REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

28-03-2012

2. REPORT TYPE

 FINAL

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

April 2000 – March 2012

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Non-Chromate Aluminum Pretreatments 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

WP-200025

William Nickerson* and Craig Matzdorf 5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT 

Naval Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR) NUMBER

48066 Shaw Road, Building 2188

Patuxent River, MD 20670

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

ACRONYM(S)

 ESTCP

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 17D08 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT 

Alexandria, VA 22350 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Distribution Statement A – Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

*Current Address: Office of Naval Research, Code 35, 875 N. Randolph St., Room 1143B

 Arlington, VA 22203

14. ABSTRACT

Aluminum finishing in Department of Defense applications utilizes chromate chemistries for 

anodizing, anodic sealing, and pretreatment (both for conversion coating aluminum substrates 

and for treating aluminum-based coatings deposited on steel). The most ubiquitous use of 

chromate coatings is in the conversion coating of aluminum alloys for use as-deposited or 

prior to organic coating application. These coatings are very thin, inexpensive to produced, 

and can be applied by immersion, spray and wipe techniques. However, chromate conversion 

coatings contain hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen. National and international 

regulations are restricting the use of this material. This report presents the results of 

laboratory and field tests to demonstrate and validate several non-chromate aluminum 

pretreatments. All of the alternatives were aqueous solutions designed to deposit a 

conversion coating on aluminum alloy substrates to enhance paint adhesion and painted 

corrosion performance. Some of these alternatives are currently being implemented on several 

weapons systems. 15. SUBJECT TERMS

Chromate, hexavalent chromium, pretreatment, aluminum alloys

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

William Nickerson

a. REPORT

 U

b. ABSTRACT

 U

c. THIS PAGE

 U

 SAR 275 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

 703-501-6226

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18






































Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 9.6 8.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.2 8.2 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9Bi‐K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9AC ‐ 131 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.3 8.0 3Chemidize 727ND 10.0 9.8 9.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 6.4 4.8 3Oxsilan Al‐0500 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9Sanchem 7000 9.6 8.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.2 0.6 0.0 0

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 7.2 6PreKote 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.2 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.2 0.0 0

Average Corrosion Creep (ASTM

D 1654 ‐ 5 panel) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with MIL‐PRF‐23377 Type I, Class C2 Primer / MIL‐P

All Alloy Average OK:

Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 9.4 9.4 8.8 8.8 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1

Bi‐K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 9.6 8.2 10.0 10.0 8.4 6.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.4 9.0 9AC ‐ 131 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9Chemidize 727ND 9.8 9.8 5.8 4.2 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 6.8 6

AA2219

AA5083 AA2219

PretreatmentPretreatment

AA2024 AA7075AA2024 AA7075

AA5083

BEST: Bi‐K, Al‐500, A5700, A1200S GOOD: TCP, AC‐131 FAIR: 727ND, PreKote 

Chemidize 727ND 9.8 9.8 5.8 4.2 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 6.8 6Oxsilan Al‐0500 9.6 9.6 9.2 9.0 7.6 6.6 5.8 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.4 9.2 9.2 9

Sanchem 7000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.4 6.4 6.4 0.0 0

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9PreKote 10.0 10.0 9.6 6.2 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.4 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.6 3.4 0

Average Corrosion Creep (ASTM

D 1654 ‐ 5 panel) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with MIL‐PRF‐85582 Type I, Class C1 Primer / MIL‐P

All Alloy Average

Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 9.8 9.4 8.2 8.8 8.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.4 9.4 9.4 8Bi‐K Aklimate 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.4 7.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

AC ‐ 131 5.3 5.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Chemidize 727ND 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.4 5.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Oxsilan Al‐0500 7.6 7.2 5.0 0.0 9.2 9.0 9.0 6.6 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0

Sanchem 7000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 8.8 5.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

TCP 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.0 9.6 9.2 8.6 8.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 8PreKote 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 8.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Average Corrosion Creep (ASTM

D 1654 ‐ 5 panel) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with MIL‐PRF‐85582 Type I, Class

N Primer / MIL‐PR

All Alloy Average

Pretreatment

AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219

FAIR: FAIL: AC‐131, 

BEST: A1200S, AC‐131, TCP, A5700 GOOD: Bi‐K FAIR: Al‐500 OK: PreKote, 727ND POOR

BEST: A1200S, TCP GOOD: A5700 OK: POOR: Al‐500
Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 6.6 2.8 9.8 9.8 9.4 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 7.8 6.4 3.4 8.6 8.6 7.4 6.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.4 4.0 0.0 0

Bi‐K Aklimate 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 9.4 6.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

AC ‐ 131 5.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Chemidize 727ND 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Oxsilan Al‐0500 5.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.8 7.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Sanchem 7000 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.8 9.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0TCP 10.0 10.0 9.2 6.6 10.0 10.0 9.0 2.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.6 1.4 0.0 0

PreKote 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 8.8 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Average Corrosion Creep (ASTM

D 1654 ‐ 5 panel) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with MIL‐DTL‐53030 Primer / MIL‐DTL‐53039 Type I 

All Alloy Average OK:

Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 7.2 0.0 9.8 9.6 4.0 0.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 9.2 7.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 7.6 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 0Bi‐K Aklimate 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.6 7.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

AC ‐ 131 9.5 9.0 6.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 8.4 7.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

FAIL: AC‐131, 727ND

AA5083 AA2219

Pretreatment

AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219

Pretreatment

AA2024 AA7075

BEST: GOOD: FAIR: POOR: A1200S, A5700, TCP

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 8.4 7.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Oxsilan Al‐0500 9.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0

Sanchem 7000 7.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.6 9.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

TCP 10.0 9.8 6.0 4.4 10.0 10.0 9.4 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0PreKote 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.6 5.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Average Corrosion Creep (ASTM

D 1654 ‐ 5 panel) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with MIL‐DTL‐53022 Primer / MIL‐DTL‐53039 Type I 

All Alloy Average BEST: GOOD: FAIR: OK: POOR: A5700, TCP FAIL: Al‐500, AC‐131, A1200S, Bi‐K, 
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr 8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8

Alodine 1200S (Control) 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6Alodine 5200/5700 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.3 9.2 8.8 9.7 9.5 9.3 9.2Bi‐K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.3 8.5 3.0 2.4 1.8 0.7 7.6 7.4 7.0 6.3

AC ‐ 131 9.8 9.8 9.3 8.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 5.7 4.9 2.5 2.3 8.5 8.3 7.3 6.8

Chemidize 727ND 9.4 9.1 8.5 7.8 9.1 9.1 5.7 5.2 3.0 2.4 1.3 0.7 7.2 6.8 5.1 4.6

Oxsilan Al‐0500 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.2 8.9 8.6 7.0 7.4 6.5 6.0 4.0 8.8 8.4 8.1 6.9Sanchem 7000 8.5 7.2 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.6 2.4 2.4 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.1 5.7 4.6 2.9 2.8

TCP 9.5 9.3 8.8 8.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.0 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.1PreKote 10.0 9.3 7.3 7.2 10.0 9.9 8.2 6.4 3.6 2.2 0.5 0.0 7.8 7.1 5.3 4.5

AVERAGE 9.6 9.3 8.6 8.3 9.2 9.1 8.1 7.6 6.2 5.5 4.7 4.0 8.3 8.0 7.2 6.6MIL‐PRF‐85285 Aircraft Polyurethane Topcoat

All Alloy Average

Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8

Alodine 1200S (Control) 8.1 7.5 6.5 5.5 7.6 7.4 5.3 2.4 7.8 7.4 5.9 3.9

All Aviation Coatings Pretreatment 23377C2 85582 C1 85582 NC

Pretreatment

All Ground Coatings

BEST: A1200S, A5700, TCP GOOD: FAIR: OK: Al‐500, AC‐131, Bi‐K

POOR: 727ND, PreKote FAIL: S7000

53030 53022

( )

Alodine 5200/5700 8.0 7.6 6.0 4.9 7.8 7.2 7.0 6.3 7.9 7.4 6.5 5.6Bi‐K Aklimate 5.0 2.4 1.6 1.2 4.9 2.4 1.9 1.9 5.0 2.4 1.8 1.5

AC ‐ 131 5.1 3.3 2.5 2.5 5.5 4.8 4.2 2.5 5.3 4.0 3.3 2.5

Chemidize 727ND 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 4.4 2.1 1.8 1.4 4.8 2.3 2.1 1.9Oxsilan Al‐0500 6.3 3.4 1.9 1.5 7.0 3.7 2.5 2.5 6.6 3.5 2.2 2.0Sanchem 7000 5.0 2.5 2.3 1.7 6.1 2.9 2.3 1.3 5.6 2.7 2.3 1.5TCP 8.4 7.9 7.1 4.7 7.9 7.5 6.4 3.6 8.1 7.7 6.7 4.2PreKote 5.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 4.0 2.4 1.3 0.8 4.5 2.5 1.8 1.5AVERAGE 6.2 4.4 3.6 2.9 6.1 4.5 3.6 2.5 6.2 4.4 3.6 2.7MIL‐DTL‐53039 CARC Polyurea TopcoatAll Alloy Average

FAIL: AC‐131, Al‐500, 727ND, Bi‐K, S7000, PreKote

BEST: GOOD: FAIR: OK: POOR: A5700, TCP, A1200S
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 5 Yr 8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y2 Y5 Y8 Y1 Y

Alodine 1200S (Control) 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 8.1 7.5 6.5 5.5 7.6 7

Alodine 5200/5700 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.4 9.4 9.6 9.3 9.2 8.8 8.0 7.6 6.0 4.9 7.8 7Bi‐K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.3 8.5 3.0 2.4 1.8 0.7 5.0 2.4 1.6 1.2 4.9 2

AC ‐ 131 9.8 9.8 9.3 8.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 5.7 4.9 2.5 2.3 5.1 3.3 2.5 2.5 5.5 4

Chemidize 727ND 9.4 9.1 8.5 7.8 9.1 9.1 5.7 5.2 3.0 2.4 1.3 0.7 5.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 4.4 2

Oxsilan Al‐0500 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.2 8.9 8.6 7.0 7.4 6.5 6.0 4.0 6.3 3.4 1.9 1.5 7.0 3

Sanchem 7000 8.5 7.2 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.6 2.4 2.4 3.7 2.2 1.5 1.1 5.0 2.5 2.3 1.7 6.1 2

TCP 9.5 9.3 8.8 8.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.0 8.4 7.9 7.1 4.7 7.9 7PreKote 10.0 9.3 7.3 7.2 10.0 9.9 8.2 6.4 3.6 2.2 0.5 0.0 5.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 4.0 2

AVERAGE 9.6 9.3 8.6 8.3 9.2 9.1 8.1 7.6 6.2 5.5 4.7 4.0 6.2 4.4 3.6 2.9 6.1 4

MIL‐PRF‐85285 Aircraft Polyurethane Topcoat + MIL‐DTL‐64159 CARC Polyurea Topcoat

All Alloy Average

Pretreatment

23377C2 85582 C1 85582 NC

BEST: GOOD: FAIR: A5700, A1200S, TCP OK: AC‐131 POOR: Al‐0500, Bi‐K, 7272N

53030 



Non-Chromate Aluminum Pretreatments

Phase II Interim Report 

Project #PP0025 

 

 

September 2004 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 

ii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DISCLAIMER 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

LIST OF FIGURES 

LIST OF TABLES 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

SUMMARY 

1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

1.1 – PROJECT BACKGROUND 

1.2 – PHASE I OBJECTIVE/SCOPE OF WORK 

1.3 – PHASE II OBJECTIVE/SCOPE OF WORK 

2.0 – DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION SELECTIONS 

2.1 – TCP

2.2 – ALODINETM 5200/5700

2.3 – PRE-KOTETM

2.4 – AC-130/131TM

2.5 – PHASE II EFFORTS SUMMARY

3.0 – ONGOING ATMOSHPHERE EXPOSURE TESTING 

3.1 – BACKGROUND

3.2 – COATINGS PERFORMANCE – 2 YEARS

4.0 – LEVERAGED EFFORTS 

4.1 – USAF F-16, C-130 

 4.1.1 – BACKGROUND 

 4.1.2 – FIELD TESTING 

 4.1.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

 4.1.4 – STATUS 

4.2 – NAVAIR S-3 

4.2.1 – BACKGROUND 

4.2.2 – PROCESSING 

4.2.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

4.2.4 – STATUS 

iii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.3 – NAVAIR F/A-18 C/D 

4.3.1 – BACKGROUND 

4.3.2 – PROCESSING 

4.3.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

4.3.4 – STATUS 

4.4 – NAVAIR CH-46 

4.4.1 – BACKGROUND 

4.4.2 – PROCESSING 

4.4.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

4.4.4 – STATUS 

 4.5 – NASA SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS 

 4.5.1 – BACKGROUND 

 4.5.2 – FIELD TESTING 

 4.5.3 – STATUS 

 4.6 – BOEING/AF 

 4.6.1 – BACKGROUND 

 4.6.2 – STATUS

 

5.0 – ESTCP NCAP EFFORTS 

5.1 – US NAVY LANDING CRAFT, AIR CUSHIONED (LCAC) 

5.1.1 – BACKGROUND 

5.1.2 – FIELD TESTING 

5.1.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

5.1.4 – STATUS 

5.2 – USMC EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE 

5.2.1 – BACKGROUND 

5.2.2 – PROTOTYPE VEHICLE TCP PERFORMANCE VALIDATION 

5.2.3 – LABORATORY TESTING 

5.2.4 – P1 & LAB TEST RESULTS 

 5.2.4.1 – LABORATORY TESTING 

5.2.4.2 – INITIAL TCP PERFORMANCE ON EFV P1 

 COMPONENTS 

5.2.5 – SDD VEHICLE HULLS AND TURRETS PROCESSING 

 5.2.5.1 – BACKGROUND 

 5.2.5.2 – INITIAL PROCESSING 

 5.2.5.3 – PROCESSING 

 5.2.5.4 – SDD VEHICLE E7 PAINT ADHESION RESULTS 

5.2.6 – PROCESSING – CURRENT PROCESS 

 5.2.6.1 – E8 PROCESSING 

 5.2.6.2 – E9 PROCESSING 

5.2.7 – CURRENT PROCESS – LRIP 

5.2.8 – PROTOTYPE AND SDD VEHICLES FIELD TESTING 

iv
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2.8.1 – PERFORMANCE OF CHROMATED VS. NON- 

 CHROMATED SYSTEMS ON USMC EFV P1 

5.2.8.2 – E2 AND E7 – IN-WATER/AMPHIBIOUS TESTING 

5.2.8.3 – STATUS 

5.3 – US ARMY BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE 

5.3.1 – INTRODUCTION 

5.3.2 – COMPONENT SELECTION 

5.3.3 – PROCESSING 

 5.3.3.1 – COMPONENTS 

5.3.3.2 – PANEL TESTING – UNITED DEFENSE 

5.3.4 – FIELD TESTING 

5.3.5 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

5.3.6 – STATUS 

 5.3.6.1 – STRESS CORROSION CRACKING EVALUATION 

5.4 – US ARMY AVIATION 

5.4.1 – BACKGROUND 

5.4.2 – LABORATORY TESTING 

 5.4.2.1 – PULL-OFF ADHESION TEST RESULTS 

 5.4.2.2 – WET TAPE ADHESION RESULTS 

5.4.3 – FIELD TEST SYSTEMS SELECTION 

 5.4.3.1 – GENERAL GUIDELINES 

5.4.4 – STATUS 

6.0 – IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 

6.1 – MILITARY AND INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS 

6.2 – ALODINETM 5200/5700 

 6.2.1 – NASA 

 6.2.2 – US ARMY TACOM 

6.3 – PREKOTETM 

6.4 – TCP 

 6.4.1 – NAVSEA 

 6.4.2 – USMC 

 6.4.3 – NAVAIR 

6.5 – AC-130/131 

 6.5.1 – NAVAIR 

 6.5.2 – BOEING 

7.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REFERENCES 

v
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

DISCLAIMER 

 Due to the critical nature of DoD weapons systems coating performance and 

because of NAVAIR’s interest and involvement in the trivalent chromium process (TCP) 

this report has been reviewed for technical content, accuracy, and fairness by the 

following: the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO), the Army 

Research Laboratory (ARL) Coatings and Corrosion Branch, the Naval Air Systems 

Command (NAVAIR) Materials Division, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) 

Materials Division, the Office of the Program Manager Combat Systems (PMCS), the 

Office of the Direct Reporting Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault (DRPM 

AAA), the US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) Environmental, 

Engineering, and Logistics Office (EELO), United Defense, General Dynamics 

Amphibious Systems, and Boeing Commercial Airplanes. 

vi
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AA – Aluminum Alloy 

AAA – Advanced Amphibious Assault 

AACP – Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection 

AAV – Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

ACU – Assault Craft Unit 

AETC – Air Education and Training Command 

AFB – Air Force Base 

AFRL – Air Force Research Laboratory 

AFCPCO – Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office 

AMCOM – Aviation and Missile Command 

APG – Aberdeen Proving Grounds 

ARL – Army Research Laboratory 

ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials 

AVCRAD – Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot 

AVTB – Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch 

BASC – Boeing Aircraft Support Center 

BFIST – Bradley Fire Support Team 

BFV – Bradley Fighting Vehicle 

BUNO – Bureau Number 

CARC – Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 

CCAD – Corpus Christi Army Depot 

CCC – Chromate Conversion Coating 

COMNAVSEASYSCOM – NAVSEA Commander 

CONSTRKFIGHTWINGLANT – Commander Atlantic Strike Fighter Wing 

CPC – Corrosion Preventative Compounds 

CTC – Coatings Technology Center 

CY – Calendar Year 

DEM/VAL – Demonstration/Validation 

DFT – Dry Film Thickness 

DI – Deionized 

DoD – Department of Defense 

DRPM – Direct Reporting Program Manager 

DTM – Direct to Metal 

DUSD-ES – Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security 

E1 – First Experimental Vehicle – USMC EFV 

EELO – Environmental, Engineering, & Logistics Oversight 

EFV – Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 

EMI – Electromagnetic Interference 

EMT – Environmental Management Team 

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency 

vii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

ESOH – Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health 

ESTCP – Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 

FSE – Floor Support Engineering 

GDAMS – General Dynamics Amphibious Systems 

GDLS – General Dynamics Land Systems 

HazMat – Hazardous Material 

HSTNA – Henkel Surface Technologies North America 

HSU – Hydraulic Suspension Unit 

IARC – International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICT – Inorganic Coatings Team 

IETM – Integrated Electronic Technical Manual 

JG-PP – Joint Group on Pollution Prevention 

JLC – Joint Logistics Commander 

JTP – Joint Test Protocol 

KM – kilometers 

KSC – Kennedy Space Center 

ksi – kilopounds per Square Inch 

LATP – Lima Army Tank Plant 

LCAC – Landing Craft Air Cushion 

LEX – Leading Edge Extension 

LRIP – Low Rate Initial Production 

MCB – Marine Corps Base 

MCAS – Marine Corps Air Station 

MEK – Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

MIL-C – Military Control Specification 

MIL-DTL – Military Detail Specification 

MIL-H – Military Hydraulic Fluid Specification 

MIL-P – Military Paint Specification 

MIL-PRF – Military Performance Specification 

MIL-SPEC – Military Specification 

MSDS – Material Safety Data Sheet 

NADEP – Naval Aviation Depot 

NAS – Naval Air Station 

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAVAIR – Naval Air Systems Command 

NAVMSG – Navy Message 

NAVSEA – Naval Sea Systems Command 

NAWCAD – Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division 

NCAP – Non-Chromated Aluminum Pretreatment 

NORIS – North Island Naval Depot 

NSF – Neutral Salt Fog 

viii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

NSWC – Naval Surface Warfare Center 

OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OOALC – Ogden Air Logistics Center 

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

P1 – First Prototype Vehicle – USMC EFV 

PAX – Patuxent River Naval Air Station 

PEO – Program Executive Office 

PEL – Permissible Exposure Limit 

PM – Program Manager 

PMA – Program Management Activity 

PMB – Plastic Media Blasting 

PM CS – Program Manager Army Ground Combat Systems 

PMI – Planned Maintenance Interval 

POC – Point of Contact 

psi – pounds per square inch 

QA – Quality Analysis 

QC – Quality Control 

QOT&E – Qualification Operational Test and Evaluation 

QPL – Qualified Products List 

RRAD – Red River Army Depot 

RH – Relative Humidity 

SAE-AMS – Society of Automotive Engineers - Aerospace Material Specification 

SCC – Stress Corrosion Cracking 

SDLM – Standard Depot Level Maintenance 

SDD – System Design and Development 

SPO – Systems Program Office 

SPT – Self Priming Topcoat 

SRB – Solid Rocket Booster 

TCP – Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment 

TO – Technical Order 

UDLP – United Defense 

USMC – United States Marine Corps 

WESTPAC – Western Pacific 

YPG – Yuma Proving Grounds 

ix
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

LIST OF FIGURES 

2.1 – US Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (Formerly Advanced 

 Amphibious Assault Vehicle) 

2.2 – US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle 

2.3 – US Army H-60 Blackhawk 

3.1 – KSC Corrosion Testbed Beachside Aerial View 

4.1 – Application of Pre-KoteTM at Hill AFB 

4.2 – Fuselage Station 496 – Transition Area 

4.3 – Close-up of TCP Treatment, Dry 

4.4 – Finished BUNO 160144, North Island, July 1999 

4.5 – Open area Corrosion 

4.6 – S-3A Viking – TCP on Aft Section – August 1999 

4.7 – TCP Application on BUNO 163757, North Island, November 2000 

4.8 – Iridescent Blue Color of As-Deposited TCP 

4.9 – F/A-18C with TCP after Primer Application – November 2000, NORIS 

4.10 – Chromate and TCP F/A-18 C’s – May 2004, MCAS Beaufort 

4.11 – BUNO 163757 F/A-18C w/ TCP – NAS Lemoore, May 2004 

4.12 – H-46 Components with TCP – NADEP CP, October 2000 

5.1 – LCAC-26 Oily Waste Tank with TCP Test Patch 

5.2 – Beachside Exposure Racks, Little Creek, VA 

5.3 – Bare AA5456-H116 Coupons – 1.5+ Years Beach-Side Exposure 

5.4 – TCP Applied to Air Intake Plenum Deck, LCAC-26 

5.5 – Cleaning Steering Bucket 

5.6 – Application of TCP 

5.7 – TCP Coating after Drying 

5.8 – Steering Bucket after Priming with MIL-PRF-85582NC 

5.9 – Steering Bucket after Topcoat Application with MIL-C-53039 

5.10 – Seal Plate after Topcoat Application with MIL-C-53039 

5.11 – Seal Plate Mating Surface after Corrosion Removal 

5.12 – Application of TCP Coating on Seal Plate Mating Surface 

5.13 – Starboard Steering Bucket and Seal Plate after 2 Weeks in Service 

5.14 – Inside of Starboard Steering Bucket after 2 Weeks in Service 

5.15 – EFV E3 Spray Processing – LATP 

5.16 – Minimal TCP Color Change Observed Near Inserts 

5.17 – P1 – 4 Months In-Water Testing 

5.18 – E7 Lower Anterior Hull 

5.19 – E7 Crosshatch Scribe 

5.20 – E2 Driver’s Hatch 

5.21 – Delaminations on BFV Hull Components – AA7039 

5.22 – Headlight Guards 

5.23 – Stowage Box Doors 

5.24 – Floor Plate, Bilge Pump 

5.25 – Driver’s Steering Yoke 

5.26 – Turret Left Floor Plate 

5.27 – Flagstaff Holder and GPS Antenna Bracket 

x
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.28 – Pretreated BFV Components Awaiting Primer Application – August 2003 

5.29 – Primer Application – Left Headlight Guard – August 2003 

5.30 – Interior Components after Application of Single-Coat, Sea-Foam Green Epoxy 

 CARC – August 2003 

5.31 – Re-Man Components as Received and after Grinding/Preparation of Selected Re-

 Work Areas 

5.32 – Re-Man Parts after Pretreatment of Selected Test Areas and after Primer and 

 Topcoat Application 

5.33 – QC Panels after Primer Application 

5.34 – BFV M2A3 258 – APG, MD August 2003 

5.35 – BFV M2A3 031 – Ft. Benning, GA May 2004 

5.36 – BFV M3A3 086Y – APG, MD 

5.37 – SCC Test Specimen Schematic 

xi
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

LIST OF TABLES 

1.1 – Summary of Non-Chromate Conversion Coating Alternatives 

2.1 – Selected Pretreatments for Dem/Val Efforts 

3.1 – Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the Scribe (5 panels) for Aluminum 

 Alloys Coated with MIL-PRF-23377 Primer and MIL-C-85285 Topcoat 

3.2 – Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the Scribe (5 panels) for Aluminum 

 Alloys Coated with MIL-PRF-85582C2 Primer and MIL-C-85285 Topcoat 

3.3 – Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the Scribe (5 panels) for Aluminum 

 Alloys Coated with MIL-PRF-85582NC Primer and MIL-C-85285 Topcoat 

3.4 – Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the Scribe (5 panels) for Aluminum 

 Alloys Coated with MIL-P-53030 Primer and MIL-C-53039 Topcoat 

3.5 – Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the Scribe (5 panels) for Aluminum 

 Alloys Coated with MIL-P-53022 Primer and MIL-C-53039 Topcoat 

3.6 – Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems Exposed to 12 Months of 

 Outdoor Exposure at KSC Beachfront Corrosion Test Site 

5.1 – Beachside Exposure Testing – Begun March 2001, ACU-4 Little Creek, VA 

5.2 – Coating System Test Variables 

5.3 – Outline of E8 Processing 

5.4 – Outline of E-9 Processing 

5.5 – SDD Paint Plan 

5.6 – Target Coating System for EFV LRIP 

5.7 – DTM vs. Chemical Processing 

5.8 – BFV Paint Systems 

5.9 – Selected BFV Non-Chromate Pretreatment Field Test Components 

5.10 – Selected Re-Man BFV Non-Chromate Pretreatment Field Test Components 

5.11 – BFV Components Process Parameters 

5.12 – Accelerated Corrosion Testing of QC Panels Treated and Painted with Field Test 

 Components 

5.13 – AMCOM – NAVAIR Panel Test Matrix October 2003 

5.14 – Pull-off Adhesion Test Results AA2024-T3 

5.15 – Pull-off Adhesion Test Results AA7075-T6 

5.16 – Wet Tape Adhesion Test Results AA2024-T3 

5.17 – Wet Tape Adhesion Test Results AA7075-T6 

5.18 – Neutral Salt Fog Corrosion Results AA2024-T3 

5.19 – Neutral Salt Fog Corrosion Results AA7075-T6 

5.20 – Cyclic Salt Fog Corrosion Results AA2024-T3 

5.21 – Cyclic Salt Fog Corrosion Results AA7075-T6 

5.22 – AMCOM Coating System Demonstrations 

xii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 This project has been executed under the generous support of the Environmental 

Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) and the Office of the Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security (DUSD-ES). The effort was led 

by the Naval Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR) Materials Division Patuxent River 

and coordinated with Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP). This project was 

initiated by Craig Matzdorf, Code 4.9.7, NAVAIR Materials Engineering Division, 

Patuxent River, MD. The principal investigator for this project is Bill Nickerson, Code 

4.9.7, NAVAIR Materials Engineering Division, Patuxent River, MD. Leveraged efforts 

were supported by their respective services. 

The authors of the report wish to acknowledge the leadership and support of the 

many managers, engineers, and Fleet support personnel who contributed to this effort. 

Additionally, this project could not have been completed without the support and 

numerous contributions from contractor engineers and managers. 

A special thanks to NAVAIR Patuxent River, Army Research Laboratory (ARL), 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and contractor personnel at 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office 

(AFCPCO), General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, United Defense, and US 

Army Tank Command (TACOM). 

Assault Craft Unit Four (ACU-4), Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia 

for their support in the evaluation of test patches on Landing Craft, Air Cushioned 

(LCACs); S-3B, F/A-18, and H-46 support personnel for their help in material flighttests; principal investigators from the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corp for 

providing project summaries and testing results. 

Special thanks to the USMC Direct Reporting Program Manager Advanced 

Amphibious Assault (DRPM AAA) program office for the Expeditionary Fighting 

Vehicle (EFV), General Dynamics Amphibious Systems engineering, and General 

Dynamics Land Systems Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) for their partnership in the 

processing and field testing of the USMC EFV’s. 

PM Ground Combat Systems (PM CS), PM CS Environmental Management 

Team (EMT), and United Defense CTC and United Defense York personnel for their 

generous assistance in the US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) demonstration. 

PEO Army Aviation, and US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), 

and ARL for continued support of the ongoing rotary wing demonstration. 

xiii
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

xiv

SUMMARY 

 Current light metal finishing procedures for industrial, automotive, aerospace, and 

Department of Defense (DoD) applications center around the use of hexavalentchromium based chemistries for the enhancing corrosion resistance and paint adhesion. 

Aluminum finishing, in particular, utilizes chromate chemistries for anodizing, anodic 

sealing, and pretreatment (both for conversion coating aluminum substrates and for 

treating aluminum-based coatings deposited on steel). The most ubiquitous use of 

chromate coatings is in the conversion coating of aluminum alloys for use as-deposited or 

prior to organic coating application. These coatings are very thin, inexpensive to produce, 

extremely process flexible, and can be applied by immersion, spray and wipe techniques. 

Chromate conversion coatings offer many advantages, however, the downside is 

that they contain hexavalent chromium, or chromate, species that are known to be 

carcinogenic. The occupational safety and health issues arising from risk of worker 

exposure to these chemicals, as well as the costs and the potential liabilities resulting 

from an accidental leak to the environment and waste disposal issues from normal 

finishing operations are making the use of chromate-based conversion coatings 

unattractive to the metal finishing industry. 

Additionally, proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Permissible Exposure Limit (OSHA PEL) changes for hexavalent chromium would make 

the use of chromate very costly. A final ruling on the PEL is scheduled for the beginning 

of 2006, and under the current proposal, would drop the PEL from 100 μg/m3

 (for 

hexavalent chromium in the form of chromic acid) to 10 μg/m3 at the highest; or possibly 

as low as 0.5 or 1 μg/m3. This change would be especially hard for medium to small 

sized plating and coating contractors to comply with in a cost-effective manner. 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

1.1 – PROJECT BACKGROUND 

The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), 

established in December 1993, is managed by the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of 

Defense for Environmental Security (DUSD-ES). The ESTCP demonstrates and validates 

laboratory-proven technologies that target the DoD’s most urgent environmental needs. 

These technologies provide a return on investment through reduced environmental, 

safety, and occupational health (ESOH) risks; cost savings; and improved efficiency. 

The new technologies typically have broad application to both the DoD community and 

industry. 

The Joint Logistics Commanders (JLC) and Headquarters National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) co-chartered the Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JGPP) to coordinate joint service/agency activities affecting pollution prevention issues 

identified during system and component acquisition and sustainment processes. The 

primary objectives of the JG-PP are to: 

• Reduce or eliminate the use of Hazardous Materials (HazMats) 

• Avoid duplication of effort in actions required to reduce or eliminate HazMats 

through joint service cooperation and technology sharing. 

JG-PP projects typically involve an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) 

producing multiple defense systems for more than one of the Services, as well as at least 

one DoD depot maintaining one or more of the defense systems. JG-PP technical 

representatives for each project begin by identifying a target HazMat, related process, and 

affected substrates or parts that may cause environmental and/or worker health concerns. 

Project participants then identify alternative technologies or materials for evaluation. 

ESTCP selected the Non-Chromate Aluminum Pretreatment (NCAP) project, led by 

the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and coordinated with JG-PP, to assist in the 

mitigation of the significant ESOH risks that are associated with the use of chromate 

conversion coatings. Chromate conversion coatings contain hexavalent chromium, a 

known human carcinogen that is strictly regulated. The U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) limits air emissions and regulates solid waste disposal from operations 

using hexavalent chromium. The U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulates the amount of hexavalent chromium to which workers can be exposed, 

and has proposed reducing the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for hexavalent 

chromium to a value in the range of 10μg/m3

 to possibly less than 1 μg/m3. Such limits, 

planned for implementation within the next two years, could increase costs of the 

pretreatment of aluminum and aluminum alloys; therefore, alternatives are being 

identified and evaluated. The project will achieve the goal of reducing or eliminating the 

use of hexavalent chromium in aluminum finishing by demonstrating and validating the 

performance of alternatives in accordance with the technical requirements and tests 

identified in the Joint Test Protocol (JTP). 

 The key benefit of the non-chromated pretreatment alternatives being 

demonstrated in this report is the elimination or absence of hexavalent chromium from 

1
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

the process chemicals and as-deposited coating. Eliminating chromates from the 

conversion coating or pretreatment operations will drastically reduce user liability and 

risk in the life cycle of the platform or parts being coated. The key challenge for the 

alternatives will be matching the technical performance of chromate conversion coatings 

in a cost-effective manner. 

1.2 – PHASE I OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK 

The overall objective is to validate and implement multiple chromate-free 

aluminum pretreatment alternatives at a broad range of user facilities. The Phase I 

Report, dated 24 July 2003, presents an evaluation of laboratory coupon testing of nonchromate aluminum pretreatment alternatives through accelerated tests on flat coupons. 

Phase I of this effort focused on the laboratory evaluation of several possible nonchromate alternative technologies. The results of the analysis were used to support field 

testing in Phase II on components and in-service platforms where technical performance 

is highly dependant on service environment and overall platform design and use. 

The NCAP Phase I Report from 2003 details the adhesion and accelerated 

corrosion performance of these alternatives. Phase I examined the behavior of several 

alloy, coating, and paint system combinations. The data was generated in accordance 

with the NCAP JTP, dated 13 December 2000, to determine the potential effectiveness of 

the alternatives as replacements for chromate conversion coatings. Both documents are 

available on the JG-PP website, at the following link: 

http://www.jgpp.com/projects/projects_index.html, under the project titled NonChromate Aluminum Pretreatments. 

 Table 1.1 – taken from the NCAP Phase I report – identifies the alternative nonchromated pretreatments that were evaluated in Phase I, and provides a summary of their 

chemistry, applications, advantages and disadvantages. 

Product Chemistry 

(from 

MSDSs) 

Processing Application 

Methods 

Classification* Advantages Disadvantages

AlodineTM

1200S 

Chromic acid, 

complex 

fluorides, ferric 

compounds 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

E, B, C Easy to use, 

standard 

Contains 

hexavalent 

chromium 

AlodineTM

5200 and 

AlodineTM

5700 

Organometallic 

zirconate 

complex 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, 

impractical color 

change 

Bi-K 

AklimateTM

Proprietary Single 

solution, room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature 

solution 

replacement for 

chromates 

Minimal bare 

corrosion 

resistance, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

2
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

AC-130/ 

131TM 

Organosiloxane

s, zirconates 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates, dry 

in place 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, dry in 

place, kitting and 

solution life, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

Brent 

OxsilanTM

AL-0500 

Organosilane, 

ethanol, 

fluorotitanic 

acid 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature 

solution 

replacement for 

chromates, dry 

in place 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, dry in 

place, clear and 

colorless (no color 

change) 

MacDermid 

ChemidizeTM 

727ND 

Butyl 

cellosolve, 

other 

proprietary 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Spray, wipe C One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

NAVAIR TCP Chromium III 

sulfate basic, 

potassium 

hexafluorozirconate 

One solution, 

room 

temperature, 

one to five 

minute dwell 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

E, B, C Easy to use, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates; 

corrosion 

inhibition 

present; 

toxicology 

study 

completed 

Contains 

chromium, 

impractical color 

change 

Sanchem 

SafegardTM

7000 (with 

Seal #2) 

Potassium 

permanganate, 

seal: 

polyacrylic 

acid, poly 

propylene 

glycol, fatty 

acid esters 

Two solution 

(coating and 

seal), elevated 

temp (200 °F) 

cure on sealer; 

pretreatment is 

ambient 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Pleasing 

bronze-gold 

color to 

coating, easy to 

use 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition without 

sealer. 

Sealer requires 

elevated 

temperature cure 

and has poor 

adhesion 

characteristics. 

Pantheon 

PreKoteTM

Diethylene 

glycol 

monobutyl 

ether, n-methyl 

pyrrolidone 

One solution, 

wipe on by 

mechanical 

abrasion of 

substrate, 

room 

temperature 

Wipe C Non-toxic 

coating left as a 

result of 

process 

Minimal bare 

corrosion 

resistance, 

laborious manual 

application 

required, minimal 

color change 

* E=electrical, B=bare, C=coated

Table 1.1: Summary of Non-Chromate Conversion Coating Alternatives 

In the Phase I Report, Matzdorf, et al., reported that, “Each alternative tested 

shows acceptable performance in some selected cases that may be satisfactory for a given 

user, depending on operating environment and business cases involved. The only 

compositions that come close to matching the technical, process, cost, and flexibility of 

chromates are based on trivalent chromium. Although trivalent chromium is present in 

3
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

the solution and coating, toxicity studies, International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC) regulations, and OSHA PELs suggest that the use of Trivalent Chromium 

Product (TCP) is acceptable, especially given its well-rounded performance. The next 

best product in testing was AlodineTM 5200/5700. AlodineTM 5200/5700 contains no 

chromium, is process flexible and can be applied like chromate conversion coatings. The 

remaining alternatives performed variably in the evaluation.” 

1.3 – PHASE II OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 

Out of the Phase I Laboratory testing, the potential alternative technologies were 

down-selected for field demonstration and validation testing by the respective services 

and program offices based upon their unique performance and operational environment 

requirements. The main advantage of any alternative is the elimination of hexavalent 

chromium. In most cases, the alternatives are trying to match the process and technical 

performance of the chromate solutions and coatings. 

In Phase II of the ESTCP NCAP project, along with JG-PP and other leveraged 

funding, the focus was on validating the feasibility of applying and maintaining, i.e. 

utilizing and repairing, these conversion coatings in lieu of conventional chromate-based 

technologies. Testing was conducted with various organic coatings systems, according to 

the particular service and platform requirements. This variety in field testing helps assure 

that potential candidates to hexavalent chromium are applicable as alternatives in their 

own right, without the necessity of specifying the use of only one or two possible 

primers/paint systems. The field test phase of this project was constructed to cover the 

broadest range of aluminum alloys, processing methods and conditions, and the 

operational environments experienced by fielded platforms across DoD. 

4
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

2.0 – SELECTED DEMOSTRATION / VALIDATION 

The pretreatments being tested in Phase II are shown in Table 1.2. 

