

and thermal/mechanical deformation of the assembly. However,

many of the materials being used as sealants in gaps and faying

surface areas harden, dry out, and crack over time. These cracks

become ingress paths for moisture and contaminants, which in

turn can ultimately lead to corrosion. 

An alternative to the standard form of sealant – a “membrane”

form – was introduced as a potential solution to this problem. A

membrane, or film-type

sealant would likely possess greater seal integrity

than a conventional material, and could provide

more consistent protection, on a unit-to-unit

basis (pre-shaped gaskets

would be easier to apply,

being an inherently less

variable process than manual adhesive application,

Figure 1). Such a product

would need to exhibit

good long-term sealing

properties when exposed

to vibration and thermal

cycling; and would need to

be environmentally friendly, easy to apply, and easy

to clean up. A private company, Aviation Devices and Electronic

Components, or Av-DEC, has developed a series of

polyurethane-based membrane products in tape and gasket

forms, and marketed under the brand name HiTak®.

At this point in time, the HiTak® products are unique in the

industry, having found their way onto a number of military and

commercial aerospace applications. These products include: 

• Antenna gaskets (aircraft to antenna mating surfaces).

• Structural sealing tapes (for application under floor panels).

• Wire harness sealants & tapes (connector sealing).

These sealing products have a tacky and gel-like surface,

allowing for a vapor tight seal when applied, yet they are very

easy to install, maintain and are completely non-hazardous.

Several products in the line are electrically conductive (antenna

gaskets), which in addition to serving as excellent seals, provide

conductive bridges between antenna (Figure 2) and airframe

(reducing static and the corrosion potential across the antenna). 

Other benefits include:

• Corrosion reduction and prevention.

• Increased aircraft availability (i.e. battle readiness).

° Return to service in minutes versus 24 hours.

• Improved system performance for:

° Electronic countermeasures (i.e. missile defense systems).

° Avionics & radio systems.

• Significant maintenance cost avoidance.

• Reduced labor hours.

• Reduction of hazardous material use & associated costs.

• Ease of application, inspection & removal.

The US Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office

has evaluated the performance of HiTak® sealant, sealant tape,

and gaskets, and has authorized their use in the general-series

technical orders used by all Air Force corrosion maintenance

personnel. They are gradually gaining acceptance by specific

weapon systems. Table 2 summarizes some successful applications of these products.

The use of these materials significantly improves corrosion

resistance. In addition, because they do not require curing,

antennas can be mounted and demounted rapidly for repairs,

and there is no structural damage as would result from removal

of cured sealant at mating surfaces and joints (Figure 3).

Maintenance can be completed in a few minutes and the aircraft

can fly immediately, instead of waiting a typical 12 hours for a

sealant to cure. Another benefit over conventional sealants is that

they generate almost no hazardous waste.

Figure 1. Pre-shaped Gasket

Materials Would Be More Economical

than Hand-applied Seals.

Figure 2. A Typical Antenna Gasket Application.

Table 2. Successful Air Force Applications of Film-Type Sealants.

Vehicle Application

H-60 Antenna gaskets, tape, injectable sealants, and wire 

harness sealing kits.

C-130 Antenna gaskets, windshield sealing with tape, floor board

structural sealing, APU connector sealing, panel sealing,

among many others.

H-53 Antenna gaskets, floor board structural sealing.

A-10 Antenna gaskets, electrical connector sealing.

UH-1 Antenna gaskets, tape, injectable sealants and wire 

harness sealing kits.

U-2 Antenna gaskets, bulkhead connector bonding/sealing

gaskets, panel sealing.

F-16 ILS Marker beacon antenna gasket.

C-5 Floor board sealing and protective floorboard 

adhesive tape.

KC-135 Antenna gaskets and panel sealing.

NEW AND NOVEL SEALING APPLICATIONS 

BREAKING NEW GROUND IN CORROSION PREVENTION ON DOD AIRCRAFT
60 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

A separate evaluation effort for the Air Force’s A-10 ground

support aircraft indicated similar benefits. A number of aircraft

were flown with HiTak® antenna gaskets for a period of time

and inspected. Examinations of the mating surfaces of the aircraft and the antenna indicated both were completely free of any

traces of hydraulic fluid intrusion [†], nor were there any signs

of corrosion. An added benefit was the easy removal of the gasket materials without damaging the alodine treatment on the

mating surfaces, thus technicians were able to mount a new

antenna and gasket without any preparation work. The entire

task of removing and reinstalling one of the FM antennas took

only thirty minutes. With conventional methods it would have

been at least a six hour job (including removal of adhesive sealant

and reapplication of alodine), generated hazardous alodine and

sealant waste, and made the aircraft unavailable for twenty four

hours while the sealant cured. It was estimated that a routine

antenna removal/reinstallation procedure using the gaskets

could be done with a 90% reduction in time and incurred labor

costs over the standard adhesive sealant approach.

The other military services have started using and evaluating

the potential benefits of performance, protection, and cost

avoidance offered by these products. By way of example, an

Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) Engineering

report projected that by using HiTak® antenna gaskets for the

H-60 Blackhawk helicopter, an annual maintenance cost savings

of more than $28,000 per H-60 per year could be realized. This

represents a potential cost avoidance of more than $42M for the

Army fleet alone.

The Navy has observed an immediate and tangible benefit to

both the operation and support of the EA-6B Aircraft, in the

area of antennas. The harsh environment of carrier-stationed aircraft causes many aircraft components to corrode, thus degrading their function, ultimately leading to component or system

failure (Figure 4). Using conventional sealants, EA-6B technicians typically find that after seven months at sea, approximately 60 – 70% of antenna mounting bases exhibit some degree of

sealant failure, resulting in an “Open Circuit” from the antenna

to the skin of the aircraft. Gasket-protected antennae over the

same service duration were found to be almost fully functional

(more than 90% still working). Even more impressive was the

performance as an environmental sealant. Examination of the

mating surfaces for these same antennae (after seven months of

active duty at sea), exhibited absolutely no evidence of corrosion. 

Lastly, the Navy observed significant reductions in the

amount of static experienced by these antennae over conventionally protected ones. This is attributable to the combination

of the gasket’s structural integrity along with its electrically conductive nature (which tends to absorb signal noise).

Figure 4. Antenna Bases are Highly Susceptible to Corrosion (left). The HiTak® Gasket Provides an

Environmental Barrier with Some Structural Integrity (right). Photos Courtesy of Av-Dec, LLC.

Figure 3. The Tape is Easy to Apply to Spars, Ribs,

and Decking Structures (left). A Deck Structure

with Tape Just Prior to Sealing (right).
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 61

HiTak® gaskets and tapes have been flying on military and

government aircraft for more than three years. Table 3 presents

an abbreviated list of current military/government applications.

Several are now fully approved, while others are flying with limited approvals (for evaluation).

CONTACTS

For more information on these projects, as well as other Air

Force corrosion mitigation activities, please contact the Air Force

Aging Aircraft Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH. 

NOTES AND CITED REFERENCES

* Shot peening is a process where a metal surface is bombarded with small balls of steel shot. This process leaves the metal

with residual compressive forces on its surface, which inhibits

the formation of cracks, either by fatigue or stress corrosion

cracking.

† Many critical electronic systems, like antennas, are highly sensitive to contaminants, any of which could hamper their proper

function, via corrosion or other degradation mechanism. These

systems are frequently located near hydraulic lines or other similar systems (the tight confines of fuselage space makes this

unavoidable).

[1] R.J. Bucci, C.J. Warren and E.A. Starke, Jr.; 2000; The Need

For New Materials In Aging Aircraft Structures; Journal of

Aircraft; Vol. 37; pp. 122-129

GENERAL REFERENCES

J.S. Ullett, M. Garratt, & D. Peeler; Progress Report: Material

Substitution for Aging Aircraft; 2002

D. Raizenne, X. Wu, C. Poon; In-Situ Retrogression and ReAging of Al 7075-T6 Parts

D. Raizenne, P. Sjoblom, R. Rondeau, J. Snide, D. Peeler; retrogression and re-aging (RRA) of new and old aircraft parts, 2002

Table 3. Government Applications of the HiTak® Products.

Air Force Army Navy & Marines Coast Guard NASA Customs

H-60* H-60* H-60** H-60* T-38* H-60**

H-53* CH-47** H-53** HU-25* P-3**

C-130* EA-6B** HC-130* Citation 210*

A-10** F-18** HH-65B* Citation II*

H-1** P-3**

F-16** AV-8**

U-2**

Missile Silos*

* Full Approval

** Limited Approval

Got a corrosion problem? 

AMPTIAC can help!

CALL : 315-339-7090

EMAIL : amptiac_inquiries@alionscience.com

O R

VISIT : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com/Help/inquiry.html
INTRODUCTION

Contingency operations world-wide call for today’s military

equipment to be built lighter with increased warfighting capability. As such, there is little tolerance for corrosion in key components. While lighter equipment affords huge benefits in both

operations and logistics, Army Corrosion Program (ACP) managers expect that accumulated corrosion will adversely affect the

newer, light hardware sooner than their heavier predecessors

because there is simply less material used in their construction.

Successful corrosion prevention and control offers tremendous

payoffs in reduced ownership costs, increased equipment readiness, and ultimately, enhanced warfighting capability. The ACP,

led by the US Army Materiel Command, has a plan to address

these issues.

Given the imperatives of 1) maintaining legacy Army systems

longer than originally intended, 2) maintaining acceptable equipment readiness, and 3) reducing ownership costs; the Army’s corrosion prevention and control (CPC) program will initially focus

on commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Corrosion Prevention

Technologies (CPT). Army CPC policy requires screening, testing, and approval of CPTs prior to application on Army materiel.

The few approved CPTs now in use by the Army are for tactical

wheeled vehicles and associated ground support or construction

equipment. These CPTs show promise for application to other

weapon systems, but must be tested for compatibility and effectiveness on each commodity type before approval for application.

The Army intends to leverage its success with COTS CPTs and

transition these highly effective and beneficial CPTs to the field

while minimizing development and testing costs. 

Corrosion threats to the Army are no longer limited to land

and air. Recent global conflicts have necessitated transport of

Army ground and air equipment via oceanic routes, exposing

them to the moisture and salinity of the marine environment.

Analyses of seawater corrosion damage during over-water

deployments necessitated that the US Army Tank-automotive

and Armaments Command (TACOM) direct its program/project managers to pre-treat new equipment with corrosion resistant coatings prior to shipment. These coatings prevent damage

of new equipment during transit. Army policies will be updated

when the DOD issues Corrosion Prevention and Mitigation

(CP&M) guidance.

Recent studies provide conservative estimates of the cost of

corrosion on Army equipment. The Center for Army Analysis

published a study on aviation corrosion in March, 2001 that

estimated $1.3B per year in Army helicopter corrosion damage.

Clearwater rinse facilities and corrosion touch-up kits are two

CPTs prioritized by the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command

(AMCOM) to reduce aviation surface corrosion in the short

term. In the long-term, the Army is seeking to identify CPTs

that address airframes comprehensively.

Initial Army analysis of corrosion inhibitor sprays for tactical

vehicles revealed that COTS CPTs could yield at least a 4:1

return on investment (ROI) ratio. This 4:1 ROI has become the

benchmark for Army CPTs because of the Service’s need to

reduce ownership costs within significantly constrained budgets.

Another benefit that is not considered in ROI calculations is

return on readiness, or ROR. When fully resourced, the ACP

will undertake an effort to quantify ROR by developing metrics

and analysis routines that quantify equipment availability.

Corrosion-resistant equipment enjoys several benefits, such as

reduced logistics tail, maintenance time, and lower accident

rates. Given their potential, CPTs directly affect the warfighting

capability of the Army. As such, all corrosion issues pose potential threats to Army readiness. To most effectively manage corrosion, the Army has identified its “Top 10” list of CPC goals.

While there are certainly other corrosion issues, these ten address

the vast majority of corrosion-related problems within the service, such that if they were properly addressed, would significantly reduce the Army’s overall corrosion problem. These issues are

listed in Table 1.