Pretreatment DoD Service Platform(s) Facilities 

Alodine 5700 

TCP - Color 

US Army Ground 

Combat 

Bradley Fighting 

Vehicle 

Red River Army Depot 

United Defense - York 

Alodine 5700 

TCP 

US Army Aviation CH-47, H-60 Corpus Christi 

Ct AVCRAD 

Alodine 5700 

TCP 

USMC Amphibious 

Assault 

Expeditionary Fighting 

Vehicle 

General Dynamics – 

Lima 

AVTB – Camp 

Pendleton 

PreKote US Air Force F-16, C-130 Hill AFB 

TCP NAVAIR CH-46, S-3, F-18 NADEP’s CP, NI 

TCP NAVSEA Landing Craft, Air 

Cushioned 

NSWC – Little Creek, 

VA 

Table 1.2: Selected Pretreatments for Dem/Val efforts 

2.1 – NAVAIR TRIVALENT CHROMIUM PRETREATMENT (TCP) 

TCP solutions generate pretreatment films on aluminum and aluminum alloys that 

improve corrosion inhibition and paint adhesion while maintaining electrical 

conductivity. The solution is used in a fashion similar to conventional chromate 

pretreatments. It can be applied by immersion, spray, and wipe application methods with 

a few minutes dwell time. Since the process chemistry is based on a surface reaction, 

rinsing stops the reaction and yields the final coating. TCP films have a very light color 

ranging from purple to blue to tan, depending on the alloy. 

2.2 – HENKEL SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES ALODINETM 5200 AND 

ALODINETM 5700

AlodineTM 5700 is the ready-to-use, or pre-mixed, version of AlodineTM 5200. 

The solution is used in a similar fashion to conventional chromate pretreatments. A major 

benefit is that it can be applied by immersion, spray, and wipe application methods with a 

few minutes dwell time similar to chromate conversion coatings. Coating can be applied 

using rinse or dried in place. Deposited coatings have a light color ranging from blue to 

tan depending on the alloy. 

2.3 – PANTHEON CHEMICAL COMPANY PREKOTETM

PreKoteTM is a non-chromated conversion coating used for metal surface 

pretreatment and pre-coating prior to painting. It is designed to promote paint bonding 

5
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

on aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, magnesium, and carbon steel. It is biodegradable, 

non-toxic, non-flammable, non-hazardous, non-corrosive, and free of phosphates and 

heavy metals. The solution is applied by a manual or automated scrubbing process, 

requiring multiple material application, scrubbing, drying, and rinsing steps. As a result, 

the product is not amenable to immersion or spray processing. PreKoteTM has a slightly 

gray tint as applied. 

2.4 – ADVANCED CHEMISTRY & TECHNOLOGY INC. AC-130/131TM

AC-130/131TM conversion coating is a non-chromated solution that is designed to 

increase adhesion of organic coatings to aluminum, titanium, and corrosion resistant 

steel. The final coating solution is a product of mixing four components packaged in a 

“kit” that can be sized appropriately for a given application. The mixed solution has a 

“pot life” of 12-hours and is applied by spray, wipe, brush or dipping to leave a thin wet 

film on the parts. The coating is dried in place without rinsing and care must be taken to 

remove puddles and excess coating solution that may be retained in pockets or crevices 

that do not freely drain. These sol-gel coatings are clear and colorless and yield a slightly 

wet or glossy appearance. 

2.5 – PHASE II EFFORTS SUMMARY 

Field testing of the TCP was underway with NAVAIR when the ESTCP project 

began and the two efforts were leveraged together. In addition, Navy Sea Systems 

Command (NAVSEA) had begun an independent evaluation of the TCP for the Landing 

Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC). As a result, the Navy supported its aircraft and LCAC 

demonstrations, and the Air Force (AF) took the lead on the PreKoteTM demonstration 

with the F-16 and C-130 platforms. As a result of these initial, leveraged efforts, field 

testing opportunities outside the Navy were selected for the NCAP project to more 

broadly cover the potential applications and operational environments. ESTCP funded the 

Phase II efforts for the USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the US Army 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), and the US Army Aviation and Missile Command 

(AMCOM) platforms. NAVAIR, Boeing, and NASA have been demonstrating the AC131TM for pre-paint and bonding applications. 

Figure 2.1: US Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (formerly Advanced 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle) 

6
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 

The EFV demonstration/validation effort was conducted with General Dynamics 

Amphibious Systems (GDAMS), General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), and the 

Direct Reporting Program Manager (DRPM AAA) personnel. The prototype and System 

Design and Development Phase (SDD) vehicle hull and turret space frame structures are 

constructed from machined and welded aluminum alloys, and subsequently spray 

processed at the Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP), GDLS facility. The processing and 

painting were performed by LATP, GDLS contractor personnel, with on-site technical 

and chemical support provided by NAVAIR and GDAMS engineers. Additionally, since 

the aluminum alloy (AA) used to manufacture the hull and turret structures for the EFV 

was a new, untested alloy, AA2519-T87; NAVAIR and Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL) conducted numerous laboratory panel tests to optimize the process chemicals, 

time constraints, and subsequent primer/paint coating systems for use with the EFV. 

Prototype and SDD vehicles have been in field evaluation for over 2 years, and are still 

undergoing rigorous evaluations as part of the Test & Evaluation phase of SDD, from inwater amphibious testing at the Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch (AVTB), Camp 

Pendleton, CA and NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD to desert/land testing at Marine Corps 

Base (MCB) 29 Palms, CA. On-site vehicle inspections were conducted periodically 

during testing, by GDAMS, NAVAIR, and USMC personnel. 

US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle 

 The BFV demo with United Defense (UDLP) and the office of the Program 

Manager Combat Systems (PMCS) used TCP-C, a modified TCP chemistry that imparts 

a dark purple-blue to brown color to the as-deposited conversion coating. The selection 

of TCP-C over the baseline TCP was made at the request of UDLP and PMCS 

engineering because UDLP desired the visual quality control assurance from a practical 

color change. The BFV demonstrations were component-only tests, as the OEM hull 

processing facilities did not have a spray-processing apparatus. A list of several 

components was compiled by NAVAIR, PMCS, and UDLP personnel, and then three 

sets of components, two new sets and one re-manufactured set, were procured. The 

components were immersion process conversion coated, primed, and top-coated at the 

NAVAIR Patuxent River, MD facility. The components were then transported to the 

field demonstration facilities to be installed on three M2A3 or M3A3 BFV variants as 

either test track or fielded training vehicles at various US Army sites. ARL is tracking 

and evaluating the 3 BFV vehicles in field testing; and reported on the performance of the 

vehicles at 6-months and 1-year. 

Based on panel testing data generated at ARL, Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), 

MD; the Red River Army Depot (RRAD) installed and currently maintains an AlodineTM

5700 immersion bath for conversion coating of aluminum road wheels for US Army 

ground combat vehicle platforms. RRAD obtained an approval letter for use of 

AlodineTM 5700 on aluminum road wheels, and is currently applying the coating on rework vehicles via an immersion process. 

7
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 2.2: US Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle 

US Army Aviation Command 

 AMCOM engineers generated a large laboratory test matrix in October 2003 to 

down-select the best conversion coatings and non-chrome primers to examine in field 

testing. The test panels were processed and painted at NAVAIR Patuxent River (PAX), 

MD. Corrosion and adhesion evaluations were conducted by ARL. The panel matrix 

evaluated the several combinations of non-chromate coating systems, consisting of TCP, 

AlodineTM 5700, and PreKoteTM on aluminum, with both water and solvent-reducible 

non-chrome primers. AlodineTM 1200S with high-solids, chromated epoxy primer was the 

control system. All coating systems were top-coated with Chemical Agent Resistant 

Coating (CARC) paint. Two non-chrome coating systems were identified for field 

testing, one with AlodineTM 5700 and the other using TCP as the conversion coating, 

based upon the results and recommendations of the laboratory evaluations at ARL. 

AMCOM personnel selected the Connecticut Aviation Classification Repair Activity 

Depot (AVCRAD) and Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), TX as the two processing 

sites for this demo. Currently, six aircraft are planned for demonstration and validation 

efforts, with actual coating/painting operations to begin in FY05. Three aircraft will be 

coated at each demo site, with one airframe from each site being coated with a chromated 

conversion coating and MIL-PRF-23377 C2 chromated primer, as the control coating 

system. The platform for this demonstration will be either the CH-60 Blackhawk, the 

CH-47 Chinook, or some combination of the two. The Program Executive Office (PEO) 

8
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Aviation, along with the individual Program Management Activities (PMA’s) from Army 

Aviation will determine if more aircraft or more various platforms are required for a full 

field test. 

Figure 2.3: US Army H-60 Blackhawk 

9
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

3.0 – ONGOING MARINE ATMOSPHERE EXPOSURE TESTING 

3.1 – BACKGROUND 

Phase I testing included outdoor, beachside exposure testing at the Corrosion 

Technology Testbed, Kennedy Space Center, FL. The testing is being completed by 

NASA and contractor personnel at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), FL. 3”x5” 

aluminum coupons were pretreated with the alternative conversion coatings being 

examined, primed, top-coated, and shipped to KSC for testing in 2001. 

 The Phase I Report tabulated the performance data for the different pretreatment 

and primer combinations according to aluminum alloy. The rankings were from 1-year 

exposure data. The exposure testing was continued beyond 1 year, and 2-year ratings 

were taken in December 2003. As stated in the Phase I report, performance ratings are 

measured by ASTM D 1654 Procedure A; and any rating below “3” is considered failed 

and the panel removed from testing. 

 NASA’s test facility is located 1.5 miles south of Launch Complex 39A. Figure 

3.1 shows an aerial view of the site. 

Figure 3.1: KSC Corrosion Testbed Beach-side Aerial View 

Test stands are located 30 meters (100 feet) from the mean high-tide line and face 

the water. Test coupons are installed on yellow, painted steel test stands using porcelain 

insulator stand-offs. The rack angle of the coupons is 30 degrees from horizontal. 

An “X” incision was scribed through the coating so that the smaller angle of the 

“X” was 30 to 45-degrees, making sure that the coating was scribed all the way to the 

substrate. The scribe had a 45-degree bevel, and each line of the “X” was approximately 

4-inches long. The back and edges of the coupon were primed to prevent undercutting 

and corrosion products from contaminating the test stands. 

10
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

The coupons were evaluated for surface corrosion and creepage from the scribe at 

6-month intervals. Two-year ratings based on creepage from the scribe (ASTM D 

1654A) are detailed here. Remaining coatings are being evaluated until failure, and will 

be rated on creepage from the scribe performance at yearly intervals, until completion of 

the 5 year test in December 2006. 

3.2 – COATING PERFORMANCE AT TWO YEARS 

Tables 3.1-3.5 detail corrosion performance for coating systems on each alloy 

after two years. An average rating “0.0” designation means that the coating system has 

failed and has been removed. However, if only some of the coatings from each set of 5 

failed, the average rating is calculated from the remaining coupons, and the number of 

failed panels is given. The 1-year ratings are given first (left) for each coating/alloy 

combinations, to show any degradation relative to the other conversion coatings. 

Pretreatment AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 9.2 8.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 

AC-131 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.3 

Chemidize 727ND 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 6.4 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.6 9.6 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 

Sanchem 7000 9.6 8.2 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 4.2 0.6 -4F 

TCP 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 

PreKote 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.2 

Table 3.1: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377C Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 8.8 8.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.4 

AC-131 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Chemidize 727ND 9.8 9.8 7.6 7.6 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.6 9.6 7.6 6.6 10.0 10.0 9.4 9.2 

Sanchem 7000 0.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 -2F 10.0 9.4 6.4 6.4 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

PreKote 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.6 

Table 3.2: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

11
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Pretreatment AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 9.8 8.8 8.0 10.0 10.0 9.4 9.4 

Bi-K Aklimate 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 

AC-131 5.3 5.0 7.3 4.7 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

Chemidize 727ND 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 10.0 9.4 0.0 0.0

Oxsilan Al-0500 7.6 7.2 9.2 9.0 10.0 9.8 2.8 0.0

Sanchem 7000 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 9.2 8.8 0.0 0.0

TCP 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.2 10.0 10.0 9.6 9.6 

PreKote 3.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 9.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 

Table 3.3: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat

Pretreatment AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.0 2.4 0.0 

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 7.8 8.6 8.6 10.0 10.0 3.4 4.0-4F 

Bi-K Aklimate 0.8 0.0 9.4 0.0 9.8 9.4 0.0 0.0 

AC-131 5.7 3.0 4.7 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 

Chemidize 727ND 4.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.8 2.0-3F 9.2 1.8-4F 10.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 

Sanchem 7000 9.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 10.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.6 1.4-4F 

PreKote 4.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 

Table 3.4: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat

Pretreatment AA2024 AA7075 AA5083 AA2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.0 9.8 0.4 0.0 

Alodine 5200/5700 10.0 10.0 8.8 8.8 10.0 9.8 2.4 0.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 3.2 0.0 6.4 0.0 10.0 9.6 0.0 0.0

AC-131 9.5 9.0 1.3 0.0 10.0 10.0 1.0 0.0

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 9.2 8.4 0.0 0.0

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.4 2.8-2F 7.6 1.8-4F 10.0 10.0 0.8 0.0

Sanchem 7000 7.8 2.0-4F 6.6 0.0 10.0 9.6 0.0 0.0

TCP 10.0 9.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.4 0.0

PreKote 3.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 10.0 9.6 0.0 0.0

Table 3.5: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 

Summary of Alternative Performance 

Table 3.6 details the summary performance of each alternative pretreatment by 

primer system. It also shows an average rating for each primer across all pretreatments. 

These ratings provide a gauge of pretreatment robustness, showing how they perform 

across different alloys and primers, compared to the excellent all-around performance of 

the hexavalent chromium control. 

12
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

13

Primer

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 7.4 8.1 7.5 9.1 8.9 

Alodine 5200 9.8 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.3 7.8 7.2 8.0 6.8 9.0 8.5 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 9.9 10.0 9.9 3.0 2.4 4.9 2.5 5.0 2.4 6.6 5.4 

Boegel 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.0 5.7 4.9 5.5 4.8 5.1 3.2 7.2 6.5 

Chemidize 727ND 9.4 9.1 9.1 8.7 3.0 2.5 4.4 2.1 5.2 2.6 6.2 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.9 9.8 9.2 8.6 7.4 6.9 7.0 3.9 6.3 3.4 7.9 6.5 

Sanchem 7000 8.5 7.2 4.9 4.3 3.7 3.8 6.1 2.9 5.0 2.5 5.6 4.1 

TCP 9.5 9.3 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.7 7.9 7.5 8.4 7.9 9.1 8.9 

X-It PreKote 10.0 9.3 10.0 9.9 3.6 2.4 4.8 2.5 5.1 3.1 6.5 5.4 

Overall Alternative Average 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.0 6.2 5.8 6.1 4.5 6.2 4.4 7.5 6.6 

Table 3.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems – 24-Months of 

Outdoor Exposure at Kennedy Space Center Beachfront Corrosion Test Site 

The AlodineTM 5200/5700 and TCP alternatives perform comparably to the 

AlodineTM 1200S control regardless of the primer coating. Their superior performance is 

strongly evident in the non-chromate primer systems where no other alternative comes 

close. For the chromated primers, most of the alternatives show good performance, 

especially PreKoteTM, Bi-K AklimateTM, and AC-131TM, all of which rate similar to the 

AlodineTM 5200 and TCP in the high 9’s. Only the TCP and AC-130TM matched the 

perfect rating of the AlodineTM 1200S, and only when used in combination with the 

85582C2 primer. 

Like the previous corrosion tests, the chromate-based primer systems perform 

equally well and are the basis of the best coating systems. The non-chromate systems, on 

average, rank lower than the chromate systems especially with the poorer performing 

alternatives. There are two notable exceptions in this test. 

The performance of the 85582 N primer with AlodineTM 1200S, TCP and 

AlodineTM 5200/5700 differs little from their performance with the sister chromate 

primers. The performance of the TCP and AlodineTM 5200/5700 with the non-chromate 

epoxy primers, 53022 and 53030 is equivalent or better than AlodineTM 1200S with the 

same primers. These non-chromate systems match the performance of the sister systems 

with chromate primers. No other non-chromate system competes as well. 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.0 – LEVERAGED EFFORTS 

4.1 – AF F-16/C-130 

4.1.1 – BACKGROUND 

A multi-year effort at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) was under taken in 2000, with 

the oversight of the Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control Office (AFCPCO), to 

reduce or eliminate the use of chromate compounds in the paint preparation process for 

aircraft. 

Of the four products tested, three were eliminated early through laboratory 

testing. The fourth candidate, PreKote, was tested extensively against the current 

process. PreKote performed better than chromate conversion coating in 

adhesion/flexibility tests and performed equally well in other testing. In addition, it was 

found that PreKote could eliminate the solvent wipe down as well as the acid brightener 

used in conventional paint preparation procedures. The use of PreKote also reduced the 

need to sand anodized surfaces before repainting, but the limitations are that the 

application process is labor intensive. 

The application process used in the Qualification Operational Test and Evaluation 

(QOT&E) process is called the “three-step” process. Step 1: the surface of the aircraft is 

scrubbed with PreKote and rinsed after scrubbing. Step 2: PreKote is applied to the 

surface again and agitated, and allowed to completely dry on the aircraft surface. Step 3, 

PreKote is applied to the surface again and agitated to remove the residue from Step 2. 

4.1.2 – FIELD TESTING 

Operational tests have been conducted on several aircraft and are ongoing. Air 

Education & Training Command (AETC) used PreKote on two aircraft in 1996. In 

March 1997, an F-16 was scuff sanded and repainted using PreKote in the prep for paint 

process. In November 1997, two fully stripped F-16 aircraft had their right wings treated 

with PreKote while the rest of the aircraft was treated with chromate conversion coating. 

These aircraft are in service at Eglin and at Homestead. Test aircraft, T-38, F-16, A-10, 

and C-130’s, were prepared half with Alodine and half with PreKote. 

AFCPCO is the responsible engineering authority for T.O. 1-1-8, “Application 

and Removal of Organic Coatings, Aerospace and Non-Aerospace Equipment.” In 2000, 

they began evaluating PreKote for possible addition to T.O. 1-1-8 as an Air Force-wide 

approved alternative for chromated conversion coatings (as specified in MIL-C5541/SAE AMS-C-5541 and MIL-DTL-81706). Based on extensive laboratory testing 

and limited field use (on F-16s, T-37s, and T-38s), AFCPCO determined there was not 

enough data on PreKote’s operational performance on various AF aircraft substrates in 

severely corrosive environments. 

For example, F-16s have anodized skin panels which increases their corrosion 

resistance, but many AF aircraft do not have anodized skins. Trainer aircraft typically do 

not experience extremely corrosive environments. 

Therefore, the AF corrosion control office initiated a QOT&E of PreKote in 

conjunction with Ogden Air Logistics Center (OOALC), the Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL) and the applicable operational Major Commands. The QOT&E is a 

14
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

six-year, full depot maintenance cycle evaluation in actual use, as part of a full coating 

system, that began in 2001 on four operational aircraft – two A-10s and 2 C-130s. 

4.1.3 – FIELD TEST RESULTS 

Hill AFB and the owning units have examined each of the test aircraft in 2002 

and 2004. The results so far are very positive and no detrimental effects from the PreKote 

have been discovered. The half-and-half test aircraft prepared at Hill exhibited equal or 

better paint adhesion on the PreKote side when compared to the Alodine side. 

The AFCPCO has completed a 24-month operational evaluation of PreKote on 

USAF aircraft. Results at the 24-month point of the QOT&E indicated paint adhesion 

performance is comparable between PreKote and Alodine 1200S chromated conversion 

coating. There was no evidence of decreased corrosion protection on the PreKote treated 

areas of the test aircraft, but corrosion performance cannot be fully evaluated until the 

coatings are stripped at the end of the testing. 

The 24-month results are sufficient to allow AFCPCO to incorporate PreKote into 

T.O. 1-1-8, though they will continue the QOT&E for the full six years and evaluate the 

test aircraft when the paint is stripped in depot. Additionally, AFCPCO is also 

participating in other on-going PreKote operational evaluations. 

Figure 4.1: Application of PreKote at Hill AFB 

4.1.4 – STATUS 

As of February 2004, AFCPCO has approved PreKote as a surface treatment 

alternative to chromate conversion coating prior to exterior painting of USAF aircraft. 

The approved process is being added to T.O. 1-1-8, “Application and Removal of 

Organic Coatings, Aerospace and Non-Aerospace Equipment,” and includes specific 

process steps. The use of PreKote on AF aircraft requires System Program Office (SPO) 

approval, and the use of a chromated primer. 

The F-16, T-37, T-38 and T-1 SPO’s have now approved the use of PreKote, and 

Headquarters Air Education and Training Command (HQ AETC) has mandated its use on 

all AETC aircraft for which it’s approved. If a base, MAJCOM, or ALC decides to 

15
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

pursue using PreKote in their paint processes on other systems, it must obtain approval 

from the appropriate SPOs. AFCPCO will provide existing test results upon request to 

assist SPOs with the engineering decision whether to approve PreKote. 

However, the AFCPCO has noted some areas of consideration in the use of 

PreKote. Since application of PreKote is largely a manual process, the consistency of the 

process may be important to an overall satisfactory result. To achieve results equal to 

other weapon systems, they recommend adhering closely to application practices that 

have already been established. Also, they recommend the use of the current three-step 

application process, because it was used for the QOT&E. Variations of the process are 

being developed, but AFCPCO cannot recommend them until more testing is completed. 

Note that all test results to date, current SPO approvals, and the assessment of low 

risk, are contingent on the use of a qualified chromated primer. When PreKote is used, 

corrosion inhibition comes only from the chromated primer. Past performance of nonchrome paint systems in AF use has been poor; the AFCPCO strongly recommends 

against the use of PreKote with non-chromated primers. 

16
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.2 – NAVAIR S-3 

4.2.1 – BACKGROUND 

The US Navy’s S-3 support aircraft are currently sprayed with a chromate 

conversion coating during de-paint/re-paint operations while undergoing Standard Depot 

Level Maintenance (SDLM) at the NADEP NORIS facility. 

Four aircraft were sprayed with TCP for the S-3 demonstration; the first two were 

treated with TCP on the aft (tail) section only. The 3rd and 4th aircraft were completely 

treated with TCP. 

4.2.2 – PROCESSING 

Two tail sections of S-3A support aircraft were spray processed with TCP, in July 

and August of 1999. They were then finished with TT-P-2756, a non-chromated, selfpriming polyurethane topcoat. 

BUNO 160144 (AV-61) was processed on July 24, 1999 at NADEP NORIS. 

This aircraft was attached to VS-31, Jacksonville, FL. This was the first aircraft field 

application of the TCP. 

BUNO 160589 (AO-62) was processed on August 2, 1999 at NADEP NORIS. 

This aircraft was attached to VS-41, North Island, CA. 

Two full S-3B support aircraft were spray processed with TCP in April and June 

of 2000. They were then finished with TT-P-2756, a non-chromated, self-priming 

polyurethane topcoat. 

BUNO 159770 (AO-75) was processed on April 30, 2000 at NADEP NORIS. 

This aircraft was attached to the Force Support Test Squadron, Patuxent River NAS, MD. 

BUNO 106158 (AO-76) was processed on June 7, 2000 at NADEP NORIS. This 

aircraft was attached to VS-35 North Island, CA and then to VS-38 for a Western Pacific 

(WESTPAC) carrier deployment. 

The spray processing for these aircraft was overseen by Mr. Tim Woods, 4.9.7, 

NORIS Materials Division. 

 

The tail section of the S-3 was selected for the initial field testing because all of 

the common aluminum surfaces used on this aircraft, along with the various finishes (i.e. 

bare, clad, anodized, etc.), are represented over the aft section. The control coating for the 

chromated areas of the two tail-only demonstrations was Turco AccelagoldTM. All 

aircraft were deoxidized using Turco 3003 TWATM. All test aircraft were processed and 

painted in the same manner, with the same application procedures used for chromate 

processing at North Island. 

TCP was spray applied over the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces, and aft 

fuselage. North Island’s normal spray procedures were followed, whereby, the 

conversion coating materials were sprayed on wetted surfaces beginning at the bottom 

and working upward. The aircraft was rinsed with tap water at 50-70 psi following each 

process chemical application. A bluish iridescence was evidenced in the TCP application 

areas, but there was little color change relative to the chromated areas. 

17
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 4.2: Fuselage Station 496-transition area 

Figure 4.3: Close-up of TCP Treatment, Dry 

 The aircraft was then painted with the TT-P-2756 Self-Priming Topcoat (SPT), a 

non-chromated, polyurethane topcoat that is used without an underlying primer. 

18
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 4.4. Finished BUNO 160144, North Island, July 1999 

4.2.3 – FIELD TESTING RESULTS 

BUNO 160589 was inspected at NORIS by Tim Woods on May 17, 2001. He 

reported that the corrosion control actions performed on the tail area of that aircraft were 

consistent to those performed in other areas of the aircraft. 

BUNO 160144 was inspected at NAS Jacksonville by Jack Benfer, NADEP JAX 

Materials, on January 4, 2002. This aircraft, A/C S-3B, BUNO 160144 (700) is attached 

to VS-31. He reported that an interview with Maintenance Control indicated that this 

aircraft appeared to be performing equivalent to other S-3 aircraft within the squadron. 

Man-hour and flight time data since February 2001 was presented to the 

inspection team. Additional data encompassing man-hours and flight time since receipt 

from depot would require a more thorough review of maintenance control log files and 

was not provided at the time of the inspection. Data presented is as follows: 

S-3B AC 160144 (700) [Feb 2001 to Jan 2002] 

Prevention 3299.3 man-hours 

Treatment 1632.2 man-hours 

Flight Time 419.2 hours 

No differentiation of corrosion was discernable between port and starboard sides. In 

addition, no differentiation was discernable between forward and aft sections of the 

fuselage areas inspected. 

BUNO 160158 was inspected at NORIS by Tim Woods and Ed Mullin on 

December 17, 2001, after returning from a 6+ month carrier deployment. It was reported 

19
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

by the maintenance personnel that this aircraft exhibited more corrosion than was 

normally observed. The aircraft showed signs of corrosion along some of the fastener 

rows, and in some surface areas away from fasteners or joints. The average thickness of 

the paint adjacent to an observed filiform corrosion area was 2 mils. This hits mid-range 

of the recommended thickness (1.7-2.3 mils) for SPT. Corrosion not necessarily adjacent 

to fasteners could be found in areas around the outer mold-line of the aircraft. 

 

Figure 4.5. Open Area Corrosion 

No control aircraft was available for this evaluation, as VS-38 did not have a 

chromated aircraft with a paint date close enough to 160158 for any correlation to be 

made. VS-35 had in its inventory S-3 BUNO 160567. SDLM was completed on this 

aircraft the week prior to 160158 being completed. BUNO 160567 (side #704) at VS-35 

served as an operational control during the validation period of TCP on aircraft 160158. 

The fundamental difference in the finish systems of these aircraft is limited to the 

aluminum pretreatment; while 160158 had TCP applied, 160567 received chromate 

conversion coating (CCC). Both of these aircraft returned from a WESTPAC 

deployment within the same time period, SPT was applied to both, and both logged 

similar flight hours. Less active corrosion was evident on 160567, and, relative to 

160158, fewer corrosion maintenance areas were evident. The paint thickness of 160567 

measured closer to 3.0 mils in most areas inspected over the outer mold-line. One 

important difference to note is that 160158 was deployed on-board the USS 

Constellation, which is an oil-burning carrier, while 160567 was deployed on-board a 

nuclear-powered carrier. 

Of the tail only aircraft, both have shown equivalent performance to the rest of the 

airframe over 2 years of service. Of the fully coated airframes, one has shown normal 

corrosion compared to similar controls. BUNO 160158 S-3B saw a full deployment in 

the South Pacific on the USS Constellation. This airframe showed more corrosion than 

comparable planes in the squadron. 

A specific cause for the extra corrosion was not identified but two potential 

causes were identified: insufficient corrosion protection by the TCP/SPT coating system 

or inadequate rinsing during processing. Excessive TCP residue left during processing 

may cause corrosion in non-chromate coating systems. Since neither can be proven 

independently or acting together no conclusion can be reached other than more testing 

with this coating system is required before use in the field. 

20
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 4.6: S-3A Viking – TCP on aft section – August 1999 

4.2.4 – STATUS 

 As a result of the mixed field performance of the TCP with SPT, additional 

laboratory testing was conducted with panel specimens according to ASTM G-85 SO2

acidified salt fog exposure. The initial 500-hour SO2 salt fog test performed at NAVAIR 

on the TCP/SPT coating did not show a difference in performance between the TCP/SPT 

and Accelagold/SPT system that is currently used on the S-3. When the test was 

extended to 1000 hours, corrosion in the unscribed areas did appear on non-chromated 

systems but not on systems that had chromate in the pretreatment or primer. This 

discrepancy highlights the risk in evaluating new technologies by the minimum 

performance standards of the control coatings. NAVAIR does not recommend the use of 

TCP with the SPT, and will not pursue implementation of a non-chromate conversion 

coating on the S-3 platform at this time. 

21
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.3 – NAVAIR F/A-18 C/D 

4.3.1 – BACKGROUND 

 Naval Aviation experiences the harshest possible environment for aluminum 

corrosion, in that most fielded strike and support aircraft are deployed shipboard on 

aircraft carriers. Aluminum is the main metallic substrate used in production of military 

airframes and aircraft skins. 

 Current protection schemes are focused around the use of chromate materials, 

both for inorganic conversion coatings and secondary primer applications. Even with the 

current hexavalent chromium coating system, corrosion is a very large driver for 

operations and maintenance costs and severely impacts operational readiness. 

 As the US Navy’s premier attack strike fighter aircraft, anything affecting the 

flight hours to maintenance down-time is a critical issue. For this reason, any possible 

alternatives must at the very least meet the performance of current, less environmentally 

friendly systems, even while we continue to strive for better than the current corrosion 

protection. 

 

4.3.2 – PROCESSING 

Two full F/A-18C fighter aircraft were spray processed with TCP10M2, a 

thickened version of the TCP, in November of 2000. They were then primed with MILPRF-85582 C1 and topcoated with MIL-P-85285 Gray. 

BUNO 163757 (RF94) was processed on November 18, 2000 at NADEP NORIS. 

This aircraft, was assigned to COMSTRKFIGHTWINGPAC, VFA-146, at NAS Lemore, 

CA. 

BUNO 163459 (RF96) was processed on November 21, 2000 at NADEP NORIS. 

This aircraft, was assigned to COMSTRKFIGHTWINGLANT, VFA-81, NAS Oceana, 

VA. 

The spray processing for these aircraft was overseen by Mr. Tim Woods, 4.9.7, 

NORIS Materials Engineering Division. 

A synopsys of his initial evaluation of BUNO 163757 processing is included 

below. Both aircraft were stripped, processed, and painted in the same manner, consistent 

with the chromate conversion coating processing. 

The paint was removed using plastic media blasting (PMB). Subsequently, glass 

bead blasting was used to remove any corrosion products. 

The aircraft was washed with Turco 5948RTM mildly alkaline cleaner, and then 

deoxidized with Turco 3003 TWA. During both of these cycles, white Scotch BrightTM

pads were used to scrub the bare aluminum surfaces. The deoxidizer was left to dwell on 

the aircraft for 15 minutes. 

 

 

22
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 Figure 4.7: TCP Application on BUNO 163757, North Island, November 2000 

Following a thorough rinse after each of these steps the TCP was spray applied. 

Ten gallons was enough to sufficiently coat the metal surfaces of the aircraft twice. For 

both applications, the TCP was applied from the bottom of the aircraft and working 

upward. The TCP dwelled for 20+ minutes before rinsing at approximately 60 psi. 

While the surface was still wet, black streaking was evident in some areas that were 

glass bead blasted the day before. Presumably aluminum clad or anodize was removed 

leaving a bare aluminum substrate (likely AA7075). These bare areas took on more color 

than areas not treated with glass bead blasting. The dark streaks persisted after the TCP 

was rinsed off and the surface had dried (Drying conditions: 75.3 degrees @ 25% RH). 

Figure 4.8: Iridescent Blue Coloration of As-deposited TCP 

The pretreatment was allowed to dry overnight. The airplane was then primed 

with Mil-PRF-85582, Type I, Class 1 at 0.8-1.8 mils, and top-coated with Mil-PRF85285 polyurethane. 

23
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 4.9: F/A-18C with TCP after Primer Application – November 2000, NORIS 

4.3.3 – FIELD TESTING RESULTS 

 Both aircraft were subject to “pre-deployment” inspections by Tim Woods in 

2001. These were done after only a few months at the squadron, where the aircraft had 

undergone at most a month or two shipboard. No issues or differences were noticed 

between the TCP aircraft and normal coating system aircraft. It was reported that the 

TCP aircraft were “invisible” to the squadrons, i.e. no one noticed that the TCP aircraft 

were in fact processed differently than the control system. 

 Following this, the two F-18’s were deployed with their respective squadrons for 

full carrier deployments, i.e. several months. These aircraft are still in service with the 

TCP, and have each currently undergone three or more full carrier deployments. 

 BUNO 163459 was inspected at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, SC 

by Tim Woods and Craig Matzdorf in May 2002, after returning from a 6+ month carrier 

deployment. This aircraft had been in service for 13-months with TCP on all aluminum 

surfaces, including touch-up before final painting with MIL-PRF-85582 C and MIL-PRF85285 Gray polyurethane topcoat. They reported that the coating system performance 

looked excellent, with no visible differences when compared to another squadron aircraft 

painted around the same time with the chromated control coating. The TCP F-18 was 

slightly better than average when compared to other aircraft being evaluated for the nonchromate primer demonstration. 

 Craig Matzdorf and Dr. Kevin Kovaleski, Materials Engineering Division, 

NAWCAD, Pax River, MD inspected BUNO 163459 after 3+ years in service with TCP, 

in May 2004 at MCAS Beaufort, SC. 

Two other squadron jets were selected for comparison: BUNO 163487 (tail 

number 406) and BUNO 163433 (tail number 403). Both were finished with the standard 

MIL-C-5541 chromate conversion coating, MIL-PRF-85582 C primer, and MIL-PRF85285 topcoat. 

24
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 Figure 4.10: Chromate and TCP F/A-18 C’s – May 2004, MCAS Beaufort 

 Maintenance personnel noted that 163459 was “one of the best jets with respect to 

corrosion”. When asked about time or effort spent when repairing test aircraft, personnel 

did not feel they were paying any more or less attention to these aircraft than to others in 

the squadron. 

Repaint occurred over scuff-sanded finish system and did not result in the 

removal of the pretreatment. 

 BUNO 163757 was inspected at NAS Lemoore, CA by Tim Woods in May 2004, 

after at least three full length carrier deployments. He reports that VFA-146 does an 

excellent job of inspecting and maintaining their planes. 

The inspection showed the aircraft to be in great shape; with the overall condition 

with respect to corrosion being very good. The average paint thickness on this test 

aircraft was 5-mils, with nothing over 9-mils DFT. The squadron did not report any 

issues or concerns with the TCP aircraft; noting, “other jets require more diligence in 

maintaining the coating system.” 

Figure 4.11: BUNO 163757 F/A-18C w/ TCP – NAS Lemoore, May 2004 

4.3.4 – STATUS 

25
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Overall, the TCP technology is performing at least as well as the standard 

chromate conversion coating in this demonstration. These aircraft had at least three 

carrier deployments and may have had a fourth. Maintenance personnel were 

enthusiastic about new technologies due to their environmental and health benefits. The 

TCP aircraft are performing on par with the best corrosion performance of the fully 

chromated system. The Planned Maintenance Interval (PMI) cycle for the F/A-18 is 60-

months, meaning that these aircraft will be returning to the depot for re-work in 

approximately two years. This will mean the TCP aircraft will have been in service for 5 

years or more. 

As a result of these positive field test results, and combined with the H-46 

demonstrations that are discussed in Section 4.4, NAVAIR Materials is planning to 

authorize the use of TCP under chromated primers, with the approval letter planned to 

issue in FY05. Additional FY05 efforts will focus on an extensive evaluation of new, 

non-chromate primer systems under qualification testing to MIL-PRF-23377 Class N; 

with field testing over TCP planned if applicable based on laboratory testing. 

26
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.4 – NAVAIR CH-46

4.4.1 – BACKGROUND 

NAVAIR’s fleet of H-46 helicopters undergo depot-level rework at NADEP 

Cherry Point, NC. Due to severe environmental restrictions placed on the conventional 

spray-on/rinse-off chemical processing methods, NADEP CP, for the past several years, 

has utilized a hand application wipe-on/wipe-off method for chromate conversion coating 

their aircraft. This procedure is used for all pre-paint surface preparation of aluminum 

skins for the H-46 program. The hand application method generates very little waste, 

thereby significantly minimizing environmental wastewater issues experienced in spray 

operations with hexavalent chromium. 

In 2000, the Environmental Affairs Office in Cherry Point determined that the 

NAVAIR TCP process does not fall under the environmental and health and safety 

regulations that govern the hexavalent chromium processes. This is due to trivalent 

chromium being non-carcinogenic, unlike hexavalent chromium. 

Cherry Point decided to field test the TCP on the H-46 platform, on the basis of 

being able to spray apply TCP. A conventional spray application conversion coating 

process allows for faster turn around time for aircraft undergoing Standard Depot Level 

Maintenance (SDLM). The current hand application method requires between 4 and 6 

man-hours of labor to conversion coat one CH-46 airframe. A spray application could 

reduce this process time by half, which affords a significant cost savings. At FY00 labor 

rates, it was estimated that annual costs savings by switching to a non-hazardous spray 

application would be approximately $30K for the sixty aircraft processed annually on 

average. 

4.4.2 – PROCESSING 

On October 23, 2000, NADEP Cherry Point completed its first trivalent 

chromium conversion coating (TCP) demonstration on specific areas of an H-46 

helicopter, BUNO 165454. This helicopter was scheduled to go to HMM 774 in Norfolk, 

VA in November, 2000. 

The three areas treated were the drive shaft tunnel, forward pylon, and aft pylon 

and cargo door. 

 

Figure 4.12: H-46 Components with TCP – NADEP CP, October 2000 

27
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Following a thorough cleaning, the bare metal surfaces were deoxidized using 

MIL-C-10578 phosphoric acid. While the surface was still wet, a total of fifteen gallons 

of TCP was applied using a reciprocating drum pump. Artisans sprayed the material 

through a fan shaped nozzle, evenly spraying the drive shaft tunnel, forward and aft 

pylons, and the cargo door with one coat of TCP. The TCP remained on the surface for 

one minute, and then a second application was sprayed onto all surfaces again. After 

another minute this process was repeated for a third and final time. A very faint green 

tint began to show following the second application. After approximately 7 minutes the 

aircraft was rinsed thoroughly, evaluated for any remaining residue, and rinsed once 

again. The pretreatment was allowed to cure overnight, and the aircraft was painted the 

next morning. 

 On October 26, 2001, BUNO 154819 CH-46E was spray processed with TCP at 

NADEP Cherry Point. The aircraft was nearing completion of SDLM. The surface skin 

of the H-46 is primarily composed of clad AA2024-T3. James Whitfield, AIR 4.9.7 

Materials Engineering, NADEP Cherry Point, NC oversaw the processing with TCP. His 

observations and comments on the processing are included below. 

 The exterior surfaces of the aircraft were stripped of old paint coatings by plastic 

media blasting. Landing gear and other surfaces sensitive to chemical processing were 

masked off prior to the start of spray operations. Cleaning was accomplished using a 

combination of steam cleaning and by scrubbing with MIL-PRF-85570 Type II Aircraft 

Cleaning Compound at 20% by volume. After cleaning, the aircraft was thoroughly 

rinsed with clean tap water. The cleaning step required approximately 2 hours. 