Dedicated funding, management, reliable technical support,

and acquisition leadership are the keys to solving the Army’s corrosion-related requirements. DOD CP&M guidance and policy

should allow the Army to prescribe corrosion-resistant design,

fielding, and maintenance of its equipment and systems. A

resourced (dollars and people) ACP infrastructure will allow program execution management and technical support to users. It

also provides the means to objectively document, analyze, and

report progress and value of the program toward the goals of

increasing equipment readiness while reducing ownership costs.

CPT SOLUTIONS APPLIED TO SYSTEMS

The following are examples of CPTs that have been used to

reduce corrosion in Army equipment. These success stories proHilton Mills

US Army Materiel Command

Alexandria, VA

62 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 63

vide ample evidence of the benefits of these preventative technologies, and also show the path for applying them to many

other types of equipment and weapon systems. 

Ground Vehicle CPTs

For tactical vehicles and ground support equipment, the Army

has tested and approved five corrosion preventative coatings

from different vendors. Currently, they are approved only for

ground vehicles, because they have not been tested for compatibility or effectiveness with other weapon systems. One of these

five materials, a corrosion inhibiting spray, has proven particularly useful because it requires no surface preparation, is safe, and

has proven to be the least expensive and most effective treatment

for slowing or preventing corrosion to equipment. 

Budget constraints have limited application of this compound

to roughly 8000 pieces of equipment in Hawaii, Texas and some

new equipment shipped over water. This technology is a temporary, stop-gap solution that reduces corrosion and saves money.

Given its performance and utility, the Army plans to expand its

usage to treat most of the Army’s tactical vehicles and ground

support equipment. In FY03, the Army budgeted $1M for treatment of 6000 items in Hawaii. To treat 340,000 pieces of equipment (all the Army’s tactical vehicle assets), the Army would need

$75M per year. The expected ROI for this work is at least 4:1 –

some material developers have estimated the ROI to be as much

as 6.3:1 – which gives a projected savings of $300M to $475M

per year starting at the 5th year of equipment service life.

One caution about this technology – it requires a standardized

process and must be applied to the manufacturer’s specifications,

as proven at the US Army Pacific Command in 1999. In Hawaii,

the Army is using a manufacturer-trained and certified contractor to ensure proper application and achieve the expected ROI.

Rinsing Helicopters

In 2003, the General Accounting Office’s report on corrosion in

the DOD (GAO 03-753) estimated that the Army’s 2,770 helicopters and fixed wing aircraft require $4B in corrosion repairs

annually. The Army is interested in installing standardized clearwater rinse facilities for its aircraft to reduce the risk for damage

to the skin, frame, engine, transmission, and controls. This is

especially important since most surfaces have little or no corrosion protection.

The US Department of Transportation has been working with

the US Coast Guard and the University of Dayton to certify

CPTs for use on search and rescue aircraft. The Coast Guard

reported significant reductions in aircraft corrosion when automated rinse technology was deployed. Further reduction would

be possible using corrosion inhibiting additives. Similar reports

from the US Air Force on their “Bird Baths” have indicated that

there is potentially a 10:1 ROI by using this technology. The

Army could expect a significant increase in aircraft readiness

using this CPT since one of the known causes of reduced aviation readiness is directly related to aircraft material corrosion.

These rinse facilities are expensive to install ($2.2M each) and

their annual operating costs are roughly $50-250K per site,

depending on use of additives. The Army plans to install 14 clear

water rinse facilities (CWRFs), pending successful demonstration of the technology on Army helicopters. The projected cost

for installing these facilities is $31M, with a recurring annual

sustainment cost of $5M. The expected cost savings in 3 to 5

years is projected to be between $360M and $1B per year.

Towed Howitzers

The M198 Towed Howitzer units were spending an average of

$530 per year for repair parts and reported that 39% of their

annual maintenance hours were spent repairing corrosion. The

largest concern was that 41% of their combat training aborts

were caused by corrosion of the howitzer’s critical components.

These problems were solved by extensive redesign of critical

parts of the howitzer.

The M119 Towed Howitzer had a base firing plate that was

susceptible to galvanic corrosion. Army engineers of the

Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center

(ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal developed a kit that isolates

dissimilar metals (the main cause of galvanic corrosion) and

has cured the howitzer’s corrosion problem. The Picatinny

repair procedures helped units fix existing problems and

changed the Technical Data Package to effectively stop 

corrosion on the M119.

Controlled Humidity Preservation

In 1994, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) began work on a

concept called “humidity controlled storage” that would protect

their equipment and systems from corrosion. Since the primary

causes of corrosion on equipment stored outdoors are cyclic wetting and drying, and exposure to air, moisture, and salt, the

Table 1. Army Corrosion Program’s Top Ten CPC Goals.

1. Provide supplemental protection to 340,000 units of tactical vehicles and ground support equipment.

2. Protect aviation assets from corrosion and reduce inspection manhours for corrosion.

3. Provide CPTs that support the Army’s mandate for 90% readiness or better while being maintained within (manpower and dollars) allotments.

4. Ensure 90% equipment readiness through more durable parts.

5. Reduce short and long term environmental exposure of Army assets to ensure reduction in unit maintenance burden(s) and total ownership

costs.

6. Update acquisition policy that directs the military services to evaluate corrosion-resistant designs and install those that meet operational

requirements with minimum maintenance costs.

7. Protect Army equipment from corrosion during transport/transit.

8. Conduct research to identify CPTs for existing commodities with no known COTS solution and the future force.

9. Approve CPTs for all Army commodities.

10. Install dedicated Army corrosion management personnel, equipment, training, and a database that uses standard metrics to document ROI

and ROR.
64 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

NGB sought to interrupt this daily cycle. The concept was to

place clean equipment (salt removed) in a protected environment where temperature and humidity was held constant. The

goal was to dry the equipment just one time during a given storage period. This process “suspends” material at its current condition so that the user can be certain the equipment will perform

as expected when recovered from this protective environment. 

The NGB spent five years perfecting this process, and as of

2001 had installed 496 Controlled Humidity Preservation

(CHP) systems in 34 states and Guam. An economic analysis

conducted from 1995-1996 and revalidated in 1999 projected a

10-year return-on-investment of 7.4:1 for equipment and systems placed in long-term CHP. Since the 1999 economic assessment, the GAO and the Center for Army Analysis have both

noted the potential value of this process in cost avoidance and

recommended CHP be expanded to all Army components,

including the Reserves and Active Duty Forces. In 1998, the

Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics designated the NGB as

the Army Lead Organization for Controlled Humidity Preservation. (For a more detailed discussion, see the article on CHP

in this issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly.)

The Army is convinced that CHP will reduce unit maintenance burdens and equipment ownership costs. Furthermore, by

placing Army equipment in a controlled environment, it expects

a significant increase in equipment readiness; which provides for

enhanced warfighting capability. The ACP has requested funding for a program that capitalizes on this technology for the

Army. It will be used at Depots, for prepositioned stock

(PREPO), and where possible on equipment and systems at

active Army units.

Designing Corrosion Resistance into the FMTV

The Army’s Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) is an

excellent example of the application of a corrosion-resistant

design that provides a high return on investment (6.3:1 in 5

years). The Program Manager invested $2,550 per vehicle to

upgrade more than 200 parts on 39 components of these tactical trucks. Testing at the Aberdeen Test Center’s Accelerated

Corrosion Test Facility proved the value of these upgrades,

which have also been validated by field observations. The first

7,700 production vehicles were fielded without the upgrades –

many incurred serious corrosion damage within 3 to 5 years. The

later, upgraded version vehicles have proven durable and have

required far less maintenance. These investments are predicted

to provide corrosion resistance for 15 years with a projected

FMTV service life of 22 years. Furthermore, this platform was

compared with a sister vehicle (directly from the production

line) that was treated with corrosion inhibiting spray to assess

comparative corrosion resistance. The vehicle with the added

corrosion inhibiting spray proved to be even more corrosion

resistant and showed additional benefits in reduced ownership

costs and maintenance.

This change in acquisition strategy provides tangible benefits

to both the Program Manager (PM) and the user. A PM is

responsible for quantifying ownership and support costs for the

system’s service life. The life cycle support costs were reduced,

thus helping the PM. For the user, a more durable system means

less parts, less manpower required to maintain the system, and

increased equipment readiness. For the Army, this means less

equipment is required to sustain its warfighting capability and

reduced depot maintenance costs. The FMTV is credible evidence that making design choices that invest in corrosion-resistant materials and technology is a good business decision that

should be used in all future military acquisitions.

Incorporating CPT “On-The-Fly”

During acceptance testing, failed components are often upgraded and additional “tweaks” are made to increase performance.

Often however, deficiencies are discovered sometime after the

equipment has been put into service. For corrosion-impacted

components and parts, it’s possible to provide “upgrades though

spares.” The ACP is directly linked to the logistics assistance representatives from each Army commodity command, as well as

the Research Development and Engineering Centers that support them. These centers can help define problem parts, define

requirements for the PMs, and help the supply system buy and

stock corrosion-resistant parts.

Army Equipment Faces Ocean Transport

With the reconstitution of forces following the 1991 Gulf War,

the Army found damage from sand and salt water corrosion to

be significant issues with returning equipment. An important

lesson from the Gulf War was that sea-borne transport causes

severe corrosion to exposed equipment. Figure 1 shows equipment being shipped to Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003

– rust often forms on the deck where equipment is chained to

tie-downs, and equipment.

Ocean transits take 11 to 14 days on average, but equipment

is often stored at the port of embarkation (port staging areas)

for several weeks or months waiting for a ship. Once it’s

shipped, equipment is off-loaded at the port of debarkation,

awaiting clean-up and shipment to its assigned unit (or to a

depot for repair or reconditioning). This process often takes two

Figure 1. Operation Iraqi Freedom Deployment.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 65

months or more, and each daily wetting/drying cycle creates

more damage. Rust in inner cavities and components (caused

by salt-spray or sea-water drenching) are very difficult to find

and remove. The solution is to pretreat equipment with CPTs

prior to shipment.

Ocean transport is not a rare occurrence for Army equipment.

Army units routinely train at sites requiring seaborne transport

such as Puerto Rico and the Hawaii Pohakaloa Training Area.

Figure 2 is a 1997 photograph of the Army 25th Infantry

Division’s equipment being shipped from Oahu to a training site

on the Big Island of Hawaii. Note the waves splashing over the

front of the ship and that all the equipment on the deck is

drenched with seawater. These were 8-12 foot waves, however

later that evening (the trip takes 24 hours) 32-foot waves 

completely engulfed the vessel. The Captain stated that “this is a

normal transit.” Upon delivery to the unit, most vehicles’ seats

were soaked with sea water.

This equipment, unprotected by any CPT, remained on the

training site for two months and because of scarce fresh water

was not cleaned or washed during the entire training and transport cycle. The image in Figure 2 was captured on “day one” of

the 60-day cycle, approximately 8 hours after leaving port in

Oahu. A simple solution to this problem would have been to

pretreat equipment before embarkation at a cost of about $200

per item. These trucks required replacement in 1998 because

they were rusted so badly they could not be salvaged; they were

replaced at roughly the half-way point in their 20-year planned

service life.

Prepositioned Stock

Corrosion of Army prepositioned stock remains an unresolved

issue. Damage to equipment has been significant at PREPO sites

in Italy and Belgium in particular. This equipment sees routine

exposure to water and salt spray, and there are no or very few

CPTs in use. These sites would benefit greatly from the combined use of CHP and an Army-approved corrosion inhibiting

spray.

SUMMARY

The Army is aware of potentially useful COTS CPTs for most of

its requirements. As funding becomes available, the Army plans

to expand its corrosion prevention and mitigation program. The

Army Corrosion Plan outlines a comprehensive approach to

mitigate corrosion in all of its commodities. 

During Army resource allocation, direct soldier support is

among the highest of priorities. The CPC program is often put

at financial risk when budget cuts loom or “bill payers” are needed to balance budgets. As program managers struggle to stay

within budget and produce the required systems or equipment,

corrosion prevention and control has often been given a lower

priority. Operations and maintenance funding is often limited in

deference to soldier requirements. However, support from the

Army Corrosion Program’s Research, Development, Test, and

Evaluation program has accomplished noteworthy success in

solving recurring problems.

Many of the corrosion problems outlined above could and

should be avoided in future Army acquisitions. The Army must

strive to include state-of-the-art CPC throughout the life cycle

of new systems, but many of the problems could be identified

and resolved early in the development stage of platforms. To mitigate corrosion, the Army must adopt acquisition policy that

directs designers, program managers, and acquisition managers

to evaluate corrosion-resistant designs and materials and implement those that provide a return on investment greater-than-orequal-to 4:1 when compared to current maintenance costs. The

ACP is working to modify its acquisition documents to reflect

this new philosophy.

Dedicated management and technical support will increase

program value and effectiveness. The Army is looking to maximize its effectiveness by participating with other services via 

the Department of Defense corrosion office. DOD corrosion

prevention and mitigation guidance and policy are key components to developing a more corrosion resistant Army. Finally,

additional resources (both money and people) must be allocated

for the Army Corrosion Program’s infrastructure.

Figure 2. Army Equipment Shipped Between Hawaiian Islands.

Mr. Hilton Mills serves at the Army Materiel Command Headquarters and is responsible for the Army Corrosion

Prevention and Control program. The program’s objective is to increase materiel readiness while reducing maintenance costs caused by corrosion. Its focuses are to improve the tools available for design trade-off decisions that relate

to corrosion resistance, maximize the use of commercial-off-the-shelf technologies that are compatible with DOD

materiel, and conduct research to find solutions for unresolved corrosion issues. Mr. Mills has an MS in Systems

Engineering from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD and a BS in Electrical Engineering from Tennessee

State University in Nashville, TN. 
66 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

The United States Navy operates its ocean-going, airborne, and

shore-bound assets in one of the most corrosive environments

known to humanity: the sea. The strong corrosive potential of

saltwater, plus the pervasiveness of salt spray and salt fog can

seriously degrade or even thwart the readiness of ships, aircraft,

landing craft, shore facilities, and even land vehicles in oceanic

transit. Fortunately, the Navy has several teams of dedicated professionals actively working to prevent, control, and mitigate the

effects of corrosion on sea, air, and land systems. The Navy is

well-represented on the new DOD Corrosion Prevention and

Control Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT) by corrosion specialists from the Naval Sea Systems Command, the Naval Air

Systems Command, and the Office of Naval Research. The following article summarizes their recent successes in combating

corrosion.

NAVSEA

Combating Corrosion - Preserving Readiness 

The Corrosion Control Division of the Naval Sea Systems

Command (NAVSEA) has led a number of successful initiatives

to combat some of the Navy’s most pressing preservation problems. Corrosion control has been a chronic and persistent problem for US Navy ships throughout

the service’s history. Dr. Alexis

Kaznoff, Director, Materials &

Environmental Engineering said,

“Our leadership and partnership

with the international shipbuilding

industry is leading to the development of improved coating products

and processes that are expected to

yield a tremendous Navy-wide savings of maintenance dollars and a

huge reduction of the amount of

labor required of the deck-plate

Sailor. This return on investment is

important to a unified NAVSEA

effort in supporting the Fleet in wartime and putting steel on

Sea Power 21[1] through the Sea Enterprise Program[2].” In

support of these objectives, NAVSEA is conducting a number of

programs designed to prevent and mitigate the impacts of corrosion to Navy seagoing vessels. Several examples follow:

Durable Deck Coverings and Coatings

The highest priority workload reduction initiative for the Fleet

is installing durable coverings and coatings for high traffic deck

areas. Sailors spend over 750 man-years per year recoating these

areas on all classes of ships. In many cases, Sailors are reapplying

coatings in high traffic areas on Navy ships in as little as six

months after original application, which is before a ship can even

complete a regular deployment. NAVSEA’s validation and installation of high-durability, wear-resistant coatings and coverings has

been the answer to these maintenance tasks (Figure 1). The Navy

is also replacing vinyl floor tile on ships with advanced flooring

that lasts twice as long or up to ten years. Over 450,000 square

feet of shipboard decks have been treated with these coverings

and coating products. These completed installations will save an

estimated $224M over the life of the covering/coating due to

avoidance of represervation.

Alexis I. Kaznoff and Beau Brinckerhoff

Naval Sea Systems Command

Washington, DC

Stephen J. Spadafora

Naval Air Systems Command

Patuxent River, MD

Airan Perez

Office of Naval Research

Arlington, VA

Deck with MIL 24441 System USS Harpers Ferry with specialty coating after 18 months

Figure 1. Examples of High Durability Coatings.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 67

Environmentally Friendly, High Performance Tank Coatings

The NAVSEA Corrosion Control Division’s highest priority 

initiative is maintenance cost avoidance for the Fleet at the

depot level. This is being accomplished by the development and

application of new coating systems for shipboard tanks (Figure

2). Environmentally friendly, solvent-free, high solids coatings

are currently being implemented that increase service life fourfold, with a corresponding reduction in maintenance costs.

Although it will take years to fully implement this advancement

through scheduled represervation work, the installations completed so far are estimated to yield savings of over $500M. Once

fully implemented, the program is projected to realize a cost

savings of over $4B.

ONR/NAVSEA Rapid Cure Coatings

While solvent-free high solids coatings have improved performance over traditional coatings, in some cases they still have drawbacks. To address future Navy requirements in shipboard tank

preservation and other applications, a joint effort by the Office

of Naval Research (ONR) and NAVSEA has been initiated to

develop “rapid-cure” coatings technology. These new systems

will facilitate single coat application, greatly reduced application

time, and improve waterfront producibility for coating application. Coatings will be applied in a single evolution (work shift),

curing almost immediately, and thus enabling a rapid return to

operational readiness. The program is proceeding on schedule,

with a number of shipboard applications having already been

demonstrated. It is envisioned that these rapid cure technologies

will extend beyond tanks to the topside, interior and deck surfaces, ultimately yielding significant additional savings and

improving operational readiness. Additional details on rapid

cure coatings are found later in this article.

Corrosion Sensors

The maintenance costs for tanks and voids (other enclosed

spaces) will be further reduced utilizing in-situ corrosion sensors,

condition based monitoring and automated visual inspection

systems; all of which were jointly developed by NAVSEA and

ONR. The corrosion sensors will eliminate the need for most

manned tank inspections and provide tank data regarding coatings and cathodic protection system performance. Sensors can

be installed in a number of configurations. In some cases data

may be accessed via a wireless connection. The analysis software

utilizes the tank operational history that is extracted and

processed from the sensor data. Thus, the software package can

assess basic tank properties, which will minimize unnecessary

inspections of perfectly functional tanks. It will identify tanks

needing refurbishment, and is sufficiently discriminant to identify tanks that just need a touch-up. Where visual inspections

may be desired, the computer-controlled Instrumented Stalk

Inspection System (ISIS) can be inserted through a tank hatch

and used to visually document and analyze the coatings. ISIS can

provide trend analyses to support maintenance decisions in a

reliable, non-subjective manner. Utilizing unique analysis algoFigure 3. Remote Tank Sensor System.

Figure 2. USS Ogden (LPD 5) Old Technology Tank Coating after 3 Years (left) and New Coating after 6 Years (right).
68 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

rithm software, the ISIS system can distinguish between coatings

features, failure modes, and internal geometry, and can be automated to perform repeatable inspections of each tank, which will

allow for reliable trend analysis.

Low Maintenance Heads

Clean bathrooms aboard ship are as important, if not more so,

than they are in someone’s house. The designs of the old sanitary

spaces, or heads, have not kept up with the designs developed by

industry that are available to today’s Navy. As anyone who has

had to regularly keep them clean knows, the old-style heads

quickly become rust-stained, and the ceramic fixtures and tile

decks crack and break down. On average, each crew head on a

typical Navy ship requires six hours of labor per day to keep it

functional and clean.

The Navy’s modern head design includes use of solvent-free,

edge-retentive coatings and a high performance deck system

with an impermeable membrane. Shipboard demos of this

design are ongoing and have reported success. For example, USS

Anzio (CG 68) has found them to be a tremendous benefit.

Completing a successful tour as Anzio’s commanding officer,

Capt. Mark Nesselrode praised the (modern) heads saying,

“Although an expensive item, we save more by a good installation that can be maintained and is a bit more impervious to heat,

humidity, and the hard use then just redoing the heads every

avail.”

Contractor Preservation Teams

NAVSEA’s contractor preservation team initiative has been a key

source of quality-of-service

improvements for ships’ force.

Simply described, preservation

teams take on the most onerous

organizationallevel preservation

tasks, using the

most efficient and

effective tools for

long-term preservation (Figure

4). Preservation

teams can save 

16 man-years per

year on every

ship. There are currently preservation teams located on the east

and west coast as well as in Hawaii and Japan. The teams, as currently staffed and funded, do not address all Fleet Sailor painting jobs, but efficiently address some of the most troublesome

ship areas.

Composites for Corrosion

Control

Composite deck gratings

and vent screens also are

making a significant impact.

The steel deck gratings and

vent screens used by the

Navy require constant repainting, repairing, and replacing

(Figure 5). New composite material analogs of these components will not require maintenance for up to twenty years.

Composite materials have also been used for exterior components, such as sound-powered phones and electrical junction

boxes. The installations completed to date are expected to yield

over $30M in cost reductions over the life of the components.

Well Deck Preservation

Amphibious assault

ships have unique

corrosion problems

because of the mission they fulfill. Such

ships are called upon

to perform as primary landing ships

for assault operations

of Marine expeditionary units. These

ships use Landing

Craft Air Cushion

(LCAC) and conventional landing craft to move Marine assault forces ashore.

During the launching and recovery of the landing craft, the well

decks are exposed to all of the elements of the sea along with the

hot exhaust of the gas turbine engines from the landing craft

(Figure 6).

The combination of

exhaust and salt spray causes

a breakdown of the old

paint at an accelerated rate

in the overhead area of the

well deck. With the introduction of new high solids,

heat resistant coating systems, the deterioration that

at one time occurred within a year’s time now is put off for 3 to

10 years (Figure 7). Sailors no longer spend the 17 man-years per

ship painting the nooks and crannies throughout the superstructure of the well deck, which is estimated to represent a cost

savings of $31M to date.

NAVAIR

Preventing and Controlling Corrosion for US Navy 

and Marine Aircraft

Navy and Marine aircraft are fighting on the front lines all over

the world, defending the United States and its allies from its enemies. In addition to the obvious threats to the aircraft and pilots,

there is a stealth enemy that is eating away at the aircraft every

minute of every day: corrosion. Aircraft corrosion costs the Navy

an estimated $1B a year, with the maintenance burden creeping

continually higher as aircraft continue to age beyond their original planned life in the fleet. 

Corrosion of Navy aircraft is exacerbated by a number of

compounding factors. Foremost is the operating environment

(Figure 8). No other high-performance military aircraft is

Sailor Needle Gunning Contractor Needle Gunning

Figure 4. Preservation Teams Improve Readiness

by Freeing Up Sailors for Training and Other 

Activities Related to Warfighting.

Figure 6. An LCAC Preparing to

Reboard an Amphibious Assault Ship.

Metal Vent Screen Composite Vent Screens

Figure 5. Composite Vent Screens

Require No Painting and Do Not 

Corrode.

Decking before 

application of new

coating

Decking 6 years

after application of

new coating

Figure 7. New Coatings

Significantly Reduce Deck

Maintenance.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 69

required to complete its mission in such aggressive conditions. 

• At sea for long periods of time on aircraft carriers

• High operational tempo which makes performing proper corrosion maintenance difficult

• Challenging chloride, sulfate and other corrosion species in

combination

• A powerful and pervasive electro-magnetic environment

• Strict environmental constraints that discourage many protective products that have withstood the test of time

The second greatest challenge relates to aging aircraft and

their impact on sustainment and readiness. The Navy’s fleet of

aircraft is approaching an average age of 20 years, the oldest in

Naval history. Accordingly, the required levels of maintenance

for these aircraft are rising. This trend will continue for at least

the next 10 years, putting tremendous pressures on the aviation

operations and maintenance budget of the Navy.