 While still wet from cleaning, the helicopter was deoxidized using MIL-C-10578 

Type II Metal Cleaner and Conditioner at 20% by volume. The deoxidizer was allowed 

to dwell on the surface for 5-minutes before thorough rinsing with clean tap water. 

Surfaces were visually inspected to ensure a water-break free surface was obtained. The 

deoxidizing step took approximately 15 minutes and required 25 gallons of solution. 

 While still wet, surfaces were coated using TCP solution. The TCP was spray 

applied from the bottom working upward to ensure complete coverage. TCP was reapplied after 5-minutes to prevent drying. Total TCP dwell time was 10 minutes. 

Surfaces where then thoroughly rinsed with clean tap water and allowed to dry. Ambient 

temperature during application was 65 0F with 50% RH. The TCP application step took 

approximately 15 minutes and required 35 gallons of TCP. 

 Shop artisans indicated that the process went well and was less labor intensive 

than the hand application coating process used for the chromate conversion coatings. The 

entire cleaning, deoxidizing, and conversion coating pretreatment process took 

approximately 2.5 hours. They estimated that as much as 1 hour was saved on process 

throughput. 

 After a 12-hour pretreatment dry time, the helicopter was primed and painted with 

MIL-PRF-85582 C1 water-reducible, epoxy primer and MIL-PRF-85285 Type I 

polyurethane topcoat. 

 The shop artisans did note that the surface treatment color change is one of the 

few downsides to TCP. Conventional chromate conversion coatings provide a distinct 

color change on treated surfaces. TCP, however, does not provide a noticeable color 

change. For process consistency and quality control, a color change or other simple 

28
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

means of determining surface treatment is desired. For tracking and follow-up purposes, 

an aircraft logbook entry was made indicating TCP surface treatment. 

4.4.3 – FIELD TESTING RESULTS 

 BUNO 154819 was fielded with HMM-264 squadron at MCAS New River, NC 

following final paint at Cherry Point. This aircraft was inspected by James Whitfield, 

NADEP CP, at HMM-264 on November 6, 2003, after 13-months in service. 

 This aircraft had recently returned from an 8-month deployment, most of which 

was shipboard on the USS Iwo Jima. This deployment included tours in Iraq, the horn of 

Africa, Albania, and Liberia. While deployed, aircraft in this squadron were subjected to 

the harsh corrosive environment typical for Navy and Marine operations. 

 The aircraft was examined to assess corrosion and coating system issues, and to 

compare finish system performance with other aircraft in the squadron (standard 

chromated coating system). Particular attention was given to fastener patterns, lap joints, 

butt joints, and other corrosion prone areas. 

 The paint system was found to be in good condition with only minor touch-up 

indications typical of aircraft in service for 2-years. No corrosion was noted during the 

inspection. Squadron maintenance records indicated that there were no notable 

differences between corrosion or paint repairs on this aircraft and other aircraft in the 

squadron that were finished with standard pretreatment materials. This was confirmed by 

inspection of other squadron aircraft that were refinished within a few months, before or 

after, of the date this aircraft was painted. 

4.4.4 – STATUS 

The inspection results for the CH-46’s indicate that TCP is performing at least as 

well as standard pretreatment materials for aluminum alloys. NADEP Cherry Point has 

expressed the intention to implement spray processing of TCP upon issuance of the 

NAVAIR approval letter. 

As a result of these positive field results, and combined with the F/A-18C 

demonstrations discussed in Section 4.3, NAVAIR Materials is planning to authorize the 

use of TCP under chromated primers, with the approval letter planned to issue in FY05. 

Additional FY05 efforts will focus on an extensive evaluation of new, non-chromate 

primer systems under qualification testing to MIL-PRF-23377 Class N; with field testing 

over TCP planned if applicable based on laboratory testing. 

29
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

4.5 – NASA SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS 

4.5.1 – BACKGROUND 

The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) had only one set of coatings and 

one type of pretreatment qualified for protection of aluminum hardware. All of the 

materials contained chromate compounds. A project was conducted to identify and 

qualify alternatives for the currently qualified coating system and pretreatment. 

The coatings were evaluated for corrosion protection, bond strength, compatibility 

with other SRB materials, batch-to-batch consistency, and thermal environments stability. 

Two pretreatments and two coating systems met the SRB program criteria. The 

recommended products are Henkel Alodine 5700, MacDermid Chemidize 727 ND, and 

the coating systems submitted by Hentzen and by Lord Coatings. The coating systems 

were tested in both a primer only and a primer/topcoat configuration. Both were found to 

be acceptable for flight. There are significant processing advantages for each of the 

materials depending on how they are used. The Hentzen coatings are chromate free and 

have very good processing characteristics along with good overall properties and are 

recommended for first implementation as an alternate. Likewise, Alodine 5700 had very 

robust processing parameters and is recommended for first implementation as a 

pretreatment alternate. 

4.5.2 – FIELD TESTING 

NASA began treating SRB’s with the non-chromate Alodine 5700/Hentzen 

primer system in 2002. The first hardware flew in the fall of 2002. 

4.5.3 – STATUS 

NASA implemented the Hentzen / Alodine 5700 system in June 2002. This 

change affected all structural aluminum (AA2219, AA6061, and AA7075) parts of the 

solid rocket boosters. No issues have been reported with this system. 

30
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

31

4.6 – BOEING/AIR FORCE/NAVY 

4.6.1 – BACKGROUND 

The US Air Force and Boeing have been evaluating a Sol-gel-based conversion 

coating process for paint adhesion applications where chromate pretreatments are 

traditionally used. The surface treatment system being used is AC-131 from Advanced 

Chemistry and Technology in Garden Grove, CA. AC-131 is based on technology 

developed at Boeing as “Boe-gel” sol-gel chemistry-based conversion coating. AC-131 is 

intended for use as an adhesion promoter for pre-paint applications on a variety of 

metallic substrates. 

The objective of the Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection (AACP) program, 

sponsored by the Aging Aircraft Division of the Aeronautical Enterprise Program Office, 

is to demonstrate and validate a coating system evolved from the AC-131/Boegel and to 

apply the coating system to aircraft for operational flight testing. This effort began in 

September 2002. 

The project focused on two main evaluations to determine validity for field 

demonstration. The first significant milestone of the project was to investigate ways to 

make Boegel/AC-131 visibly inspectable. Several colored dyes were successfully added 

to the conversion coating promoting color definition. The second milestone was to 

validate the adhesion promoting characteristics of AC-131 on a variety of aluminum 

substrates and surface conditions. To accomplish this goal, the team worked to define the 

cleaning and deoxidizing requirements for aluminum surfaces required for good 

adhesion. Good adhesion was exhibited to aluminum alloys when either AC-131 or 

Alodine 1200S was applied, however, wet adhesion failures were observed when no 

conversion coating was applied. Similar adhesion performance was observed for both 

the AC-131 and the Alodine 1200S chromate control in wet tape and pull-off adhesion 

testing. The performance of coating systems with AC-131/Boegel in laboratory testing 

has been reported to be equivalent or sometimes better than the performance of coating 

systems with conventional chromate conversion coatings. 

4.6.2 – STATUS 

Advanced Chemistry and Technology, Inc. is currently evaluating a blue-dyed 

version of the AC-131 developed during the Boeing efforts to determine the adhesion 

performance of the colored coatings and to evaluate the effect of the dye on long term 

coating system performance. 

The AF/Boeing plan is to field test the AC-131 versus a chromate conversion 

coating for prepaint operations beginning in FY05. An F-15, to be stationed at Eglin 

AFB, FL, and a KC-135 support aircraft, to be stationed at Hickam AFB, HI, will be 

painted at Warner Robbins ALC and The Boeing Aircraft Support Center (BASC), 

respectively, both in San Antonio, TX. Half of each aircraft will receive the conventional 

chromated coating, with the other half being processed with the AC-131 non-chromate 

sol-gel coating. The aircraft will then be primed with MIL-PRF-23377 C chromated, 

epoxy primer and top-coated with Advanced Performance Topcoat (APC). 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.0 – ESTCP NCAP EFFORTS 

5.1 – US NAVY LANDING CRAFT, AIR CUSHIONED 

5.1.1 – BACKGROUND 

 The current pre-paint procedure for the Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC) 

amphibious vehicle hulls, which are composed primarily of AA5456-H116, involves abrasive 

blasting with garnet until a surface profile of 3 mils is achieved. Selected compartments and 

voids are then coated with a solvent-reducible, non-chromated epoxy primer, MIL-DTL-24441B 

Type III, Formula 150, to a dry film thickness (DFT) of 3-4 mils and then coated with MILDTL-24441B Type III, Formula 151 for a final DFT of 6-8 mils. This is done for the recently 

created Craft Alterations CA-369K and CA-445K, which apply coatings to selected corrosion 

prone voids. Hexavalent chromium chemistry was suspended by NAVSEA in August 1991 and 

an alternative to abrasive blasting for surface preparation is desired. 

 Several issues have arisen with the current direct-to-metal process, one of which is 

adhesion loss due to undercutting and undercutting exacerbated by crevice corrosion between 

substrate and coating, and another being coating cracking due to craft flex and vibration. 

 Surface preparation is a key concern, as MIL-DTL-24441B exhibits poor adhesion when 

the nominal surface profile is less then 3-mils. This can be achieved by grit-blasting, but not by 

other mechanical surface preparation methods, such as shot-peening or grit-impregnated sanders. 

AA5456-H116 has a tendency to polish after approximately 2 mils of profile have been achieved 

by mechanical methods. Additionally, both Assault Craft Unit Four (ACU-4) and ACU-5 are 

prohibited by NAVSEA from sailors performing abrasive blasting due to dust generation. This 

adversely affects the coatings performance of any maintenance and repair efforts conducted at 

the unit level. With respect to CRAFTALT installation as performed by contractors, production 

schedule analysis has indicated that implementation of TCP in place of the current abrasive blast 

process could reduce production time by 23 man-days and hangar time by 8 days. 

 These tests were initiated and overseen by Mr. Paul Dobias, NSWC Carderock Division, 

Materials Process and Engineering Branch. The LCAC program began testing TCP as a 

potential surface preparation method, allowing a substitution for abrasive blasting as a pre-paint 

process. The TCP was chosen for demonstration because of the potential for realizing both a 

time/cost savings, as well as improved adhesion and corrosion performance when compared to a 

direct-to-metal process. 

5.1.2 – FIELD TESTING 

The US Navy LCAC program has been field-testing TCP for the last 3-4 years, in both 

beach-side outdoor exposure testing and vehicle applications. This work was conducted at ACU4 in Little Creek, VA. The LCAC is a NAVSEA program, and initiated this field test using 

ARCOVA-supplied TCP. 

 The exposure testing was conducted on panels composed from AA5083-H111, AA5086-

H116, and AA5456-H116 (AA5456-H116 is the primary alloy used for construction of LCAC 

hull structures). 

Al alloy Surface Prep Primer/Topcoat Test 

5456H116 

5086H116 

5083H111 

None, 

Garnet-blast to 3 mil, 

120-grit abrade w/ TCP 

None Bare, 

Beachside Outdoor 

Exposure 

5456H116 

5086H116 

5083H111 

None, 

Garnet-blast to 3 mil, 

120-grit abrade w/ TCP 

MIL-DTL-24441B TyIII 

F150/151 

DFT – 8-10 mil 

Scribed, Painted 

Beachside Outdoor 

Exposure 

 32

Table 5.1: Beach-side Exposure Testing – begun March 2001, ACU-4 Little Creek, VA 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Two test components were treated on LCAC-26 in August 2000, to examine the TCP as 

an adhesion promoter for surface preparation, and to evaluate TCP for surface corrosion 

protection. The components were painted with MIL-DTL-24441B TyIII. 

 The first test area was the deck of the oily waste tank, which can contain MIL-H-23699 

hydraulic fluid, seawater, and engine cleaning detergents. This is an area where adhesion loss is 

observed due to breakdown of the organic coating. 

 

Figure 5.1: LCAC-26 Oily Waste Tank with TCP Test Patch 

The second test area was on the deck where there is a void observed to suffer periodic 

seawater penetration. The TCP for this effort was obtained from the American Research 

Corporation of Virginia (ARCOVA). 

5.1.3 – RESULTS 

 Beach-side testing coupons were exposed on 30 degree racks at the Little Creek, VA site 

for 4 years. Within 6 months of exposure, the scribed painted coupons with no surface 

preparation exhibited undercutting from the scribe. The garnet-blasted coupons developed 

undercutting around 3.5 years, the TCP coupons are still in testing, no undercutting is evident. 

 

Figure 5.2: Beach-side Exposure Racks, Little Creek, VA 

 33
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Untreated Blasted TCP

Figure 5.3: AA5456-H116 Coupons (Bare, Blasted, or TCP) coated with MIL-DTL-24441B 

F150/151 – 1.5+ years Beach-side Exposure 

 In December 2002, the test coupons were evaluated for surface pitting and general 

corrosion. Both the garnet blasted coupons and the coupons treated with TCP performed better 

than those with no surface preparation, which were now bare due to all of the coating having lost 

adhesion. The overall evaluation was that TCP reduced the incidence of pitting corrosion 

comparative to other surface preparation methods. 

 The two painted TCP components were evaluated after 4 years of service on LCAC #26: 

no corrosion, undercutting, or adhesion failures were noted. This demonstrated the adhesion 

performance when subjected to both corrosive and vibrational/flexing environments. 

 The field test for bare corrosion resistance was deemed inconclusive due to prior pitting 

damage that was not fully removed. 

Figure 5.4: TCP Applied 

to Air Intake 

Plenum Deck, LCAC-26 

5.1.4 – STATUS 

 NAVSEA PEO SHIPS, PMS 377 has indicated that they will authorize TCP for 

pretreatment of aluminum alloys of LCAC as soon as commercial products are qualified to MILDTL-81706B and concurrence from the Technical Warrant Holder (TWH) are obtained. 

 34
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2 – USMC EXPEDITIONARY FIGHTING VEHICLE 

5.2.1 – BACKGROUND 

The Marine Corps’ current Amphibious Assault capability currently relies on the use of 

the legacy platform USMC Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV); a lightly armored aluminum 

troop carrier capable of transporting a full squad of Marines from an off-shore transport ship 

onto dry land. This platform is from a 20+ old design, and the USMC realized the need to update 

their capability in this critical area. 

 The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program was originally designated the AAAV 

– Armored Amphibious Assault Vehicle. The contractor and designer, GDAMS, has been 

manufacturing and testing prototype and SDD vehicles for the past few years. The SDD phase is 

still underway, with all ten of the planned vehicles either in testing or in the final stages of 

manufacture; with the planned production of one more training vehicle. For reasons of weight 

limit concerns, and because of improved ballistics properties; the EFV program decided to move 

away from the AA5083-H131 alloy used for the AAV, and chose a new alloy AA2519-T87. 

 While the ballistics and strength/weight ratio improved with the use of this alloy, the 

problem of corrosion was greatly magnified. AA2519 is a high copper alloy very susceptible to 

pitting and exfoliation corrosion. Due to the use of a corrosion-prone alloy, in conjunction with 

the extremely harsh operating environment experienced by the EFV; the corrosion control 

coatings and materials must be as robust at possible. 

 At the outset of this new acquisition program, the PM made the executive decision to 

comply with the strictures of an environmentally “green” program. Included in this is the full 

prohibition of the use of hexavalent chromium containing coatings. 

 The OEM is GDLS; and the EFV’s are being produced at the Lima Army Tank Plant 

(LATP) facility, in Lima, OH. The LATP site is where the US Army’s M1A2 Abrams battle tank 

is manufactured. 

 Originally, the EFV prototype vehicles were prepared and coated using a grit-blast/wash 

primer process that had shown good performance characteristics on high-strength and armor steel 

alloys (like the Abrams). During initial field and in-water testing with P1, the first prototype 

vehicle, serious problems arose with the coating system and its corrosion performance. These 

corrosion and adhesion issues needed to be addressed for the unique performance and 

operational requirements of AA2519-T87. 

 The corrosion coating system issues that needed to be addressed were serious 

coating/substrate adhesion loss on the P1 hull, turret, and other components, as well as rapid 

exfoliation corrosion of the aluminum substrate. 

 The initial coating procedure was wash with a standard alkaline steel cleaner, abrasive 

blast with alumina to a 1.5-2.0 mil surface profile, wash prime with a water-reducible nonchrome primer, prime with a solvent-reducible, epoxy CARC, and finally topcoat with a waterreducible, polyurethane CARC. 

 It was suggested that the program look into a chemical process and conversion coat 

surface preparation in lieu of the mechanical surface preparation/wash primer process. 

5.2.2 – P1 - TCP PERFORMANCE VALIDATION 

 General Dynamics and the EFV Program requested that the Inorganic Coatings Team 

(ICT) refurbish deflectors, part number AV1060625, commonly called “steering buckets” and 

two seal plates, numbers AV106015-1P (port side) and AV106015-1A (starboard side) from 

EFV P1. 

 

35
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Two deflectors were refurbished and an evaluation was done to validate the performance 

of NAVAIR’s TCP using a standard “wet” surface preparation process. These parts were grit 

blasted with alumina on August 14, 2001 to remove the paint system and corrosion products. 

Later that morning the four components were processed in the Inorganic Coatings Lab, Patuxent 

River, MD using the following process: 

1. Cleaned using a warm mildly-alkaline, non-silicated, non-etching aluminum cleaner. 

(Turco 4215 NC LTTM – 120 F) Solution was scrubbed lightly onto the components 

with Scotch-Brite pads. Figure 5.5 shows the cleaning of a steering bucket. 

2. Rinsed thoroughly with warm tap water followed by deionized (DI) water. 

3. While still wet, Turco 3003 TWA cleaner/deoxidizer was hand-applied with Scotch-Brite 

pads, scrubbing gently to ensure contact of the chemical with all surfaces. 

4. Allowed 3003 TWA to dwell on the substrate for 15 minutes. 

5. Rinsed thoroughly with cold tap water followed by DI water. 

6. While still wet, spray-applied TCP10P solution using a two-liter, hand-pumped solution 

sprayer. Figure 5.6 shows the application of TCP. 

7. Allowed TCP to dwell on the surface for 5 minutes, keeping the surface wet. This 

required the additional misting of the surface twice due to the low humidity and high 

airflow in the lab. 

8. Rinsed thoroughly with cold tap water followed by DI water. 

9. Allowed components to air-dry for one hour. Figure 5.7 shows a component with a dried 

TCP film. 

Figure 5.5: Cleaning Steering Bucket 

 36
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.6: Application of TCP 

Figure 5.7: TCP Coating after Drying

 

 37
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Later in the afternoon of August 14, 2001, the components were painted using MIL-PRF85582-NC Type II primer from PRC-DeSoto. This primer is flat black in color. On the morning 

of August 15, 2001, the components were painted with a MIL-C-53039 gray CARC topcoat from 

Hentzen. Components were allowed to cure until late in the afternoon when they were picked up 

by a member of the GDAMS team and taken back to the test building. It is important to note that 

the tight schedule for reworking the components led to only a 6-hour cure for the topcoat. 

Ideally, the topcoat would be allowed to cure for 24 hours before handling and exposure to a 

corrosive environment. Painted components are detailed in Figures 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10. All four 

components were reinstalled on the P1 that evening and painted black for aesthetic purposes. 

Figure 5.8: Steering Bucket after Priming with MIL-PRF-85582 NC 

Figure 5.9: Steering Bucket after Topcoat Application with MIL-C-53039 

 38
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.10: Seal Plate after Topcoat Application with MIL-C-53039 

While the components were being painted on the afternoon of August 14, members of the 

Inorganic Coatings Team (ICT) applied a TCP coating to the mating surfaces of the seal plates 

on the port and starboard sides where corrosion and adhesion damage had occurred. In addition, 

the P1 team requested that TCP coating be applied to the port and starboard water jet thrust 

plates. These areas were cleaned and mechanically prepped by the P1 team. Immediately after 

being wiped clean with an alcohol wipe, the surfaces were treated with TCP. The TCP was 

wiped onto the surfaces using a clean cotton rag and allowed to dwell for 10 minutes. Repeat 

applications of TCP were made after approximately three to seven minutes. No TCP solution ran 

onto adjoining surfaces. After the dwell, un-reacted solution was wiped from the treated surfaces 

using a second clean rag saturated with clean DI water. The surfaces were then allowed to airdry with help from a large fan. That evening, the P1 crew primed these surfaces using MILPRF-85582 NC material applied from Sem-penTM touch-up paint applicators. Figures 5.11 and 

5.12 depict the TCP touch-up process. 

 39
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.10: Seal Plate Mating Surface after Corrosion Removal 

Figure 5.11: Application of TCP Coating on Seal Plate Mating Surface 

5.2.3 – LABORATORY TESTING 

 Concurrently with the limited initial field testing on the P1, a large laboratory panel test 

matrix was started at NAVAIR Pax River to determine the optimum surface preparation and prepaint coating system for processing of later prototype and SDD vehicles at LATP. 

 This matrix looked at the possible process combinations resulting from using grit-blasted 

and as-machined surfaces, with and without an alkaline chemical cleaner, and with and without a 

chemical deoxidation step. Two wash primers at specified thicknesses were evaluated by dry/wet 

tape adhesion and neutral salt fog (ASTM B117) compared to two non-chromate chemical 

conversion coating alternatives and a chromate control. 

 All coating permutations were subsequently coated with either MIL-PRF-85582 N or 

MIL-P-53022, with MIL-PRF-85582C1 as the chromated control primer. 

 40
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Mechanical 

Surface 

Prep 

Dwell Alkaline Clean Chemical 

Deoxidize 

Pretreatment or 

Wash Primer Primer Test 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Aqua Zen (1.0, 

2.5, & 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Kem Aqua (1.0, 

2.5, & 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Slikote (1.0, 2.5, 

& 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Aqua Zen (1.0, 

2.5, & 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Kem Aqua (1.0, 

2.5, & 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Slikote (1.0, 2.5, 

& 4.0 mils) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo Alodine 5200 85582 NC or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo Alodine 5200 85582 NC or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo TCP 85582 NC or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo TCP 85582 NC or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast 2 hours or 

24 hours 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Turco 

Accelagold 

(chromate 

control) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

As-Machined N/A 

None, Turco 4215, 

or MEK solvent 

wipe 

none or Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Turco 

Accelagold 

(chromate 

control) 

85582 NC 

or 53022 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Grit Blast N/A Turco 4215 Turco 

3003/SmutGo 

Accelagold, 

TCP, Alodine 

5200 

85582 C1 

Dry, 1,4,7 Day Wet 

Adhesion or ASTM 

B117 NSF 

Table 5.2: Coating System Test Variables 

 41
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 The last coating system variable was the control, a fully chromated coating system – 

using a chromate control primer, MIL-PRF-85582C1 evaluated over the chromate control, as 

well as a chromated primer control over non-chromate pretreatments Alodine 5200 and TCP. 

 The process protocols are outlined below. 

1. Alkaline Cleaner – Turco 4215 NC LT, 15-minute immersion at 120 0F 

2. Deoxidizer – Turco 3003 TWA 25% by volume, 15-minute contact by spray application at 

 ambient temperature with a Scotch-Brite scrub 

3. Desmutter – Turco Smut-Go NC, 30 to 60-second contact by spray application at ambient 

temperature 

4. Primer – Mil-PRF-85582 C and N & Mil-P-53022 were applied at a DFT of 0.9-1.5 mils 

5. Topcoat – MIL-DTL-64159 Type II CARC 383 Green for ASTM B117 Neutral Salt Fog 

6. Process – Coupons were rinsed thoroughly between each step with ambient DI water 

7. Coupons were not allowed to dry out between process steps. This mitigates re-oxidation or 

contamination of the surface 

8. Pretreated surfaces were allowed to dry overnight before primer applications or per technical 

process instruction for the wash primer products 

9. Coupons were top-coated 24 to 48-hours after primer application 

10. Grit-Blast with alumina (aluminum oxide) to a 1.0-1.5-mil surface profile 

11. Wash Primers were applied at wet film thicknesses of 1.0, 2.5, and 4.0-mils – corresponds to 

a DFT of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0-mils 

5.2.4 – P1 AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS 

5.2.4.1 – LABORATORY TESTING 

 The chemical conversion coatings, Alodine 1200S, TCP, and Alodine 5700 outperformed 

the wash primers in corrosion and adhesion testing, regardless of primer. Both of the nonchromate conversion coatings averaged better than a “4A” rating in dry and wet adhesion testing 

by ASTM D 3359, regardless of surface preparation method or subsequent primer coating. 

 Based on the delamination and blistering issues noticed with the wash primer coating 

system on the P1, NAVAIR made the recommendation that for this aluminum alloy and 

operational environment, the EFV program should use a chemical conversion coating as the 

preferred surface preparation process. 

In the laboratory testing, no difference was observed in the corrosion and adhesion 

performance of the conversion coatings when applied over an as-machined surface compared to

a grit-blasted surface. The EFV program decided to pursue a chemical clean and deoxidation 

process, which is less costly and less time/labor intensive than an abrasive blast process. The 

performance of the wet processed TCP/MIL-PRF-85582 NC coating system merited additional 

investigation and validation of the process and coating system for potential implementation by 

GD for the EFV program. Early performance feedback led to discussions of potentially using a 

wet process for new hulls as well as evaluating TCP in other EFV applications including the 

track cover door, sprocket carriers, idler wheels and hull touch-up. 

5.2.4.2 – PERFORMANCE OF INITIAL COMPONENTS WITH TCP ON EFV P1 

 NAVAIR personnel visually inspected the performance of the new coatings after one, 

two, four and six week intervals. Feedback was also garnered from the P1 crew. At each 

interval there was no evidence of corrosion, paint blistering or other coating problems. Figures 

5.13 and 5.14 show the starboard steering bucket and seal plate on EFV P1 after 2 weeks in 

service on the platform. The performance of the pretreated components on the P1 was 

 42
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

significantly better than the original coating system, and the vehicle was re-worked with a full 

conversion coating system. Since the re-coat chemicals were hand applied, one half of the 

vehicle was coated with a chromate control system and the other half was a non-chromate test 

system. 

Figure 5.13: Starboard Steering Bucket and Seal Plate after 2 Weeks in Service 

 

Figure 5.14: Inside of Starboard Steering Bucket after 2 Weeks in Service 

 43
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2.5 – SDD VEHICLE HULL AND TURRET PROCESSING 

 

5.2.5.1 – BACKGROUND 

The SDD phase of this new acquisition program began in 2000, with the production and 

processing of E1 at LATP. Ten vehicles were planned for the SDD phase, nine “E” variants – 

standard model squad amphibious vehicle, and 1 “C” variant – a commander’s vehicle, lacking 

the 25mm gun on the turret but with an upgraded communications and electronics package. 

Based on the outcome of the early laboratory testing and the initial field test data on the P1 

components, Alodine 5700 and TCP were selected as the non-chromate conversion coating 

alternatives. One SDD vehicle was planned for a fully chromated coating system. 

5.2.5.2 – INITIAL PROCESSING 

 A representative from NAVAIR was present at LATP for the processing of the first SDD 

EFV – E1. GDAMS and Henkel Surface Technologies (HSTNA) – maker of the AlodineTM

product line and main chemical supplier for LATP – were also present for on-site technical 

support. The E1 process used an alkaline cleaner already stocked at LATP for cleaning of 

painted steel surfaces, and an aerospace standard phosphoric acid deoxidizer with a mild, nitricacid desmutter for surface preparation. The E1 vehicle was sprayed with Alodine 5700 using 2-

gallon plastic garden sprayers. Several spray processing recommendations were made by 

NAVAIR and HSTNA, and these changes were incorporated into the process for the next 

vehicle. 

5.2.5.3 – PROCESSING 

When initial prototype and SDD manufacture began for this program, LATP did not have 

any experience with aluminum finishing. The original prototype vehicles were mechanically 

prepared and wash primed with the same process as that employed for steel substrates. 

Additionally, the use of a newly designed aluminum alloy, AA2519-T87, meant that there was a 

large learning curve to overcome in the pretreatment of these vehicles. The first few vehicles in 

SDD exhibited cohesive adhesion failures occurring at the primer metal interface. This indicated 

a possible problem with the conversion coating process. The original chemical process needed 

improvements in chemical selection, application temperatures, and greater attention to detail in 

chemical dwell times and rinsing parameters. 

 The first issue, resolved after the processing of E1, was the use of the 2-step 

deoxidation/de-smutting process originally suggested by NAVAIR. While this process worked 

well in the laboratory tests, it was found to be too time and labor intensive for a manual spray 

process application. By the time the chemicals were finished being applied, the first area would 

be dry, allowing for the deposition of chemical contaminants and/or re-oxidation of the 

aluminum substrate. Laboratory testing was conducted at NAVAIR to look at milder, slower 

acting single-step deoxidizers that would not cause extensive smutting of the surface, even at 

longer dwell times. RidolineTM 4450, a citric/dilute hydro-acetic acid mix was selected as the 

giving the best clean, oxide free surface without smutting. E2 was processed using the Ridoline 

4450. 

 The next issue was the use of the K-56TM cleaner, where it was observed that even after 

several cleanings, the aluminum did not exhibit a uniformly water-break free surface. A waterbreak free surface indicates the high-surface tension of the metal when it is free of organic 

contaminants such as machining oils, dirt, and fingerprints. HSTNA suggested the use of a 

cleaner, AerowashTM, specifically designed for cleaning aluminum alloys. The transition was 

 44
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

made to the use of Aerowash before E4; however, it was noted that the Aerowash’s cleaning 

capability was greatly diminished when not used at an elevated temperature. 

Figure 5.15: EFV E3 Spray Processsing – LATP 

 For quality control, several adhesion tests were conducted for each vehicle, in accordance 

with ASTM D 3359 Procedure B, to ascertain the consistency of the processing and the quality 

of the conversion coating. Adhesion issues were seen up to SDD vehicle E4, as the process 

parameters were gradually optimized. It was noted that the third SDD vehicle, C1, had the best 

overall adhesion (though still not in keeping with performance levels suggested by laboratory 

testing). This vehicle experienced the shortest dwell times and most consistent rinsing of the 

early demonstrations. This suggested that with proper process control and optimization, high 

performance could be achieved with the selected non-chromate pretreatments. Between E4 and 

E7, several significant changes were made to the process chemicals and controls. E6 was the 

chromate control vehicle, and no adhesion or processing issues were experienced. E7 was 

processed with the non-chromate system, TCP and MIL-P-53022. 

5.2.5.4 – E7 PAINT ADHESION RESULTS 

 There were no adhesion issues observed with E7. The processing dwell times were 

exactly within the optimum range and the TCP solution was diluted to 30% by volume instead of 

the usual 50% by volume. This may have lowered the solution activity, making the conversion 

coating reaction less restrictive on dwell time. 

 

 45
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2.6 – PROCESSING – CURRENT PROCESS 

5.2.6.1 – E8 

Processing for the E-08 began on 15 March 2004. Table 5.3 outlines the pretreatment 

steps for the EFV E8 including alkaline cleaning, deoxidizing and application of TCP. A fourman crew was used. All adhesion test results were ratings of 4A or better. 

Time Notes 

0845 Rinsed pumps, hoses and vacuum tubes. Filled rinse barrel. Retrieved a degrease 

can on top of the vehicle. K-56 wash only at de-burr station. Very little filings. 

Spray cleaned with hot AerowashTM. 

0853 Begin AerowashTM. 

0909 Finish AerowashTM. Good foamy coverage. 

0930 Finish rinse. Stress high volume, low pressure for rinsing vehicles. 

0935 Vacuum out water. Three new drain holes on this vehicle resulted in less water 

being trapped after rinsing. Will do a double rinse after deoxidizing – first quick 

rinse to dilute the chemical and a second longer rinse to focus better on coverage and 

inserts. 

0945 Break. 

0950 Chips and shavings appear to have collected at the two rear central floor panels. 

Vacuumed prior to deoxidizing. 

1015 Begin deoxidization using Ridoline 4450TM. Start from bottom of vehicle and work 

up. 

1029 Begin first rinse. 

1032 Begin second rinse focusing on inserts. 

1050 Vacuum out all water. 

1102 Begin TCP application. Start from the bottom and work up the vehicle. Apply on 

outside of vehicle, then inside of vehicle and finally a quick second coat on the 

outside. 

1125 Begin Rinse. 

1145 Final DI water rinse. 

Table 5.3: Outline of E8 Processing 

 46
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2.6.2 – E9 

Time Notes 

0834 Started Aerowash. Began in front, then below hull, up the sides to the top and then 

inside. 

1005 Completed Aerowash. Total Aerowash time – 45 minutes 

1010 Rinsing started. 

1035 Rinsing finished. Nice water break-free surface. 

1040 Excess water vacuumed out of hull from areas where it had collected. Set-up 

Ridoline 4450 spray wands and pump hoses. Two 2.5 gal/min. pumps were to be 

used. 

1048 Vacuuming complete. 

1216 Began spraying Ridoline 4450. 4450 application approximately 25 minutes. 

1241 Began rinse. Rinse overlapped approximately one minute more of 4450 application. 

1302 Finished rinsing. Total rinse time ~ 20 minutes. 

1309 Begin TCP-cc2 spray. 

1331 Completed TCP-cc2 application. 

1332 Began fire hose rinse. 

1347 Finished fire hose rinse. 

1349 Began DI water rinse. 

1404 Finished DI water rinse. 

Table 5.4: Outline of E9 Processing 

This was the first vehicle to receive a spray application of TCP-color. TCP-color is a pHstabilized formulation of the TCP used on the previous vehicles. TCP-color also incorporates 

additional chemistry that enables a color change upon the treated areas for an easier visual 

confirmation of the application. Previous laboratory studies showed a dark purple/brown color 

on treated areas when using an immersion application process. High-pressure spray application 

could not be suitably tested within the laboratory environment prior to use on the vehicle. 

 After TCP-color application, a visible color change was not observed. A darker 

brown/gray coloring was visible in areas where TCP streaked/ran off from inserts. See Figure 

5.16. This same coloring could also be seen where TCP pooled in pocketed areas of the vehicle. 

An overall very slight smoky appearance could be seen on the vehicle. The iridescent 

appearance from the non-color change TCP was more evident than the observed color change 

from the TCP-C application. The dark colored streaking and well areas were examined the 

following morning and a powdery coating was not present in those areas. Regardless of film 

coloration, no adhesion failures were seen with this vehicle. 

 47
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 

Figure 5.16: Minimal TCP Color Change Observed Near Inserts 

 

No adhesion performance differences were noted between the chromate control vehicle, 

E6, and the latter SDD vehicles. Several process iterations were used in this demonstration with 

various results, until the optimum chemicals and parameters were found. This indicates the 

importance of repeatability and quality control in the validation of these non-chromate 

alternatives. Table 5.5 outlines the chemicals, pretreatments, and paint systems used in the SDD 

phase of the EFV program and shows the gradual optimization of the coating system. 

 

 48
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004

Paint Plan as of 02/03/03 

SDD Vehicle Cleaner Deox Pretreatment Primer Exterior Top Coat Inte

E1 K-56

Turco 3000/Turco 

Smut-go Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF-85582 - NC 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E2 K-56 Ridoline 4450 Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF-85582 - NC 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

C1 K-56 Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E3 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-PRF-85582 - NC 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E4 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 Alodine 5700 MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E5 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E6 Aerowash Ridoline 4450

Alodine 1200S - 

Hex Cr MIL-P-23377 - C 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E7 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E8 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

E9 Aerowash Ridoline 4450 NAVAIR - TCP MIL-P-53022 

MIL-PRF- 64159 TyII 

CARC MIL

Alodine 5700 and TCP are Non-hexavalent chromium conversion coatings 

MIL-P-53022, and MIL-PRF-85582 N are Non-hexavalent chromium primers. 

E6 is a fully chromated system - this is the control vehicle 

Table 5.5: SDD PAINT PLAN
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.2.7 – CURRENT PROCESS – LRIP 

 The chemical process will be as finalized in the SDD phase: standard aluminum process, 

spray clean – 100+ 0

F, mildly-alkaline, non-etching, non-silicated cleaner; spray deoxidize – 

ambient, non-smutting citric/acetic acid solution; spray conversion coating – ambient TCP or 

Alodine 5700. 

 The current manual spray process – 3-4 man team, 6 hours start to finish is planned to be 

replaced in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) with an automated, car-wash style spray 

processing line for clean, prep, and conversion coating application. 

Alkaline Cleaner Aerowash 10% vol. 100 F 

Deoxidizer Ridoline 4450 10-15 minute dwell 

Pretreatment TCP 30-50% vol. 10-15 minute dwell 

Primer MIL-P-53022 CARC white 

Topcoat (Interior) MIL-C-22750 seafoam green 

Topcoat (Exterior) MIL-DTL-64159 TyII CARC 383 Green or Tan 

Table 5.5: Target coating system for EFV LRIP 

5.2.8 – PROTOTYPE AND SDD VEHICLES FIELD TESTS 

5.2.8.1 – P1 - PERFORMANCE OF CHROMATED AND NON-CHROMATED SYSTEMS 

ON USMC-EFV P1 

 P1 and P3 were stripped and repainted by a third-party, industrial painter using chemical 

conversion coating as the surface preparation before field testing, because of the corrosion and 

paint adhesion issues experienced with the prototype vehicles. Both vehicles had a fully 

chromated test coating on the starboard side that was compared to a non-chromated coating 

system, using TCP as the pretreatment, on the port side. 

Before the P1 vehicle was fielded at the USMC Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch 

(AVTB) at Camp Pendleton, the paint system was scribed through in an “X” pattern at several 

locations on the hull. The main scribe location was forward on the lower side-wall of each 

vehicle. This area is subject to scrapes and dings during land movement, and is fully submerged 

when the vehicle is in the water. The initial inspection of P1 was conducted at 4 months, at 

AVTB. Preliminary results indicated that the non-chromate system was keeping pace with the 

chromated products. The next inspection was conducted at roughly 1 year of testing, in August 

2003. 

 50
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004

P1 Non-chromate vs. chromate Testing Results 

Non-Chromate Chromate

Figure 5.17: P1 – 4 Months In-Water Testing 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 Craig Matzdorf, NAVAIR, visited the AVTB on the morning of August 6, 2003 and 

observed corrosion issues on the forward scribed areas on each side of the P3 hull. A field 

observation was conducted and photos were taken of interior and exterior examples of corrosion. 

The forward scribed area on each side of the hull of the USMC-EFV P1 was observed. 

The chromated coating showed no corrosion whatsoever, with the scribes remaining bright and 

shiny. The non-chromated coating showed some white corrosion product in the scribe and one 

or two small corrosion pits. No undercutting or damage was noted away from the scribes. The 

other general areas that were visible showed no difference in performance on either side. 

 Of note is that the vehicle was parked facing north and the port side (with the nonchromate system) was very wet under the flaps. The starboard side (with the chromate system) 

was dry. This may be due to the washing schedule and how much sun the EFV gets after rinsing. 

If the port side is typically wet longer, the corrosion potential is far higher than for the starboard 

side. This must be taken into account when comparing the coating systems. It was suggested 

that AVTB personnel be questioned regarding the rinsing protocol and whether the port side does 

typically stay wet longer, before or after rinsing. 