Third among these challenges is the fiscal constraint of the

Defense budget, which places a premium on balancing new

acquisition against support to existing assets. Never before has

the need to find and implement new technologies that improve

both performance and affordability of Naval and Marine aircraft

been so great. This situation drives our current and future

research and development efforts.

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) is organized to

meet the corrosion challenge. NAVAIR’s active involvement in

corrosion prevention and control extends to the highest level of

the DOD as evidenced by its membership on the DOD’s

CPCIPT. As a CPCIPT member, NAVAIR supports OSD’s

objectives to promote and implement the new corrosion policy

(for more details on the CPCIPT, see the article earlier in this

issue). Through the IPT, NAVAIR is working with the Army and

Air Force, and together we are developing our corrosion mitigation planning and strategy.

Joint service coordination is also occurring through the Joint

Council on Aging Aircraft (JCAA), a working board under the

Joint Aeronautical Commanders Group (JACG). Within the

JCAA, the Corrosion Steering Group (CSG) was established in

fiscal year 2002 to facilitate coordination of aviation-related corrosion activities among the services, US Coast Guard, Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), and National Aeronautics &

Space Administration (NASA). NAVAIR is the lead organization

for the CSG, which consists of technical corrosion experts who

assist in identifying technology deficiencies, reviewing current

and planned programs, and coordinating technical interchanges

between the participating government agencies and the aerospace community. The CSG covers technology from basic

research to advanced development, transition, and implementation. Several initiatives are underway, including a joint roadmap

for corrosion preventative compounds and diagnostics/prognostics for aircraft. The proliferation of corrosion removal and

repair technologies (e.g., Radial Bristle Discs, SemPens, Preval

Sprayers, etc.) through the use of corrosion control kits is one

example of coordination from this group. Members of each

agency or activity participate in joint planning, information

exchange sessions and annual conferences to help meet the

diverse needs of the community.

Within NAVAIR, the Aging Aircraft Integrated Product Team

(AAIPT) plays a strong role in combating corrosion in the fleet.

A corrosion thrust within the AAIPT supports NAVAIR’s

Corrosion Fleet Focus Team (CFFT) and other operations and

maintenance based projects aimed at validating and implementing new corrosion prevention and control technologies, including advanced coatings and processes, sealants, corrosion preventative compounds, composite and metal repair, adhesive bonding, and prognostics and diagnostics. 

The CFFT is NAVAIR’s model for a well-coordinated group

of technical experts from geographically dispersed NAVAIR

sites, including all three Naval Aviation depots, the Naval Air

Warfare Centers, the Naval Aviation Technology Engineering

Center, NAVAIR headquarters, Naval Aviation Type

Commanders, fleet personnel, and the Chief of Naval

Operations (OPNAV). The CFFT is designed to address corrosion problems that are cross-platform; and to facilitate rapid

assessment and implementation of common solutions. Its focus

is to investigate and review existing aircraft corrosion issues, target specific high-value opportunities, and pursue rapid resolutions. The goal is to offer immediate benefits to the fleet by

implementing currently available corrosion protection technologies on multiple platforms. In future years the team will expand

its scope to include weapon systems and support equipment. In

addition, larger-scale problems with long-term benefits will be

considered. Since the team is comprised of acquisition, research

and development, and fleet support personnel; implemented

technologies will reflect the best value to the fleet and significantly reduce operations and support costs for the Navy. 

NAVAIR’s Lead Maintenance Technology Centers (LMTCs)

also support the validation and implementation of new corrosion technologies. Through the LMTCs, evaluations of corrosion resistant coatings are underway with the goal to implement

improved application kits for a variety of applications. Among

these are magnesium conversion coatings and novel repairs for

the protective coatings used on components susceptible to galvanic corrosion, such as high-strength steel landing gear. LMTC

efforts are strongly linked to the CFFT and represent an excellent example of logistics and engineering personnel working

together on a common challenge.

While the OSD CPCIPT, AAIPT, and LMTCs provide

Operations and Maintenance related support, NAVAIR’s

Aircraft Reliability Maintainability Improvement Program

(AERMIP) sponsors the demonstration, validation, and impleFigure 8. The Navy Aircraft Environment.
70 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

mentation of new technologies. AERMIP will validate new corrosion-related technologies currently under development

through the Office of Naval Research’s Future Naval

Capabilities-Total Ownership Cost Program. These technologies

include advanced long-lasting CPCs, advanced self-priming topcoat, corrosion sensors, and wide-area non-destructive inspection (NDI). The AERMIP program is also planning to support

other corrosion technologies like advanced primers and EMI

sealants and coatings and will be strongly linked to overall corrosion planning and strategy.

Also providing demonstration and validation support for corrosion technologies are NAVAIR’s Afloat and Ashore Pollution

Prevention Programs. While these programs focus on environmentally driven technologies, they have a strong impact on corrosion prevention and control since a large number of materials

traditionally used for corrosion protection are composed of hazardous components. For example, organic and inorganic coatings used in protective finishing systems contain hazardous

materials such as heavy metals (chromates, etc.) and volatile

organic compounds such as Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). These

materials, particularly chromates, have been mainstays of Naval

Aviation’s corrosion protection scheme for decades. Recently

enacted government directives, such as Executive Orders, the

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, as well as local, state, and

city regulations; are now forcing major changes in the materials

and processes used to protect our systems. As a result, maintenance activities are under ever-increasing pressure to minimize,

or when possible, eliminate environmental, safety and heath

risks. The vital role played by NAVAIR’s corrosion experts is to

ensure the substitute materials that are developed and transitioned perform as well or better than the materials they are

replacing at similar or lower costs.

While health, safety, and environmental compliance have

taken on greater roles in the acquisition process; performance is

still king. For decisions affecting corrosion performance,

NAVAIR turns to the Corrosion Process Action Team (CPAT).

Each new major acquisition program typically has a CPAT,

which focuses on implementing the best possible corrosion 

prevention technologies on new aircraft. Teams consist of 

corrosion experts from NAVAIR, Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs), and their subcontractors. The CPATs

are critical for providing guidance to new and emerging acquisition programs. They help ensure that the OEMs understand

NAVAIR’s corrosion requirements and produce aircraft that will

meet performance requirements and have the lowest possible

maintenance cost.

Tying all of these activities together and strategically integrating them is NAVAIR’s Aircraft Corrosion Control and

Prevention Program (AC2P2). The program provides a planning

and integration function to link science and technology, acquisition, and in-service engineering together. This is accomplished

in part though NAVAIR’s National Level 4 Corrosion and Wear

competency, which links depot and warfare center personnel. 

The recent development and implementation of radial bristle

discs for the removal of coatings and corrosion products is a

strong example of how NAVAIR’s approach works (Figure 9).

The bristle discs were developed and tested by the Naval Air

Warfare Center in coordination with 3M under the CFFT. The

positive results on aluminum were rapidly disseminated to the

fleet via the CFFT, and within a year the discs were documented in NAVAIR’s Corrosion Control Manual; and information

on the performance of the discs had been distributed to the

community. The discs are currently being evaluated for use on

other substrates including titanium, high-strength steel, and

composites. 

Another good example of NAVAIR’s approach involves the

strategy, planning, and development for CPCs that is underway

using joint service cooperation. Through the Corrosion Steering

Group a joint CPC roadmap is being completed. The Air Force,

Army, Coast Guard, and the Navy are coordinating their organizations’ activities in the development and testing of newly

developed, commercially available CPCs. This is leading to

tremendous leveraging of resources, with such benefits as a greatly reduced overlap of tests, and the modernizing of multiple

CPC specifications to best meet the needs of all participating

organizations. In the end, this will allow each user to select and

implement the best CPCs for their application, fighting corrosion in the most efficient way possible.

Clearly, Naval aircraft will continue to operate in a severe

environment (Figure 10), under difficult and constrained mainFigure 9. Radial Bristle Disk Removing Corrosion (left) and Corrosion Repair Kit (right).
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 71

tenance conditions,

and with increasing

environmental and

cost burdens.

NAVAIR is well positioned to be a leader

today, and will continue to do so in the

future by inventing,

demonstrating, validating, and implementing new technologies to fight corrosion;

while at the same time lowering the overall cost to the taxpayer.

NAVAIR is organized and poised to address the challenges of

corrosion prevention and control by streamlining our innovation-to-deployment process, resulting in improved readiness,

performance, affordability, and safety in one of the world’s

harshest and most demanding operational environments.

ONR 

Fostering Science & Technology Advances to Give the Navy

New Weapons in the War against Corrosion 

The US Navy and Marine Corps operate in extremely aggressive

seawater-laden environments where corrosion is a serious issue.

Maintenance required to combat corrosion represents a major

cost driver for the Navy, and one that continues to grow as the

fleet ages. In the struggle to preserve capability, sailors and

Marines spend a tremendous amount of time controlling,

inspecting, and/or repairing damage caused by corrosion. One

result is less time spent on training for their primary warfighting

mission. The impact is clearly reflected in the substantial

increase in life-cycle costs of naval platforms and assets and the

declining personnel retention rate. 

The Materials Science and Technology Division at the Office

of Naval Research (ONR) fosters scientific research in corrosion

and corrosion-related maintenance reduction technologies for

ships, aircraft, land-based vehicles, and waterfront facilities. In

order to address the issue of corrosion prevention and control,

ONR sponsors research and development ranging from fundamental mechanistic studies to product demonstrations in the

field. ONR S&T focuses on concept exploration of mechanistic

corrosion processes, development of corrosion-resistant alloys

and coatings, development and application of environmentally

benign surface modifications, and sensing technologies that

detect the onset of corrosion and determine its impact. We are

working very closely with the acquisition forces to transition the

most promising products and technologies to the fleet. The following success stories illustrate how Navy S&T, acquisition, and

user communities work together to develop, demonstrate and

implement corrosion control technologies to solve shipboard

tank corrosion problems. Some of these cases were briefly discussed in NAVSEA’s contribution to this article. We present

them again here with additional detail so the reader can gain a

better appreciation for the technologies.

Corrosion Sensors for Monitoring Ballast Tank Condition

Shipboard tanks and voids make up a significant percentage 

of below deck space and are necessary components used for 

seawater ballast control, damage control, and storage of fuels,

combined holding transfer (CHT), potable water, lubricating

oil, and sludge. The size and quantity of these tanks vary considerably from each class of ship, with the typical numbers of

tanks per ship in excess of 300 for carriers, 46-77 tanks for cruisers or destroyers and 90-153 tanks for amphibious assault ships.

Operationally, each tank may experience different degrees of

service depending on mission requirements, thus creating widely variable maintenance requirements. As a result of the severe

environment encountered by these tanks, up to 50% of tank

maintenance is due to hidden damage or unplanned work. Tank

configuration geometries are often unique for each tank and

maintenance is complicated by many complex structural members, T-beams, and baffles. Correspondingly, working conditions

inside tanks are often difficult and provide less than ideal scenarios for assuring coating quality. 

The ONR Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) Tank

Corrosion Sensors program was initiated to provide a monitoring system capable of evaluating the overall and localized condition of a tank, concentrating on overall tank integrity, coating

condition and the sacrificial zinc protection system. As might be

expected, coating inspections are subjective and may vary widely in determination and quality. The cost for a tank inspection is

$8-15K per tank access, before any maintenance work has ever

been performed. 

The Tank Monitoring System (TMS), designed by the Naval

Research Laboratory (NRL), consists of in-situ tank corrosion

sensors and an associated analytical software package. These sensors, designed for either retrofit or new construction, eliminate

much of the need for routine manned tank inspections and provide continual monitoring or trend analysis of a tank’s condition

over its operational life-cycle. The TMS concept provides for: 

• A definitive assessment (based on sound scientific principles

and evidence) of long-term tank preservation; along with a

“red-yellow-green” decision-making tree aimed at quantitatively ranking tank deterioration versus other tanks.

• Qualification of overall tank condition for the actual scheduling of refurbishment and maintenance.

The maintenance of tanks involves more than just re-painting the surfaces, because tank inspection and assessment alone

requires the need for manual opening, gas freeing (venting),

staging (if necessary, the preparation of tanks including removal

of cover, plugging holes, etc.), cleaning (also if necessary), and

entry of trained personnel. Currently, 4,000 tanks are inspected fleet-wide each year. A conservative estimate of the costs

associated with tank maintenance is $32M per year. Tank

inspections are performed at least once every drydock cycle, or

nominally at least every 5 to 7 years depending on deployment

schedule or ship class. Once tanks are identified for refurbishment, costs escalate to over $250M per year for the fleet. These

refurbished tanks represent a small percentage of the 20,000

Navy tanks in service. Based on business plan projections associated with the use of combatants, amphibious ships and carriers, installation of TMS sensors in high usage tanks alone

would result in a total savings of $45.9M. These savings would

be realized just from the avoidance of multiple accesses and

inspections of high usage tanks. In optimal circumstances,

Figure 10. Naval Aircraft Operate in

Harsh Environments.
72 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

tanks would be accessed only twice in their service lives; once

before commissioning, and again at decommissioning. 

TMS has been or is currently being demonstrated on over 11

ships as part of the Engineering for Reduced Maintenance

(ERM) and Capitol Investment for Labor (CI Labor) programs

sponsored by NAVSEA. TMS is now being considered for future

platforms and for continued retrofit into existing ships. The

TMS corrosion sensors currently can be applied to seawater ballast or compensated fuel tanks. Under an ONR Discovery and

Invention program, NRL is developing technology applicable

for CHT tank monitoring. TMS systems can be configured

specifically for each tank geometry; with a number of options

for monitoring/downloading data, including a hatch datalogger,

ship intranet, personal digital assistant (PDA), or wireless RF

transmission where possible.

Remote Tank Inspection Systems

The tank inspection program is based on the ONR conditionbased maintenance (CBM) ballast tank corrosion sensor and the

NRL Tank Monitoring System (TMS) programs (see previous

case: Corrosion Sensors for Monitoring Ballast Tank Condition).

The TMS system was designed to minimize the number of

manned inspections by utilizing an in-situ corrosion sensor system to monitor the overall condition of the tank over time. As

mentioned previously, a “red-yellow-green” tank rating system is

employed. In a “green” condition, a tank would require no

maintenance, and inspection would not be warranted until

trend data indicated a degradation of the tank condition. In a

deteriorating TMS state (yellow to red), a visual inspection

would assist the port engineer or intermediate maintenance

facility personnel in making sound maintenance decisions concerning needed refurbishment or repair. 

The Remote Tank Inspection effort, initiated by NAVSEA,

addressed the problem of deteriorating tank condition assessment by developing a “smart” remote inspection system using

either a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) called the Remotely

Operated Paint Inspector (ROPI), or a stationary hatch-inserted

unit called ISIS (described in the NAVSEA section). Both systems incorporate an optical camera with a lighting package and

use sophisticated image analysis and tank ranking software to

provide a comprehensive Corrosion Detection Algorithm

(CDA). These systems are intended to provide “quantitative

ground truth” and visual data, similar to what a tank coatings

inspector would collect, but with increased objectivity, trending

capability and significant cost savings over manned tank entry.

These systems, when used either as stand-alone units, or (even

better), as part of the NRL TMS, provide objective visual analyses of tank condition and complete tank husbandry (maintenance put into the tank) over a ship’s operational life-cycle. 

The CDA software is smart, versatile and can be trained for

various tank conditions and geometry. The algorithm can recognize structure, holes, and pipes along with the required physical

coatings features. It uses multiple sophisticated optically-based

analytical techniques to detect false information and to arrive at

reliable damage percentages. Analyses are quick and consistent,

and provide both visual and quantitative tank condition evaluation for use in the maintenance scheduling scenario.

The NRL “commercial version” ISIS system is scheduled for

fleet availability in early FY 04. Initially, a single unit will be

available on both the East and West coasts for training and setup

in conjunction with the Naval Sea Systems Command,

Engineering for Reduced Maintenance (ERM) program. ISIS is

intended to be used in empty tanks and will supply computerized measurement and analysis of tank coating condition. When

used periodically in the same tank, it can determine tank coating variation over time and perform a trend analysis for documentation and maintenance scheduling purposes. Data collected from the ISIS will be fed into existing tank monitoring databases for archival information. The ROPI unit is designed to

swim in full or partially filled seawater tanks to perform a less

automated inspection and can also be used to perform electrical

potential surveys to assess the performance of tank cathodic protection systems. Further development of a fuel certified version

is proposed for evaluation of coatings degradation in compensated fuel and fuel tank inspection. 

Corrosion Control Processes for Ballast Tanks Revamped

The Navy has taken corrosion control to a new level. Through

the utilization of rapid cure coatings in shipboard tanks and voids

the Navy is expected to save more than $1.82B over the next 25

to 30 years. Currently the Navy spends more than $75M annually to coat its tanks and voids using either traditional solventbased epoxy systems (which require repainting every 3-5 years),

or more improved high-solids epoxies. Although the Navy has

made the use of high solids and solvent free coatings for tanks

and void corrosion control a top priority, there are still numerous

cases where documentation changes and or production equipment do not allow the use of these coatings. However, the 

successful utilization of high solids and solvent free epoxy coating

as implemented under the guidance of NAVSEA has resulted in

a cost savings of more than $500M since they were first applied

to a US Navy ship in 1995 (as mentioned earlier in this article).

The “Single Coat Program,” sponsored by ONR, is currently

being conducted through a cooperative effort between the NRL

and NAVSEA to effectively bring new coatings technology to the

fleet to realize new cost savings and to help the Navy significantly improve its operational readiness capabilities. 

The Single Coat program focuses on the use of modified,

commercially available rapid-cure coatings based on polyurethane and epoxy chemistries. The overall goal of the program

is to cut current preservation costs by reducing the required cure

time for freshly applied coatings. The term “single coat” does 

not specifically mean that the coating is applied as one coat, 

but rather that the “entire” coating system, e.g. primer, stripe

(thicker coating on edges), and topcoat, are applied during one

work shift evolution. In terms of timesavings alone, the requirement of waiting consecutive days to apply subsequent coats of

paint will vanish. Under the current preservation protocol,

painting requires anywhere from three days to two weeks,

depending on tank size and geometry. When compounded by

the premature damage caused from contamination of freshly

applied coating and slow curing because of low winter temperatures, the time of a typical tank painting job can extend to more

than twice what was budgeted. 
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 73

Currently, three rapid cure coatings have been demonstrated

on active platforms. These consisted of two polyurethanes and

one epoxy system. The polyurethane systems have a set time of

approximately 15 minutes and can be walked on within 30 minutes. The epoxy system has a set time of approximately one hour,

and can receive foot traffic within three hours. This is a significant improvement over the minimum 4-6 hour set time and 8-

12 hour walk-on time demonstrated by the current solvent

based, high solids and solvent free epoxies employed for corrosion control. All the coatings require the use of plural component (constituents that must be mixed) application equipment.

The equipment meters and delivers the material to the applicator via two distinct methods. In the case of the faster curing

polyurethanes, which have set times of 15 minutes or less, the

coating is mixed directly in the spray gun. 

Regardless of which coating system and supply line/gun configuration was employed, results have been highly successful.

Such success was seen on the very first application, where a

3,500ft2 (inside surface area) tank was completely painted within 45 minutes. Within one hour, normal touch up operations

had commenced, and by the end of that day’s work shift, the

tank was completed. Under the traditional painting process, the

job would have required a minimum of three days. Currently,

NRL plans to demo 19 tanks this year with another 15 to 20 in

2004, and progressively transition the technology from ballast

tanks to other applications, such as potable water tanks,

fuel/compensated fuel tanks, and combined holding transfer

(CHT) tanks. 

Summary

ONR Science and Technology provides a full spectrum of basic

research, applied research, and technology development and

demonstration to solve problems for the Navy and Marine

Corps. These efforts are leading to reduced total ownership

costs; with insertion of new and advanced materials and/or corrosion control technology during design, construction, and service of Naval and Marine Corps systems. This will also enhance

Naval Capabilities by fulfilling Navy and Marine Corps Strategy

for Seapower 21[1] for the current Navy, the Next Navy, and the

Navy after Next.

REFERENCES

[1] Sea Power 21 defines a Navy with three fundamental 

concepts: Sea Shield, Sea Strike, and Sea Basing, enabled by

FORCEnet. Respectively, they enhance America’s ability to

project offensive power, defensive assurance, and operational

independence around the globe. A supporting triad of 

initiatives will develop those core operational concepts: 

Sea Warrior, Sea Trial, and Sea Enterprise. Visit

http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/SeaPower21.asp, the Naval Warfare Development Command’s website, for more information

[2] Sea Enterprise, part of the strategic triad in the Chief of Naval

Operations’ Sea Power 21 vision, seeks to improve organizational alignment, refine requirements, and reinvest savings to buy

the platforms and systems needed to transform our Navy and

deliver increased combat capability. For more information visit

http://www.news.navy.mil

Dr. Alexis I. Kaznoff heads the Materials and Environmental Engineering Group at the Naval Sea Systems Command

(NAVSEA), where his responsibilities include corrosion control and coatings. Prior to his association with NAVSEA, 

Dr. Kaznoff worked for the General Electric Company where he held managerial positions in ceramics and electronic materials, as well as the metallurgy and ceramics laboratory. Dr. Kaznoff is registered as both a metallurgical 

engineer and a quality engineer. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from the University of California

(Berkeley), an MS degree in chemical engineering from the California Institute of Technology, and a PhD in 

metallurgy also from UC(Berkeley).

Mr. Beau Brinckerhoff is a senior materials engineer employed by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). 

He is a certified acquisition professional and has worked as a corrosion technology life cycle manager since 1986.

Mr. Brinckerhoff was awarded a bachelors degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maryland in 1985.

He is active in the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE International) and various professional 

societies. Mr. Brinckerhoff’s office is the corrosion control technical authority for all Navy ships, managing all cradleto-grave corrosion issues.

Mr. Stephen J. Spadafora has more than 26 years of experience with the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

and is an Associate Fellow in NAVAIR’s Fellows Program. He is national leader for NAVAIR’s materials protection

competency which includes corrosion and wear, and is responsible for flight safety and certification of materials 

protection/corrosion technologies used in Naval and Marine Corps aviation. Mr Spadafora has won numerous

awards including a Meritorious Civilian Service Medal and NAVAIR Commander’s FY00 Award for Warfighter

Support. He is a graduate of NAVAIR’s SEMDP Executive Management Program and is a member of the Navy’s

Acquisition Professional Community. He holds a BS in chemical engineering from Drexel University and an MS in 

polymer science and engineering from Lehigh University. 
INTRODUCTION

Moisture-driven degradation of weapon systems and equipment

represents an important cost of ownership issue within the

DOD. Current costs are difficult to establish, but estimates

range between $10 billion and $20 billion annually. [1]

Numerous non-financial effects also exist, the most important

being the reduced readiness and sustainability of these systems

and equipment. There are also environmental consequences,

such as those that result from the use of hazardous chemicals to

treat corrosion.

This paper surveys and summarizes current use of controlled

humidity protection (CHP) within the Department of Defense.

CHP is an extremely effective way to mitigate the effects of corrosion since moisture levels are kept sufficiently low to minimize

water-induced electrochemical reactions. The sidebar at the end

of this article provides background information on the effects of

moisture and relative humidity on weapon systems as well as the

results of various CHP evaluations.

BACKGROUND

Traditional methods of corrosion control are designed to mitigate or alter the effects of corrosion upon items, equipment, or

systems by employing technologies that help counteract the

effects of moisture. CHP takes an opposite approach that seeks

to alter the environment by removing the moisture itself through

control of the relative humidity (RH). The processed air is then

recirculated into or around the item, equipment, or system

being protected. [2, 3] By reducing the RH to a level where

water cannot condense, damaging corrosion mechanisms can be

controlled.