 It was noted that the steering buckets and brackets around them on both sides were 

different than previously and had large unpainted areas that were beginning to surface corrode 

and pit. It was recommended that these surfaces be cleaned of corrosion, treated with TCP, 

primed and top-coated as soon as possible to prevent further degradation. 

Figure 5.18: P1 Inspection – C. Matzdorf at AVTB, Camp Pendleton – August 2003 

 52
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

P1 was inspected by Bill Nickerson of NAVAIR and Kevin Clark of GDAMS at the 

GDAMS Woodbridge, VA facility on February 19, 2004. Again, similar surface corrosion and 

paint adhesion performance was observed between the fully chromated and fully non-chromate 

coating systems. 

One area of concern was noted in the performance difference with respect to galvanic 

corrosion. The non-chromate system exhibited significantly more corrosion around dissimilar 

metal interfaces than did the chromated coating system. It was noted that the non-chromate 

system was MIL-PRF-85582 N primer, a water-reducible non-chrome epoxy primer; while the 

chromated side was MIL-PRF-23377 C2 primer, a solvent-reducible chromated epoxy primer. 

Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed that the large discrepancy in galvanic protection 

was a property of the primer system. The MIL-P-53022 solvent-reducible non-chrome epoxy 

primer performed very similarly to the MIL-23377 C2 primer; leading to the conclusion that a 

solvent-based primer, regardless of chromate content, was preferable for galvanic corrosion 

protection due to increased barrier protection against moisture ingress compared to water-based 

primers for use on the EFV platform. 

 

5.2.8.2 – E2 AND E7 – IN WATER TESTING, AVTB, CAMP PENDLETON, CA 

EFV SDD Vehicles E2 and E7 were inspected by Bill Nickerson, NAVAIR, and Kevin 

Clark, GDAMS, along with Subra Bettadapur, DRPM AAA, at AVTB, Camp Pendleton on May 

24, 2004. These vehicles have been undergoing in-water testing and evaluation at the 

Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch, Camp Pendleton, CA for almost 2 years. 

 Both of these vehicles were spray processed at the LATP facility with a non-chromate 

alternative conversion coating, and painted with a non-chromate primer and CARC topcoat. 

E2 was processed as follows: 

1. Clean with K-56 alkaline cleaner 

2. Deoxidize with Ridoline 4450 

3. Pretreat with Alodine 5700 

4. Prime with MIL-PRF-85582 N 

5. Topcoat with MIL-DTL-64159 TyII 

E7 was processed as follows: 

1. Clean with Aerowash 

2. Deoxidize with Ridoline 4450 

3. Pretreat with TCP 

4. Prime with MIL-P-53022 

5. Topcoat with MIL-DTL-64159 TyII

It was observed that both vehicles had areas of paint loss due to scraping and gouging 

caused by rocks and debris around track areas, and on the lower anterior-hull from abrasion 

during water-to-land movements. Figure 5.19 shows severe scraping damage on the lower 

anterior-hull of E7 – no additional undercutting from the damaged areas is evident. 

 53
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.20: E7 Lower Anterior Hull 

Figure 5.21 shows a cross-hatch scribe area on E7 from the initial QC paint adhesion 

inspection at LATP – no undercutting or peeling of the paint system from the scribe was 

observed. No corrosion product was evident in the scribed area. 

Figure 5.21: E7 Cross-hatch Scribe 

 

54
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

E2 exhibited significantly more corrosion, additional undercutting, paint adhesion 

problems from damaged areas than did E7. Figure 5.22 shows paint chipping on E2’s top, port 

side, in front of the driver’s hatch. This area sees a high volume of traffic, but similar damage 

was not evident on the E7. 

Figure 5.22: E2 Driver’s Hatch 

 It is important to note that E2 was processed much earlier in the SDD cycle than was E7, 

and some paint adhesion issues in QC testing after processing were noted even before field 

testing. E7 had perfect paint adhesion test results after processing. The biggest factor was the 

processing differences, as E2 was still cleaned using the K-56 product, which is not designed for 

aluminum substrates. After the processing of E2, it was agreed by consensus that a water-breakfree surface must be achieved before continuing with the chemical processing. 

 The field tests bear out the absolute criticality of applying the chemical conversion 

coating with the proper process controls and parameters. Once the proper chemicals and process 

checks were in place, such as wetting the surface after cleaning to ensure water-break free 

surface and good attention to chemical dwell times during processing, no paint adhesion issues 

have been reported. E7, E8, and E9 vehicles all passed the QC paint adhesion inspection at 

LATP and the non-chromate coating system is performing very well on E7 in field testing. 

5.2.8.3 – STATUS 

The EFV program is scheduled to begin LRIP in early FY06. TCP has been selected as 

the pretreatment for the processing of the hulls and turrets. Both TCP and Alodine 5200/5700 

have been approved for use on components by GDAMS and their vendors. The USMC AVTB is 

currently using Alodine 5700 pre-saturated wipes for coating system maintenance and repair 

touch-up applications on the SDD vehicles fielded there. 

 

 55
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.3 –US ARMY BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE 

5.3.1 – INTRODUCTION 

The US Army’s M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle entered production by United 

Defense in 1980. Originally, this program utilized a chromate conversion coating applied 

by immersion process to enhance corrosion resistance and paint adhesion on aluminum 

hull, turret, and armor components. 

The United Defense facility possesses an automated hoist and immersion system, 

whereby an entire hull can be lifted and dipped through the 32,000-gallon process tank 

line in 2.5 – 3 hours. The process line utilized Chemetall-OakiteTM brand chemicals, and 

consisted of a mildly alkaline non-silicated cleaner, a hot phosphoric acid etch, a ferric 

sulfate/nitric acid based de-smut, and finally the chromate conversion coating. Each step 

in the process was followed by a halo-spray, clear water rinse. This line is not currently in 

use. 

UDLP-York, the OEM, is still upgrading and retrofitting BFV’s to the new 

M2A3, M3A3 variations. In depot maintenance and rework efforts, it was noticed that 

the aluminum armor alloy, AA7039, evidenced severe intrametallic delamination 

probably caused by environmentally assisted stress corrosion cracking (SCC). The 

decision was made to move to a manual surface prep method, as it was thought that the 

immersion process trapped moisture in small cracks and tight areas on the vehicles, 

thereby accelerating the delamination. The PM CS Environmental Management Team 

(EMT) has suggested an SCC evaluation of AA7039 with the current process versus an 

immersion process using both chromate control and TCP to ascertain the differences, if 

any, between the chemical immersion or manual surface preparation methods. 

Figure 5.23: 

Delaminations on BFV Hull 

Components – AA7039 

56
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

The current repair procedure for SCC damaged parts on re-man BFV’s is as 

follows: abrasive media blast, weld repair visible surface cracking, leave existing 

delaminations as is, perform weld and machining modifications, steam clean/pressure 

wash, bake/dry hulls at 180-200 0

F, abrasive blast, prime, and topcoat. 

The manual surface preparation, direct-to-metal (DTM), involved grit-blasting the 

hulls and turrets to a 1.5-3.0 mil surface profile to enhance paint adhesion. The DTM 

process increases the corrosion performance through adding surface area with the 

roughened profile thereby increasing adhesion of primer/paint systems to the substrate; 

however, the mechanical surface modification offers no active corrosion inhibition 

beyond that supplied by the primer inhibitors. Mechanical bonding helps protect from 

undercutting at damaged areas, but offers no protection from surface corrosion where 

paint is removed at damaged areas. Additionally, the same delamination SCC issues 

have been observed with AA7039 as were observed with the original chemically 

processed vehicles. 

The current DTM process affords reduced corrosion protection versus a 

chemically conversion coated surface and has not been seen to eliminate or reduce the 

SCC of the armor components. A chemical coating process also gives the extra benefit of 

being a faster, and much less labor-intensive process. This allows for uniform surface 

preparation, even in corners, bolt-holes, and other areas inaccessible to grit-blasting. The 

DTM process is also more costly and time-consuming than the chemical process – which 

cleans, etches, and prepares the surface at the same time. The chemical process could 

save roughly 4-hours of labor costs per vehicle. 

Direct-to-Metal Chemical Processing 

Abrasive blast – Paint removal Abrasive blast

Weld repair cracks Weld repair cracks 

Perform weld and machining modifications Perform weld and machining modifications

X Steam clean/pressure wash

X Bake hulls prior to paint at 180-200F

X Abrasive blast – Surface Prep → Immersion application of MIL-C-5541 

TCP

Prime Prime

Topcoat Topcoat

Table 5.7: DTM vs. chemical processing 

UDLP would like to re-instate the old conversion coating process, but a return to 

the chromate-based chemistry is now prohibited by environmental and health & safety 

regulations. The BFV program office, along with the OEM, is seeking a viable, nonchromate aluminum pretreatment for implementation on re-manufactured Bradley 

Fighting Vehicles. Being able to return to a chemical surface preparation method will 

yield a performance increase and a cost savings to the program. An added bonus to the 

OEM would be to conserve an uncommon resource in having a high volume process line 

capable of treating entire hull structures by immersion. As a result, the BFV was added to 

the NCAP project as a high-value demonstration platform; with a very high likelihood of 

implementing a non-chromate pretreatment. 

57
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.3.2 – COMPONENT SELECTION 

PM Combat Systems (PMCS) and NAVAIR generated a list of selection criteria for 

the demonstration/validation components. A group of ten BFV parts were selected for NCAP 

Phase II testing. NAVAIR’s TCP conversion coating was selected by the PMCS 

Environmental Management Team (EMT) as the demonstration technology for these field 

evaluations. 

The test components met the following criteria: 

 Common to M2A3, M3A3, and M3A3 BFIST vehicles 

 Material: AA5083 or AA5086 

 Pretreatment: DTM (no conversion coating) or with MIL-C-5541 Class 1a or 3 

 Modular - easily removed and replaced (bolt-on) 

 Not a safety critical item 

 Sized to fit within a 2 cubic foot space 

To ensure the greatest possible range of performance evaluation, the parts were 

selected to expose the alternative pretreatment to a wide stress environment; including 

sun/weathering, abrasion, flexing, non-skid, electrical bonding, cemented cushion/seal 

material, heat, water. 

 Both interior and exterior parts were selected, allowing for evaluation of the 

pretreatment with both coatings systems in use on BFV’s. Table 5.8 lists the primer/paint 

systems for interior and exterior applications. 

COMPONENT CURRENT 

PRETREATMENT 

PRIMER TOPCOAT 

Exterior None MIL-P-53022 

Solvent Reducible, 

Epoxy CARC, 

White 

MIL-C-53039A 

Solvent-based, 1K, 

Moisture-cured, 

1.5lbs VOC, 

Polyurethane 

CARC, 686 Green 

or 686 Tan* 

Interior None or Class 1A 

chromate 

MIL-P-22750 

Solvent Reducible, Single-coat, Epoxy 

CARC, Sea-foam Green 

*Note: for this field evaluation, all exterior parts were top-coated with 686 Tan 

Table 5.8: BFV Paint Systems 

The ten components selected are listed in Table 5.9 by part number and description. 

For this demonstration, all exterior components are currently DTM processed. 

58
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004

* Cushion/gasket material cemented to part after painting 

Hull interior, inside power None plant compartment

Bracket, Mounting, vehicle motion sensor

10. 12469917 

9. 12976354 Antenna Bracket Turret exterior - atop bustle None 

Turret exterior - atop None primary sight “dog house”

8. 12307255 Holder, Flagstaff 

Class 1A MIL-SP5541

Turret interior - basket floor

7. 12307324 Plate, Floor, Left Hand ** 

Hull interior - driver’s None station

6. 12307386 Steering Wheel (yoke) 

Door Assembly, Stowage Hull exterior - on left rear None 

Box, Left Side * ****

5. 12297915 

Door, Stowage Box, Right * Hull exterior - on right rear None 

****

4. 12297676 

Class 1A MIL-SP

5541

Hull interior - driver’s station

3. 12297423 Floor Plate, Bilge Pump * 

2. 12369239 Guard, headlight left Hull exterior - front glacis None 1. 12369237 Guard, headlight right Hull exterior - front glacis None 

SURFACE TREATMENT

PART DESCRIPTION LOCATION 

NO.

NO

.

** Nonskid applied to part before painting. *** Requires insert p/n 12307422 **** Stowage box and door used for re-man parts to avoid fit-up problems Due to time and availability constraints the re-man component set did not contain Part No.s 3, 9, or 10Table 5.9: Selected BFV Non-chromate Pretreatment Field Test Components 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.24: Headlight Guards 

Left 

Guard 

Right 

Guard 

60
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.25: Stowage Box Doors 

Right 

Door 

Left 

Door 

61
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.26: Floor Plate, Bilge Pump 

Driver’s Steering Yoke

Figure 5.27: Driver’s Steering Yoke 

Figure 5.28: Turret Left Floor Plate 

Figure 5.29: Flagstaff Holder (Top R) 

and GPS Antenna Bracket (Lower R) 

62
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.3.3 – PROCESSING 

5.3.3.1 – COMPONENTS 

Two sets of new components were procured and shipped to Patuxent River, MD in 

August 2003. One of the identified components in the sets was not treated at that time, as the 

component was plated steel that had been chromated by the vendor before procurement by the 

program office. This component, Part No. 12469917, Bracket, Mounting, Vehicle Motion 

Sensor, was subsequently dropped from the test matrix, and was not evaluated during field 

testing. 

NAVAIR pretreated the components by an immersion process, using the same 

chemical products as used in the processing line at the York, PA facility. Heather McNabnay, 

Environmental Coordinator, PM Ground Combat Systems, and Tom Braswell, Floor Support 

Engineering, UDLP-York were on hand to observe and assist in the pretreatment. Table 5.10 

outlines the pretreatment process. 

PRODUCT NAME CHEMICAL 

DESCRIPTION 

PROCESS 

TEMPERATURE 

IMMERSION TIME 

Oakite NST 10% Mild alkaline, nonetching, non-silicated 

cleaner 

120-130 F 6 minutes 

Oakite 33 12.5% Phosphoric acid etch 117-120 F 6-12 minutes 

Oakite LNC 10% Dilute acid/ferric 

based 

desmutter/brightener 

Ambient 30 seconds –2 

minutes 

TCP-CC Non-chromate 

conversion coating 

with color change 

Ambient (80 F) 5-15 minutes 

TABLE 5.10: BFV Components Process Parameters 

Mr. Braswell primed the components within 24-hours of conversion coating, and topcoated the exterior components within 48-hours of priming. The interior components were 

sprayed with a single-coat, solvent-reducible, epoxy CARC. The exterior components were 

primed with a solvent-reducible, epoxy CARC primer and top-coated with a singlecomponent, moisture-cured, polyurethane CARC. 

 At the PMCS EMT meeting October 2003, a concern was raised about the validity of 

only testing new components, when in fact the majority of BFV’s and BFV parts are remanufactured. Re-man parts will be blasted or ground to remove old paint, corrosion, or 

other surface damage before re-work and painting operations take place. This distressed 

surface is much rougher and less uniform than the neat, machined surface of a new part. 

63
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

As a result, a third set of components was procured; these being removed from fielded 

vehicles recently arrived at UDLP-York for re-manufacturing. This set of components 

included a right and left storage box in lieu of the right and left storage box doors in the two 

sets of new components. The parts were shipped to Patuxent River, MD in November 2003. 

Several areas on each part were ground down to bare aluminum using a typical grinder and 

120-180 grit grinding wheel. The re-man parts were then pretreated in accordance with the 

procedures in Table 5.10, by NAVAIR and UDLP personnel. 

 The re-worked components from set three were then primed over the newly 

conversion coated areas, and the entire part was then top-coated; the paint system was the 

same as in the first two sets. 

Figure 5.30: TCP-C BFV Components Awaiting Primer Application – August 2003 

64
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 

Figure 5.31: Primer Application – Left Headlight Guard – August 2003 

 

65
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.32: Interior Components after Application of Single-Coat, Sea-Foam Green Epoxy 

CARC – August 2003 

 

66
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

Figure 5.33: Re-Man Components – As received – November 2003 (Top) 

And after Grinding/Preparation of Selected Re-Work Areas (Bottom) 

67
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 

Figure 5.34: Re-Man Parts after Pretreatment of Selected Test Areas (Top) 

 And after Primer and Top-Coat Application (Bottom) 

68
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.3.4 – QC PANEL TESTING/LAB VALIDATION 

To ensure that the coatings were not damaged or contaminated during the component 

processing, two sets of quality control panels were coated and painted at the same time. Each 

set consisted of 10-each of 4”x12” aluminum panels, one set of AA5083-H131 and the other 

of AA6061-T6. The panels were then primed and painted at the NAVAIR Pax River, MD 

facility at the same time as the field test components. These QC panels were then shipped to 

UDLP-York for accelerated corrosion testing in ASTM B117 neutral salt fog and GM9540P 

cyclic testing. 

Another set of panels, 20-each of 4”x12” AA5083-H131 and AA6061-T6 were 

processed with the original TCP, two variations of the TCP-C, and Oakite 163TM chromate 

control to determine the optimum conversion coating formulation for this effort. These panels 

were then packaged and shipped to UDLP-York, for primer and topcoat application in the 

York small parts production paint line. These panels were also put into accelerated corrosion 

testing in accordance with ASTM B117 and GM9540P. 

Figure 5.35: QC panels after MIL-P-53022 Primer Application 

All panels were processed in accordance with the parameters contained in Table 5.10. 

Laboratory accelerated corrosion testing and evaluation was conducted by Doug Russo, CTC 

at the United Defense, York, PA facility. Table 5.11 outlines the test parameters and results 

for the QC test matrix. All testing and evaluation was performed by CTC York, with testing 

oversight provided by York FSE, NAVAIR, ARL, and the BFV EMT. 

All panels were given a numerical rating by distance of undercutting from the scribed 

area, according to ASTM D610. 

69
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

 ASTM B117- 3,000 HRS. 

PANEL ID DFT IN MILS ASTM D610 UNDERCUTTING 

TCP5083 #1 3.2 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #2 3.9 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #3 3.2 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #4 3.1 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #8 3.6 10 <0.01 IN. 

 

TCP6061 #5 2.9 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP6061 #6 3 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP6061 #7 3.4 10 <0.01 IN. 

 

CONTROL 6061 #9 4 10 <0.01 IN. 

CONTROL 6061 #10 3.2 10 <0.01 IN. 

 

 GM9540P-120CYCLES 

TCP5083 #11 3.1 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #12 3.3 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #13 3.8 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP5083 #14 3.8 10 <0.01 IN. 

 

TCP6061 #15 3.1 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP6061 #16 3.4 10 <0.01 IN. 

TCP6061 #17 3.2 10 <0.01 IN. 

 

CONTROL 5083 #18 3.8 10 <0.01 IN. 

CONTROL 5083 #19 3.1 10 <0.01 IN. 

CONTROL 5083 #20 3.4 10 <0.01 IN. 

Table 5.11: Accelerated Corrosion Testing of QC Panels Pretreated and Painted at the time of 

the Field Test Components. 

 

All panels passed regardless of alloy or pretreatment, and no performance difference 

was identified between the chromate controls and the TCP panels. This validates that the 

TCP conversion coating applied to the BFV test components was done properly; thereby 

supporting the field test results as valid data. 

 The secondary set of corrosion panels for TCP process optimization were run out to 

3,020-hours of ASTM B117 and 120-cycles (3000-hours) of GM9540P with same results as 

the first set of coupons. 

 The average DFT was 4.92-mils for the TCP panels and 4.93-mils for the chromate 

control panels. 

70
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.3.5 – FIELD TESTS 

5.3.5.1 – RESULTS 

 M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle #258 – Parts were installed at APG, MD on August 

30, 2003. This vehicle was scheduled for testing at APG Test Track facility. After testing at 

APG, this test vehicle was shipped to Huntsville, AL for modification, then returned to APG. 

Brian Placzankis, Coatings and Corrosion Branch, Army Research Lab, APG, MD and 

Bill Nickerson, Inorganic Coatings, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent 

River, MD inspected the vehicle at 6 months in January 2004 at the APG Test Track. Heather 

McNabnay, PMCS, and Tom Braswell, UDLP-York were also present for the inspection. No 

corrosion or adhesion loss was observed on any of the components at this time. Additionally, 

no undercutting or propagating paint loss was observed at damaged or dinged areas. This 

vehicle was again inspected at 12 months of service by Brian Placzankis, when it was 

returned to APG after installation of the Chassis Modernization/Embedded Diagnostics 

upgrade at Huntsville, AL. This mod kit is an upgrade to the hull electronics for the BFV’s, 

and requires the removal of the legacy steering yoke component. All other TCP components 

remain in service on the vehicle. While the vehicle evidenced much use, and was quite dirty 

and scuffed from testing, no corrosion or adhesion problems were reported, and no 

undercutting or additional paint adhesion loss was noted at damaged or dinged areas. 

Figure 5.36: BFV M2A3 258 – APG, MD August 2004 

71
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle #031 – Parts were installed at Ft. Benning, GA on 

October 16, 2003. This vehicle is a training vehicle for soldiers, and is frequently in the field. 

This vehicle is still fielded and used for training at Ft. Benning, GA. 

Brian Placzankis, ARL, and Bill Nickerson, NAVAIR, inspected the vehicle at 9 

months in May 2004 at the Ft. Benning Motor Pool. The vehicle had approximately 6500 kM 

put on it in training operations since fielding in October 2003. No corrosion or adhesion loss 

was observed on any of the components at this time. Additionally, no undercutting or 

propagating paint loss was observed at damaged or dinged areas. All TCP test components, 

including the legacy steering yoke, remain in service on the vehicle. 

Figure 5.37: BFV M2A3 031 – Ft. Benning, GA 

May 2004 

72
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle #086Y – Re-man parts were installed at Yuma 

Proving Ground (YPG) on February 18, 2004. This vehicle was scheduled for desert testing 

at the YPG vehicle test track; this terrain is very hard and rocky, leading to a lot of damage 

from dings and scrapes. This vehicle was transferred to APG, MD for the Chassis 

Modernization/Embedded Diagnostics modification kit installation on July 27, 2004. 

Brian Placzankis, ARL, inspected the vehicle after almost 6 months in service with the 

test components, in July 2004 at APG. This vehicle had more dings, scrapes, and overall dirt 

and damage to the coating system than the other two test platforms. In several areas, the paint 

removal was down to exposure of the underlying TCP. See figure 5.38. This is again 

attributable to the extremely rocky terrain at YPG. No corrosion or adhesion loss was 

observed on any of the components at this time. Additionally, no undercutting or propagating 

paint loss was observed at damaged or dinged areas. All TCP test components, with the 

exception of the legacy steering yoke, remain in service on the vehicle. 

 

Figure 5.38: BFV M3A3 086Y – APG, MD 

73
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004

Table 5.12: Vehicle Test Schedule – 28 July 2004
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

NAVAIR test parts remain on all three vehicles except for the steering yokes on 2AGR0258 and 

3AGR00086Y at APG. Chassis Modernization/Embedded Diagnostics mod kits were installed and 

revised yokes replaced the NAVAIR steering yokes. There are no reported problems with NAVAIR test 

parts. 

 

5.3.6 – STATUS 

 No adhesion or corrosion issues have been reported with the test components. Testing will be 

continued for another 12 months, and possibly longer, to extract as much test data as possible. Currently, 

UDLP-York has expressed the intention to implement TCP as soon as a commercial source is qualified to 

MIL-DTL-81706B. PMCS has approved its use for spray applications only at this time. Approval for full 

immersion processing of the hull and turret structure is pending the results of the stress-corrosioncracking test being conducted by United Defense CTC Santa Clara, CA. 

5.3.6.1 – STRESS CORROSION CRACKING EVALUATION 

 The SCC testing will be conducted by CTC Santa Clara, with testing oversight by the PMCS 

EMT. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine effect of hexavalent chrome, trivalent chrome, and 

the current steam cleaning process on SCC in AA7039 armor plating. The same 7039 plate, i.e. same heat 

lot, will be used to produce all samples. The samples will be modified to create short transverse cracks. 

The following variables will be examined, hexavalent chromium conversion coating, TCP conversion 

coating, pressure wash, and steam clean; with and without subsequent drying bake. This test will use 

fasteners and Belleville washers to create a controlled stress. 

The sample size will be 8 inches wide, 12 inches long, and 1 inch thick. The selected proportional 

fastener torque will create 5-ksi tensile stress. 

Figure 5.39: SCC test specimen schematic 

75
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

The test plan is as follows: create cracked samples from untreated AA7039, torque fasteners to the 

predetermined value, expose the samples to a salt spray environment, examine the samples daily for 

cracks using ultrasonic imaging in an attempt to grow a 2-inch crack. 

The test samples, two replicates each (16 total), will then be processed with the following 

pretreatments, and re-exposed to a salt spray environment to monitor propagation of the crack. The 

pretreatments will be – none, MIL-C-5541 (chromate control), NAVAIR TCP, pressure wash, bake, and 

no bake. 

 The results from this test will be presented to the PM Combat Systems EMT at the next quarterly 

meeting, with final status on chemical conversion coating by immersion processing to be determined at 

that time. 

76
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4 – US ARMY AVIATION 

5.4.1 – BACKGROUND 

In August of 2003, the Environmental, Engineering, and Logistics Oversight (EELO) office at 

AMCOM in Huntsville, AL put together a comprehensive panel test matrix to identify a non-chromate 

system for demonstration as a potential replacement coating system for their current chromate-based 

pretreatment and primer process. Currently, Army Aviation Depots spray chromate conversion coating, 

and paint with MIL-PRF-23377 C primer and MIL-C-46168 Type IV CARC, a 2-component, 

polyurethane topcoat. 

Panel preparation and coating was conducted by NAVAIR, Patuxent River, with AMCOM EELO, 

and ARL present from October 14-17, 2003. Panels were then shipped to ARL for corrosion and 

adhesion testing. All testing and evaluation was conducted under the oversight of PEO Aviation, 

AMCOM Materials, EELO, ARL, and NAVAIR. 

 The three alternative pretreatments selected for aluminum alloy testing were Alodine 5700, 

NAVAIR TCP, and PreKote. These pretreatments were evaluated over AA2024-T351 and AA7075-T651 

alloys. The non-chrome primer alternative evaluated was MIL-PRF-85582 N since no qualified version 

of MIL-PRF-23377 N was available at the start of testing. All three pretreatments were evaluated under 

chromated primers (MIL-PRF-23377 C and MIL-PRF-85582 C) and the non-chromate MIL-PRF-85582 

N. The potential replacement primers, MIL-PRF-85582 C and N were coated with the latest generation 

CARC topcoats, MIL-C-53039A Low VOC and MIL-DTL-64159 Type II to evaluate the coating 

“system” performance. 

5.4.2 – LABORATORY TESTING 

Testing was conducted by ARL at APG, MD by the Coatings and Corrosion Branch. Corrosion 

testing was conducted according to ASTM B117 neutral salt fog and GM9540P cyclic corrosion. All 

corrosion tests were run out to 3,000 hours, with regular evaluations by ARL and AMCOM. Adhesion 

testing was conducted according to ASTM D4541-95 pull-off and ASTM D3359 wet tape testing. 

Adhesion Testing was completed in early 2004 and corrosion testing was completed in July 2004. Table 

5.13 shows the full aluminum coating system test matrix. 

77
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004

ALUMINUM AL2024-T3 ALUMINUM 

PNL 

ID 

4 

Control 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 Control 14 15 1

Panel Type 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 2024T3 7075T6 7075T6 7075T6 707

Panel PreTreatment MIL-C- 5541 MIL-C- 5541 MIL-C- 5541 MIL-C- 5541 TCP TCP TCP Alodine 5200 Alodine 5200 Alodine 5200 X-IT Precoat X-IT Precoat MIL-C- 5541 MIL-C- 5541 MIL-C- 5541 TC

Primer 23377C 85582N 85582N 85582N 85582C 85582N 85582N 85582C 85582N 85582N 85582C 85582N 23377C 85582N 85582N 855

Topcoat 46168IV 53039 64159II 64159IILSL 64159II 53039 64159II 64159II 53039 64159II 64159II 64159II 46168IV 53039 64159II 53

A Wet Adhesion - 

ASTM D 3359 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

B Salt Spray - 

ASTM B 117 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

C 

Pull-Off 

ASTM D 4541-

95 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

D GM 9540B - 

Method B 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

E Outdoor 

Exposure - FL 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

F QTRAC 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1

G 

Electrochemical 

Impedance 

Spectroscopy 

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N

Control Set 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

TOTAL 

PANELS RQD 

PER SET 

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1

ALUMINUM - AL2024-T3 192 ALUMINUM - AL7075-T6 

Table 5.13: AMCOM – NAVAIR PANEL TEST MATRIX OCTOBER 2003 
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4.2.1 – PULL-OFF ADHESION TESTING – ASTM D 4541-95 

AA2024-T3 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Adhesion (30 

measurement Avg. – psi) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 3205.67 +261.15 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 2913 +213.79 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2609 +246.89 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2739 +177.91 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 3064.33 +194.35 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2579.33 +204.21 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2601.33 +304.37 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 2563.67 +423.28 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 1644 +275.91 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2388 +114.09 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2861 +272.94 

Table 5.14: Pull-Off Adhesion Data – AA2024T3 

AA7075-T6 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Adhesion (30 

measurement Avg. – 

psi) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 3229 +317.41 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 2993 +233.90 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2310 +173.90 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-C-53039A 2994.33 +427.70 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 2931 +201.93 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2509.67 +149.05 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2712 +195.95 

Table 5.15: Pull-Off Adhesion Data – AA7075T6 

79
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4.2.2 – WET TAPE ADHESION TESTING – ASTM D 3359 

AA2024-T3 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Panel 1 – 2 

meas. Avg 

Panel 2 – 2 

meas. Avg 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 5 5 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5 5 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4 4 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4 5 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5 5 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 5 4.5 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.5 4 Blisters 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 4 4.5 Blisters 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 3.5 3.5 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 3.5 3 Blisters 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.5 4 

Table 5.16: Wet Tape Adhesion Data – AA2024T3 

AA7075-T6 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Panel 1 – 2 

meas. Avg 

Panel 2 – 2 

meas. Avg 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 4.5 5 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5 5 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.5 4.5 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-C-53039A 5 5 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5 5 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.5 4.5 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 5 4 

Table 5.17: Wet Tape Adhesion Data – AA7075T6 

80
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4.2.3 – NEUTRAL SALT FOG TESTING – ASTM B 117 

AA2024-T3 – Ratings According to ASTM D 1654 Procedure A 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Corrosion Results (5 

panel Avg.) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 8.6+0.89 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 7.2+0.44

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 7.4+0.55

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 9.0+0.00

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5.8+0.84

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 5.0+0.71

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.6+0.55

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 6.4+1.34

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.4+0.55

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 7.4+0.55

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 2.4+1.52

Table 5.18: Neutral Salt Fog Corrosion Data – AA2024T3 

AA7075-T6 – Ratings According to ASTM D 1654 Procedure A 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Corrosion Results (5 

panel Avg.) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 9.0+0.0 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 7.4+0.55

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 7.8+0.45

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-C-53039A 8.8+0.45

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 7.2+0.45

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 7.2+0.45

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 9.0+0.0

Table 5.19: Neutral Salt Fog Corrosion Data – AA7075T6 

81
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4.2.3 – CYCLIC SALT FOG TESTING – GM9540P 

AA2024-T3 – Ratings According to ASTM D 1654 Procedure A 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Corrosion Results (5 

panel Avg.) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 9.0+0.0 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 6.2+0.45 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 6.4+0.45 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.4+0.89 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5.4+0.55 

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 5.0+0.0 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.6+0.55 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 5.0+0.0 

Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 4.2+0.84 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.6+0.89 

PreKote MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 3.6+0.89 

Table 5.20: Cyclic Salt Fog Corrosion Data – AA2024T3 

AA7075-T6 – Ratings According to ASTM D 1654 Procedure A 

Pretreatment Primer Topcoat Corrosion Results (5 

panel Avg.) 

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 23377 C MIL-C-46168 Ty IV 9.4+0.55

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 7.6+0.89

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 7.2+0.45

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-C-53039A 9.2+0.45

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-C-53039A 7.0+1.41

TCP MIL-PRF – 85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.6+0.55

Alodine 1200S MIL-PRF – 85582 C MIL-DTL-64159 Ty II 8.8+0.45

Table 5.21: Cyclic Salt Fog Corrosion Data – AA7075T6 

82
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

5.4.3 – FIELD TEST SYTEMS SELECTION 

 The current demonstration selection is to evaluate two non-chromate coating 

systems in field application on Army helicopters. Subject to approval from the PMA’s, 

the plan is to process six full CH-47 aircraft at two separate depots. Three aircraft will be 

processed at CCAD and three aircraft will be processed at the CT AVCRAD facility. 

Each site will process one control aircraft, to be primed with MIL-PRF-23377 C1 or C2, 

chromated epoxy primer. Table 5.18 outlines the planned demonstration coating systems. 

Aircraft Pretreatment Primer Topcoat 

CH-47 TCP MIL-PRF-23377 C MIL-C-53039A 

1.5VOC 

CH-47 TCP MIL-PRF-85582 N MIL-C-53039A 

1.5VOC 

CH-47 TCP MIL-PRF-23377 N MIL-C-53039A 

1.5VOC 

CH-47 Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF-23377 C MIL-DTL-64159 

TyII 

CH-47 Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF-85582 N MIL-DTL-64159 

TyII 

CH-47 Alodine 5700 MIL-PRF-23377 N MIL-DTL-64159 

TyII 

Table 5.22: AMCOM Coating System Demonstrations 

5.4.3.1 – GENERAL GUIDELINES – AIRCRAFT CLEANING, SURFACE 

TREATMENT AND COATING 

Aircraft will be inspected to identify coating problems and recorded in the aircraft 

coating test log (provided). Obvious corrosion, missing rivets, loose/flaking paint, etc. 

should all be noted. Aircraft shall be cleaned per normal operations at the facility and 

required maintenance accomplished prior to preparation for de-painting/painting 

operations. 

Components normally removed prior to de-painting shall be removed and depainted in accordance with normal procedures. Any aluminum substrate components 

removed for hand de-painting and processing shall follow the guidelines below for 

surface preparation and conversion coating of the aluminum substrate. Other nonaluminum components shall be prepared per normal procedures. 

Once stripped, the aircraft shall be inspected for corrosion, and localized 

corrosion removed by hand abrasion (bristle disk, sander or hand sanding) no steel or iron 

abrasive should be used for removing corrosion on aluminum substrates, products like 

steel wool, stainless steel shot or grinding/abrading wheels, etc. should be avoided. Other 

identified flaws shall be repaired per normal procedures. 

83
NCAP Phase II Interim Report September 2004 

84

Cleaning of the aircraft is one of the most critical aspects of the TCP application 

and each step shall be closely followed to ensure a properly prepared surface prior to 

TCP application. All surfaces to be treated with TCP shall be cleaned to a water-breakfree surface with a mild alkaline (pH 8-9, nothing over 9.5) cleaner conforming to MILPRF-85570 Type II or MIL-PRF-87937 Type II. Cleaners shall be diluted to the proper 

strength using deionized (DI) water to eliminate potential ion deposition on the cleaned 

substrate. If obvious signs of surface contamination remain, the cleaning process shall be 

repeated until a water-break-free surface is obtained. If there are signs of “acrylic smear” 

from Type V PMB an appropriate cleaner shall be substituted that will remove the 

contamination or the contaminants should be removed using medium grit Scotchbrite 

pads and an aqueous cleaner. Any alternate cleaner selection must be coordinated with 

the Research, Development Engineering Center, Materials Branch prior to use. Personnel 

shall avoid the use of high pH, strong alkaline cleaners to prevent damage to the 

aluminum substrates. Rinse water shall be deionized to eliminate conductive ions being 

trapped on the bare substrate creating potential corrosion initiation sites or sites where the 

TCP will not properly adhere. A deoxidation step may follow substrate cleaning for final 

surface preparation prior to TCP application. If a deoxidation process is used, the final 

rinse will also use DI water. 

Following cleaning (and deoxidation, if used) the surface shall be treated with 

TCP. TCP shall be applied by hand sprayer ensuring the entire surface to be treated is 

completely coated with the TCP solution. The nominal dwell time prior to rinsing the 

TCP from the surface shall be 10-15 minutes. (Note: There is no obvious color change to 

the treated surface like Alodine 1200 series chromate conversion coatings. However, 

experienced personnel will be able to tell when the rinse should be performed. Properly 

applied, TCP leaves the treated surface with a subtle, iridescent blue-lavender color.) DI 

water shall be used for the TCP rinse step. 

Following TCP treatment, the substrate shall be allowed to dehydrate for 16-24 

hours. This is the proper “cure” time for the pretreatment. If scheduling is tight, a 4-hour 

dry time after processing can be implemented. Following dehydration, the aircraft shall 

be masked and coated with the proper primer and top-coating as required. 

5.4.4 – STATUS 

EELO personnel briefed the cognizant PMA’s and AMCOM Materials in Fall 

2004 to obtain approval for the CH-47 as the demonstration platform. If the PMA’s do 

not want to accept the results of the demo without a broader platform base, i.e. CH-60’s, 

AH-64E’s, etc., the planned number of aircraft will have to be increased. No changes to 

the processing sites should be necessary, regardless of the outcome of the PMA’s 

decision. 

 All processing will be done under the oversight of AMCOM Materials, and 

EELO. Bill Nickerson, NAVAIR will be present for technical processing support. 

William Alvarez, AMCOM EELO and Paul Robinson, (Titan Systems) EELO will 

evaluate the in-service performance of the test systems. Final approval for 

implementation must come from AMCOM Materials and Engineering. 

 Spray processing is planned to begin in the early 2005 timeframe, with the first 6 

month in-service evaluation in FY05.
6.0 – IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES IN DoD AND NASA 

6.1 – MILITARY AND INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS 

 NAVAIR is currently in the process of revising the MIL-DTL-81706 qualification 

specification and the MIL-C-5541 quality control specification governing aluminum 

conversion coatings. 

The proposed revisions are circulated through DoD and government contractors 

for comments and review, the inputs collated and organized, and a final revision written. 

Both revisions will allow the qualification and use of any non-chromate aluminum 

pretreatment that can pass the performance requirements for qualification. No changes 

have been made to the corrosion and adhesion testing requirements for aluminum 

conversion coatings. 

Additionally, NAVAIR Materials will be working with the SAE-AMS Committee 

B toward the revision of the industrial aluminum conversion coating specification, also to 

include provisions for non-chromate coatings that meet the corrosion and adhesion 

performance requirements. 

6.2 – ALODINETM 5700 

6.2.1 – NASA 

NASA has implemented a non-chromate coating system for use on their 

aluminum alloy Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). The Space Shuttle SRB conducted a 

project to identify and qualify alternatives for the traditional, qualified chromate coating 

system and pretreatment. Testing gathered information on corrosion protection, bond 

strength, compatibility with other SRB materials, batch-to-batch consistency, and thermal 

environments data. Two pretreatments and two coating systems met the SRB program 

criteria. The recommended pretreatments were Henkel Alodine 5200/5700 and 

MacDermid Chemidize 727 ND. Alodine 5700 had very robust processing parameters 

and was recommended for first implementation as a pretreatment alternate. 