Weapon systems and equipment in storage (such as excess or

retired systems, pre-positioned equipment, and war reserve

materiel) are currently protected to the extent possible. The 

primary concern of this paper, however, is the protection of

weapon systems and equipment in mission-ready status. In this

context, CHP is viewed as a maintenance technology, not a

storage technology.

There are four categories of CHP systems employed within

DOD. The categories differ in a number of characteristics,

including the amount of time the weapon systems or other end

items remain in CHP. Additional characteristics include whether

maintenance requirements are deferred, and also the number of

weapon systems or end items that can be protected by a single

CHP system. The four CHP system categories are long-term

preservation (LTP); modified long-term preservation (MLTP);

operational preservation (OP); and Single Vehicle Environment

Stabilization SystemTM (SVESSTM). [4] 

LTP is used for long-term storage of vehicles and other critical equipment. The storage timeframe for LTP is 1 to 3 years,

with equipment being rotated out of the facility every three

years. LTP facilities are environmentally controlled structures.

While conditions vary somewhat by facility, all LTP facilities

maintain a storage environment below 50% relative humidity

(RH), with some enclosures maintaining as low as 30%RH. The

dry environment slows equipment deterioration rates to the

point that scheduled maintenance on stored equipment may be

deferred up to five years.

MLTP is a variant of LTP which provides all the benefits of

LTP (equipment in MLTP are stored in LTP facilities), but

Andrew Timko and Owen R. Thompson

Logistics Management Institute

McLean, VA

Many of the articles in this issue deal with some type of corrosion prevention technology, where systems and their components are protected by

modifying or enhancing them in some way to be impervious to the effects of their environment. This article turns the question of corrosion

protection inside out: instead of adapting the system to fit the environment, what if the environment were adapted to fit the system? The 

elegance of this technical solution lies in its simplicity. - Editor

Figure 1. CHP Systems.

74 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

M113s in LTP M1 in OP

P-3 in OP MLRS in MLTP SVESS
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 75

allows equipment to be taken out periodically for training 

purposes. The storage timeframe for MLTP ranges from 90 days

to 1 year. Maintenance schedules for MLTP equipment are

based on actual usage (accrued time out of the facility).

OP utilizes humidity preservation techniques for vehicle 

and equipment in active service. It is used to dehumidify and

preserve the enclosed spaces of

vehicles, such as crew compartments and equipment spaces. It

is a highly successful approach

that reduces component failures

and unscheduled maintenance.

In a typical OP configuration,

vehicles and equipment are connected to a dehumidification

apparatus while standing in their

ambient environment. In some

cases, a portable dehumidifier is

brought to the vehicle (such as

the EP-3E and other aircraft). In

other cases, such as armored

vehicles, multiple vehicles are

parked at a facility, where they

are connected via hose into a

central dehumidification system. The primary benefit of OP

is that it may be connected to (or detached from) a given piece

of hardware in minutes, allowing equipment to be pressed into

service on demand, and thus maintain its readiness.

The downside for armored vehicles protected by OP is that

they must drive to and park at a multi-vehicle facility to be preserved. SVESS economically does for these vehicles what OP

Table 1. Characteristics of CHP Systems.

LTP MLTP OP SVESS

Type of CHP system Shelter Shelter External dehumidifier Dehumidifier that replaces

connected to weapon the hatch on a ground

system/end item combat vehicle

Protects the weapon Yes Yes No No

systems’ external 

structure/hull

Protects the weapon Yes Yes Yes Yes

systems’ internal systems

Weapon system See note See note Combat vehicles: 20 1 weapon system

capacity of CHP system Aircraft: 1 or 2

Duration of vehicles 1–3 years 90 days to 1 or more days 1 or more days

in CHP 1 year

Authorization to Yes Yes No No

defer scheduled 

maintenance

Note: Shelters normally range from 5,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. For example, approximately 25 M1 tanks can be placed in a 

10,000 sq. ft. shelter. Shelters are sized to meet the unit’s CHP requirements.

Table 2. Estimates of DOD Systems in CHP.

Service or Type of No. of No. of CHP Estimated CHP

component CHP locations Equipment in CHP systems or shelters system capacity*

Army MLTP 1 Wheeled and tracked vehicles 49 shelters 1,225

ARNG OP 60 M1, BFV, MSE, M109A6, FF radar 293 systems 5,860

ARNG MLTP 79 M1, BFV, M109A6, Avenger, Patriot, FF radar, 129 shelters 3,225

engineering equipment, ROWPU, wheeled vehicles

ARNG LTP/MLTP 9 M1, M113, MLRS, engineering equipment, 40 shelters 1,000

field artillery, other miscellaneous equipment

ARNG LTP 5 M1, BFV, MLRS, ROWPU 5 shelters 125

ARNG SVESS 2 M1, M109A6 8 systems 8

Army Reserve MLTP 3 Engineering equipment and miscellaneous 3 shelters 75

(USAR) wheeled vehicles

Navy OP 6 EP-3E aircraft 16 systems 32 aircraft

Navy MLTP 2 Miscellaneous aircraft components 3 shelters 75

Navy MLTP 4 Miscellaneous aircraft support equipment 4 shelters 100

Navy MLTP 3 Miscellaneous equipment, including radio, electronic, 13 shelters 325

and ship support

USAF OP 1 VC-25 (Air Force 1) 1 shelter 2 aircraft

USMC OP 2 Light attack and amphibious assault vehicles 4 systems 80

USMC MLTP 2 Miscellaneous wheeled and tracked vehicles 17 shelters 425

USMC MLTP 2 AV-8B Harrier and V-22 Osprey 4 shelters 100

USMC MLTP 3 Metrological measuring sets/Fire Finder Radar 3 shelters 75

* This information attempts to “normalize” the CHP capacity of existing LTP and MLTP shelters. Because the shelters vary in size (normally ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 sq. ft.) and

because the user can vary the type and quantities of individual weapon systems or end items inside the shelters, it is impossible to precisely list the systems currently in CHP. To illustrate the

approximate CHP capacity, however, we assumed each shelter is 10,000 sq. ft. and all of the vehicles in CHP are M1s (which require ~400 sq. ft. each). The numbers identified represent

the approximate number of M1s that could be accommodated in existing CHP shelters (if they average 10,000. sq. ft. each). Other assumptions are as follows:

• For OP CHP on-ground combat systems, each system can accommodate 20 vehicles; therefore, that is the quantity listed.

• For OP CHP on aircraft, each system can support two aircraft; therefore, that is the quantity listed.

• For SVESS, each CHP system can support one weapon system.
does for aircraft. It consists of a small dehumidification unit that

preserves the environment of crew compartments in many types

of armored vehicles. These units are portable, can be mounted

and secured into the crew hatch, run on household electricity,

and can be transported with the vehicle. SVESS benefits fielded

combat systems by reducing their maintenance costs. Figure 1

depicts examples of the four CHP categories and Table 1 identifies their primary characteristics.

CHP has been extensively evaluated and is now widely

applied by many nations as a maintenance technology for operational weapon systems. Within DOD, the Army National

Guard (ARNG) has been in the forefront in the application of

CHP to its weapon systems and end items.

CURRENT EFFORTS

Each of the Services is using CHP to protect a segment of their

weapon system inventories. For example:

• The Army has tracked and wheeled vehicles in nearly 50

MLTP shelters in Qatar.

• The Navy has 16 EP-3Es in OP at 6 different locations.

• The Air Force has its two VC-25s (Air Force One) in OP at

Andrews AFB.

• The Marine Corps has assault vehicles in OP at Marine Corps

Logistics Base, Albany.

Overall, DOD’s current CHP capacity can protect roughly

6,000 weapon systems in OP and nearly 7,000 weapon systems

in MLTP/LTP.[5] The majority of the weapon systems (and end

items) in CHP belong to the ARNG – approximately 98% of

the weapon systems in OP and about 64% of the weapon systems in MLTP/LTP. Table 2 presents, by Service or component,

a summary of CHP implementations. [6]

Separate sections detailing the ARNG and the other Service

CHP programs follow. The ARNG is presented separately

because they possess the majority of CHP systems.

Army National Guard

By any measure, the ARNG possesses the most significant CHP

capability within DOD. About 500 CHP systems or shelters are

currently in place at nearly 150 locations, with the capability to

76 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

Figure 2. ARNG M1s in OP.

The corrosive effects of moisture are well known. A 1935 British study determined that the rate

of corrosion of iron and steel changes above 50% relative humidity (RH) from a linear to an exponential progression.[1] More recent research identified the relationship between RH and corrosion

in both high-strength low-alloy and low-carbon steels, finding that the rates of corrosion at high

humidity are 100 to 2,000 times greater than at lower humidity.[2] Other studies have found 

similar results for nonferrous metals, including brass, copper, nickel, and zinc.[3] 

Less apparent, but just as serious, is moisture degradation of avionics and electronic systems. For

example, corrosion on gold plating used in electronics increases from 5 corrosion attacks per

square centimeter at 40% RH to more than 120 attacks at 85% RH – a 24-fold increase. Further,

a typical resistance value for nylon wire insulation at 10% RH is 1014 ohms. At 90% RH, that

value drops to 107 ohms. [4] This more than million-fold decrease in resistance can contribute to

reliability problems in the extensive wiring of modern electronic systems.

In general, corrosion remains a significant problem until RH is reduced to less than 45%. 

But it should be noted that very low relative humidity, less than 25%, is also problematic, causing

damage such as the cracking of seals.

Evaluations

Within DOD, all of the Services have evaluated CHP on some of their weapon systems, including Army Cobra helicopters in Europe, Navy EP-3Es on Guam, Air Force F-4G and F-16C 

fighters in Europe, and Marine Corps T/AV-8Bs in North Carolina. In the early 1990s the 

US Navy, under the aegis of the DOD Foreign Weapons Evaluation Office, evaluated CHP with

operational aircraft. This 6-month test on A-6E aircraft showed a 21% increase in avionics mean

time between failures (MTBF) and associated material savings. 

Evaluating

Moisture, Relative

Humidity, and the

Effects of CHP
protect more than 10,000 weapon systems and end items. At the

completion of their CHP fielding period (estimated to be in

2007), the ARNG expects to have 25% of their total ground

fleet (that is eligible for protection) in some form of CHP. In

addition, of the combat vehicles and mobile subscriber equipment (MSE) that can be preserved via the OP systems, 75% of

that total will be in an OP line. As an example, Figure 2 shows

M1 tanks in OP.

Nearly 500 CHP systems are currently fielded by the ARNG.

Figure 3 illustrates the categories of weapon systems and end

items that are being protected. Figure 4 depicts the number of

ARNG CHP systems by category – current and planned –

through 2007.

The benefits to the ARNG were recently calculated under

procedures established by the Army’s Cost and Economic

Analysis Center. An economic analysis of their CHP program

identified a potential for benefits in the range of $1.2 billion

during the economic life of that program (through FY07).

Empirical data showed a 9-to-1 benefit-to-investment ratio

could be expected. [7] The economic benefits (cost avoidance)

are derived from reduced maintenance hours and spares.

Additional benefits that cannot yet be quantified include

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 77

Figure 3. Weapon System and End Item Mix in ARNG CHP. Figure 4. ARNG CHP Systems by Category.

Combat Vehicles

17%

M1A1

16%

M1/BFV

10%

M1

2%

M1A1/BFV

3%

MSE

15%

Wheel/Mix

19%

Other

15%

Avenger

3%

OP MLTP MLTP/LTP LTP SVESS

500

400

300

200

100

0

No. of CHP Systems

Current CHP Systems Planned CHP Systems

Many foreign defense forces currently use CHP as a maintenance technology for their operational weapon systems. An industry

analysis of eleven European defense forces [5] revealed that the majority have instituted CHP technology in both operational and

longer-term applications. Nine nations have applied CHP to at least some of their aircraft, while seven have applied CHP to some

of their ground combat vehicles. This acceptance is highlighted by Germany’s decision to apply the technology to all operational

military aircraft. CHP is also used on Canadian P-3 and CF-18 aircraft, Australian Blackhawk helicopters, and NATO Airborne

Warning and Control System (AWACS) E-3 aircraft.