NASA implemented a Hentzen non-chromate primer / Alodine 5700 pretreatment 

system in June 2002. This change affected all structural aluminum (2219, 6061, and 

7075) parts of the solid rocket boosters. The first hardware flew in the fall of 2002. 

For More Information Contact: 

Paul W. Hayes 

Phone: 321-853-5774 

HayesP@usasrb.ksc.nasa.gov

85
6.2.2 – US Army TACOM 

The US Army TACOM has implemented Alodine 5200/5700 conversion coating 

on AA2024-T4 and AA2014-T6 road wheels for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113, 

and the MLRS. TACOM has also implemented Alodine 5200/5700 on Aluminum tracks 

for the M1A1 Abrams Tank. This technology has been implemented in the US Army Red 

River Army Depot's (RRAD) Rubber Products Operations since early 2003. 

 

For More Information Contact: 

Heather McNabnay – PM CS Environmental Coordinator 

Ph: 586-753-2385 

Heather.McNabnay@ngc.com

6.3 – PREKOTETM

 As of Feb. 2004, the F-16, T-37, T-38 and T-1 SPOs have approved the use of 

PreKote, and HQ Air Education and Training Command (AETC) has mandated its use on 

all AETC aircraft for which it’s approved. If a base, MAJCOM, or ALC decides to 

pursue using PreKote in their paint processes on other systems, it must obtain approval 

from the appropriate SPOs. AFCPCO will provide existing test results upon request to 

assist SPOs with the engineering decision whether to approve PreKote. 

 AFCPCO continues to recommend chromated conversion coatings for optimum 

corrosion protection. Multiple laboratory tests, by various organizations, indicate 

PreKote is one of the best performing non-chromated surface treatments, but its corrosion 

protection is still less than that of chromated Alodine 1200S. Several other candidate 

materials are also being tested as possible alternatives to Alodine. It is likely that more 

than one material will meet AF needs. In cases where chromate cannot be used due to 

environmental restrictions, PreKote provides a low risk alternative. Note that all test 

results to date, current SPO approvals, and the assessment of low risk, are contingent on 

the use of a qualified chromated primer. When PreKote is used, corrosion inhibition 

comes only from the chromated primer. Past performance of non-chrome paint systems in 

AF use has been poor; and AFCPCO strongly recommends against the use of PreKote 

with non-chromated primers. Since application of PreKote is largely a manual process, 

the consistency of the process may be important to an overall satisfactory result. To 

achieve results equal to other weapon systems, we recommend adhering closely to 

application practices that have already been established. 

 

For More Information Contact: 

Richard H. Buchi 

Phone: 801-775-2993 

richard.buchi@hill.af.mil

86
6.3 – TCP 

6.3.1 – NAVSEA 

Based on the results of the outdoor exposure panel testing and the multi-year field 

demonstration at ACU-4, NSWCCD Materials has indicated that they will implement the 

TCP for pretreatment of aluminum alloys on the LCAC as soon as a commercial product 

is qualified to MIL-DTL-81706B. NAVSEA Materials is awaiting the issuance of the 

NAVAIR TCP approval letter for implementation. 

For More Information Contact: 

Paul Dobias 

Phone: 215-897-1545 

DobiasPA@nswccd.navy.mil

6.3.2 – USMC 

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is approaching the end of the SDD phase. 

Environmental, safety and health restrictions have led the program office to mandate the 

use of chromate and cadmium free coating systems. The program is scheduled to begin 

LRIP in FY06. 

TCP has been selected as the pretreatment for the processing of the AA2519 hull 

and turret structures. Both the TCP and Alodine 5200/5700 have been approved by the 

PM for use on aluminum components by GDAMS and their vendors. The Marines’ 

AVTB is currently using Alodine 5700 pre-saturated wipes for coating system 

maintenance and repair touch-up applications on the SDD vehicles fielded there. 

For More Information Contact: 

Kevin Clark – GDAMS Materials 

Phone: 703-490-7533 

clarkk@gdls.com

87
6.3.3 – NAVAIR 

Overall, the TCP technology is performing at least as well as the standard 

chromate conversion coating in the demonstrations with the F/A-18’s and CH-46’s. 

 NAVAIR Materials is planning to authorize the use of TCP under chromated 

primers, with the approval letter planned to issue FY05. Addtitional FY05 efforts will 

focus on an extensive evaluation of new, non-chromate primer systems under 

qualification testing to MIL-PRF-23377 Class N; with field testing over TCP planned if 

applicable based on laboratory testing. 

As a result of the mixed field performance of the TCP with SPT, NAVAIR does 

not recommend the use of TCP with the SPT, and will not pursue implementation of a 

non-chromate conversion coating on the S-3 platform at this time. 

For More Information Contact: 

Craig Matzdorf – NAVAIR Materials Division 

Phone: 301-342-9372 

craig.matzdorf@navy.mil

6.4 – AC-130/131 

6.4.1 – BOEING/AF 

 Boeing Commercial Airplanes is using AC-131 on chromated aluminum rivets for 

B737 aircraft to improve paint adhesion to the rivets. The chromate plus AC-131 coating 

is applied to the rivets at the rivet manufacturer. Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

traditionally utilized Alodine 1000TM clear, chromate conversion coating for pretreatment 

of aluminum rivets on commercial aircraft. They were experiencing paint loss due to 

adhesion failure at the rivets. B737 aircraft produced since the spring of 2004 have had 

the chromate/AC-131 coated rivets used in the fuselage. The incidence of paint adhesion 

failures to the rivets has been significantly decreased with the new coating system. 

 Boeing Commercial Airplanes is also performing scale-up and producibility trials 

of AC-131 with the goal of replacing the colorless chromated Alodine 1000 that is 

currently applied to new production commercial aircraft. Negotiations with customers to 

identify an operational evaluation are underway with application to production aircraft 

anticipated in mid 2005. 

For More Information Contact:

Joe Osborne – Boeing-Seattle 

Phone: 425-237-8518 

joseph.h.osborne@boeing.com

88
6.4.2 – NAVAIR/AF 

Although not part of the scope of the ESTCP Non-Chromate Aluminum 

Pretreatments project, which focuses on pre-paint conversion coating applications for 

increased paint adhesion, corrosion protection, and electrical properties of aluminum 

alloys, a closely related use of hexavalent chromium coatings is as a pre-adhesive 

treatment on aluminum alloys prior to structural bonding applications. Traditionally, 

adhesive bonding is done with chromated aluminum surfaces. 

This Joint Service program (PP-0204) is also being funded by the support of the 

ESTCP office. This project is using repair demonstrations to validate the use of sol-gel 

based surface preparations for adhesive bonding that were developed under SERDP 

programs PP-130 and PP-1113. This work has focused on the implementation of repair 

practices developed for a commercial, epoxy functional sol-gel – AC-130 from AC Tech 

– in applications where the sol-gel could be used to replace a hazardous surface 

preparation method with no reduction in expected adhesive bond performance. 

Furthermore, the use of the AC-130 system has the added benefits of simplicity and 

process robustness, especially when compared to difficult and dangerous surface 

preparation methods that use strong acids and hexavalent chromium. These two factors 

have been combined to guide the use of sol-gel in DoD repair applications to both replace 

hazardous surface preparation methods and to supplant obsolescent repair methods with 

inferior structural performance. The use of this sol-gel is coupled with a zero-VOC 

primer material in most applications to provide a surface protection scheme for steel, 

aluminum, or titanium that is suitable for structural bonding. In laboratory testing, this 

combination has been used to demonstrate bonded strength and durability performance 

that exceeds the best existing treatments for the alloys evaluated. Through the 

demonstration process, this is being translated into a robust repair process that allows 

repair artisans to restore components to near pristine condition. To this end, 

demonstration of process utility has occurred with repair development on a number of 

weapon systems for the tri-service partners, and off-program transitions have been 

deployed with success in the field. Current work in this program has targeted highimpact transitions that will provide the most benefit per dollar spent, and will enable the 

services to move sol-gel technology through their logistics and repair systems as quickly 

as possible. 

For More Information Contact:

Matt Tillman – NAVAIR Materials Division 

Phone: 301-995-7561 

matthew.tillman@navy.mil

89
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALY 

90
7.0 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

All the alternatives being demonstrated are aqueous solutions designed to deposit 

a conversion coating on aluminum alloy substrates to enhance paint adhesion and painted 

corrosion performance. Alternatives face the challenge of the low cost and ease of 

application of the chromate conversion coatings while providing a coating that provides 

acceptable technical performance. Along with technical performance, processing and 

toxicity issues are important to consider in capturing the overall impact of an alternative. 

There are currently four non-chromate alternatives in various stages of validation 

or implementation. Alodine 5200/5700, PreKote, and AC-130/131 provide paint adhesion 

and painted corrosion protection, and are all non-chromium chemistries. The TCP 

provides both painted and unpainted corrosion protection as well as electrical 

conductivity in corrosive environments. However, TCP does contain trivalent chromium, 

and users will need to balance total chromium waste-water requirements with technical 

performance requirements when deciding on implementation of TCP. TCP and Alodine 

5200/5700 provide the most process flexibility, as they can be applied like a chromate 

conversion coating, by immersion, spray, or wipe-on methods. AC-130/131 can be used 

in spray applications. PreKote must be manually applied for proper coating performance. 

All of the demonstration coatings have shown good paint adhesion and corrosion 

performance when used under chromated primers. The PreKote and the AC-130/131 

have not yet been demonstrated in high corrosion environments. The TCP and Alodine 

5200/5700 have shown good paint adhesion and painted corrosion performance when 

used under both chromated and non-chromated primers. TCP and Alodine 5200/5700 

have performed well in high corrosion environment testing. The exception to this is the 

performance of the TCP on one of the four NAVAIR S-3 demonstrations using nonchromated Self-Priming Topcoat. A positive outcome of the S-3 testing was the finding 

that 500-hour SO2 salt-fog was not enough to discriminate between the chromated and 

non-chromate coating systems. By extending the test to 1000-hours, additional corrosion 

and blistering were observed with fully non-chromated coating systems. This is a clear 

example of a test designed to evaluate the performance of chromate-based materials, 

which are not typically tested to failure, but to minimum performance standards. 

It is therefore critical with any new non-chromate material that it be tested to 

failure against the chromated control. Additionally, any new coating application should 

be demonstrated and validated by field-testing for each operational environment where 

implementation is being considered. Only then can the complete technical performance of 

a coating or coating system be determined. 

Implementation of any alternative must take into consideration the costs, process, 

health and safety, laboratory and field testing performance, and the specific coating 

system application and operational environment. 

91
REFERENCES 

Section 1.2 – ESTCP NCAP Phase I Report, C. Matzdorf, July 2003 

Section 3.0 – “Protective Coatings Coupon Project – Ratings and Pictures, J. Curran, Jan. 

2004 

Section 4.1 – AFCPCO Position Paper, D. Kinzie, O. Jett, D. Buchi, M. Spicer, Feb. 2004 

Section 4.2.2 – “TCP Application and Processing Notes”, T. Woods, July 1999; T. 

Woods, Aug. 1999 

Section 4.2.3 – “In-Service Field Inspection Notes”, T. Woods, May 2001; T. Woods, 

Dec. 2001; J. Benfer, Jan. 2002 

Section 4.3.2 – “TCP Application and Processing Notes”, T. Woods, Nov. 2000 

Section 4.3.3 – “In-Service Field Inspection Notes”, T. Woods, July 2001; T. Woods, 

Oct. 2001 

Section 4.3.3 – “Trip Report AM005”, K. Kovaleski, C. Matzdorf, Mar. 2004 

Section 4.4.2 – “Materials Engineering Analysis Report – Processing”, J. Whitfield, Oct. 

2000; J. Whitfield, Nov. 2001 

Section 4.4.3 – “Materials Engineering Analysis Report – Status”, J. Whitfield, Jan. 2004 

Section 4.5 – ESTCP NCAP Phase I Report, C. Matzdorf, July 2003 

Section 4.6 – “Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection Final Report for period 

September 2002 through April 2003”, J. Osborne, Prepared by Boeing for Universal 

Technologies Corporation under contract #02-S470-009-C1, April 25, 2003 

Section 4.6 – “Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection Update Notes”, J. Osborne, Oct. 

2004 

Section 5.1 – “Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment (TCP) testing for the Landing Craft, Air 

Cushioned (LCAC) Program Update Notes”, P. Dobias, July 2004 

Section 5.2.2 – “Inorganic Coatings Team Laboratory Report LR02-001”, C. Matzdorf, 

Aug. 2001 

Section 5.2.3 – “Inorganic Coatings Team Test Matrix M1_07”, C. Matzdorf, Jan. 2002 

Section 5.2.4 – “Inorganic Coatings Team Laboratory Reports”, LR02-007, B. Nickerson, 

Aug. 2002; LR03-006, C. Matzdorf, Aug. 2003 

92
Section 5.2.5 – “EFV Hull and Turret Processing Notes”, B. Nickerson, C. Matzdorf, K. 

Clark, D. Gerty, S. Bettadapur, A. Hilgeman, S. Brown, 2001-2004 

Table 5.5 – “EFV SDD Hull and Turret Paint Plan”, K. Clark, Feb. 2003 

Section 5.2.8 – “In-Service Field Evaluations”, C. Matzdorf, Aug. 2003; B. Nickerson, K. 

Clark, Mar. 2004; B. Nickerson, K. Clark, S. Bettadapur, May 2004 

Section 5.3 – “US Army PM Combat Systems Environmental Management Team 

Meeting Presentations”, T. Braswell, B. Nickerson, J. Kinchen, H. McNabnay, J. Dorsch, 

Oct. 2003, May 2004 

Section 5.3.3 – “US Army M2A3/M3A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle Component 

Processing Notes”, T. Braswell, H. McNabnay, B. Nickerson, Aug. 2003; T. Braswell, B. 

Nickerson; Nov. 2003 

Section 5.3.4 – “CTC York Adhesion and Corrosion Testing Results”, D. Russo, T. 

Braswell, Sep. 2003 

Section 5.3.5 – “US Army PM Combat Systems Environmental Management Team 

Meeting – ARL Update”, B. Placzankis, Aug. 2004 

Section 5.3.6 – “US Army PM Combat Systems Environmental Management Team 

Meeting – UDLP CTC Update”, J. Dorsch, Aug. 2004 

Section 5.4 – “US Army Aviation Non-Chrome Coating System Test Program – Master 

Schedule”, F. Baker, J. Escarsega, C. Matzdorf, B. Nickerson, M. Kane, W. Alzarez, T. 

Helton, P. Robinson, Oct. 2003 

Section 5.4.2 – “Accelerated Corrosion Performance for Aviation Coating Systems – 

ARL”, C. Miller, B. Placzankis, In-Progress 2004 

Section 5.4.3 – “Field Tests/Coatings Systems Selection Meeting – NAVAIR and 

AMCOM”, W. Alvarez, P. Robinson, T. Helton, B. Nickerson, C. Matzdorf, July 2004 

Section 5.4.3.1 – “Aircraft Cleaning, Surface Treatment, and Coating Guide”, P. 

Robinson, T. Helton, June 2004 

Technology Demonstration Plan “Demonstration and Validation of Non-Chromate 

Aluminum Pretreatments,” Science Applications International Corporation for the Naval 

Aviation Systems Command (NAVAIR), May 2002. 

Joint Test Protocol, “Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Non-Chromate Aluminum 

Pretreatments,” Naval Air Systems Command Inorganic Coatings Team, December 13, 

2000. 

93
MIL-DTL-81706A, “Chemical Conversion Materials for Coating Aluminum and 

Aluminum Alloys,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1999. 

MIL-PRF-85582, “Primer Coatings, Epoxy, Waterborne,” U.S. Department of Defense, 

Washington, DC, September 1997. 

MIL-P-53030A, “Primer, Epoxy Coating, Water Reducible, Lead and Chromate Free,” 

Revision A, Amendment 2, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1992. 

MIL-P-53022-10, “Primer, Epoxy Coating, Corrosion Inhibiting, Lead and Chromate 

Free,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington DC, February 1992. 

MIL-PRF-23377G, “Primer Coatings, Epoxy, High Solid,” U.S. Department of Defense, 

Washington, DC, September 1994. 

ASTM D1654, “Standard Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens 

Subjected to Corrosive Environments,” ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1984. 

ASTM F22-65, “Standard Test Method for Hydrophobic Surface Films by the WaterBreak Test, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1965. 

Lab Report #LR02-004, “Coating Weights and Processing of Alternatives for ESTCP 

NCAP Project PP0025,” Craig Matzdorf ESTCP for the NCAP Project PP0025, July 24, 

2002. 

MIL-C-53039A, “Coating, Aliphatic Polyurethane, Single Component, Chemical Agent 

Resistant,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington DC, May 1993. 

MIL-PRF-85285, “Coating, Polyurethane, High Solids,” U.S. Department of Defense, 

Washington, DC, April 1997. 

MIL-T-81772, “Thinner, Aircraft Coating,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, 

DC, Oct 25, 1991. 

ASTM B117, "Standard Method of Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus," 

ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990. 

Placzankis, Brian E. and Miller, Chris E., “ASTM B 117 Screening of Non-Chromate 

Conversion Coatings on Aluminum Alloys 2024, 2219, 5083, and 7075 using DoD Paint 

Systems,” Army Research Laboratory Report, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

GM 9540P, “Accelerated Corrosion Test; GM 9540P,” General Motors Engineering 

Standards, 1997. 

ASTM G85 “Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing,” ASTM 

International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002. 

94
Matzdorf, Craig and Kane, Dr. Michael J., “Evaluation of Non-Chromate Conversion 

Coatings in DoD Coating Systems using ASTM G85 SO2 Salt Fog,” NAVAIR, Patuxent 

River, MD. 

Plazankis, Brian E., Miller, Chris E., Matzdorf, Craig, “Analysis of Non-chromate 

Conversion Coatings on Aluminum Alloys 2024, 5083, and 7075 with DoD Coatings 

Using GM 9540P Cyclic Accelerated Corrosion Exposure,” Proceedings from the 

Triservice Conference on Corrosion, San Antonio, TX, January 2002. 

ASTM D1654-92, “Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens 

Subjected to Corrosive Environments,” ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1992. 

FED-STD-141, “Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Materials: Methods of Inspection, 

Sampling, and Testing,” 1986. 

ASTM D3359, “ Standard Method for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test, Method A & 

B” ASTM International, 1997. 

 “Demonstration Report (Technology Improvement Report) for Non-Chromate 

Pretreatments of Non-Ferrous Metals,” National Defense Center for Environmental 

Excellence/Concurrent Technologies Corporation for the Environmental Security 

Technology Certification Program, September 20, 2002. 

 “Acute Oral Toxicity/LD50 in Rats,” MB 02-10327.01, Cerven, Daniel R. for MB 

Research Laboratories, 2002. 

 “Acute Dermal Toxicity/LD50 in Rabbits,” MB 02-10327.02, Cerven, Daniel R. for MB 

Research Laboratories, 2002. 

“Justification Report (Technology Improvement Report) for Non-Chromate 

Pretreatments of Non-Ferrous Metals,” National Defense Center for Environmental 

Excellence/Concurrent Technologies Corporation for the Environmental Security 

Technology Certification Program, September 24, 2002. 

 “Non-chromated Conversion Coatings for Weapon Systems Rework and Repair,” 

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence/Concurrent Technologies 

Corporation for the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, 

September 24, 2001. 

Zook L., Clayton C., and Raley R, “Alternate SRB Aluminum Coating System 

Qualification Test Report,” CPC-025-00MP, United Space Alliance, May 1, 2000 

Buchi, Richard H., Patterson, Ken, and Gowers, Clyde J. “Non-Chromate Conversion 

Coating,” Ogden Air Logistics Center, April 3, 1998. 

95
96

MIL-P-24441B Ty III F150/151, “Epoxy Polyamide Formula 150 & Formula 151,” U.S. 

Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1994. 

Osborn, Joseph H., “Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection Final Report for period 

September 2002 through April 2003”, Prepared by Boeing for Universal Technologies 

Corporation under contract #02-S470-009-C1, April 25, 2003. 

Non-Chromate Aluminum Pretreatments

Phase I Report 

Project #PP0025

 

August 2003
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................. IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. XI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................XII

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

1.1 Project Background......................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Objective and Scope of Work......................................................................................... 2 

2.0 TEST PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION ..........................................................3

3.0 NON-CHROMATE CONVERSION COATING ALTERNATIVES......7

3.1 Alodine 1200S ................................................................................................................ 7 

3.2 Bi-K Aklimate................................................................................................................. 7 

3.3 Boeing Boegel Sol-gel (Now Available From Advanced Chemistry & Technology Inc. 

as AC-131) ..................................................................................................................... 7 

3.4 Brent OXSiLAN AL-0500............................................................................................ 7 

3.5 Fortune Chemical Company X-It PreKote ................................................................... 8 

3.6 Henkel Surface Technologies Alodine 5200 and Alodine 5700 ................................ 8 

3.7 MacDermid Chemidize 727ND.................................................................................. 8 

3.8 NAVAIR Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment (TCP)....................................................... 8 

3.9 Sanchem Safegard7000................................................................................................... 8 

4.0 INITIAL PROCESSING INFORMATION..............................................12

4.1 Initial Surface Preparation ............................................................................................ 12 

4.1.1 Coupon Preparation, Cleaning, and Deoxidizing ................................................ 12

4.1.1.1 Application Procedure for Each Alternative..................................................... 12 

4.1.1.2 Coating Weight Measurement .......................................................................... 13 

4.1.1.3 Coupon Handling After Coating....................................................................... 14 

4.2 Initial Paint Application................................................................................................ 14

4.2.1 Description of Paints............................................................................................ 15

4.2.1.1 MIL-PRF-23377G, Type I, Class C.................................................................. 15 

4.2.1.2 MIL-PRF-85582 C, Type II, Class C2 and N................................................... 15 

4.2.1.3 MIL-P-53022 .................................................................................................... 15 

4.2.1.4 MIL-P-53030 .................................................................................................... 15 

4.2.1.5 MIL-PRF-85285C Topcoat............................................................................... 15 

4.2.1.6 MIL-C-53039.................................................................................................... 15 

5.0 TEST METHODS AND RESULTS...........................................................18

5.1 Neutral Salt Fog on Unpainted Substrate with Pretreatment........................................ 18 

i 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.1.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 18

5.1.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Electrical Contact Resistance Unpainted, Pretreated Substrates .................................. 24 

5.2.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 24

5.2.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 24

5.3 Dry Tape Adhesion of Painted Substrates.................................................................... 27 

5.3.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 27

5.3.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 28

5.4 Wet Tape Adhesion and Water Resistance of Painted Substrates................................ 32 

5.4.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 32

5.4.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 33

5.5 Neutral Salt Fog on Scribed, Painted Substrate............................................................ 39 

5.5.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 39

5.5.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 40

5.6 SO2 Salt Fog on Scribed, Painted Substrates................................................................ 57 

5.6.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 57

5.6.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 57

5.7 Cyclic Corrosion on Scribed, Painted Substrates ......................................................... 65 

5.7.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 65

5.7.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 65

5.8 Filiform Corrosion Resistance ...................................................................................... 76 

5.8.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 76

5.8.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 77

5.9 Marine Atmospheric Test (Beach Test) on Scribed, Painted Substrates...................... 82 

5.9.1 Test Description.................................................................................................... 82

5.9.2 Test Results........................................................................................................... 84

5.10 Toxicology .................................................................................................................... 87 

5.10.1 Demonstration Report for Non-Chromate Pretreatment for Non-ferrous Metals 88

5.11 Repairability.................................................................................................................. 89 

6.0 ISSUES IN EVALUATING NON-CHROMATED SYSTEMS..............91

7.0 IMPLEMENTAION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES IN DOD AND 

NASA.............................................................................................................93

7.1 NASA (Alodine 5700).................................................................................................. 93 

7.2 US Army TACOM (Alodine 5700).............................................................................. 94 

7.3 USAF (X-It PreKote).................................................................................................... 94 

7.4 NAVSEA/MARINES (TCP) ........................................................................................ 95 

7.5 NAVAIR TCP............................................................................................................... 96

7.6 USMC (TCP and Alodine 5200/5700) ......................................................................... 97 

7.7 Joint Boeing/Air Force/Navy (Boegel)......................................................................... 98 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 100

ii 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

9.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 101

iii 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 5.1.2.1: Alodine 5200 on 2024 and 2219 After 1 Week Exposure ............................... 20 

Figure 5.1.2.2: Alodine 5200 on 5083 and 7075 After 1 Week Exposure ............................... 21 

Figure 5.1.2.3: Sanchem 7000 With Sealer # 2 on 5083-H131 After 2 Weeks Exposure........ 21 

Figure 5.1.2.4: TCP on 5083 and 2024 After 2 Weeks Exposure ............................................ 22 

Figure 5.1.2.5: TCP on 2219 and 7075 After 2 Weeks Exposure ............................................ 22 

Figure 5.1.2.6: Alodine 1200S on 5083 and 2024 After 2 Weeks Exposure............................ 23 

Figure 5.1.2.7: Alodine 1200S on 2219 and 7075 After 2 Weeks Exposure............................ 23 

Figure 5.3.1.1: Example Coupon with Scribe Pattern After Testing........................................ 27 

Figure 5.5.2.1: Test Chamber and Panels Used for ASTM B 117............................................ 40 

Figure 5.5.2.2: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 44 

Figure 5.5.2.3: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 45 

Figure 5.5.2.4: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 46 

Figure 5.5.2.5: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 47 

Figure 5.5.2.6: Aluminum 5083 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 49 

Figure 5.5.2.7: Aluminum 5083 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration........................................................................................................................ 50 

Figure 5.5.2.8: Severe Delamination of Oxsilan AL 0-500 Pretreated on Al 7075 Coated With 

85582C2/25285 Coating System at 1 Week Exposure ................................................ 51 

Figure 5.5.2.9: Severe Delamination of Oxsilan AL 0-500 Pretreated on Al 7075 Panels with 

85582C2/25285 Coating System at 2 Weeks Exposure............................................... 51 

Figure 5.5.2.10: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 52 

Figure 5.5.2.11: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 53 

Figure 5.5.2.12: Coating System Performance of Aluminum 2219 ......................................... 55 

Figure 5.5.2.13: Coating System Performance of Aluminum 5083 ......................................... 56 

Figure 5.6.3.1: Pretreatments With 23377/85285 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 62 

Figure 5.6.3.2: Pretreatments With 23377/85285 Coating System on Al 2219 After 500 Hour 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 62 

Figure 5.6.3.3: Pretreatments With 53030/53039 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure to SO2 Salt Fog............................................................................................. 63 

Figure 5.6.3.4: Pretreatments With 53022/53039 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 63 

Figure 5.6.3.5: Pretreatments With 85582 NC/85285 Coating System on Al 2219 after 500 

Hour Exposure.............................................................................................................. 64 

Figure 5.6.3.6: Pretreatments With 53022/53039 Coating System on Al 5083 after 500 Hour 

Exposure....................................................................................................................... 64 

iv 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.7.2.1: Test Chamber Configuration Used for GM 9540P .......................................... 65 

Figures 5.7.2.2: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System .................... 71 

Figure 5.7.2.3: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System.......................... 72 

Figure 5.7.2.4: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 C2/85285 Coating System.................... 73 

Figure 5.7.2.5: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 C2/85285 Coating System.................... 74 

Figure 5.7.2.6: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System.......................... 75 

Figure 5.8.1.1: Filiform Corrosion Rating Template Layout.................................................... 77 

Figure 5.8.1.2: Example Coupon Prepared for Template Rating Method for Filiform Corrosion

...................................................................................................................................... 77 

Figure 5.8.2.1: Alodine 1200S with 23377 Primer, Rating: 16 ................................................ 80 

Figure 5.8.2.2: TCP with 23377 Primer, Rating: 82................................................................. 80 

Figure 5.8.2.3: TCP with 85582 N Primer, Rating: 94............................................................. 81 

Figure 5.8.2.4: Alodine 5200 with 85582 N Primer, Rating: 22 .............................................. 81 

Figure 5.8.2.5: Sanchem 7000 with 53030 Primer, Rating: 0................................................... 82 

Figure 5.9.1.1: Kennedy Space Center Beachsite Aerial View................................................ 83 

Figure 5.9.1.2: Coupon Exposure Racks .................................................................................. 83 

Figure 7.1.1: Launch Photo of the SRBs .................................................................................. 93 

Figure 7.3.1: Application of X-It PreKote ................................................................................ 95 

Figure 7.5.1: F/A-18 after TCP Application and Painting........................................................ 96 

Figure 7.6.1: Spray Applied Alodine 5700 to AAAV .............................................................. 97 

v 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1: Engineering and Testing Requirements.................................................................... 3 

Table 2.2: Rating Classes for Coating Systems......................................................................... 4 

Table 2.3: Substrate Descriptions............................................................................................... 5 

Table 3.1: Summary of Non-Chromate Conversion Coating Alternatives.............................. 10 

Table 4.1.1.1.1: Processing Details........................................................................................... 13 

Table 4.1.1.2.1: Coating Weights of Alternative Coatings on 2024-T3................................... 14 

Table 5.1.2.1: Aluminum alloy 2024-T3 .................................................................................. 19 

Table 5.1.2.2: Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 .................................................................................. 19 

Table 5.1.2.3: Aluminum alloy 2219-T87 ................................................................................ 19 

Table 5.1.2.4: Aluminum alloy 5083-H131.............................................................................. 20 

Table 5.2.2.1: Contact Resistance of As-Coated TCP.............................................................. 25 

Table 5.2.2.2: Contact Resistance of TCP after exposure to Salt Fog for 168 hours............... 25 

Table 5.2.2.3: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S As-Coated (30-Second Immersion)...... 25 

Table 5.2.2.4: Contact Resistance of Alodine1200S After Exposure (30-Second Immersion) 26 

Table 5.2.2.5: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S, As-Coated (60-Second Immersion)..... 26 

Table 5.2.2.6: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S After Exposure (60-Second Immersion)26 

Table 5.3.1.1: Rating Scale for ASTM D 3359 Method B Tape Adhesion Test..................... 28 

Table 5.3.2.1: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer ................................................................ 29 

Table 5.3.2.2: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer........................................................... 29 

Table 5.3.2.3: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer.......................................................... 29 

Table 5.3.2.4: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer ..................................................................... 30 

Table 5.3.2.5: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer ..................................................................... 30 

Table 5.3.2.6: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer ................................................................ 30 

Table 5.3.2.7: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer........................................................... 31 

Table 5.3.2.8: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer.......................................................... 31 

Table 5.3.2.9: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer ..................................................................... 31 

Table 5.3.2.10: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer ..................................................................... 32 

Table 5.4.1.1: Rating Scale for ASTM D 3359 Method A Tape Adhesion Test...................... 32 

Table 5.4.2.1: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer

...................................................................................................................................... 33 

Table 5.4.2.2: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 33 

vi 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.4.2.3: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 34 

Table 5.4.2.4: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer.. 34 

Table 5.4.2.5: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer.. 34 

Table 5.4.2.6: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer

...................................................................................................................................... 35 

Table 5.4.2.7: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 35 

Table 5.4.2.8: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 36 

Table 5.4.2.9: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer.. 36 

Table 5.4.2.10: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 36 

Table 5.4.2.11: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer

...................................................................................................................................... 37 

Table 5.4.2.12: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 37 

Table 5.4.2.13: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer........................................................................................................................... 38 

Table 5.4.2.14: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 38 

Table 5.4.2.15: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 38 

Table 5.4.2.16 Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems in Wet Tape Adhesion 

Tests.............................................................................................................................. 39 

Table 5.5.2.1: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours............... 41 

Table 5.5.2.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours......... 41 

Table 5.5.2.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 N Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours........... 42 

Table 5.5.2.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours............... 42 

Table 5.5.2.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours............... 42 

Table 5.5.2.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 3000 hours 

of ASTM B117 Salt Fog (Ratings per ASTM D 1654A)............................................. 54 

Table 5.6.3.1: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours.......... 59 

Table 5.6.3.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours .... 59 

Table 5.6.3.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours.... 59 

Table 5.6.3.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-P-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 500 Hours......................................... 60 

Table 5.6.3.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-P-53022 primer and Mil-C-53039 topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours................. 60 

vii 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.6.3.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 500 Hours 

(Ratings per ASTM D 1654A)..................................................................................... 61 

Table 5.7.2.1: GM 9540P Cyclic Corrosion Test Details......................................................... 66 

Table 5.7.2.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat...................................................... 66 

Table 5.7.2.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat................................................ 67 

Table 5.7.2.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat............................................... 67 

Table 5.7.2.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat...................................................... 67 

Table 5.7.2.6: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat...................................................... 68 

Table 5.7.2.7: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 120 Cycles 

of GM9540P Corrosion Test (Ratings per ASTM D1654A) ....................................... 70 

Table 5.8.1.1: Filiform Corrosion Standard Rating Method................................................ 76 

Table 5.8.2.1 Filiform Corrosion Ratings per Standard Technique.......................................... 78 

Table 5.8.2.2: Filiform Corrosion Ratings per Template Technique....................................... 79 

Table 5.9.2.1: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat .. 84 

Table 5.9.2.2: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat

...................................................................................................................................... 84 

Table 5.9.2.3: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat

...................................................................................................................................... 85 

Table 5.9.2.4: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-P-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat ....... 85 

Table 5.9.2.5: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-P-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat ....... 85 

Table 5.9.2.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 12 Months 

of Outdoor Exposure at Kennedy Space Center Beachfront Corrosion Test Site........ 87 

viii 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACU-4 Assault Craft Unit Four 

AAAV Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle 

AETC Air Education & Training Command 

AFB Air Force Base 

ARL Army Research Laboratory 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

CARC Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 

CCTC Cyclic Corrosion Test Chambers 

CTC Concurrent Technologies Corporation 

DoD Department of Defense 

Dpi Dots Per Inch 

DUSD-ES Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security 

ESOH Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health 

ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program 

FED Federal 

FOD Foreign Object and Debris 

GM General Motors 

HazMats Hazardous Materials 

HCl Hydrochloric Acid 

JG-PP Joint Group on Pollution Prevention 

JLC The Joint Logistics Commanders 

JTP Joint Test Protocol 

LC50 Median Lethal Concentration 

LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion 

LD50 Lethal Dose 

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone 

MIL Military 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command 

NCAP Non-Chromate Aluminum Pretreatment Project 

NCMS National Center for Manufacturing Sciences 

NDCEE National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit 

RH Relative Humidity 

RRAD Red River Army Depot 

RT Room Temperature 

ix 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

SPO System Program Office 

SPT Self Priming Topcoat 

SRB Solid Rocket Booster 

STD Standard 

TCP Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment 

TO Technical Order 

UDRI University of Dayton Research Institute 

USMC United States Marine Corps 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

x 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Aerospace and Department of Defense (DoD) user s presently enhance the corrosion resistance 

and paint adhesion perform ance of aluminum alloys with hexavalent chrom ium-based products 

that deposit a conversion coating on the surface of the metal. These coatings are very thin, 

inexpensive to produce, extremely process flexible, and can be applied by immersion, spray and 

wipe techniques. 

Although chrome conversion coatings offer m any advantages, the downside is that they contain 

hexavalent chromium, or chromate, species that are know n carcinogens. The risk of worker 

exposure to these chem icals, the potential liabilities due to accide ntal leaks to the environm ent, 

and waste disposal issues ar e making the use of chrom ate-based conversion coatings 

unaffordable. 

This report examines accelerated corrosion exposure of aluminum alloys 2024, 2219, 5083, and 

7075 specimens treated with the candidate hexava lent chromium free pretreatments as well as 

one hexavalent chromium based pretreatment (Alodine 1200S) used as a control. The data from 

the Nonchromated Aluminum Pretreatment Project (NCAP) Joint Te st Protocol (JTP) tests are 

considered together to form an accurate evaluati on of the potential effectiveness of the selec ted 

alternatives as replacements for chromate conversion coatings. This data is solely intended to 

provide support for additional product validation and f ield-testing at user f acilities. The 

performance requirements are docum ented in the JTP for Validation of Non-Chromate 

Aluminum Pretreatments dated 13 December 2000. 

Eight potential nonchromated pretreatment alternatives are identified and discussed in this Phase 

I Report. They are H enkel Surface Technologies Alodine  5200/5700, Fortune Chem ical 

Company X-It PreKote , MacDermid Chemidize 727ND, Brent OXSiLAN  AL-0500, 

NAVAIR Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment (TCP), Boeing Boegel Sol-gel (now av ailable from 

Advanced Chemistry & Technology Inc. as AC-131), Bi-K Aklim ate, and Sanche m 

Safegard7000. 

Each alternative tested shows acceptable performance in som e selected cases that m ay be 

satisfactory for a given user, depending on operating environm ent and business cases involved. 

The only compositions that come close to matching the technical, process, cost, and flexibility of 

chromates are based on trivalent chrom ium. Although trivalent chrom ium is present in the 

solution and coating, toxicity studies and OSHA PELs suggest that the use of TCP is acceptable, 

especially given its well-rounded performance. The next best product in testing was Alodine 

5200/5700. Alodine 5200/5700 contains no chrom ium, is process flexible and can be applied 

like chromate conversion coatings. The rem aining alternatives perform ed variably in the 

evaluation. 

xi 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report was prepared by the generous supp ort of the E nvironmental Security Technology 

Certification Program (ESTCP) and the Of fice of the De puty Undersecretary of Defense for 

Environmental Security (DUSD-ES). The e ffort was led by the Na val Aviation Systems 

Command (NAVAIR) Materials Division Patuxent River and c oordinated with Joint Group on 

Pollution Prevention (JG-PP). The principal i nvestigator for the NCAP project is Craig 

Matzdorf, Code 4.3.4, NAVAIR Materials Division Patuxent River. 

The authors of the report wish to acknowledge the leadership and support of the m any Navy 

managers, engineers, and Fleet support personnel who contributed to this ef fort. A special 

thanks to NAVAIR Patuxent River, Ar my Research Laboratory (ARL), University of Dayton 

Research Institute (URDI), National Aeron autics and Space Administra tion (NASA) and 

contractor personnel at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, National Defense Center for 

Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) and Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) for their 

support in m aterial testing and dem onstration; Assault Craft Unit Four (ACU-4), Naval 

Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia for their support in the evaluation of test patches on 

Landing Craft, Air Cushions (LCACs); S-3B, F/A-18, and H-46 support personnel for their help 

in material flight-tests; principal investigators from the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corp 

for providing project summ aries and testing r esults; and, Science Applica tions International 

Corporation for their support in the preparation of this report. 

xii 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Project Background 

The Environmental Security Technology Certif ication Program (ESTCP) was established as a 

program of the DoD in Decem ber 1993. The ES TCP is managed by the Office of the Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Environm ental Security (DUSD-ES). The ESTCP dem onstrates 

and validates laboratory-proven te chnologies that target the DoD’ s most urgent environmental 

needs. These technologies pr ovide a return on investm ent through reduced environm ental, 

safety, and occupational health (E SOH) risks; cost saving s; and improved efficiency. The new 

technologies typically have broad applicati on to both the DoD sustainm ent community and 

industry. 