Benefits

The tangible benefits of CHP as a maintenance technology, as identified by these evaluations, can include reduced costs of ownership for weapon systems and equipment, and, at the same time, increased readiness and sustainability. For example, the Swedish

Defense Force, after applying CHP as a maintenance technology, reported an overall aircraft readiness increase of 5 % – the equivalent of an additional aircraft being permanently assigned to each fighter squadron – and an investment payback of 2.4 months. A US

Naval Audit Service report on CHP indicated tests by the Navy and foreign governments showed that dehumidification has been

successfully applied to operational aircraft. [6] The report added that test data and user experience indicate CHP would increase mission capability rates by 4 to 6%, reduce maintenance hours per flight hour by 4 to 22%, and increase avionics MTBF by 7 to 30%.

REFERENCES 

[1] Naval Audit Service, Audit Report 025-95, Dehumidification of In-Service Aircraft, February 22, 1995, p. 10

[2] Dry Air Technology for Defense Applications, First ed., Munters Incentive Group, Cambridge, UK

[3] Application of Dry Air Systems, Directorate of Materiel, Royal Netherlands Army, System Major Equipment System Group,

Communication Systems Division, The Hague, May 1994, p. 5

[4] Ibid. p. 6

[5] Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

[6] Naval Audit Service, Dehumidification of In-Service Aircraft, July 1995, p. 9
78 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

increased readiness, reduction of maintenance backlog, and

reduced transportation costs.

Other DOD Services and Components

The ARNG’s CHP program and the active Army’s 49 MLTP

shelters in Qatar account for approximately 90% of current

CHP applications within DOD. While each of the Services is

currently employing CHP to protect weapon systems or end

items, CHP is targeted to specific, and relatively limited,

requirements. Table 3 depicts the principle DOD weapon systems and end items (excluding the ARNG) currently protected

in specific CHP systems/shelters. Figure 5 illustrates the Marine

Corps V-22s in OP.

Known future initiatives include OP lines for all LAVs in the

Marine Corps’ light attack reconnaissance battalions (Camp

Pendleton, CA; Camp Lejuene, NC; Camp Williams, UT;

Okinawa, Japan; and Camp Fuji, Japan) and continuing expansion of CHP within the Army Reserve.

It should be noted that each Service has active ongoing corrosion protection and control (CPC) programs that consider

CHP. For example, the Marine Corps explicitly names CHP as

one of its three CPC focus areas (along with its corrosion prevention products and materials program, and its corrosion control and coating program).[8] And the Naval Air Systems

Command (NAVAIR) policy states “Dehumidification...is the

preferred method of preservation.” [9]

There is also considerable interchange of CPC information

(e.g., new technologies, lessons learned) among the Services. For

example, the Air Force’s Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board

was expanded to include other rotary wing aviation users (Army,

Navy, and Coast Guard). The Joint Technology Exchange Group

and the Army’s annual Aviation Control Summit also include

representatives from all Services. Finally, the OSD-sponsored

Virtual Corrosion Control Consortium (V-3C) is a promising

venue for exchanging CPC information.

In general, Service CPC focal points are very aware of CHP

technology and its potential applications, and they consider

CHP an important tool in their CPC toolbox. In addition, the

consensus is that there may be potential applications within the

Services that have not been fully exploited by CHP primarily

because of funding limitations.

Figure 5. USMC V-22s in OP at New River, NC.

Table 3. Principle DOD CHP Applications (Excluding the ARNG).

Service Protection type Location Weapon systems and equipment CHP shelters or aircraft

Army MLTP Qatar Wheeled and tracked vehicles 49 shelters

USAR MLTP Fort Dix, NJ Engineering equipment 1 shelter

USAR MLTP Fort McCoy, WI Engineering equipment 1 shelter

USAR MLTP Spinelli Barracks, Germany Miscellaneous wheeled vehicles 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP North Island, CA Miscellaneous aircraft components 2 shelters

Navy MLTP NAS Jacksonville, FL Miscellaneous aircraft components 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP NAS Atlanta, GA Aircraft MSE 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP NAS Belle Chase, LA Aircraft MSE 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP NAS Andrews, MD Aircraft MSE 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP NAS Brunswick, ME Aircraft MSE 1 shelter 

Navy MLTP Charleston, SC Radio/electronic equipment 6 shelters

Navy MLTP JRTC, Ft. Worth, TX Miscellaneous equipment 6 shelters

Navy OP NAS Whidbey Island, WA EP-3E 3 aircraft

Navy OP Bahrain EP-3E 2 aircraft

Navy OP Greece EP-3E 3 aircraft

Navy OP Spain EP-3E 5 aircraft

Navy OP Misawa, Japan EP-3E 1 aircraft

Navy OP Kadena, Japan EP-3E 2 aircraft

Navy MLTP Sasebo, Japan Miscellaneous ship support equipment 1 shelter 

USAF OP Andrews AFB, MD VC-25 (Air Force 1) 2 aircraft

USMC OP MCLB Albany, GA LAV and AAV 2 shelters

USMC OP Camp Lejeune, NC LAV 2 shelters

USMC OP/MLTP MCAS New River, NC V-22 Osprey 1 shelter 

USMC MLTP Camp Pendleton, CA MMS/fire finder radar 1 shelter 

USMC MLTP MCLB Albany, GA Miscellaneous wheeled and tracked vehicles 15 shelters

USMC MLTP MCAS Cherry Point, NC AV-8B Harriers 3 shelters

USMC MLTP Camp Lejuene, NC Miscellaneous wheeled vehicles 2 shelters

USMC MLTP JRTC, Ft. Worth, TX MMS/fire finder radar 1 shelter 

USMC MLTP Okinawa, Japan MMS/fire finder radar 1 shelter
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 79

Mr. Andrew Timko is a Research Fellow at the Logistics Management Institute. He has accomplished a number of

research efforts authoring reports on a wide range of subjects including: materiel readiness, deferred maintenance,

dehumidification, logistics metrics, automatic identification technology, and source of repair selection methodology.

Formerly an Air Force logistics officer, Mr. Timko previously held a number of DOD positions including: Chief of

International Logistics and Engineering in the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of Logistics for the Air

National Guard. He received a BS degree in commerce from Duquesne University, an MBA from the University of

Utah, and is a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Owen (Dick) Thompson is an Adjunct Research Fellow in the Logistics Management Institute’s Materiel

Management Group, where he develops policy, procedures and responsibilities related to logistics engineering

processes for the Department of Defense. Mr. Thompson has more than thirty years of commercial and government

logistics and engineering experience. He has an MS in aerospace engineering and a BS in civil engineering, has

acquired certification from the Society of Logistics Engineers as a Certified Professional Logistician (CPL), and holds

an FAA Commercial Pilot rating. 

CONCLUSION

Each of the Services is currently protecting some weapon systems

and other end items using humidity-controlling technology.

They are also actively pursuing other control prevention and control initiatives. However, programmatic and technical issues have

precluded broader DOD CHP implementation, despite the

known benefits. Programmatic issues range from the certification

process for authorizing the use of a new piece of equipment on a

weapon system to the procurement process that actually gets the

new equipment item into the hands of the user (although recent

Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] Phase III contract

revisions have virtually eliminated this hurdle). In addition, these

obstacles encompass nearly the entire planning, programming,

and budgeting process. Because most of the benefits of CHP do

not occur instantaneously, advocates face the challenge of

resourcing initiatives without immediate results. Technical obstacles cover a number of issues, (including supportability questions

generally unrelated to the weapon systems) such as utility (power)

availability; the design, operation, and safety of the dehumidifiers

themselves; and staffing implications.

While not discounting the above issues, the most significant

implementation issues may be the Services’ operational requirements and logistics concepts that may not lend themselves to a

wider adoption of CHP – particularly in the operational protection category. Some of the factors that may limit the use of CHP

in operational equipment include:

• Fighter aircraft canopies remaining open while parked to minimize avionics heat build-up.

• Cargo aircraft entrance doors that are frequently opened and

closed to allow for maintenance activities.

• Additional equipment (and power requirements) on the flight

line.

• Deployability of CHP equipment.

• Guidance (such as the need to “train like you fight”).

It is essential however, that CHP remain in the Services’ CPC

arsenal so that it can be fully exploited wherever appropriate.

The potential for a 9-to-1 return on investment (based on the recent economic analysis of the ARNG’s CHP program) and likelihood of increased weapon system readiness and sustainability

would appear to justify the examination and resolution of potential implementation issues. With the establishment of the DOD

Office for Corrosion Policy and Oversight, the timing may be

right for DOD as a whole to reexamine the capabilities and benefits of CHP as part of a long-term investment strategy to protect existing and emerging weapon systems.

REFERENCES

[1] General Accounting Office Report entitled “Defense

Management Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and

Increase Readiness,” GAO-03-753, July 2003

[2] US Navy, NAVAIR Technical Manual 15-01-500, Section I

(Introduction), pp. 6-1 and 6-2, Section II (Static Dehumidification), p. 3-2

[3] Within the Army, the acronym CHP refers to controlled

humidity preservation. Other Services may use different terms to

describe the controlled humidity protection system.

[4] Single Vehicle Environment Stabilization System (SVESS) is

a trademark of Logis-Tech, Inc.

[5] Calculation of the estimates is explained at the end of Table 2

[6] Primary data sources were the Army National Guard, LogisTech, Inc., and CALIBRE Systems, Inc.

[7] Controlled Humidity Preservation Program, Mid-Life Cycle

Economic Analysis, “Executive Summary,” CALIBRE Systems,

Inc., February 2003

[8] MCO 4790.18A, Corrosion Prevention and Control (CPAC)

program, December 3, 2002, pp. 2–3

[9] OPNAV 4790.2H, The Naval Aviation Maintenance

Program, Volume II, Chapter 8, June 2, 2001
80 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4

New! AMPT-31 Polyaniline Coatings 

for Corrosion Prevention (2003)

The use of the conductive polymer polyaniline as a corrosion preventative coating for metals is a new and emerging technology. Coating metals with dispersed polyaniline works to shift the corrosion potential of the

metal towards that of the noble region and to form thin metallic oxide

layers on the metal surface. As a result, it is many times more difficult for

corrosion to attack the metal, displaying an oxide passivation layer formation more typical of aluminum. Furthermore, conductive coatings

change the corrosion potential of the entire metal surface, so damaged

areas where the coating has been worn off, such as scratches, are still

resistant to corrosion.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $50.00 US

AMPT-12 Corrosion Predictive Modeling 

for Aging Aircraft (1999)

Budgetary constraints prevent acquiring new aircraft while encouraging

life extension of existing aircraft far beyond the design lives. This critical

review and technology assessment highlights the significant and innovative aspects of the US Air Force Program to develop a predictive model

for corrosion prevention and maintenance in complex structures. This

program is a major step forward in the rather complex task of modeling

corrosion and predicting the life of corrodible structures with any engineering relevance. The principles employed in this report to generate predictive capability are generic and applicable to a variety of components

and structures.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $50.00 US 

AMPT-15 Life Prediction and Performance Assurance

of Structural Materials in Corrosive Environments

(1999)

Life prediction of structural components is vitally important to safe and

cost effective operation of any system in which the materials are susceptible to environmental degradation. Performance assurance which is

closely related to life prediction is equally important to ensure that the

system will operate as per design for the duration of its life. This report

presents a panoramic view of this field by highlighting the variety of current approaches, identifying the limitations, and discussing directions for

future efforts.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $100.00 US

AMPT-1 Oxidation and Corrosion 

of Intermetallic Alloys (1996)

This report provides researchers and development engineers with essential

information on intermetallic alloys for high temperature. The information

will enable users to make judicious choices for their needs including initial properties but more importantly, by enabling them to estimate the

performance in long-time use at elevated temperature and under adverse

environmental conditions. It provides an overview of intermetallic processing, structural and mechanical properties and applications; covers the

behavior and endurance of intermetallics at high temperature and under

oxidizing conditions; describes corrosion and oxidation phenomena at

intermediate temperatures; focuses on one of the “Achilles” heels of many

intermetallics, “pesting”, and corrosion and corrosion embrittlement that

can occur at ambient temperatures; and covers ambient temperature

aqueous corrosion and corrosion sensitive embrittlement properties.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $136.00 US

AMP282 Corrosion in DOD Systems: 

Data Collection and Analysis - Phase I (1996)

A review of the corrosion factors affecting the operation and maintenance of DOD systems. Specifically investigated were the C-130

Aircraft, H-46 Helicopter, and the High Mobility Multi-Wheeled

Vehicle (HMMWV). This program was intended to examine, correlate,

and expand the materials-performance information from the extensive

database maintained by the MIAC with additional information acquired

directly from responsible personnel involved in acquisition, operations,

and maintenance. Also, the intentions were to gather information in an

unbiased manner to determine what and how much data were available

and how these data were being used in the acquisition and operational

phases of the life of DOD systems. In addition, several examples from

the commercial sector were to be used to make some qualitative comparisons of procedures and methods used to combat the effects of corrosion on comparable systems.