The Joint Logistics C ommanders (JLC) and Headquarters National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) co-chartered the Jo int Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP) to 

coordinate joint service/agency activities affecting pollution prevention issues identified during 

system and component acquisition and sustainment processes. The primary objectives of the JGPP are to: 

• Reduce or eliminate the use of Hazardous Materials (HazMats) 

• Avoid duplication of effort in actions requi red to reduce or elim inate HazMats through 

joint service cooperation and technology sharing. 

JG-PP projects typically involve an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) producing multiple 

defense systems for more than one of the Services, as well as at least one DoD depot maintaining 

one or more of the defense system s. JG-PP t echnical representatives for each project begin by 

identifying a target HazMat, related process, and affected substr ates or parts that m ay cause 

environmental and/or w orker health concerns. Project participants then identify alternative 

technologies or materials for evaluation. 

ESTCP selected the NCAP project, led by Naval Air System s Command (NAVAIR) an d 

coordinated with JG-PP, to assis t in the m itigation of the signif icant ESOH risks that are 

associated with the use of chromate conversion coatings. Chromate conversion coatings contain 

hexavalent chromium, a known hum an carcinogen th at is strictly regulated. The U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits air emissions and regulates solid waste disposa l 

from operations using hexavalent chrom ium. The U. S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) regulates the amount of hexavalent chromium to which workers can be 

exposed, and has proposed redu cing the Perm issible Exposure Limit (PEL) for hexavalent 

chromium from the current 50 m icrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) to less than 1 μ g/m3. Such 

limits could increase co sts of the p retreatment of aluminum and aluminum alloys; therefore, 

alternatives are being identified and evaluated. The project will achieve the goal of reducing or 

eliminating the use of hexavalent chrom ium in aluminum finishing by de monstrating and 

validating the perf ormance of alternatives in accordance with the t echnical requirements and 

tests identified in the JTP. 

1 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

The key benefit of the nonchrom ated pretreatment alternatives being demonstrated in this repor t 

is the elim ination or absence of hexavalent chromium from the process chem icals and as -

deposited coating. Elim inating chromates from the conversion coating or pretreatm ent 

operations will drastically reduce user liability and risk in the life cycle of the platform or parts 

being coated. The key challenge for the alternatives will be matching the technical performance 

of chromate conversion coatings in a cost-effective manner. 

1.2 Objective and Scope of Work 

The overall objective is to v alidate and implement multiple chromate-free aluminum 

pretreatment alternatives at a broad range of user facilities. This report presents an evaluation of 

laboratory coupon testing of non- chromate aluminum pretreatment alternatives through 

accelerated tests on flat coupons. Section 2 of this docum ent discusses the testing requirements 

for alternative aluminum pretreatments, which we re prepared for tests called out in the NCAP 

JTP. Section 3 provides an overview of the altern ative aluminum pretreatments. In Section 4, 

initial surface preparation and initial pa int applications are described. Section 5 presents the 

results of the tests conducted on various alum inum alloys for nonchrom ate aluminum 

pretreatment alternatives. Section 6 provides an overview of uncertainty as sociated with 

nonchromated systems, and Section 7 presents the implementation status of alternative aluminum 

pretreatments in other organizations. The result s of the analysis will be used to support and 

justify field testing on components or in-service platforms where technical performance is highly 

dependant on service environment and overall platform design and use. 

2 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

2.0 TEST PROTOCOL DESCRIPTION 

Eight non-chromate aluminum pretreatments were prepared for tests called out in the NCAP JTP. 

Table 2.1 lists all engineering and testing requirements, and acceptance criteria identified in the 

NCAP JTP for validating alternatives to chromate conversion coatings. 

Table 2.1: Engineering and Testing Requirements 

Engineering 

Requirement 

Test JTP 

Section 

Acceptance Criteria 

Corrosion Resistance Neutral Salt Fog on 

Unpainted Substrate with 

Pretreatment 

3.1 • Class E: 7 days with no visible sign of 

corrosion whatsoever; spots and 

discoloration are acceptable; lightening 

of coating is acceptable. 

• Class B1: 7 days with no visible sign of 

corrosion; lightening of coating is 

acceptable. 

• Class B2: 14 days with no visible sign 

of corrosion; lightening of coating is 

acceptable. 

Corrosion Resistance Neutral Salt Fog on Scribed, 

Painted Substrate 

3.2 • Class C: 3,000 hours with no evidence 

of corrosion (minor surface corrosion in 

scribe permissible). 

Corrosion Resistance SO2 Salt Fog on Scribed, 

Painted Substrates 

3.3 • Class C: 500 hours with no evidence of 

corrosion (minor surface corrosion in 

scribe permissible). 

Corrosion Resistance Cyclic Corrosion Test on 

Scribed, Painted Substrates 

3.4 • Class C: Equivalent or improved 

performance compared to controls. 

Corrosion Resistance Filiform Corrosion 

Resistance 

3.5 All filaments < 1/4"; Majority < 1/8". 

Corrosion Resistance Marine Atmospheric Test 

(Beach Test) Exposure on 

Scribed, Painted Substrates 

3.6 Class C: Equivalent or improved 

performance compared to chromate controls. 

Adhesion Wet Tape Adhesion and 

Water Resistance of Painted 

Substrates 

3.8 Method A: Rating of < 4A. 

Adhesion Dry Tape Adhesion of 

Painted Substrates 

3.9 Method B: Loss of two or more complete 

primer squares shall constitute failure 

(< 4B). 

Electrical Resistance Electrical Conductivity of 

Unpainted, Pretreated 

Substrates 

3.11 • <5 milliohms/square-inch as coated. 

• <10 milliohms/square-inch after 168 hours 

neutral salt fog exposure 

Environmental, 

Safety and 

Occupational Health 

(ESOH) 

Toxicology 3.12 Less toxic than MIL-C-81706 chromate 

conversion coating control per EPA Toxicity 

Categories (40 CFR 156.10). 

Reparability Reparability 3.13 Corrosion resistance, paint adhesion, and 

electrical contact resistance equal to or better 

than controls. 

3 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Paint adhesion, bare corrosion, and electrical contact resistance tests were completed first. After 

achieving acceptable paint adhesion results, painted corrosion tests were then completed. For all 

testing, alternatives were applie d and tested by DoD or contra ctor personnel and not at vendor 

sites. Alte rnatives not available f or “in-service” testing were consid ered immature for this 

project. Alterna tives must reach m aturity before depots and OEMs will consider them for 

implementation. 

Alternatives were also r ated on process flexibility. Parameters such as number of solutions or 

steps in the process, heating requirements, and curing requirements were detailed. Processes that 

require elevated temperatures for pretreatm ent solutions or curing m ay be appropriate for 

immersion application, but m ay not be applicable for spray or wipe application to alreadyassembled platforms. 

Coating usage was divided into the following three categories: 

B - Unpainted (bare) substrates requiring maximum corrosion resistance. 

C - Painted surfaces requiring maximum paint adhesion and corrosion resistance. 

E - Unpain ted (bare) su rfaces for electrical ap plications requiring corrosion resistance 

and low resistivity. 

Test results for each coating sys tem lead to a rating based on overall performance. Table 2.2 

lists the rating classes for these coating systems. 

Table 2.2: Rating Classes for Coating Systems 

Rating Class Requirement 

B1 Bare corrosion resistance for 7 days. 

B2 Bare corrosion resistance for 14 days. 

C1 Painted corrosion resistance and paint adhesion using MIL-P-23377G primer. 

C2 Painted corrosion resistance and paint adhesion using MIL-PRF-85582B Class 

C2 primer. 

C3 Painted corrosion resistance and paint adhesion using MIL-PRF-85582B Class N 

primer. 

C4 Painted corrosion resistance and paint adhesion using MIL-P-53022B primer. 

C5 Painted corrosion resistance and paint adhesion using MIL-P-53030A primer. 

E Bare corrosion resistance for 7 days and acceptable electrical conductivity. 

Substrate Descriptions: Table 2.3 lists alloy name, composition, and typical use for each of the 

5 substrates selected for testing. These substrates represent a cross section of aluminum alloys 

used in the joint community. 

4 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 2.3: Substrate Descriptions 

Alloy Name Composition Typical Use/ Field Test Platforms

2024-T3 (clad used 

for Filiform 

Corrosion Test) 

4.5% Cu, 1.5% 

Mg, 0.6% Mn 

Aircraft structures, rivets, hardware, truck wheels. 

2219-T87 6.3% Cu, 0.3% 

Mn 

Structural uses at high temperatures, high strength weldments. 

5083 4.5% Mg, 0.7% 

Mn 

Applications requiring a weldable, moderate-strength alloy having 

good corrosion resistance. Marine and welded structural applications. 

7075-T6 5.5% Zn, 2.5% 

Mg, 1.5% Cu, 

0.3% Cr 

Applications where very good strength and good resistance to 

corrosion are required. Aircraft structural parts. 

6061-T6 1.0% Mg, 

0.6% Si, 

0.25% Cu, 

0.25% Cr

Applications where good strength, formability, weldability, and very 

good resistance to corrosion are required. 

Experimental Procedure: All coupons for the entire NCAP J TP were procured and prepared at 

the same time at NAVAIR’s facilities at Patuxent River, MD. Coupons used were nominally 3.0 

inches by 5.0 inches for paint adhesion and painted corrosion testing and 3.0 inches by 10.0 

inches for bare corrosion and electrical contact resistance testing. Coupons varied in thickness 

depending on the alloy. All nine pretreatments, including th e chromate conversion coating 

control Alodine 1200S, were applied over a tw o-week period for all painted coupon tests. 

Pretreatments were applied by m anufacturer’s recommendations using the sam e alkaline 

cleaning and deoxidizing chem icals for all processes: Turco 4215 alkaline cleaner and Turco 

Smut-GO NC, respectively. The coatings were then allowed to stand overnight with subsequent 

primer and topcoat application. T he coating sy stem’s respective prim er coats were applied 

within 24 hours after th e pretreatment application for each pretreatm ent for each alloy, and the 

topcoats were applied after 24-hou r primer cure. The full coating sy stem was then cured at 

ambient conditions for 14 days before testing. T he coupons were then sorted for each JTP test, 

respectively, which are discussed in Section 5.0. 

5 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 

6 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

3.0 NON-CHROMATE CONVERSION COATING ALTERNATIVES 

The main advantage of any alternative is the elimination of hexavalent chromium. In most cases 

the alternatives are try ing to m atch the proce ss and technical perform ance of t he chromate 

solutions and coatings. Section 3.0 describes the alternatives being evaluated in this report. 

3.1 Alodine 1200S 

Alodine 1200S is the control process and coating used for this evaluation. The solution is mixed 

from powdered chemicals and yields a solution th at can be used by im mersion, spray, or wipe 

processes. This product is qualified to MI L-OTL-81706A. Final coati ngs are light tan to 

iridescent gold depending on alloy. 

3.2 Bi-K Aklimate 

Bi-K solutions are proprietary aqueous m ixtures designed to produce an adhesion-prom oting 

coating on aluminum alloys. The solution is used in a similar fashion to conventional chrom ate 

pretreatments. Rinsing yields the final coating. Although not processed by spray or wipe 

methods in this project, these appear feasible. Aklimate coatings are clear and colorless. 

3.3 Boeing Boegel Sol-gel (Now Available From Advanced Chemistry & Technology 

Inc. as AC-131) 

Boegel EP-II convers ion coating is a non-chrom ated solution that is designed to increas e 

adhesion of organic coatings to aluminum, titanium, and corros ion resistant steel. The final 

coating solution is a product of mixing four components packaged in a “kit” that can be sized 

appropriately for a given application. The m ixed solution has a “pot li fe” of 12 hours and is 

applied by spray, wipe, brush or dipping to leave a thin wet f ilm on the parts. The coating is 

dried in place without rinsing and care m ust be taken to rem ove puddles and excess coating 

solution that may be retained in pockets or crevices that do not freely drain. Boegel coatings are 

clear and colorless and yield a slightly wet or glossy appearance. 

3.4 Brent OXSiLAN AL-0500 

OXSiLAN® AL-0500 is a silane based multi-purpose, two-part liquid treatment for aluminum 

that is designed to im prove the perform ance of paint system s and inhibit corrosion on nonpainted surfaces. It d oes not con tain any regulated heavy m etals, phosphates, nitrites, o r 

molybdates. The solution is used in a sim ilar fashion to conventional chrom ate pretreatments 

and can be applied via immersion, spray or wipe methods. Coatings are not rinsed and allowed 

to dry in place. Chemetall Oakite purchased Brent in 2001. The OXSiLAN coating is clear and 

colorless and yields a surface with slightly wet or glossy appearance.

7 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

3.5 Fortune Chemical Company X-It PreKote

X-It PreKote is a non-chromated conversion coating used for metal surface pretreatment and precoating prior to painting. It is des igned to promote paint bonding on alum inum, stainless steel, 

titanium, magnesium, and carbon steel. It is biodegradable, non-toxic, non-flamm able, nonhazardous, non-corrosive, and free of phosphates and heavy metals. The solution is applied by a 

manual or autom ated scrubbing process, requiri ng multiple material application, scrubbing, 

drying, and rinsing steps. As a result, the pr oduct is not am enable to imm ersion or spray 

processing. PreKote has a slightly gray tint as applied. 

3.6 Henkel Surface Technologies Alodine 5200 and Alodine 5700 

Alodine 5700 is the ready-to-use, or pre-mixed, version of Alodine 5200. The solution is used in 

a similar fashion to co nventional chromate pretreatments. A m ajor benefit is th at it can be 

applied by imm ersion, spray, and wipe applica tion methods with a few m inutes dwell tim e 

similar to chromate conversion coatings. Coating can be applied using rinse or dried in place. 

Deposited coatings have a light color ranging from blue to tan depending on the alloy. 

3.7 MacDermid Chemidize 727ND 

Chemidize® 727ND is a non-chromated product that is designed to clean and treat an aluminum 

surface in a single operation. The solution is pre-thickened paste-like material designed to be 

brush applied to surface during processing. Material rinsing from coupon surface required water 

impingement or mechanical action to remove. Once disturbed the material was easy to rinse. As 

formulated, the material is not amenable to immersion processing and difficult to spray. The 

727ND leaves aluminum surfaces a bright metallic color with no visible evidence of coating. 

3.8 NAVAIR Trivalent Chromium Pretreatment (TCP) 

TCP solutions generate pretreat ment films on alum inum and alum inum alloys that im prove 

corrosion inhibition and paint adhesion while main taining electrical conductivity. The solution 

is used in a sim ilar fashion to co nventional chromate pretreatments. It can be applied by 

immersion, spray, and wipe application m ethods with a few m inute dwell tim e. Since the 

process chemistry is based on a surface reactio n, rinsing stops the reaction and yields the final 

coating. TCP films have a very light color ranging from purple to blue to tan, depending on the 

alloy. 

3.9 Sanchem Safegard7000 

The solution is used in a si milar fashion to c onventional chromate pretreatments. It is deep 

purple in color and was spray-applied for this pr oject. Immersion and wipe application methods 

appear feasible. Sanchem 7000 with the sealer ha s historically demonstrated unacceptable paint 

adhesion. As a result, painted system s in this testing were used with the Sanchem 7000 without 

sealer to maximize paint adhesion. Since prior evaluations noted unaccept able paint adhesion 

8 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

with Seal #2, it was only used to evaluate bare (unpainted) corrosion resistance. Sanchem 7000 

coatings were an attractive bronze-gold color, similar to chromate conversion coatings. 

Table 3.1 provides the summary of non-chromate pretreatm ent alternatives being evaluated i n 

Phase I: Lab Validation of this p roject. Alternative chemistry, applications, advantages and 

disadvantages are all detailed. 

9 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 3.1: Summary of Non-Chromate Conversion Coating Alternatives 

Product Chemistry 

(from 

MSDSs) 

Processing Application 

Methods 

Classification* Advantages Disadvantages

Alodine 

1200S 

Chromic acid, 

complex 

fluorides, 

accelerators 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

E, B, C Easy to use, 

standard 

Contains 

hexavalent 

chromium 

Alodine 

5200 and 

Alodine 

5700 

Organometallic 

zirconate 

complex 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, 

impractical color 

change 

Bi-K 

Aklimate 

Proprietary Single 

solution, room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature 

solution 

replacement for 

chromates 

Minimal bare 

corrosion 

resistance, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

Boeing 

Boegel Solgel 

Organosiloxanes, 

zirconates 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates, dry 

in place 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, dry in 

place, kitting and 

solution life, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

Brent 

Oxsilan AL0500 

Organosilane, 

ethanol, 

fluorotitanic acid 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Easy to use, 

room 

temperature 

solution 

replacement for 

chromates, dry 

in place 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, dry in 

place, clear and 

colorless (no color 

change) 

MacDermid 

Chemidize 

727ND 

Butyl cellosolve, 

other proprietary 

One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Spray, wipe C One solution, 

room 

temperature 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition, clear 

and colorless (no 

color change) 

10 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

NAVAIR 

TCP 

Chromium III 

sulfate basic, 

potassium 

hexafluorozircona

te 

One solution, 

room 

temperature, 

one to five 

minute dwell 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

E, B, C Easy to use, 

drop-in 

replacement for 

chromates; 

corrosion 

inhibition 

present; 

toxicology 

study 

completed 

Contains 

chromium, 

impractical color 

change 

Sanchem 

Safegard 

7000 (with 

Seal #2) 

Potassium 

permanganate, 

seal: polyacrylic 

acid, poly 

propylene glycol, 

fatty acid esters 

Two solution 

(coating and 

seal), elevated 

temp (200 °F) 

cure on sealer; 

pretreatment is 

ambient 

Immersion, 

spray, wipe 

C Pleasing 

bronze-gold 

color to 

coating, easy to 

use 

Minimal corrosion 

inhibition without 

sealer. 

Sealer requires 

elevated 

temperature cure 

and has poor 

adhesion 

characteristics. 

X-It 

PreKote 

Diethylene glycol 

monobutyl ether, 

n-methyl 

pyrrolidone 

One solution, 

wipe on by 

mechanical 

abrasion of 

substrate, 

room 

temperature 

Wipe C Non-toxic 

coating left as a 

result of 

process 

Minimal bare 

corrosion 

resistance, 

laborious manual 

application 

required, minimal 

color change 

* E=electrical, B=bare, C=coated

11 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

4.0 INITIAL PROCESSING INFORMATION 

4.1 Initial Surface Preparation 

For painted corrosion tests, coupons were 3 in ches wide by 5 inches long and of thickness 

(0.020-0.125 inch) as supplied by vendor. Test coupons were pain ted within 24 hours of the 

application of the pretreatm ent. For unpainte d corrosion and electrical conductivity tests, 

coupons were 3 inches wide by 10 inches long and of suitable thickness. 

4.1.1 Coupon Preparation, Cleaning, and Deoxidizing 

In a typical process line, aluminum substrates are cleaned to remove oils, dirt, residue, and then 

deoxidized to provide an optim um, water-break free surface for reactio n with the pretreatment 

solution. The following genera l immersion processing procedures were follow ed for each 

alternative: 

Procurement: Test coupons of alloys 2024-T 3, 7075-T6, 6061-T6 and clad 2024-T3 were 

purchased from Q-Panel. Aluminum alloys 5083-H131 and 2214-T87 were purchased fr om 

Pierce Aluminum. Coupons were engraved on the reverse side with a unique tracking 

number. 

Degreasing: The 2024, 7075, clad 2024, and 6061 were degr eased and cleaned as supplied. 

The 2219 and 5083 were received with mill marks and other dirt present and were degreased 

in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) i mmersion followed by acetone immersion. Solvent cleaned 

coupons were then racked for cleaning per the next step. 

Cleaning: Coupons were racked in titanium fixtures and immersed in Turco 4215 at about 

120 °F for 15 minutes. Air agitatio n was maintained in the cleaner tank during processing. 

Cleaning was followed by two warm tap water rinses for at least one minute each. 

Deoxidizing: Immediately following the cleaning ri nse, coupon racks were imm ersed in 

Turco Smut-Go NC at ambient temperature for 1-15 minutes. There was no solution or rack 

agitation during this step. Deoxidizing was followed by two cool tap water rinses for at least 

one minute each followed by a flowing deionized water rinse. 

Pretreatment: Immediately following the deoxidizer rinse, coupon racks were processed for 

each alternative according to vendor instructions. 

4.1.1.1 Application Procedure for Each Alternative 

Work instructions for the m ake up and use of each alternative were written b ased on th e 

technical literature supplied from alterna tive suppliers. Table 4.1.1.1.1 provides a summ ary of 

the general processing protocol fo r each alternative. All were applied at room temperature and 

straightforward to set up and apply. 

12 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 4.1.1.1.1: Processing Details 

Alkaline 

Clean 

Deoxidize Coating Coating Deposition 

Alodine 1200S 1 minute immersion; double rinse in static a mbient 

temperature tap water and final rinse in flowing 

deionized water 

Alodine 5200 1 minute immersion; double rinse in static a mbient 

temperature tap water and final rinse in flowing 

deionized water 

Bi-K Aklimate 1 minute immersion; double rinse in static a mbient 

temperature tap water and final rinse in flowing 

deionized water 

Boegel Spray applied kee ping surface wet for 5 minutes, 

excess solution drained by inclining coupons at 20 

degree angle 

Chemidize 727D Brush on with 10 minute dwell; do uble rinse with 

flowing ambient temperature tap water and final 

rinse in flowing deionized water 

Oxsilan AL0500 1 minute immersion; dry in place (no rinse) 

Sanchem 

Safeguard7000 

1 minute spray dwell; double rinse with flowing 

ambient temperature tap water and final rinse in 

flowing deionized water 

TCP 2 minute immersion; double rinse in static ambient 

temperature tap water and final rinse in flowing 

deionized water 

15 minute 

immersion 

in 120 °F 

Turco 4215; 

double rinse 

in reverse 

flow hot tap 

water 

Immersion in Turco 

Smut Go NC; double 

rinse in static ambient 

temperature tap water 

and final rinse in 

flowing deionized 

water; 15 minute 

immersion for 

aluminum alloys 

2024 and 2219, 1 

minute immersion for 

6061 and 7075 and 

clad 2024, and 30 

second immersion for 

5083 

X-It PreKote Solution scrubbed onto coupons surface using 

saturated brown Scratch-Brite pad. Coating air dried 

in place. Coat re-applied in similar fashion and then 

double rinsed in flowing ambient temperature tap 

water and final rinse in flowing deionized water 

4.1.1.2 Coating Weight Measurement 

Coating weight measurement was used to quant ify the amount of coating being deposited by a 

given process. Coating weights for the altern atives were evaluated using alum inum alloy 2024-

T3. Three rep licates of each co ating were prepared, weighed and stripped per MIL-DTL81706A: freshly coated coupons were weighed and then immersed in 50% nitric acid solution for 

five minutes. An aerospace wipe was used to gently rub coupon on both sides to help rem ove 

the coating. The coupons were rinsed thoroughly in tap water followed by deionized water and 

then blown dry with compressed air. The coupons were re-weighed at this tim e. The difference 

in weight before and after stripping yields the coating weight in milligrams. The unit of measure 

for coating weight is milligrams per square foot as specified in MIL-DTL-81706A. 

Table 4.1.1.2.1 details coating weight data for each alternative. No alternative deposits as m uch 

coating weight as Alodine 1200S or meets the coating weight requirement of MIL-DTL-81706A. 

TCP and Boegel show the highest coating we ight among the alternatives, averaging 22 

13 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

milligrams per square foot, with the remaining coatings yielding weights in the rang e of 7 to 16 

milligrams per square foot. Coating weights alone are not indicative of corrosion performance or 

paint adhesion but once a correlation is estab lished, they are a poten tial method for quality 

control.

Table 4.1.1.2.1: Coating Weights of Alternative Coatings on 2024-T3 

Coating Coupon # Total Weight 

after Coating 

(gm) 

Total Weight 

after Stripping 

(gm) 

Coating 

Weight 

(mg/ft2

) 

Average 

Coating 

Weight 

(mg/ft2) 

1 21.6601 21.6522 37.92 

2 21.6437 21.6350 41.76 

Alodine 1200S 

3 21.6192 21.6124 32.64 

37.44 

1 21.6395 21.6369 12.48 

2 21.6228 21.6197 14.88 

Alodine 5200 

3 21.5997 21.5962 16.80 

14.72 

1 21.5549 21.5542 3.36 

2 21.5389 21.5357 15.36 

Bi-K Aklimate 

3 21.5152 21.5133 13.92 

10.88 

1 16.9646 16.9592 25.92 

2 16.7746 16.7703 20.64 

Boegel 

(method B) 

3 16.9477 16.9434 20.64 

22.40 

1 21.5235 21.5226 4.32 

2 21.5056 21.5039 8.16 

Chemidize 727D 

3 21.4832 21.4810 10.56 

7.68 

1 21.6024 21.5992 15.36 

2 21.5853 21.5815 18.24 

Oxsilan AL-0500 

3 21.5622 21.5592 14.40 

16.00 

1 21.5445 21.5413 15.36 

2 21.5268 21.5238 14.40 

Sanchem 7000 

3 21.5040 21.5012 13.44 

14.40 

1 21.6262 21.6215 22.56 

2 21.6095 21.6045 24.00 

TCP 

3 21.5865 21.5819 22.08 

22.88 

1 21.7740 21.7729 10.56 

2 21.7793 21.7783 9.60 

X-It PreKote 

3 21.7780 21.7768 11.52 

10.56 

4.1.1.3 Coupon Handling After Coating 

Following pretreatment, coupons were allowed to stand 24 hours before handling. 

4.2 Initial Paint Application 

Each coating system’s respective primer coats were applied following pretreatm ent application. 

The topcoats were applied after 24-hour primer cure. The full coating system was then cured a t 

ambient conditions for 14 days before testing. Coupons were then sorted for each JTP test. 

14 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

4.2.1 Description of Paints 

In order to closely m atch conditions found in curre ntly fielded equipment, five organic coating 

systems commonly used in DoD system s were selected. The following prim ers and topcoats 

were used in the Phase I Study. These prim ers and topcoats represent a cross-section of those 

used in the joint community. 

4.2.1.1 MIL-PRF-23377G, Type I, Class C 

MIL-PRF-23377G is a two com ponent, low volatile organic compound (VOC), solvent-borne, 

epoxy primer coating that is corrosion inhibiti ng and chem ical and s olvent resistant. The 

maximum VOC content of the adm ixed primer coatings is 340 gram s per liter (2.8 pounds per 

gallon). Type I specifies standard pigm ents. Class C is for strontium chromate based corrosion 

inhibitors and Class N is for non-chrom ate based corrosion inhibitors. Revision F took effect in 

1989 and was superseded by Revision G in 1994. 

4.2.1.2 MIL-PRF-85582 C, Type II, Class C2 and N 

MIL-PRF-85582C is a waterborne, e poxy primer coating that is co rrosion inhibiting, chemical 

and solvent resistant, and ha s a maximum VOC content of 340 gram s per liter (2.8 pounds per 

gallon). Type II specifies low infrared reflective pigments. Class C2 is for strontium chromate 

based corrosion inhibitors and Class N is for non-chromate based corrosion inhibitors. Revision 

B took effect in 1994 and was superseded by Revision C in 1997. 

4.2.1.3 MIL-P-53022 

MIL-P-53022 is a flash drying, co rrosion inhibiting epoxy prim er for ferrous and nonferrous 

metals. The prim er is lead and chrom ate free and m eets the air po llution requirements for 

solvent emissions. Revision A took effect in 1983 and was superseded by Revision B in 1998. 

4.2.1.4 MIL-P-53030 

MIL-P-53030 is a water-reducible, air-drying, corrosion inhibiting, epoxy-type prim er for 

pretreated ferrous and non-ferrous m etals. The primer is lead and chrom ate-free and is 

compatible with chemical agent resistant aliphatic polyurethane t opcoats. The pri mer contains 

no more than 340 grams per liter (2.8 pounds per gallon) of VOCs, as applied. Revision A took 

effect in 1992. 

4.2.1.5 MIL-PRF-85285C Topcoat 

MIL-PRF-85285 topcoat is a high-s olids, aliphatic po lyurethane coating with the m aximum 

VOC content specified by type. Type I is fo r aircraft application and has a m aximum VOC 

content of 420 gram s per liter. Type II is for ground support equipm ent application and has a 

maximum VOC content of 340 gram s per liter. Revision B took effect in 1988 and was 

superseded by Revision C in 1997. 

4.2.1.6 MIL-C-53039 

MIL-C-53039 topcoat specifies C hemical Agent Resistant Coating (CA RC) topcoats. This 

specification covers both cam ouflage and noncam ouflage, one com ponent chemical ag ent 

resistant, aliphatic polyurethane coating for use as a finish coat on m ilitary combat equipment. 

15 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

The coating is lead and chromate (hexavalent) free and has maximum of 420 gram s/liter (3.5 

lbs/gallon) VOC content. Revision A took effect in 1988. 

16 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 

17 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.0 TEST METHODS AND RESULTS 

5.1 Neutral Salt Fog on Unpainted Substrate with Pretreatment 

5.1.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system ’s ability to prevent substrate corrosion. Operation 

of the fog cham ber for this test is in acco rdance with A STM B 117 [ Standard Practice for 

Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus]. 

The five replicates of each coating per alloy were placed into a fog chamber at a 6-degree ang le. 

The coupons were not allowed to contact other surfaces in th e chamber, and condensate from a 

coupon also did not contact any other coupons. The salt solutio n and the fog cham ber were 

prepared as specified in the Te st Methodology of the JTP. The no zzles were adjusted in the fog 

chamber so that sprayed salt solution did not di rectly impinge on the coupon surfaces. The fog 

chamber was operated continuously for the test duration. Coupons were then evaluated per 

ASTM D 1654 Method B for surface corrosion at 24-hour intervals for the first 4 days, then at 7, 

10 and 14 days. This rating m ethod allows for pe rformance evaluation of coatings that do not 

meet MIL-OTL-81706A, which requires no evidence of corrosion after 2 weeks of ASTM B 117 

exposure. The coupons were carefully rem oved at the end of the test duration and cleaned by 

gently flushing with running water [water temper ature less than 38 degrees °C (100°F)]. The 

coupons were air-dried at am bient conditions then visually exam ined for corrosion, ignoring 

edges and contact points. 

5.1.2 Test Results 

Three of the eight alternatives were chosen for this test: TCP, Alodine 5200 and Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2. Prior testing de monstrated that the other altern atives have poor bare corrosion 

resistance and would not be candidates for u npainted applications. Sanchem 7000 without 

sealing shows poor bare corrosion performance, so Seal #2 was used for this particular test. 

Alodine 1200S and TCP coatings exposed to 1-week and 2-week Neutral Salt F og Exposure 

show no corrosion on 2024-T3, 7075-T6, and 5083-H131. Alodine 5200 and Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2 show surface corrosion within 48 hours on 20 24-T3 and 7075-T6. Alodine 5200 

and Sanchem 7000 with Seal #2 show som e corrosion on 5083-H131 after 2-week exposure. 

TCP performs best on 2219-T87 showing some m inor pitting after 2 weeks of exposure. The 

tables and photos below detail corrosion performance for pretreatm ents on each alloy. Each 

rating is an average of 5 test coupons. 

18 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.1.2.1: Aluminum alloy 2024-T3 

Average Rating (5 Panels) after Exposure to ASTM B 117 Neutral 

Salt Fog (ASTM D 1654 Method B) 

Pretreatment 

24 hrs 48 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 9.0 8.0 3.0 - 

Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2 

9.0 8.0 2.0 - 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Table 5.1.2.2: Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 

Average Rating (5 Panels) after Exposure to ASTM B 117 Neutral 

Salt Fog (ASTM D 1654 Method B) 

Pretreatment 

24 hrs 48 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 10.0 9.0 6.0 - 

Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2 

9.0 8.0 2.0 - 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Table 5.1.2.3: Aluminum alloy 2219-T87 

Average Rating (5 Panels) after Exposure to ASTM B 117 Neutral 

Salt Fog (ASTM D 1654 Method B) 

Pretreatment 

24 hrs 48 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 5.4 5.0 

Alodine 5200 0.0 - - - 

Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2 

9.0 8.0 0.0 - 

TCP 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 

19 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.1.2.4: Aluminum alloy 5083-H131 

Average Rating (5 Panels) after Exposure to ASTM B 117 Neutral 

Salt Fog (ASTM D 1654 Method B) 

Pretreatment 

24 hrs 48 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 

Alodine 1200S 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 10.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 

Sanchem 7000 

with Seal #2 

10.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200

2024-T3 

Alodine 5200

2219-T87

Figure 5.1.2.1: Alodine 5200 on 2024 and 2219 After 1 Week Exposure 

20 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Alodine 5200

5083-H131 

Alodine 5200

7075-T6 

Figure 5.1.2.2: Alodine 5200 on 5083 and 7075 After 1 Week Exposure 

Figure 5.1.2.3: Sanchem 7000 With Sealer # 2 on 5083-H131 After 2 Weeks Exposure 

21 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.1.2.4: TCP on 5083 and 2024 After 2 Weeks Exposure 

TCP 

5083-H131 

TCP 

7075-T6

TCP 

2219-T87

TCP 

2024-T3

Figure 5.1.2.5: TCP on 2219 and 7075 After 2 Weeks Exposure

22 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.1.2.6: Alodine 1200S on 5083 and 2024 After 2 Weeks Exposure 

Alodine 1200S

2024-T3 

Alodine 1200S

5083-H131 

Alodine 1200S

2219-T87

Alodine 1200S

7075-T6

Figure 5.1.2.7: Alodine 1200S on 2219 and 7075 After 2 Weeks Exposure 

23 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.2 Electrical Contact Resistance Unpainted, Pretreated Substrates 

5.2.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system ’s ability to provide init ial electrical contact 

resistance after application of pretreatm ent and after exposure to a corrosive environm ent. 

Pretreated aluminum 6061-T6 coupons were evaluated for electrical conductivity using apparatus 

and method described in MIL-DTL-81706A. Operation of the fog chamber for this test is in 

accordance with ASTM B 117 [ Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus]. 

Testing was completed by NAVAIR personnel at the Patuxent River, MD test facility. 

In order to expose substr ate to corrosive environment, they were placed into a fog cham ber at a 

6-degree angle for 168 hours. The coupons were not allowed to contact other surfaces in the 

chamber, and condensate from a coupon did not c ontact any other coupons. The salt solution 

and the fog cham ber were prepared as specified in the Test Methodology of the JTP. The 

nozzles were adjusted in the fog cham ber so that sprayed salt solution did not directly im pinge 

on the coupon surfaces. The fog chamber was operated continuously for 168 hours. The coupons 

were then carefully removed at the end of the test duratio n, and cleaned with running water 

(water temperature less than 38 °C (100°F)). The coupons were then air-dried at am bient 

conditions, and then visually examined for corrosion. 

5.2.2 Test Results 

All eight alternatives and th e chromate control were coated onto the 6061 test coupons and 

evaluated for initial electrical contact resistance. A sister se t was exposed to salt fog and 

evaluated for corrosion resistance. 

All coatings passed the initial electrical conductivity test by measuring less than 5 milli-ohms per 

square inch per the JTP. Only Alodine 1200S a nd TCP completed the salt fog test with no signs 

of corrosion on any coupon. The seven other alternatives all be gan corroding before the end of 

the test duration and therefore do not meet the test criteria. Due to the corrosion on the substrate, 

electrical contact resistance measurements could not be completed for those coatings. 

Data for as-coated TCP and Alodine 1200S ar e presented in Tables 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.3, and 5.2.2.5. 

Alodine 1200S was coated at two different immersion tim es to evaluate potential im pact on 

contact resistance. As the tables show, TCP and Alodine 1200S deposited by 30- and 60- second 

immersion times meet the contact resistance test criteria. 

After the coupons with Alodine 1200S and TCP coatings were remove d from the salt fog 

chamber, rinsed and dried, they w ere subjected to electrical contact resistance measurement. 

Tables 5.2.2.2, 5.2.2.4, and 5.2.2.6 show the test re sults for all 15 cou pons. Although each 

coating showed average measurement increases over the as-coated set, all coatings m et the test 

criteria by measuring less th an 10 milli-ohms per square inch. Mos t measurements still fell 

below the more strict as-coated requirement. 

24 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

The Alodine 1200S with 60-second immersion tim e did show higher measurements than the 30-

second immersion set, especially after salt f og. The 60-second immersion tim e was used for all 

other coupons in the JTP tests showing that one immersion time can satisfy bare corrosion, paint 

adhesion, painted corrosion, and electr ical contact resistance requirem ents. This is true for the 

TCP coating as well. A 2-m inute immersion time was used for the electrical con tact resistance 

test, the same as for all the other testing. 

Table 5.2.2.1: Contact Resistance of As-Coated TCP 

As-Coated Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2

) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average 50 

Avg 

Standard 

Deviation

1 1.52 1.66 1.79 1.46 1.80 1.26 1.67 1.59 2.01 1.16 1.59 

2 1.35 1.47 1.36 1.34 1.51 1.22 1.25 1.25 1.20 1.33 1.33 

3 1.42 1.72 2.15 2.14 1.55 1.34 1.72 1.54 1.05 1.58 1.62 

4 1.33 1.69 1.70 1.97 1.07 1.33 1.57 1.54 1.36 1.83 1.54 

5 1.33 1.82 1.81 1.92 2.18 1.54 1.85 2.21 1.09 1.86 1.76 

1.57 0.30 

Table 5.2.2.2: Contact Resistance of TCP after exposure to Salt Fog for 168 hours 

After 

Exposure to 

Salt Fog for 

168 hours 

Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 50 

Avg 

Std Dev 

1 3.05 4.46 3.48 3.36 4.25 2.70 2.42 3.72 2.43 5.16 3.50 

2 5.39 2.93 6.18 3.03 7.27 3.20 4.67 4.44 4.15 2.94 4.42 

3 2.40 2.36 2.50 3.94 2.45 2.11 4.23 2.40 1.25 3.83 2.75 

4 3.18 1.83 3.01 1.45 4.35 7.65 5.20 2.39 1.52 1.89 3.25 

5 2.34 1.80 2.19 2.13 2.06 2.45 2.10 1.71 1.69 1.80 2.03 

3.19 1.45 

Table 5.2.2.3: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S As-Coated (30-Second Immersion) 

As-Coated Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2

) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 50 

Avg 

Std Dev 

1 2.09 2.18 2.26 2.23 2.47 1.49 1.46 1.68 1.23 0.84 1.79 

2 1.34 1.42 1.56 1.28 1.26 1.40 1.21 1.25 1.09 0.73 1.25 

3 1.01 1.50 1.49 1.92 1.34 1.70 1.40 1.44 1.33 1.08 1.42 

4 1.95 1.56 2.01 1.22 1.40 1.70 1.63 1.47 1.30 0.99 1.52 

5 1.42 1.23 0.98 1.12 1.57 1.58 1.51 1.81 1.10 1.67 1.40 

1.48 0.37 

25 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.2.2.4: Contact Resistance of Alodine1200S After Exposure (30-Second Immersion) 

After 

Exposure to 

Salt Fog for 

168 hours 

Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2

) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 50 

Avg 

Std Dev 

1 2.32 3.52 3.39 2.08 1.33 1.55 2.07 1.31 1.34 1.70 2.06 

2 2.96 1.75 2.68 2.07 1.66 3.11 1.98 1.64 2.44 2.23 2.25 

3 1.66 2.11 0.74 1.23 0.90 2.54 2.46 2.24 1.65 2.03 1.76 

4 2.07 2.53 2.97 2.12 1.09 1.56 2.33 2.34 1.00 1.15 1.92 

5 1.84 3.07 1.02 1.12 1.03 1.63 2.59 2.56 2.41 1.66 1.89 

1.98 0.68 

Table 5.2.2.5: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S, As-Coated (60-Second Immersion) 

As-Coated Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2

) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 50 

Avg 

Std Dev 

1 1.25 2.23 2.20 2.14 1.90 1.19 1.22 1.10 0.93 1.08 1.52 

2 1.41 2.44 1.49 1.27 1.06 0.99 1.36 1.41 1.56 1.70 1.47 

3 2.08 1.42 1.46 2.25 1.76 1.91 2.27 2.80 2.25 1.77 2.00 

4 1.86 1.23 1.18 1.12 0.93 1.70 2.13 2.06 2.00 2.03 1.62 

5 1.88 2.30 2.26 2.13 2.17 1.54 2.66 1.78 1.32 1.40 1.94 

1.71 0.48 

Table 5.2.2.6: Contact Resistance of Alodine 1200S After Exposure (60-Second Immersion) 

After 

Exposure to 

Salt Fog for 

168 hours 

Spot Measurements on Coupon (milliohms/in2

) per MIL-DTL-81706 

Coupon # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg 50 

Avg 

Std Dev 

1 4.89 4.76 4.54 2.61 2.83 5.06 4.03 4.73 3.62 2.80 3.99 

2 4.06 3.22 6.92 4.62 3.36 5.28 2.63 7.47 3.05 3.04 4.37 

3 4.89 7.23 6.18 8.64 6.54 1.65 1.75 5.07 9.42 6.92 5.83 

4 5.03 8.31 9.20 4.66 6.49 6.80 6.82 5.66 7.28 3.15 6.34 

5 3.10 1.42 0.88 1.72 2.63 2.70 3.02 3.33 2.25 2.91 2.40 

4.58 2.15 

26 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.3 Dry Tape Adhesion of Painted Substrates 

5.3.1 Test Description 

This test method describes a procedure for es tablishing adequacy of intercoat and surface 

adhesion of an organ ic coating by applying pressure sensitive tape o ver a scr ibed area of the 

coating. Method A testing was completed by NAVAIR personnel and Me thod B testing was 

completed by Arm y Research Lab oratory (ARL) personnel at the Patuxe nt River, MD test 

facility. 

Dry tape adhesion testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 3359, Methods A and B 

(Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test, Test Method B-Cross-Cut Tape 

Test). 

For Method A, two par allel lines were then s cribed approximately one inch apart, making sure 

that the coating was scribed a ll the way through and into the substrate. Two angled “X” 

incisions were scribed through the coating across the para llel lines to create an “X” so that the 

smaller angle of the “X” was 30 to 45 degrees, m aking sure that the coating was scribed all the 

way through and into the substrate. Each line of the “X” was approxim ately 1.5 inches long. 

Figure 5.3.1.1 shows an exam ple coupon with Met hod A (top) and Method B (bottom ) scribe 

patterns. A piece of tape was immediately placed over the incisions parallel to the parallel scribe 

lines, and the tape was s moothed by rolling a 3-lb roller over it once. The tape was then 

removed rapidly at approximately a 180-degree angle. The incision area was then inspected for 

damage. 

Figure 5.3.1.1: Example Coupon with Scribe Pattern After Testing 

27 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

For tape adhesion testing according to ASTM D 3359, Method B; each test panel was subjected 

to a crosshatch tape test (minimum tape adhesion rating of 45 oz. per inch of width). The test 

pattern was 4 x 4 sc ribe lines to the metallic layer at 2-millimeter (mm) intervals (approximate) 

and was no closer than 12 mm from any edge. E ach line was cut seq uentially. Ratings wer e 

assigned in accordance with the ASTM D 3359, Method B rating scale shown in Ta ble 5.3.1.1. 

The loss of two or more complete primer squares constituted failure. 

Table 5.3.1.1: Rating Scale for ASTM D 3359 Method B Tape Adhesion Test 

Rating 

Number Description of Failure 

5 The edges of the cuts are completely smooth; none of the squares of the lattice are 

detached. 

4 Small flakes of the coating are detached at intersections; less than 5% of the area is 

affected. 

3 Small flakes of the coating are detached along edges and at intersections of cuts. The area 

affected is 5 to 15% of the lattice. 

2 The coating has flaked along the edges and on parts of the squares. The area affected is 15 

to 35% of the lattice. 

1 The coating has flaked along the edges of cuts in large ribbons and whole squares have 

detached. The area affected is 35 to 65% of the lattice. 

0 Flaking and detachment worse than Rating 1. 

5.3.2 Test Results 

An additional surface treatment was included in the adhesion test to study the effectiveness of a 

manually cleaned and scrubbed surface to prov ide adequate paint adh esion. To evaluate this 

type of process, one set of al uminum alloys was thoroughly scrubbed with an Alconox saturated 

Scotch-Brite pad until a water break free surface was obtained. Coupons were then thoroughly 

rinsed in ta p water and final deionized water ri nse and allowed to stan d overnight with other 

alternative pretreatments coatings before priming. 

The tables below detail the results of dry tape adhesi on per ASTM D 3359 Method A and 

Method B. All coating s performed acceptably in both adhesion methods with m ost coatings 

scoring 5 out of 5 per the ASTM rating m ethod. Note: The Boegel coating for all adhesion tests 

was applied by an incorrect procedure where the coating was dried in place without draining. 

This led to beach marks on the coupon surfaces and uneven coating thicknesses. This error was 

corrected in subsequent painted corrosion test coatings.

28 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.3.2.1: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Table 5.3.2.2: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.3.2.3: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Method A

29 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.3.2.4: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

5.0 5.0 

5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

5.0 

Table 5.3.2.5: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method A (X scribe) for Aluminum 

Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Boegel 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Scrub with Alconox 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 

Table 5.3.2.6: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 Primer 

Method B

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

30 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.3.2.7: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.3.2.8: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.3.2.9: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

31 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.3.2.10: Dry Tape Adhesion per ASTM D 3359 Method B (Crosshatch) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

5.4 Wet Tape Adhesion and Water Resistance of Painted Substrates 

5.4.1 Test Description 

This test method covers a procedure for establis hing adequacy of intercoat and surface adhesion 

of an organic coating im mersed in water by appl ying pressure sensitive tape over a scribed area 

of the coating. The test also m easures the coa ting’s ability to res ist penetration by water . 

Coatings were evaluated by imm ersion at room temperature for 24 hours, 120o F for 96 hours, 

and 150o F for 168 hours. Coupons are imm ersed in deionized water and let stand without 

disturbing for duration of immersion. This te st was performed in accordance with Method 6301 

of FED-STD-141 [ Paint, Varnish, Lacquer and Related Materials; Methods of Inspection 

Sampling and Testing], and ASTM 3359 Method A. Te sting was com pleted by NAVAIR 

personnel at the Patuxent River, MD test facility. 

Ratings were assigned in accordance with the ASTM D 3359, Method A rating scale shown in 

Table 5.4.1.1. 

Table 5.4.1.1: Rating Scale for ASTM D 3359 Method A Tape Adhesion Test 

Rating Number Description of Failure 

5 No peeling or removal. 

4 Trace peeling or removal along incisions or at their intersection. 

3 Jagged removal along incisions up to 1/16 inch on either side 

2 Jagged removal along most of incisions up to 1/8 inch on either side. 

1 Removal from most of the area of the X under the tape. 

0 Removal beyond the area of the X. 

32 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.4.2 Test Results

The tables below detail the results of wet tape adhesion. 

24-Hours (1 Day Test) at room temperature 

Table 5.4.2.1: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.2: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 

Boegel 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 

Chemidize 727ND 0 0 3.0 2.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 0 0 3.0 1.0 

Sanchem 7000 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 

Scrub with Alconox 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

33 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.4.2.3: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.4: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.5: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 2.0 3.0 5.0 0 

Coatings tested for adhesion af ter a 24-hour imm ersion in room temperature deionized water 

generally performed well. For the 2 3377 primer, all alternatives provided acceptable adhesion 

ratings of 4 or 5 out of 5. For the 85582 C2 primer, Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5200 and X-It 

34 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

PreKote performed well. All other coating syst ems performed poorly, failing on all alloys. For 

the 85582 N primer, all coatings again performed well, with no failures noted. 

Coatings again performed well with the 53030 pr imer with only Oxsilan Al-0500 showing some 

marginal performance on 2024 and 7075. W ith the 53022 primer, all coatings perform ed well 

except for X-It PreKote with showed poor re sults on 2024 and 2219 and m arginal performance, 

rating of 3, on 7075. Chemidize 727D performed well on all alloys except 7075. 

Interestingly, the Scrub with Alconox contro l performed well with all prim ers except the 85582 

C2 where it showed equally poor performance with a number of alternatives. 

96-Hours (4 Day Test) at 120o F 

Table 5.4.2.6: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.7: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 

Boegel 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 

Chemidize 727ND 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 0 0 3.0 0 

Sanchem 7000 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 

Scrub with Alconox 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

35 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.4.2.8: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 

Boegel 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 

Scrub with Alconox 2.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.9: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Alodine 5200 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

Boegel 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Table 5.4.2.10: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 

Coatings tested for adhesion after a 96-hour immersion in 120 F deionized water did not perform 

as well as in the 24-hour test. Coatings perfor med best with the 23377 prim er with all systems 

achieving acceptable adhesion. The sam e four coatings that performed well with the 85582 C2 

36 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

primer in the 24-hour test did well in the 96 -hour test. A lthough the rem aining coatings all 

showed unacceptable adhesion for all alloys, ratings were generally better than in the 24-hour 

test. 

For the 85582 N primer, whereas all coatings performed well in the 24-hour test, Sanchem 7000, 

Bi-K Aklimate, Scrub with Alconox, and Boegel Method A all showed unacceptable adhesion on 

2024 and 7075. The 53030 prim er systems saw similar incremental decreases in performance by 

Sanchem 7000, Bi-K A klimate, Scrub with Al conox and Boegel Method A on 5083 where all 

performed marginally, scoring 3. Oxsilan Al -0500 had marginal perf ormance with 2024 and 

7075 for this prim er and Chemdize 727D on 5083. For 53022, only X-It PreKote and Oxsilan 

Al-0500 did not rate 5 for all alloys. 

168-Hours (7 Day Test) at 150o F 

Table 5.4.2.11: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-23377 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.12: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 C2 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 

Boegel 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 

Chemidize 727ND 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 0 0 3.0 1.0 

Sanchem 7000 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 

Scrub with Alconox 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

37 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.4.2.13: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-PRF-85582 NC 

Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 0 0 3.0 1.0 

Boegel 0 0 3.0 1.0 

Chemidize 727ND 3.0 0 4.0 4.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 0 0 3.0 1.0 

Scrub with Alconox 0 0 3.0 1.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Table 5.4.2.14: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53030 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Boegel 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Chemidize 727ND 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Scrub with Alconox 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 

Table 5.4.2.15: Wet Tape Adhesion for Aluminum Alloys Coated with Mil-P-53022 Primer 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Boegel 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

TCP 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Coatings tested for adhesion after a 168-hour immersion in 150 °F deionized water generally 

performed better than in the 96- hour test. This performance trend is not unusual where in m any 

cases the 96-hour test proves to be the m ost severe on many coatings. For this test, all coatings 

38 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

again performed well with the 2337 7 primer with virtually all coatings rating 5. For the 85582 

C2, the same four coatings that performed well in the 24- and 96-hour test performed well in the 

168-hour test. All others showed marginal to poor perform ance on all alloys. The sam e four 

coatings, Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5200 and X-It PreKote performed well with the 85582 N 

primer. All others perform ed significantly worse than in the 96-hour test, with m any coatings 

failing completely and rating 0. Alum inum 2024 a nd 7075 were especially prone to com plete 

failures with these coatings. Perform ance of all coatings with 53030 and 53022 wa s acceptable 

on all alloys with the excepti on of marginal performance of Oxsilan Al-0500 on 2024 and 7075 

and Chemidize 727D on 2024 using the 53030 primer. 

Summary of Alternative Performance 

Table 5.4.2.16 details the summ ary performance of each alternative pretreatm ent by prim er 

system. It also shows an average rating for ea ch primer across all pretreatm ents. Only the 

Alodine 1200S control, TCP and Alodine 5200 rated 4 or 5 on all adhesion tests. This is a very 

important measure of the overall ad hesion quality of these coating s and their f lexibility to b e 

used on any alloy. It is comforting to re-valid ate the adhesion prom oting qualities of Alodine 

1200S. These tests also point out the extrem e difficulty in achieving robust pretreatment coating 

characteristics on a variety of aluminum surfaces with a variety of organic coatings. 

Table 5.4.2.16 Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems in Wet Tape 

Adhesion Tests 

Primer

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings 

Alodine 1200S (control) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.9 

Alodine 5200 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.9 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 1.9 3.1 5.0 4.3 3.9 

Boegel 5.0 1.9 3.1 5.0 4.3 3.9 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 2.2 4.0 4.7 4.0 4.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.0 0.9 4.6 4.3 3.6 3.7 

Sanchem 7000 5.0 1.9 3.1 5.0 4.3 3.9 

Scrub with Alconox 5.0 1.9 3.1 5.0 4.3 3.9 

TCP 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 

X-It PreKote 5.0 4.9 5.0 3.8 4.5 4.6 

Overall Alternative 

Average 5.0 3.1 4.1 4.8 4.3 4.2 

5.5 Neutral Salt Fog on Scribed, Painted Substrate 

5.5.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system’s ability to prevent substrate corrosion and the effect 

that corrosion has on adhesion of the coating system. Operation of the fog cham ber for this test 

39 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

is in accordance with ASTM B 117. Testing was completed by Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL) personnel at the Aberdeen, MD test facility. 

Prior to exposure, an “X” incision w as manually scribed through the test coupon coating using a 

carbide tip scribe as per ASTM D 1654, m aking sure that the co ating was scribed all the way 

through and into the substrate. The sm aller angle of the “X” was 30 to 45 degrees and each line 

of the “X” was approxim ately 4 inches long. The back and e dges of the test coupons were 

primed to prevent corrosion products from contaminating the chamber. The salt solution and the 

fog chamber were prepared as specified in the Test Methodology of the JTP. The nozzles were 

adjusted in the fog cha mber so that sprayed sa lt solution did not directly im pinge on the coupon 

surfaces. The fog chamber was operated continuously for 3,000 hours. Coupons were evaluated 

for surface corrosion and creepage from the scribe at weekly intervals up to 3 weeks and then at 

500-hour intervals. The coupons we re carefully rem oved at the end of the test duration and 

cleaned by gently flushing with running water [w ater temperature less than 38 degrees °C 

(100°F)]. The coupons were air-dried at am bient conditions and then visually examined without 

magnification. 

5.5.2 Test Results 

This test specifically examines ASTM B 117 accelerated corrosion exposure of aluminum alloys 

2024, 2219, 5083, and 7075 specim ens treated with the candidate hexavalent chrom ium free 

pretreatments as well as one hexavalent chromium based pretreatment (Alodine 1200S) used as a 

control. Twenty-five panels with each pretreat ment combination were prepared fo r each alloy 

for neutral salt fog exposure. E ach set of 25 panels was further subdivided to 5 groups, one for 

each of the 5 selected DoD coatin gs. The larg e corrosion test chamber which was used to 

evaluate all of the coated aluminum test panels is depicted in Figure 5.5.2.1. 

Figure 5.5.2.1: Test Chamber and Panels Used for ASTM B 117 

40 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

In order to chronicle the corrosi on, specimens were numerically rated for damage at prescribed 

intervals. Specimen group failures were defined when for 3 or more of the panels in a particular 

alloy/pretreatment/coating set were measured with a rating of 0 under method ASTM D 1654. In 

addition, the representative panels rated from each of the five test p anels were digitally scanned 

at 600 dpi resolution and saved as high quality gra phics files. W ith the exception of the early 

failures defined above under ASTM D 1654, the co ated panels were all subjected to 3000 hours 

of ASTM B 117. The prevalent failure m ode for the most of the panels was blistering along the 

scribe. 

The tables below detail corrosion performance for pretreatments on each alloy. 

Table 5.5.2.1: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 8.3 9.0 9.4 9.2 

Alodine 5200 9.0 9.0 9.2 8.8 

Bi-K Aklimate 7.8 9.0 9.0 8.4 

Boegel 9.0 9.0 9.0 4.2 

Chemidize 727ND 7.6 8.8 9.0 4.8 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.4 9.0 9.0 8.6 

Sanchem 7000 3.2 9.0 6.0 3.2 

TCP 8.8 8.4 8.4 7.2 

X-It PreKote 8.6 8.8 9.0 7.2 

Table 5.5.2.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 9.2 9.0 8.8 9.0 

Alodine 5200 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 8.0 5.8 9.0 6.6 

Boegel 9.0 9.0 9.6 5.6 

Chemidize 727ND 8.4 2.0 8.2 3.6 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.2 - 9.0 8.6 

Sanchem 7000 7.4 1.4 8.0 6.2 

TCP 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.4 

X-It PreKote 8.8 8.6 9.0 9.0 

41 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.5.2.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 N Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 7.0 9.0 9.0 5.6 

Alodine 5200 6.4 8.8 8.8 6.0 

Bi-K Aklimate - - - - 

Boegel 6.6 7.8 8.2 3.8 

Chemidize 727ND 2.2 - - 2.2 

Oxsilan Al-0500 6.6 8.8 8.2 5.4 

Sanchem 7000 - 1.4 2.4 - 

TCP 4.2 8.0 9.0 4.4 

X-It PreKote - 1.6 0.4 - 

Table 5.5.2.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 7.4 7.8 5.8 6.0 

Alodine 5200 7.8 6.0 7.8 4.6 

Bi-K Aklimate - - 2 - 

Boegel 4.4 2.8 6.4 1.4 

Chemidize 727ND - - - - 

Oxsilan Al-0500 - 0.8 - - 

Sanchem 7000 - - 2.4 - 

TCP 4.8 6.4 7.4 5.0 

X-It PreKote - 1.2 4.2 - 

Table 5.5.2.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat Exposed to 3000 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 3.8 6.6 3.6 1.0 

Alodine 5200 6.4 6.4 5.4 3.2 

Bi-K Aklimate - - - - 

Boegel 6.6 4.6 3.2 0.6 

Chemidize 727ND - - - 2.4 

Oxsilan Al-0500 - 3.2 - - 

Sanchem 7000 - 4.2 - - 

TCP 4.2 8.6 6.8 4.6 

X-It PreKote - - - - 

Aluminum 2024

For Al 2024, the top perfor ming pretreatments were clearly evident. For this particular alloy it 

was the Cr+6 free coating systems that most aided in revealing the better perform ers. With the 

42 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

exception of the Sanchem process, all of the pret reatments for the hexavalent chromium bearing 

23377/85285 coating system performed well and completed 3000 hours with the highest ratings 

among the coating systems. 

The 85582 C2/85285 coating system containing hexa valent chromium performed similar when 

compared to the 23377/85285 system for the sa me pretreatments. As with 23377/85285, 

Sanchem showed degradation though not as severe. In addition to problems on Sanchem treated 

panels, the Bi-K pretreatment had blistering away from the scribed areas past 2500 hours. 

The non-chromate coating systems, 85582 N/85285, 53030/53039, and 53022/53039, provided a 

much greater challenge for the pretreatm ents. At the conclusion of 3000 hours, all of the 

pretreatments, including Alodi ne 1200S, showe d significant corrosion dam age. M any of the 

pretreatments were unable to sustain acceptable performance levels and were terminated prior to 

the end of 3000 hours. The m ost consistent performance among the three chromate free coating 

systems was provided by the Boegel, Alod ine 5200, N AVAIR TCP, and Alodine 1200S 

pretreatments. Figure 5.5.2.2 shows the re sults of Al 2024 alloy coated with 85582 N/85285 

coating sytem at 3000 hours exposure. Figure 5.5. 2.3 shows that in the specific case of the 

53030/53039 system, Alodine 5200 even exceeded the perform ance for Alodine 1200S. The 

Brent Oxsilan pretreatment rendered respectable performance at or near the leaders for the 85582 

N/85285 system but performed poorly on the 53030/53039 and 53022/53039 coating systems. 

Aluminum 2219 

Of all of the Al alloys examined in this study, Al 2219 with its high Cu content is by far the most 

corrosion prone and provides a difficult situatio n for even Alodine 1200S. For the chrom atebased 23377/85285 coating system, although all pretreatments lasted the full 3000-hour duration, 

significant corrosion damage occurred on most of the pretreatments. The best performers for this 

coating system were Alodine 1200, Alodine 5200, Oxsilan, and Bi-K . It should be noted that 

NAVAIR TCP had m ixed results, two panel replic ates rated “4” and “5” and the rem aining 3 

panels all rated at “9”. For the chromate containing 85582 C2/85285 system, the best performers 

were Alodine 1200, Alodine 5200, NAVAIR TCP, X-It PreKote, a nd Oxsilan. T he remaining 

pretreatments performed in the intermediate range with ratings ranging from 4 to 7. 

For the three-chromate free coating sy stems, 85582 N/85285, 53030/53039, and 53022/53039, 

there was significant corrosion damage with m any of the pretreatm ents unable to endure 3000 

hours without com plete failure. The m ost consistent performers for these system s were 

NAVAIR TCP, Alodine 1200 and Alodi ne 5200. Figures 5.5.2.4 and 5.5.2.5 show that Boegel 

pretreatment produced som ewhat modest ra tings versus the leaders for the 85582 N/85285 

coating system but performed much more poorly on the CARC based systems. 

43 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Oxsilan AL-0500 

Figure 5.5.2.2: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

44 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.5.2.3: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

45 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.5.2.4: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

46 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel

Figure 5.5.2.5: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

47 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Aluminum 5083

Al 5083, well known for its stable protective oxide layer, does not usually significantly corrode, 

even under uncoated accelerated co nditions. Du e to its widespread use in ground system s, 

accelerated corrosion methods such as ASTM B 117 ar e still necessary for this alloy to detect 

potential adhesion and quality control is sues. In contrast to the cyclic accelerated corros ion 

exposure studies under GM 9540P (Section 5.7), su rprisingly significant amounts of creepback 

corrosion via blistering were measured on the chromate-free coating systems as shown in Figures 

5.5.2.6 and 5.5.2.7. As with other alloys, the 23377/85285 coating system proved superior and 

there was no significant creepback resulting fr om corrosion or coating system delamination for 

any pretreatment. For 85582 C2/85285, blistering away from the scribe appeared at 1000 hours 

for Sanchem 7000. The Chemidize and Bi-K pretreatments also showed blistering away from the 

scribe appearing at 1500 and 2000 hours respectively. Corrosi on was m ost severe for the 

Oxsilan pretreatment, which rated a “7” begi nning at 2500 hours. For 3000 hours, the best 

performers were NAVAIR TCP, Alodine 1200, and Alodine 5200, and Boegel, which achieved 

these ratings free of any other defects such as coating delamination. 

For the 85582 N/85285 and 53022/53039 coating syst ems, the superiority of Alodine 1200S, 

Alodine 5200, and NAVAIR TCP pretreatm ents was obvious. For the 53030/53039 coating 

system, the ratings were significantly lowe r, however Alodine 1200, Alodine 5200, and 

NAVAIR TCP pretreatments still performed better than the other pretreatments. 

Aluminum 7075 

For the coating system 23377/85285, as in the other alloys, most of the pretreatments performed 

well with little o r no da mage to the scribed region. All of the pretreatm ents rated “9” at the 

conclusion of 3000 hours. One item of note was a slight lifting or delamination along the length 

of the entire scribe of the NAVAIR TCP. This delamination first measured at 1 week was very 

slight and never progressed during the remainder of the test. 

For the 85582 C2/85285 coating system , the top pe rformers with little or no dam age were 

Alodine 1200S, Alodine 5200, TCP, X-It Pr eKote, and Boegel. As with the 23377/85285 

coating system, NAVAIR TCP di splayed the sam e minor delamination issue. The other 

pretreatments for this system were disqualified either by lower ratings due to corrosion, 

delamination, or both. Oxsilan Al-0500 pretre atment catastrophically failed prior to 2 weeks 

exposure across the m ajority of its 5 panels. Figures 5.5.2.8 and 5.5.2.9 show the m assive 

delamination of this particular pretreatment. 

For the chrom ate-free paint system s the most consistent perform ers were Alodine 1200S, 

Alodine 5200, and NAVAIR TCP. Figures 5.5.2.10 and 5.5.2.11 show that unlike the chrom ate 

containing coating system s, NAVAIR TCP pret reatment showed none of the m inor coating 

delamination issue. Two notable but inconsistent performers were Oxsilan Al-0500 and Boegel, 

which performed extremely well on 85582 N/85285 yet performed poorly on the CARC systems. 

48 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) X-It PreKote 

Figure 5.5.2.6: Aluminum 5083 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

49 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.5.2.7: Aluminum 5083 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Duration 

50 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.5.2.8: Severe Delamination of Oxsilan AL 0-500 Pretreated on Al 7075 Coated 

With 85582C2/25285 Coating System at 1 Week Exposure 

Figure 5.5.2.9: Severe Delamination of Oxsilan AL 0-500 Pretreated on Al 7075 Panels with 

85582C2/25285 Coating System at 2 Weeks Exposure 

51 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Oxsilan AL-0500 

Figure 5.5.2.10: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System at 3000 

Hours Exposure 

52 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.5.2.11: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System at 3000 Hours 

Exposure 

53 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Summary of Alternative Performance

Table 5.5.2.6 details th e summary performance of each alternative pretreatm ent by primer 

system. It also shows an average rating for each primer across all pretreatm ents. Alodine 5200 

slightly edges out TCP as the best overall performer and is slightly better than the Alodine 1200S 

control. TCP perform s about the sam e as the control, Boegel ranks third and the other 5 

alternatives rank a distant fourth. This data highlights the strong infl uence pretreatments can 

have on the full coating system , with much more variation in perform ance noted for the nonchromate primer systems. 

Table 5.5.2.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 3000 

hours of ASTM B117 Salt Fog (Ratings per ASTM D 1654A) 

Primer 

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings 

Alodine 1200S (control) 8.9 9.0 7.7 3.8 6.8 7.2 

Alodine 5200 9.0 9.0 7.5 5.4 6.6 7.5 

Bi-K Aklimate 8.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.3 

Boegel 7.8 8.3 6.6 3.8 3.8 6.0 

Chemidize 727ND 7.6 5.6 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.0 6.7 7.3 0.8 0.2 4.8 

Sanchem 7000 5.4 5.8 1.0 1.1 0.6 2.7 

TCP 8.2 8.8 6.4 6.1 5.9 7.1 

X-It PreKote 8.4 8.9 0.5 0.0 1.4 3.8 

Overall Alternative Average 8.0 7.8 3.8 2.1 2.6 4.8 

In an effort to d isplay the extremes in alloy corrosion susceptibility, Figures 5.5.2.12 and 

5.5.2.13 show the perform ance of various coating systems on Al 2219 and Al 5083 alloys over 

the duration of the netural sa lt fog test. P retreatments include Alodine 1200S and 5700 and 

NAVAIR TCP, which, on average, were the best performers in this test. Prim ers are 53022 and 

85582 Class N. Whereas all system s perform equally well on 5083, dram atic differences are 

apprarent on 2219, the most corrosi on prone alloy in this test. As indicated, the alloys used and 

performance requirements for the co ating systems are critical for the selection of an acceptable 

chromate-free coating system. 

54 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Corrosion Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Alodine 1200S/85582NC

Alodine 1200S/53022

TCP/85582NC

TCP/53022

Alodine 5200/85582NC

Alodine 5200/53022

Weeks in Neutral Salt Fog

Figure 5.5.2.12: Coating System Performance of Aluminum 2219 

55 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Corrosion Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Alodine 1200S/85582NC

Alodine 1200S/53022

TCP/85582NC

TCP/53022

Alodine 5200/85582NC

Alodine 5200/53022

Weeks in Neutral Salt Fog

Figure 5.5.2.13: Coating System Performance of Aluminum 5083 

56 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.6 SO2 Salt Fog on Scribed, Painted Substrates 

5.6.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system’s ability to prevent substrate corrosion and the effect 

that corrosion has on adhesion of the coating s ystem while subjected to an a cidified, corrosive 

environment. Operation of the fog chamber for this test is in accordance with ASTM G 85 

Annex 4 [Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing]. Testing was completed by 

NAVAIR personnel at the Patuxent River, MD test facility. 

The SO2 salt fog test is typically required by NAVAI R for the laboratory evaluation of any new 

coating system. This test is used to simulate the stack gases from aircraft carriers and supporting 

surface ships as well exhaust gases from aircraft to which the aircraft on the deck of carriers are 

constantly exposed. These gases are usually pr esent in combination with chloride containing 

seawater and mists that constantly contact aircraft coating systems. 

Prior to exposure, an “X” incision w as manually scribed through the test coupon coating using a 

carbide tip scribe as per ASTM D 1654, m aking sure that the coating was scribed all the way 

through and into the substrate. The smaller angle of the “X” was 30 to 4 5 degrees and each line 

of the “X” was approxim ately 4 inches long. The back and e dges of the test coupons were 

primed to prevent corrosion pr oducts from contam inating the cham ber. The scribed coupons 

were placed into the fog cha mber at a 15-deg ree incline. The coupons were not allowed to 

contact other surfaces in the cham ber and condensate from a coupon also did no t contact any 

other coupons. The salt solution and the fog cham ber were prepared as specified in the T est 

Methodology of the JTP. The noz zles were adju sted in the fog chamber so that sprayed salt 

solution did not directly im pinge on the co upon surfaces. The fog cham ber was operated 

continuously for 500 h ours. Coupons were evaluated for surface co rrosion and creepage from 

the scribe weekly. The coupons were carefully rem oved at the end of the test duration and 

cleaned with running water [water temperature less than 38 °C (100°F)]. The coupons were airdried at ambient conditions and then visually examined. 

Per the JTP, a to tal of 1000 test coupons were exposed to the SO2 salt fog environment. Due to 

size limitations of the t est chamber, eight racks of 20 coupons were tested in batches. This 

resulted in approximately 6 months of serialized testing in the same SO2 cabinet to complete the 

full coupon set. Racks were rem oved at 1, 2 a nd 3-weeks (completion) and one representative 

coupon of each set of five duplicates scanned. After testing all coupons were rated per ASTM D 

1654 method A. 

5.6.2 Test Results 

The performance of the eight ca ndidate non-chromate aluminum pretreatments with five organic 

military coating systems was evaluated on four alum inum alloys: 2024, 7075, 5083, and 2219. 

Significant differences in coating system performance were noted amongst the various alloys and 

coating systems. Typical high-performance chromated coating systems showed no or very little 

signs of corrosion after the test when evaluated on Al 2024 and 7075 substrates. 

Tables 5.6.3.1 through 5.6.3.5 present corrosion rating results for candi date coating system s. 

Ratings are the average of 5 test panels. 

57 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Aluminum 2024 

TCP, Alodine 5200 and Boegel perform ed consistently well across all prim ers. In m ost cases 

they performed as well as or slightly better th an the Alodine 1200S control. Perform ance of the 

other alternatives was highly variable from primer to primer, in general being better with the two 

chromate primers than the non-chromates. X-It PreKote, for example, performed relatively well 

with the 23377, 85582 and 53030 system s but not w ith the 53022 system . In another exam ple, 

the Chemidize 727ND rated 5 to 7 on the 23377, 85582 C2, 53030 and 53022 system s and then 

very poorly on the 85582 N system. 

Aluminum 2219 

The 2219 was the m ost difficult alloy of the group to protect and had the lowest overall ratings. 

For the 23377 and 85582 C2 pri mers, most coating ratings were grouped in the 4 to 6 range. 

Strong differences in perform ance were evid ent with the non-chrom ate primers. TCP and 

Alodine 5200 perform ed the sam e as the Alod ine 1200S control for all three non-chrom ates. 

Boegel performed next best, followed by the re maining alternatives. Interestingly, the 85582 N 

primer performed on a verage much better than the 53030 and 53022 prim ers for the lesser 

performing pretreatments. 

Aluminum 5083 

The SO2 corrosion test showed unusual results f or 5083. Whereas this alloy is usually the m ost 

corrosion resistant, in this test the overall performance was about the same as for 2024. TCP did 

especially well with the chrom ate primers, equaling the perform ance of the Alodine 1200S 

control. Most other coatings rated in the 6 to 7 range. For 85582 N, no coating was as good as 

the control, but Boegel, Oxsilan and Alodine 5200 cam e in a close second. TCP and X-It 

PreKote followed, with the rest of the coatings a distant fourth. For 53022, the Boegel rated far 

above any other coating, with TCP a nd Alodine 5200 rating the same as the control. For 53030, 

TCP, Alodine 5200 and Boegel rated one unit better th an the control, with all others worse than 

the control. Overall, Boegel performed the best on this alloy, with Alodine 1200S and TCP close 

behind. Alodine 5200 rated fourth, the other alternatives were 1 to 2 rating units behind. 

Aluminum 7075 

Corrosion on 7075 was worse on av erage than for 2024 in the SO2 salt fog test. On average, the 

Alodine 1200S control perform ed the best. TCP was second and perform ed consistently across 

all primers. Alodine 5200 and Boegel rated th ird, about 1 unit behi nd TCP, and perform ed 

consistently across all primers. The remaining coatings performed very inconsistently across the 

primers and all rated on average 2 to 3 units below the Alodine 5200 and Boegel. 

The 23377 primer performed the best across all pretreatments. TCP performed notably well here 

and X-It PreKote poorly. The 85582 C2 pri mer was next best with Alodine 5200, TCP, Oxsila n 

and Boegel a distant second to the control. All three non-chrom ate primers performed about the 

same on average, with TCP, Alodine 5200 and Boegel performing consistently about the same as 

the control. 

58 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.6.3.1: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 8.0 7.0 8.0 6.0 

Alodine 5200 8.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 

Boegel 7.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 5.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 6.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 3.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 

TCP 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 8.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 

Table 5.6.3.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 7.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 

Alodine 5200 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 9.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 

Boegel 9.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 

Chemidize 727ND 7.0 0 7.0 5.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 7.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 

Sanchem 7000 6.0 4.0 7.0 0 

TCP 8.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 

X-It PreKote 7.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 

Table 5.6.3.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 8.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 

Boegel 9.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 

Chemidize 727ND 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 7.0 0 7.0 5.0 

Sanchem 7000 0 1.0 4.0 1.0 

TCP 9.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 6.0 0 5.0 3.0 

59 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.6.3.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated With 

Mil-P-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 500 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 8.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 8.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 0 0 1.0 3.0 

Boegel 8.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 

Chemidize 727ND 7.0 0 1.0 0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 0 4.0 4.0 1.0 

Sanchem 7000 0 3.0 4.0 1.0 

TCP 9.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 

Table 5.6.3.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-P-53022 primer and Mil-C-53039 topcoat and Exposed to 500 Hours 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 

Alodine 5200 8.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 0 6.0 1.0 1.0 

Boegel 8.0 5.0 9.0 5.0 

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 0 1.0 0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 0 0 0 1.0 

Sanchem 7000 0 0 1.0 0 

TCP 9.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 0 2.0 4.0 0 

Summary of Alternative Performance 

Table 5.6.3.6 details th e summary performance of each alternative pretreatm ent by primer 

system. It also shows an average rating for each primer across all pretreatments. TCP performs 

the best, on average, and is com parable to the Alodine 1200S control. Alodine 5200 and Boegel 

rank a close second. The other 5 alternatives rank a distant third. 

Not surprisingly, the chromate-based primers perform equally well and are the basis of the best 

coating systems. The non-chromate systems, on average, rank 2 units lower than the chrom ate 

systems. This is due to the relative poor perform ance of most of the alte rnatives that lower the 

average of the better-perform ing alternatives, which rate co mparably to the Alodine 1200S 

control for all three non-chromate primers. 

60 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.6.3.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 500 

Hours (Ratings per ASTM D 1654A) 

Primer 

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings 

Alodine 1200S (control) 7.3 7.8 5.8 6.0 6.8 

Alodine 5200 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.2 

Bi-K Aklimate 5.0 6.3 2.3 2.0 1.0 3.3 

Boegel 6.5 7.0 6.0 6.8 5.5 6.4 

Chemidize 727ND 5.8 4.8 2.3 1.8 2.0 3.3 

Oxsilan Al-0500 6.3 5.8 4.8 0.3 2.3 3.9 

Sanchem 7000 4.5 4.3 1.5 0.3 2.0 2.5 

TCP 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.8 

X-It PreKote 5.3 5.0 3.5 1.5 3.3 3.7 

Overall Alternative Average 6.0 6.1 4.5 3.4 3.8 4.8 

7.3 

61 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figures 5.6.3.1 through 5.6.3.6 show examples of performance of various pretreatments with 

different primers and alloys. 

Alodine 1200S TCP Alodine 5200 

Figure 5.6.3.1: Pretreatments With 23377/85285 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure 

 

Alodine 1200S TCP Alodine 5200 

Figure 5.6.3.2: Pretreatments With 23377/85285 Coating System on Al 2219 After 500 

Hour Exposure

62 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 Alodine 1200S TCP Alodine 5200 

Figure 5.6.3.3: Pretreatments With 53030/53039 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure to SO2 Salt Fog 

 

 Alodine 1200S TCP Boegel 

Figure 5.6.3.4: Pretreatments With 53022/53039 Coating System on Al 2024 after 500 Hour 

Exposure 

63 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 Alodine 1200S TCP Alodine 5200 

Figure 5.6.3.5: Pretreatments With 85582 NC/85285 Coating System on Al 2219 after 500 

Hour Exposure 

 Alodine 1200S TCP Alodine 5200 

Figure 5.6.3.6: Pretreatments With 53022/53039 Coating System on Al 5083 after 500 Hour 

Exposure 

64 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.7 Cyclic Corrosion on Scribed, Painted Substrates 

5.7.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system’s ability to prevent substrate corrosion and the effect 

that corrosion has on the adhesion of coating system. Operation of the fo g chamber for this test 

is in accordance with GM 9540P (Accelerated Corrosion Test). Testing was completed by Army 

Research Laboratory personnel at the Aberdeen, MD test facility. 