Approved for release to GOVT. AGENCY & CONTRACTORS ONLY

Price: $75.00 US (No foreign sales)

AMP198 Corrosion of Electrical Connectors (1986)

This report describes the various forms of corrosion, how connectors are

susceptible to corrosion, approaches for mitigating corrosion, and maintenance procedures that can minimize corrosion.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $85.00 US

AMP248 Corrosion of Metals 

in Marine Environments (1986)

This report, a companion volume to AMP222, “Corrosion of Metals in

the Atmosphere,” provides assistance in the selection of materials for

equipment or facilities to be used in the ocean environment. Before

reviewing the corrosion behavior of the individual materials, the factors

which affect their behavior in seawater and in the marine atmosphere are

reviewed. The report is based on a review of selected literature items, discussions with marine technologists, and information derived from research

programs in the marine corrosion field. Reports dealing primarily with

corrosion results & deterioration behavior in actual ocean environments

rather than in laboratory simulations have provided the most reliable

information. However, numerous references were noted to studies conducted using 3 to 3 1/2 percent sodium chloride solutions, particularly

those involving stress corrosion cracking and fatigue crack growth. While

not equivalent, for most purposes, these references have been included.

UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION Price: $175.00 US

NACE Item #45201 NACE Introductory

Corrosion Training Manual for

Operator Qualification Training 

for the Pipeline Industry (2002)

This training manual is designed to assist pipeline

operating companies and contractors in meeting training requirements to comply with the Pipeline

Operator Qualification Rule. It is a field handbook comprised of four

chapters covering atmospheric, underground and internal corrosion,

cathodic protection and pipeline coatings. Each chapter contains modules that are aligned with covered tasks included in many operating companies’ OQ Plans. The manual contains instructive text, descriptive

graphics, photos, self-assessment questions for each module and detailed,

“how to” procedures for performing covered tasks identified in the

NACE OQ Covered task chart. Assessments that accompany covered

tasks are available from the NACE website. (8 1/2” x 11”, spiral bound,

323 pages, figures, tables, photographs, ISBN 1-57590-141-2.)

AMPTIAC Products

AMPTIAC offers numerous publications in a wide range of technical areas. For further information or to order, contact Gina Nash at

(315) 339-7080 or via e-mail at gnash@alionscience.com.

AMPTIAC is providing NACE International and ASM International product information 

as a courtesy to our readers and those professional organizations.

NACE Products

Please visit http://www.nace.org or call 281-228-6223 for more information on these and many other NACE products.
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 81

NACE Item #37581 Guide to the Use 

of Materials in Waters (2003)

By Michael Davies and P.J.B. Scott 

Guide to the Use of Materials in Waters is an impartial,

state of the art guide to the use of materials in potable

and fresh waters, seawater and industrial waters.

Expertise and extensive experience in materials

(Michael Davies) and water (P.J.B. Scott) combine to provide a unique

guide for successful decision making in oil & gas, petroleum refining,

chemical processing, shipping and boating, pulp & paper, power utility

plants, coastal civil engineering, water supply and treatment industries. It

is a valuable reference source for engineers, managers, plant operators

and inspectors involved in materials decisions, corrosion prevention and

troubleshooting equipment and installation in aqueous environments. It

is also invaluable as an industrial training tool and for university level

courses in materials engineering, corrosion and process engineering. (8”

x 10”, softbound, approx. 650 pages, figures, tables, charts, photos, references, and index. ISBN: 1-57590-147-1.) 

NACE Item #21302-SG (electronic version)

NACE Item #21302 (printed version)

MR0175-2003 Metals for Sulfide Stress Cracking and

Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Sour Oilfield

Environments

Presents metallic material requirements to provide resistance to sulfide

stress cracking (SSC) and/or stress corrosion cracking (SCC) for petroleum production, drilling, gathering and flow line equipment, and field

processing facilities to be used in hydrogen sulfide (H2S)-bearing hydrocarbon service. The standard includes categories of alloys and listings of

some individual alloys, and a “roadmap” showing where requirements for

various materials and applications can be found. The revision emphasizes

the use of corrosion-resistant alloys (CRAs). Alloy categories permit a

broad-based description of similar alloys, allowing the use of materials

that are not specifically listed in MR0175 if they fit into a category. The

standard applies to all components of equipment exposed to sour environments, where failure by SSC or SCC would (1) prevent the equipment from being restored to an operating condition while continuing to

contain pressure, (2) compromise the integrity of the pressure-containment system, and/or (3) prevent the basic function of the equipment

from occurring.

Materials Performance (Monthly Journal)

Published monthly, Materials Performance (MP)

is world’s largest circulation journal dedicated

exclusively to corrosion prevention and control.

The journal presents peer-reviewed articles offering solutions to common corrosion problems in

the marine, underground, atmospheric and industrial environments. Each issue contains information in four main topic areas: coatings & linings, cathodic and

anodic protection, chemical treatment and materials selection and

design.

Corrosion (Monthly Journal)

Corrosion is the world’s largest monthly permanent

record of progress in corrosion control and prevention

with more than 50 years of published research from

engineers and scientists to draw upon. Its two sections,

Corrosion Science and Corrosion Engineering, provide

distinct platforms for discussion of corrosion theory and

practical applications. Corrosion presents more than

120 peer-reviewed articles annually from leading

authors around the world.

ASM International Products

Please visit http://www.asminternational.org/bookstore or call 1-800-336-5152 (US) or 1-440-338-5151 (Outside US) for more

information on these and many other ASM products.

ASM Item#: 06494G

ASM Handbook Volume 13 Part A Corrosion:

Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection (2003)

ASM International is pleased to announce the publication of

the updated Handbook Volume on Corrosion. ASM

Handbook Volume 13- Part A Corrosion: Fundamentals,

Testing and Protection, concentrates on these three aspects.

This new Volume devotes over 900 pages to these topics, as

compared to about 500 pages in the 1987 Corrosion

Handbooks. An entirely new section is devoted to the application of

Fundamentals of Corrosion for Constructive Purposes. Another new section, Tools for the Corrosionist, addresses Conventions, Analytical

Instruments, Material Science, Statistics, and Information Sources and

Databases. (The second, ASM Handbook Volume 13- Part B Corrosion:

Alloys, Industries and Environments, will focus on specific material

groups and specific environments, and will be available in 2005.)

Price: $210, ASM Member: $168

ASM Item#: 06691G 

Corrosion: Understanding the Basics (2000)

This new book presents a practical “how to” approach to understanding

and solving the problems of corrosion of structural materials. Although

it is written mainly for those having a limited technical background in

corrosion, it also provides more experienced engineers

with a useful overview of the principles of corrosion and

can be used as a general guide for developing a corrosioncontrol program. Includes identification of the various

forms of corrosion, critical factors leading to a specific type

of corrosion, necessary preventive steps to eliminate or

reduce corrosion damage, protective-coating selection,

corrosion characteristics of common structural materials, corrosion-testing programs, and failure-analysis procedures.

Price: $141, ASM Member: $113 

CASTI Corrosion Series

Now, available exclusively from ASM, the CASTI Corrosion Series! 

Corrosion Control, 2nd Edition By S.A. Bradford • 2001 • 550 pages

Item#: 06698G Price: $98, ASM Member: $79

Handbook of Cladding Technology, Second Edition By L. Smith and

M. Celant • 2000 • 265 pages

Item#: 06837G Price: $150, ASM Member: $120

Handbook of Stainless Steels and Nickel Alloys, 2nd Edition Edited by

S. Lamb • 2002 • 513 Pages 

Item#: 06699G Price: $150, ASM Member: $120

Practical Handbook of Corrosion Control in Soils By S.A. Bradford •

2000 • 410 Pages 

Item#: 06478G Price: $150, ASM Member: $120
NAMIS Focus Areas:

Conferences And Workshops

This area contains modules on conferences and workshops sponsored by 

organizations such as the DOD, DOE, and NASA. Topic areas include high 

temperature polymers, aircraft structures, high temperature composites, and 

electromagnetic window materials.

Material Property Database

This area contains specialized databases. The Infrared Materials Database is 

currently available.

Virtual Libraries

This area features a variety of informational libraries containing electronic 

technical reports addressing research results and lessons learned. Information is

currently offered on thermal protection systems, cryogenic tanks, advanced 

turbine engine development, and the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) initiative. 

http://namis.alionscience.com
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 83

AMPTIAC Directory

Government Personnel

TECHNICAL MANAGER/COTR

Dr. Lewis E. Sloter II

Staff Specialist, Materials & Structures

ODUSD(S&T)/Weapons Systems

1777 North Kent St., Suite 9030

Arlington, VA 22209-2110

(703) 588-7418, Fax: (703) 588-7560

Email: lewis.sloter@osd.mil

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POC

Melinda Rozga, DTIC-AI

8725 John J. Kingman Road, STE 0944

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

(703) 767-9120, Fax: (703) 767-9119

Email: mrozga@dtic.mil

ASSOCIATE COTRS

ORGANIC STRUCTURAL MATERIALS & 

ORGANIC MATRIX COMPOSITES

Roger Griswold

Division Chief

US Air Force

AFRL/MLS

2179 Twelfth St., Bldg. 652

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7702

(937) 656-6052, Fax: (937) 255-2945

Email: roger.griswold@wpafb.af.mil

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

& SPECIAL FUNCTION MATERIALS

Dr. James Murday

Naval Research Laboratory

4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Code 6100

Washington, DC 20375-5320

(202) 767-3026, Fax: (202) 404-7139

Email: murday@ccsalpha3.nrl.navy.mil

DIRECTOR, AMPTIAC

David Rose

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7023, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: drose@alionscience.com

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AMPTIAC

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315)-339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

TECHNICAL INQUIRY SERVICES MANAGER

David Brumbaugh

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7113, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: dbrumbaugh@alionscience.com

Alion Science and Technology Personnel

CALL : 315-339-7090

EMAIL : amptiac_inquiries@alionscience.com

O R

VISIT : http ://amptiac.alionscience.com/Help/inquiry.html

AMPTIAC is the custodian of the DOD’s corrosion research and data.

We have more than 23,000 documents in our library related to corrosion.

We can help you solve nagging corrosion problems.
http :// iac.dtic.mil/amptiac/

Prst Std

US Postage 

Paid

Utica, NY

Permit No. 566

AMPTIAC

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

Free Subscription

http://amptiac.alionscience.com/subscribe/

Special Issue: 

Beating Corrosion

AMPTIAC Quarterly. Vol. 7, Number 4 Special Issue: Corrosion

Inquiry Line/Ask the Experts

315.399.7090

AMPTIAC is the custodian of the DOD’s 

corrosion research and data.

We have more than 23,000 documents 

in our library related to corrosion.

We can help you solve nagging corrosion problems.