Prior to exposure, an “X” incision w as manually scribed through the test coupon coating using a 

carbide tip scribe as per ASTM D 1654, m aking sure that the coating was scribed all the way 

through and into the substrate. The smaller angle of the “X” was 30 to 4 5 degrees and each line 

of the “X” was approxim ately 4 inches long. The back and e dges of the test coupons were 

painted to prevent corrosion products from contaminating the cham ber. The scribed coupons 

were placed into a fog chamber at a 15-degree incline. The coupons were not allowed to contact 

other surfaces in the ch amber and condensate from a coupon also did not contact any other 

coupons. The salt solution and the fog chamber were prepared as specified in the Tes t 

Methodology of the JTP. The nozzles were then adjusted in the fog chamber so that sprayed salt 

solution did not directly im pinge on the cou pon surfaces. The fog cham ber was operated 

continuously for 120 cycles. Coupons were eval uated for surface corro sion and creepage fr om 

the scribe at 20-cycle interval s. The coupons were carefully rem oved at the end of the test 

duration and cleaned with running wa ter [water temperature less than 38 °C (100°F)]. The 

coupons were then air-dried at ambient conditions, and then visually examined. 

5.7.2 Test Results 

Three cyclic corrosion test chambers (CCTC) were used to evaluate the coated alum inum test 

panels. In order to maximize uniformity of test conditions, each alloy was given its own specific 

chamber. Figure 5.7.2.1 depicts the configuration of the test chamber used for GM Standard 

Test 9540P, which provides more dynamic accelerated conditions versus conventional ASTM B 

117 Salt Fog. The GM 9540P test consists of 18 se parate stages that include the following: 

saltwater spray, humidity, drying, ambient, and heated drying. 

Figure 5.7.2.1: Test Chamber Configuration Used for GM 9540P 

65 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

The environmental conditions and d uration of each stag e for one complete 9540P cycle are 

provided in Table 5.7.2.1. The standard 0.9% NaCl, 0.1% CaCl 2, 0.25% NaHCO3 test solution 

was used. In addition, each chamber was calibra ted with standard steel m ass loss calib ration 

coupons described in GM Standa rd Test 9540P and supplied by GM. In order to visibly 

chronicle the corrosion, one representative panel of each of the five test panels was chosen at 20 

cycles of exposure and digitally scanned at 600 dpi resolution. Subsequent scans of the sa me 

representative panel were m ade at every 20 cy cles until the conclusion of 120 cycles or until 

specimen group failure. Specimens were numerically rated for damage at each 20 cycle interval 

using method ASTM D 1654. Specim en group fa ilures were defined by a rating of 0 under 

ASTM D 1654 for 3 or m ore of the panels in a pa rticular alloy/pretreatment/coating set. W ith 

the exception of premature failures under ASTM D 1654, the coated panels were all subjected to 

120 cycles of GM 9540P. 

Table 5.7.2.1: GM 9540P Cyclic Corrosion Test Details 

Interval Description Time (min) Temperature (+3°C) 

1 Ramp to Salt Mist 15 25 

2 Salt Mist Cycle 1 25 

3 Dry Cycle 15 30 

4 Ramp to Salt Mist 70 25 

5 Salt Mist Cycle 1 25 

6 Dry Cycle 15 30 

7 Ramp to Salt Mist 70 25 

8 Salt Mist Cycle 1 25 

9 Dry Cycle 15 30 

10 Ramp to Salt Mist 70 25 

11 Salt Mist Cycle 1 25 

12 Dry Cycle 15 30 

13 Ramp to Humidity 15 49 

14 Humidity Cycle 480 49 

15 Ramp to Dry 15 60 

16 Dry Cycle 480 60 

17 Ramp to Ambient 15 25 

18 Ambient Cycle 480 25 

The tables below detail corrosion performance for pretreatments on each alloy. 

Table 5.7.2.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 8.8 9.0 9.0 9.0 

Alodine 5200 8.2 6.0 9.0 9.4 

Bi-K Aklimate 7.8 9.0 9.0 7.0 

Boegel 8.4 8.6 9.0 6.2 

Chemidize 727ND 7.4 9.0 9.2 4.6 

Oxsilan Al-0500 8.2 9.0 9.6 9.4 

66 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.7.2.2: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat (Continued) 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Sanchem 7000 7.6 8.6 6.0 6.8 

TCP 8.4 9.0 9.0 8.0 

X-It PreKote 7.0 9.0 9.0 5.4 

Table 5.7.2.3: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 8.2 9.0 9.0 9.6 

Alodine 5200 7.8 6.0 9.0 9.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 7.8 9.0 9.0 5.2 

Boegel 8.4 9.0 9.0 7.6 

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 5.8 9.4 7.4 

Oxsilan Al-0500 4.0 6.2 9.2 9.2 

Sanchem 7000 - - 7.6 6.4 

TCP 8.2 9.0 9.0 8.6 

X-It PreKote 6.2 9.0 9.0 6.6 

Table 5.7.2.4: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 6.4 8.0 9.0 6.0 

Alodine 5200 6.0 5.6 9.0 6.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 0.6 - 8.4 - 

Boegel 2.8 4.8 9.0 - 

Chemidize 727ND 1.8 0.6 7.0 - 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.6 7.0 9.0 3.4 

Sanchem 7000 - - 3.0 - 

TCP 5.4 6.8 9.0 5.0 

X-It PreKote 4.6 2.2 8.2 - 

Table 5.7.2.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 6.4 7.0 9.0 3.8 

Alodine 5200 6.6 4.0 9.0 2.6 

67 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.7.2.5: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat (Continued) 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Bi-K Aklimate 1.2 - 9.0 - 

Boegel 2.2 3.0 9.0 - 

Chemidize 727ND 1.2 - 7.8 - 

Oxsilan Al-0500 3.4 1.2 9.0 - 

Sanchem 7000 4.0 - 6.4 - 

TCP 7.8 6.6 9.0 2.0 

X-It PreKote 4.6 1.4 9.0 - 

Table 5.7.2.6: Average Scribe Failure Rating (5 panels) for Aluminum Alloys Coated with 

Mil-PRF-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S 5.8 5.0 9.0 0.0 

Alodine 5200 6.4 4.2 9.0 3.2 

Bi-K Aklimate 2.8 0.6 7.8 - 

Boegel 3.0 2.4 9.0 - 

Chemidize 727ND 2.4 - 7.2 - 

Oxsilan Al-0500 4.4 3.2 9.0 - 

Sanchem 7000 1.8 1.2 8.4 - 

TCP 7.8 6.8 9.0 1.6 

X-It PreKote 2.2 1.4 9.0 - 

Aluminum 2024 

For the hexavalent chrom ium bearing 23377/85285 coating system, all of the pretreatm ents 

performed fairly well and com pleted 120 cycles with the highest ratings am ong the coating 

systems. Although the 85582C2/85285 coating system also contains hexavalent chrom ium, 

overall it performed much worse when com pared versus the 23377/85285 system for the sam e 

pretreatments. 

For the remaining three coating syst ems, 85582 N/85285, 53030/53039, and 53022/53039, the 

best performance was provided by the NAVAIR TCP and Alodine 1200S pretreatm ents (See 

Figures 5.7.2.2 and 5.7.2.3). In the specific cases of the 53030/53039 and 53022/53039 CARC 

system, the TCP pretreatment even exceeded the performance for Alodine 1200S. Alodine 5200 

pretreatment rendered respectab le performance at or near th e leaders for these ch romium-free 

coating systems. 

Aluminum 2219

Of the aluminum alloys in this test, Al 2219 with its high Cu content is by far the most corrosion 

prone and provides a difficult task for even hexavalent-chromium-based Alodine 1200S. For the 

chromate-based 23377/85285 coating system, although all pretreatments lasted the full 120-cycle 

duration, significant corrosion dam age occurred on many of them. The best performers for this 

coating system were Alodine 1200, Alodine 5200 and Oxsilan. TCP showed mixed performance 

among its five respective replicates, but overall s till performed much better than the rem aining 

68 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

pretreatments. For the chrom ate-containing 85582C2/85285 system, the best perform ers were 

Alodine 1200 and Alodine5200, NAVAIR TCP, Oxsilan and Boegel. Figures 5.7.2.4 and 5.7.2.5 

show that the remaining pretreatments performed in the intermediate range with ratings ranging 

from 5 to 7. 

For the three chrom ate free coating sy stems, 85582 N/85285, 53030/53039, and 53022/53039, 

there was significant corrosion damage and m ost of the coating systems were unable to endure 

120 cycles without early specimen group failure. Although the corrosion damage was severe, the 

most consistent performers for these systems were NAVAIR TCP, Alodine 1200 and Alodine 

5200. Oxsilan rated only m arginally better than the rem aining pretreatments for the chromate 

free coatings but only by virtue of not completely failing as soon. 

Aluminum 5083 

Al 5083, an alloy known for its stable protectiv e oxide layer, does not usually significantly 

corrode, even under accelerated conditions. Due to its widespread use in tactical ground systems, 

accelerated corrosion methods such as GM 9540P are still necessary for this alloy for quality 

assurance and also for de tecting potential coating adhesion i ssues. As expected, most coatin g 

systems completed the full 120 cycle duration without any noticeable damage. As in Al 2024 the 

23377/85285 coating system proved superior and there was no significant creepback resu lting 

from corrosion or coating system delamination. For 85582 C2/85285, there were adhesion issues 

with the Sanchem 7000 pretreatment, which rated a 7 by 60 cycles and then stabilized for the 

balance of the 120 cycles. For the non-ch romium based for mulation 85582 N/85285, the 

problems with the Sanchem process were more pronounced with more severe creepback 

resulting from actual corrosion. Any dam age for Al 5083 is significant si nce even in a bare 

uncoated and untreated condition this alloy will not significantly corrode. For this sam e coating 

system, the Chemidize 727ND pretreatment also showed blistering though to a somewhat less 

severe degree along the scribe. For the waterborne 53030 primer based CARC system, Sanchem 

exhibited damage due to adhesion failure similarly as noted above. For the solvent prim er based 

53022/53039 CARC s ystem, the only noticeable da mage occurred on the Bi-K Aklim ate 

pretreated system. 

Aluminum 7075 

For the coating system 23377/85285 as in the othe r alloys, m ost all of the pretreatm ents 

performed well with little or no dam age to the scribed region. The exception for this case was 

Alodine 5200 with damage characterized by coating delamination from the scribed regions. 

For the 855 82 C2/85285 system , the top perform ers with little or no damage were Alodine 

1200S, TCP, X-It PreK ote, and Boegel. Other pret reatments for this system were disqualified 

either by lower ratings due to corrosion, dela mination, or both. Sanchem 7000 pretreatm ent 

failed across the majority of its 5 panels by 100 cycles. 

The only top perform ers were Alodine 1200S and TCP for the chromate free 85582 N/85285 

system. The next best perform ing alternatives Alodine 5200 and Boegel, which both rated a “5” 

through 120 cycles. Panels failing the exposure f or this coating system were Sanchem and Bi-K 

Aklimate. In particula r, the f ailure for Sanchem was severe with par tial series failures at 20 

cycles and specimen group failure by 40 cycles exposure. 

69 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

As in previous alloys, the CARC system s were more susceptible to corrosion attack than their 

aircraft coating counterparts. For the wate rborne primer system 53030/53039, Alodine 1200S 

and TCP pretreatments performed best. The m ode of creepback progression on the TCP treated 

panel was due to delam ination of the coating. Th e next best performers for this coating system 

were Alodine 5200 and Boegel, however their performance at best was fair with both 

pretreatments only rating a “4” at the conclusion of 120 cycles. Series that failed prior to 

completion of 120 cycles in or der of decreasing se verity included: Chem idize 727ND, Bi-K 

Aklimate, and Sanchem 7000. 

The 53022/53039 system perfor mance for all pretr eatments overall was better than for the 

waterborne primer CARC series for Al 7075. The NAVAIR TCP pret reatment was clearly 

superior for this group as shown in Figure 5.7.2.6. Next best finishers were Alodine 5200 and 

Alodine 1200S with ratings at 120 cycles of “6” and “5” respectivel y. Boegel rated a “3” with 

the others all rating a “2” or lower at 120 cycles . The only failure prior to 120 cycles was the 

Chemidize 727ND pretreatment, which failed as a set by 60 cycles. 

Summary of Alternative Performance 

Table 5.7.2.7 details th e summary performance of each alternative pretreatm ent by primer 

system. It also shows an average rating for each primer across all pretreatments. TCP performs 

the best overall, generally as good as the contro l. Alodine 5200 is a solid second. Oxsilan Al0500 and Boegel rank third and other 4 alternatives rank fourth. 

Interestingly, TCP perform s notably better th an Alodine 1200S with 53022 prim er but not as 

good with the 85582 N primer. This is similar to the trend in the painted neutral salt fog and SO2

salt fog tests. Also of note is the consistent performance of TCP for all three no n-chromate 

primers. Alodine 5200 did clear ly better with the 85582 N prim er compared to the 53022 and 

53030 coatings. This trend is evident for the neutral salt fog and SO2 salt fog tests as well. 

Table 5.7.2.7: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 120 

Cycles of GM9540P Corrosion Test (Ratings per ASTM D1654A) 

Primer 

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings 

Alodine 1200S (control) 9.0 9.0 7.4 5.0 6.6 7.4 

Alodine 5200 8.2 8.0 6.7 5.7 5.6 6.8 

Bi-K Aklimate 8.2 7.8 2.3 2.8 2.6 4.7 

Boegel 8.1 8.5 4.2 3.6 3.6 5.6 

7.6 7.2 2.4 2.4 2.3 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.1 7.2 6.3 4.2 3.4 6.0 

Sanchem 7000 7.3 3.5 0.8 2.9 2.6 3.4 

TCP 8.6 8.7 6.6 6.3 6.4 7.3 

X-It PreKote 7.6 7.7 3.8 3.2 3.8 5.2 

Overall Alternative Average 8.0 7.4 4.3 3.8 3.9 5.5 

Chemidize 727ND 4.3 

70 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figures 5.7.2.2: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 85582 N/85285 Coating System 

71 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.7.2.3: Aluminum 2024 Coated With 53030/53039 Coating System 

72 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Oxsilan AL-0500 

Figure 5.7.2.4: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 C2/85285 Coating System 

73 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 (a) X-It PreKote (b) Chemidize 

 

 (c) Bi-K Aklimate (d) Boegel

Figure 5.7.2.5: Aluminum 2219 Coated With 85582 C2/85285 Coating System 

74 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

 

 (a) Alodine 1200S (b) TCP 

 (c) Alodine 5200 (d) Boegel 

Figure 5.7.2.6: Aluminum 7075 Coated With 53022/53039 Coating System 

75 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.8 Filiform Corrosion Resistance 

5.8.1 Test Description 

This test measures the ability of a coating system to protect the substrate against the formation of 

filiform corrosion. Te sting was completed by the Univ ersity of Dayton Resea rch Institute 

(URDI) under contract to the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio. 

An “X” incision was scribed throug h the coating so that the smaller angle of the “X” was 30 to 

45 degrees, making sure that the coating was scribed all the way through and into the substrate. 

The scribe had a 45 ° bevel, and each line of the “X” wa s approximately 4 inches long. The 

scribed coupons were placed in a d esiccator containing 12 N hydrochlor ic acid (HCl) for one 

hour at 24 ± 3°C (75 ± 5°F). Within five minutes of removal from the desiccator, the coupons 

were placed in a hum idity cabinet maintained at 40 ± 1.7°C (104 ± 3°F) and 80 ± 5 percent 

relative humidity (RH) for 1, 000 hours. The length of any th read-like filaments was then 

measured at the end of the test duration. The filiform corrosion test uses clad 2024-T3. 

Two methods were used to rate co ating resistance to filiform corrosion. Table 5.8.1.1 details a 

standard method based on m easuring the length s of any filam ents and noting their relative 

density along the scribes. This method yields a two-digit rating w ith score of 0-0 being the best 

with no corrosion noted and 5-5 being the worst. 

Table 5.8.1.1: Filiform Corrosion Standard Rating Method 

Sites (% of scribe 

affected) 

 Length (of filament) 

0 – none 0 – none 

1 - <10% 1 - <1/16” 

2 – 10-50% 2 – 1/16 – 1/8” 

3 – 50-75% 3 – 1/8 – 1⁄4” 

4 - >75% 4 - >1/4” 

5 – 100% 5 - >1/4”, solid mass 

For example, a specimen with no corrosion 

would be rated as 0-0, or total degradation as 5-

5. If sites is 0, length must also be 0. If there are 

spots at the scribe where it appears corrosion is 

initiating, but has not yet developed a filiform 

pattern, rate sites with a length of 0 (i.e., 1-0) 

An alternative “tem plate” rating method was also used. After rating per the standard m ethod, 

coatings are stripped from about 50% of the coupon exposing the filiform corrosion on the m etal 

surface. The rating template, detailed in Figure 5.8. 1.1, is then centered over one scribe leg with 

the short en d aligned with the in tersection of the two scribe lines. The num ber of squares in 

which filaments do not appear are counted. The pr ocess is repeated for the other leg of the X 

scribe. Readings for both measurements were added and reported as a total. The maximum rating 

for no filiform corrosion is 120. Figure 5.8.1.2 shows an example coupon prepared for tem plate 

rating. 

Note: The filiform corrosion rating template consists of a matrix of 60 1/8” squares, arrayed in a 

15 x 4 square matrix. 

76 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.8.1.1: Filiform Corrosion Rating Template Layout 

Figure 5.8.1.2: Example Coupon Prepared for Template Rating Method for Filiform 

Corrosion 

5.8.2 Test Results 

Filiform corrosion resistance data is presented in Tables 5.8.2.1 and 5.8.2.2. The results from the 

standard technique do not allow for discrim ination of pretreatment performance for any prim er 

except for the excellent performance of Alodine 1200S and TCP with the 85582 C2 primer. The 

template technique does provi de relative perform ance data that discriminates among the 

candidate pretreatments for each prim er. Based on this data, TCP is the clearly superior 

performer on average. For the 85582 N and 53022 system it surpasses the performance of any 

other coating including the Al odine 1200S control. W ith the 53030 primer it performs poorly, 

like most of the other coatings. The excellent performance of TCP with the 85582 N prim er was 

recently reconfirmed by an in-house NAVAIR filiform corrosion test. 

77 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Notably, the Alodine 5200 and Boegel coatings , which perform ed fairly well with the nonchromate primers in the accelerated corrosion test s do poorly compared to TCP, especially with 

the two water-borne non-chrom ates. This appears to be an area where the inheren t corrosion 

resistance that TCP possesses helps boost performance relative to the other alternatives. 

Not surprisingly, the chrom ate primers performed the best regardless of the pretreatment. One 

unexplained result is the relativ e poor performance of the 23377 primer with Alodine 1200S 

where strong perform ance was expected. No other evidence of unan ticipated or unusual 

performance with the 23377 primer was noted in all the JTP testing. 

Table 5.8.2.1 Filiform Corrosion Ratings per Standard Technique 

Primer 

Pretreatment 23377/85285 85582 C2/85285 85582 N/85285 53030/53039 53022/53039

4-5 1-1 3-3 4-4 4-5 

Alodine 1200S 4-5 1-1 3-4 4-4 4-4 

4-5 1-1 2-2 4-4 4-4 

3-3 3-3 5-5 4-5 4-5 

Alodine 5200 3-4 2-2 3-3 4-5 4-4 

4-4 2-2 4-3 4-5 4-5 

3-4 2-4 3-4 3-4 4-5 

Bi-K Aklimate 4-5 2-2 2-3 3-3 4-5 

4-5 3-4 3-3 3-4 4-5 

3-4 2-3 4-4 4-5 5-5 

Boegel 4-5 2-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 

5-5 2-3 3-4 4-5 3-4 

4-5 3-4 3-4 3-4 4-4 

Chemidize 727D 4-5 4-4 3-3 3-4 4-5 

4-5 2-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 

3-4 3-2 4-5 3-4 4-5 

Oxsilan AL-0500 3-5 3-4 3-4 4-4 4-5 

3-5 2-4 3-4 4-4 4-5 

2-3 4-3 4-5 4-5 4-5 

Sanchem 7000 4-5 4-5 3-4 4-5 4-4 

4-5 4-4 3-4 4-5 4-4 

2-2 1-1 3-4 4-5 4-4 

TCP 3-3 1-1 3-3 4-4 3-4 

2-3 1-1 3-3 4-4 3-4 

2-3 3-4 4-5 4-5 4-5 

X-It PreKote 4-5 4-4 3-4 4-5 4-4 

4-5 4-4 3-3 4-5 4-4 

78 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.8.2.2: Filiform Corrosion Ratings per Template Technique 

Primer 

Pretreatment 23377/85285 85582 C2/85285 85582 N/85285 53030/53039 53022/53039 Average 

 16.0 84.0 58.0 12.0 13.0 

Alodine 1200S 26.0 77.0 53.0 16.0 22.0 39.2 

25.0 100.0 53.0 10.0 23.0 

 89.0 73.0 22.0 1.0 6.0 

Alodine 5200 55.0 63.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 31.5 

 73.0 72.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 

 66.0 58.0 7.0 9.0 3.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 56.0 62.0 13.0 25.0 4.0 29.2 

 50.0 41.0 7.0 27.0 10.0 

 40.0 19.0 14.0 12.0 44.0 

Boegel 16.0 10.0 4.0 11.0 25.0 18.5 

 28.0 22.0 8.0 12.0 13.0 

 63.0 68.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 

Chemidize 727D 58.0 73.0 5.0 0.0 3.0 26.3 

 46.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 

 63.0 65.0 8.0 17.0 7.0 

Oxsilan AL-0500 42.0 58.0 0.0 10.0 17.0 29.3 

 50.0 72.0 0.0 17.0 13.0 

75.0 76.0 11.0 0.0 2.0 

Sanchem 7000 72.0 74.0 2.0 0.0 9.0 31.8 

 71.0 76.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 

 82.0 99.0 94.0 2.0 89.0 

TCP 74.0 82.0 99.0 4.0 92.0 71.9 

 69.0 90.0 97.0 4.0 102.0 

 50.0 32.0 48.0 0.0 5.0 

74.0 39.0 13.0 0.0 1.0 

 32.0 49.0 9.0 2.0 1.0 

54.1 67.4 24.3 7.2 19.1 

 

 

X-It PreKote 23.7 

Average 

Figures 5.8.2.1 through 5.8.2.5 show a selecti on of coatings and the relative differences in 

filiform corrosion resistance. Ratings noted in the title are based on the template technique. 

79 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.8.2.1: Alodine 1200S with 23377 Primer, Rating: 16 

Figure 5.8.2.2: TCP with 23377 Primer, Rating: 82 

80 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.8.2.3: TCP with 85582 N Primer, Rating: 94 

Figure 5.8.2.4: Alodine 5200 with 85582 N Primer, Rating: 22 

81 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.8.2.5: Sanchem 7000 with 53030 Primer, Rating: 0 

5.9 Marine Atmospheric Test (Beach Test) on Scribed, Painted Substrates 

5.9.1 Test Description 

This test method evaluates a coating system’s ability to prevent substrate corrosion and the effect 

that corrosion has on the adhesi on of the coating system. Testing was completed by NASA and 

contractor personnel at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. 

Outdoor exposure testing was con ducted at the Kennedy Space Center’s Beach C orrosion Test 

Site. This site is located approximately 1.5 miles south of Launch Complex 39A. Figure 5.9.1.1 

shows an aerial view of the Kennedy Space Center’s Beachsite. 

82 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 5.9.1.1: Kennedy Space Center Beachsite Aerial View 

Test stands are located 30 m eters (100 feet) from the mean high-tide line and face the water. 

Test coupons are installed on stainl ess steel test stands using porcel ain insulator stand-offs. The 

rack angle of the coupons is 30 degrees from horizontal. Figure 5.9.1.2 shows the coupon 

exposure racks. 

Figure 5.9.1.2: Coupon Exposure Racks 

An “X” incision was scribed throug h the coating so that the smaller angle of the “X” was 30 to 

45 degrees, making sure that the coating was scribed all the way to the substrate. The scribe had 

a 45-degree bevel, and each line of the “X” was approxim ately 4 inches long. The back and 

83 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

edges of the coupon were primed to prev ent undercutting and corrosion p roducts from 

contaminating the test stands. 

The coupons were then evaluated for surface co rrosion and creepage from the scribe at 3,000-

hour (4, 8, and 12 m onths) intervals for 12 m onths. Rating base d on creepage from the scribe 

(ASTM D 1654A) are detailed here. Coupon groups rating “3A” or less on average were moved 

from the test stands. Remaining coatings are being evaluated until failure. 

5.9.2 Test Results 

The tables below detail corrosion performance for coatin g systems on each alloy after 12 

months. 

Table 5.9.2.1: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-23377 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 10.0 9.2 10.0 10.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 

Boegel 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.3 

Chemidize 727ND 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.6 10.0 10.0 9.8 

Sanchem 7000 9.6 10.0 10.0 4.2 

TCP 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 

X-It PreKote 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Table 5.9.2.2: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-85582 C2 Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 10.0 8.8 10.0 10.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 

Boegel 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Chemidize 727ND 9.8 7.6 10.0 9.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.6 7.6 10.0 9.4 

Sanchem 7000 0.0 3.2 10.0 6.4 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

X-It PreKote 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 

84 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Table 5.9.2.3: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-PRF-85582 NC Primer and Mil-C-85285 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Alodine 5200 10.0 8.8 10.0 9.4 

Bi-K Aklimate 0.8 1.0 10.0 0.0 

Boegel 5.3 7.3 10.0 0.0 

Chemidize 727ND 0.8 1.2 10.0 0.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 7.6 9.2 10.0 2.8 

Sanchem 7000 0.0 5.4 9.2 0.0 

TCP 10.0 9.6 10.0 9.6 

X-It PreKote 3.8 1.4 9.0 0.0 

Table 5.9.2.4: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-P-53030 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 9.8 10.0 2.4 

Alodine 5200 10.0 8.6 10.0 3.4 

Bi-K Aklimate 0.8 9.4 9.8 0.0 

Boegel 5.7 4.7 10.0 0.0 

Chemidize 727ND 

10.0 

Sanchem 7000 9.8 0.2 10.0 0.0 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.6 

X-It PreKote 4.2 6.0 10.0 0.0 

4.8 5.8 10.0 0.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 5.8 9.2 0.0 

Table 5.9.2.5: Average Surface Corrosion and Creepage from the scribe (5 panels) for 

Aluminum Alloys Coated With Mil-P-53022 Primer and Mil-C-53039 Topcoat 

Pretreatment Al 2024 Al 7075 Al 5083 Al 2219 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 9.8 10.0 0.4 

Alodine 5200 10.0 8.8 10.0 2.4 

Bi-K Aklimate 3.2 6.4 10.0 0.0 

Boegel 9.5 1.3 10.0 1.0 

Chemidize 727ND 6.0 2.2 9.2 0.0 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.4 7.6 10.0 0.8 

Sanchem 7000 7.8 6.6 10.0 0.0 

TCP 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.4 

X-It PreKote 3.4 2.6 10.0 0.0 

Aluminum 2024

At four m onths, only the Bi-K Aklim ate coating with 85582 Class N prim er showed any 

degradation, rating an average 9 out of 10. By eight m onths, corrosion began to appear on a 

85 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

number of coatings, all based on non-chromate primers. For the 85582 Class N system, Sanchem 

7000, X-It PreKote, Chemidize 727D, Bi-K Aklimate, and Boegel coatings rated 7 or 8. Alodine 

1200S, TCP, Alodine 5200 and Oxsilan Al-0500 remained undamaged. For the 53022 system the 

coatings performed somewhat better, but the X- It PreKote and Bi-K Ak limate showed initial 

corrosion damage. The trend continued for th e 53030 system s, with Alodine 1200S, TCP, 

Alodine 5200 and Sanchem 7000 remaining undamaged. The remaining coatings rated 8 or 9 on 

average. 

At 12 m onths, most alternatives continued to perform well with ch romate primers. A notable 

exception is Sanchem 7000 which rated 0 with the 85582 C2 pri mer. System degradation 

continued in the non-chromate primer systems, with only Alodine 1200S, TCP and Alodine 5200 

exhibiting no damage on any coupon. 

Aluminum 2219 

Like the other corrosion tests, alum inum 2219 represents the m ost serious challenge to the 

coating systems in the beach exposure test. Mi nor degradation began to occur in most nonchromate primer systems by four months. By eight months, serious degradation was underway 

for numerous non-chromate primer systems. Most notable was the lack of degradation in the 

85582 N systems with TCP and Alodine 5200. These two alternatives were typically superior for 

the 53022 and 53030 systems, as well. 

At 12 months, all alternatives with primers 23377 and 85582 C2 were performing well with little 

or no corrosion except f or Sanchem 7000, which rated in the 4 to 6 rang e. Alodine 1200S, TCP 

and Alodine 5200 were particularly good, showing no evidence of corrosion on any coupon. For 

the non-chromate primers, Sanchem 7000, X-It PreKote, Chemidize 727ND and Bi-K Akli mate 

all completely failed, rating 0 for all coupons. Bo egel had one coupon rate a 3, with the rest 

failing completely. Oxsilan Al-0500 m aintained some protection with the 85582 N pri mer, but 

failed with the 53022 and 53030 systems. 

Somewhat surprisingly, TCP and Alodine 5200 perform ed very well with the 85582 N pri mer, 

with all coupons rating 9 or 10 after 12 m onths. The coatings did not fare as well with the 53022 

and 53030 system s, although perform ance was better than the other alternatives. This 

performance was, however, similar to the Alodi ne 1200S control which di d very well with the 

85582 N system but poorly with the 53022 and 53030 systems. 

Aluminum 5083 

No significant corrosion appear ed on any test coupons in the 12-month period. This is not 

surprising given the excellent corrosion resistance of the 5083 alloy relative to the others in this 

test. 

Aluminum 7075 

Corrosion trends in this alloy were very si milar to coating perform ance on 2024. TCP and 

Alodine 5200 were again the clear winners among the alternatives, showing performance as good 

as the Alodine 1200S control in m ost cases. These two alternatives also m aximized the 

performance of the 85582 N, 53022, and 53030 primers, yielding overall performance as good as 

the chromate primers. For this alloy, TCP wa s somewhat better than Alodine 5200, rating 1 unit 

86 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

better for the 85582, 53022, and 53030 coating system s. Among the other alternatives, Oxsilan 

Al-0500 performed the best, yielding respectable ratings ranging from 7 to 9 on average. 

Summary of Alternative Performance 

Table 5.9.2.6 details th e summary performance of each alternative pretreatm ent by primer 

system. It also shows an average rating for ea ch primer across all pretreatm ents. TCP and 

Alodine 5200 perform as well as the Alodine 1200S control across most coatings. Their superior 

performance is strongly evident in the non-chromate primer systems where no other alternative 

comes close. For the chrom ated primers, most of the alternatives show good perfor mance, 

especially X-It PreKote and Bi-K Aklimate, which match the perfect performance of the Alodine 

1200S controls. 

Like the previous corrosion tests, the chrom ate-based primer systems perform equally well and 

are the basis of the best coating systems. The non-chromate systems, on average, rank lower than 

the chromate systems especially with the poorer performing alternatives. One notable exception 

is the performance of the 85582 N prim er with Alodine 1200S, TCP a nd Alodine 5200. These 

non-chromate systems match the perfor mance of the sister systems with chromate primers. No 

other non-chromate system competes as well. 

Table 5.9.2.6: Summary Ratings for Pretreatments and Primer Systems exposed to 12 

Months of Outdoor Exposure at Kennedy Space Center Beachfront Corrosion Test Site 

Primer

Pretreatment 23377 85582 C2 85582 N 53022 53030 All Coatings 

Alodine 1200S (control) 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 8.1 9.1 

Alodine 5200 9.8 9.7 9.6 7.8 8.0 9.0 

Bi-K Aklimate 10.0 10.0 3.0 4.9 5.0 6.6 

Boegel 9.8 10.0 5.7 5.5 5.1 7.2 

Chemidize 727ND 9.4 9.1 3.0 4.4 5.2 6.2 

Oxsilan Al-0500 9.9 9.2 7.4 7.0 6.3 7.9 

Sanchem 7000 8.5 4.9 3.7 6.1 5.0 5.6 

TCP 9.5 10.0 9.8 7.9 8.4 9.1 

X-It PreKote 10.0 10.0 3.6 4.0 5.1 6.5 

Overall Alternative Average 9.7 9.2 6.2 6.1 6.2 7.5 

5.10 Toxicology 

A leveraged effort ex ecuted by National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence 

(NDCEE)/ Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) was used to complete toxicology testing 

requirements per the JT P. Based on technical performance and inputs from users on products 

they plan to field test, TCP and Alodine 5700 were chosen for toxicological evaluation. Alodine 

1200S was tested as the chrom ate baseline for toxicological properties. Othe r alternatives may 

be subjected to similar testing at the discretion of potential users. The following is a summary of 

the toxicology testing completed by MB Research Laboratories. 

87 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

5.10.1 Demonstration Report for Non-Chromate Pretreatment for Non-ferrous Metals 

Performance testing of alternative alum inum non-chromate pretreatm ents generated two 

potential candidates for toxicological evalua tion, TCP and Alodine 5700 (Alodine 5700 is 

prepared by mixing 50mls of Alodine 5200 to 1950 mls of distilled water). TCP, Alodine 5700, 

Alodine 5200, and the baseline chromate pretreatment process, Alodine 1200S, were subjected to 

toxicological testing. Toxico logical testing included Acute Oral T oxicity, Acute Derm al 

Toxicity, Acute Inhalation Toxicity, and Skin Sensitization. 

The Acute Oral Toxicity tes t objective was to determine the poten tial for toxicity of the test 

article when administered orally. Five male and five female rats were used as the subjects for the 

test. If any m ortality takes plac e at the initial dose le vel of 2,000 mg of th e test article/kg of 

animal body weight, at least two additional groups would need to be dosed to determine the LD50

level. All anim als survived the 2000-m g/kg oral doses of Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5700, 

and Alodine 5200. No abnorm al physical signs were noted a nd body weight changes/necropsy 

results were nor mal. Therefore, th e oral LD 50 of Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5700, and 

Alodine 5200 are all g reater than 2000 m g/kg since no mortality occurred du ring the tes ting 

periods. No further testing was required. 

The objective of Acute Dermal Toxicity/LD50 in Rabbits study was to determine the potential for 

toxicity of the test article when applied dermally to New England white rabbits. If the limit test 

of 2,000 mg/kg of body weight produces no m ortality, a full LD50 test series is not required. If 

any mortality occurs at the ini tial dose level, at least two a dditional groups need be dosed in 

order to de termine the LD50. All anim als survived the 2000- mg/kg dermal application of 

Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5700, and Alodine 5200. No c ases of mortality indicated that the 

dermal LD50 of Alodine 1200S, TCP, Alodine 5700, and Alodine 5200 are greater than 

2000mg/kg of body weight 

The objective of the Acute Inhalation Toxicity test was to determine the potential for toxicity of 

the test article due to short-term inhalation exposure. Five male and five fe male rats were used 

as subjects for this test. The tes t article concentration was expressed as the we ight of a tes t 

substance per unit volume of air (mg/l). If no mortality happens during the limit test, no further 

testing is required. If com pound-related mortality is produced, further study m ay be needed to 

establish the Median L ethal Concentration (LC50) value. The LC 50 is a s tatistically derived 

approximation of the concentration of a substance that can be antic ipated to cause death to 50 

percent of the test subjects duri ng exposure or within a fixed tim e after exposure. All anim als 

survived the four hour 2.31 m g/l exposure of Alodine 1200S, therefore the LC50 is greater than 

2.31 mg/l. Every animal su rvived four-hour 2.25-mg/l exposure to TCP so the LC 50 is greater 

than 2.25 mg/l. All anim als survived 4-hour 2.02-mg/l exposure to Alodine 5700 and 2.18-m g/l 

exposure to Alodine 5200. The L C50 value is for Alodine 5700 is therefore greater than 2.02 

mg/l and the LC50 value for Alodine 5200 is greater than 2.18 mg/l. 

The objective of the Derm al Sensitization test – Buehler test was to d etermine the effect of a 

product to promote skin sensitization after repeated applications. The guinea pig was used as the 

test subject. Erythema and edema are the external signs of a reaction during this test. Erythema 

was absent to faint during the induction phase and the challenge phase of Alodine 1200S, TCP, 

and Alodine 5700. Body weight changes and necropsy results were normal. Based on the results 

88 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

of these tests, Alodine 1200S,TCP , and Alodine 5700 are classified as non-sensitizers. Alodine 

5200 wasn’t subjected to the skin sensitization test. 

All the non-chrom ate alternatives appeared better than Al odine 1200S from an environm ent, 

health and safety perspective, with Alodine 5700 being substantially less harmful than Alodine 

1200S. Alodine 5200 is only slightly better than Al odine 1200S. Exposure to it will need to be 

evaluated since it will be used to produce Al odine 5700 by dilution and making up and adjusting 

immersion tanks. 

Since no mortality occurred in any of the test subjects during any of the toxicological testing for 

any test article, all test articles met the 2000 milligrams of test article per kilogram of test subject 

bodyweight limit test requirem ent. Additionally, the alternatives were less h azardous than 

Alodine 1200S from an environm ental, health a nd safety perspective. Consequently, Alodine 

5700 and TCP are suitable and desirable replacements for Alodine 1 200S for pre-treating 

aluminum substrates from a toxicological point-of-view. Waste treatment of any metal finishing 

waste will need to be evaluated in addition to toxicolog ical data, including the impact of total 

chromium on treatment systems (in the case of TCP).

5.11 Repairability 

The JTP contains multi-service DoD technical requirements and associated tests necessary to 

quantify non-chromate conversion coatings for pretreating aluminum and its alloys, including 

reparability testing. Leveraged funds from NDCEE/CTC were used to evaluate alternatives as 

used in repair or rework coatings. The project was called “Nonchromated Conversion Coatings 

for Weapon Systems Rework and Repair”. The objective was to test a variety of nonchromated 

pretreatment alternatives as part of a coating system for use in the repair/rework environment. 

The project tested the following coatings: 

• Henkel Surface Technologies Alodine® 5700 

• Fortune Chemical Company X-It PreKote, 

• MacDermid Chemidize® 727ND, 

• Brent OxSiLAN® AL-0500, 

• NAVAIR TCP, 

• Boegel Sol-gel, and 

• 3M Scotch-Weld 3901 Structural Adhesive Primer. 

Two chromated coatings (Alodine 1200S and Touch N Prep Pen) were also tested. The test 

program included: dry and wet tape adhesion, a nd neutral salt fog exposur e. All the coatings 

passed the dry tape adhesion resu lts for uncross-cut samples, but cross-cut results were m ixed 

and inconclusive. The wet tap e adhesion test was acceptable for all p anels coated with MILPRF-23377 primer, however, results for sam ples coated with MIL-PRF-85582 were mixed. All 

samples performed as well or better than the controls in the salt spray tests. (Reference #??)

89 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. 

90 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

6.0 ISSUES IN EVALUATING NON-CHROMATED SYSTEMS 

A number of issues concerning the evaluation of non-chromate coating systems and the coatings 

that make up these systems are important to consider in the search for high-value alternatives to 

chromate-based systems. Color change, product maturity, robust inhibition characteristics of 

hexavalent chromium, and accelerated test methods will be discussed and comparisons made for 

each issue between chromate and non-chromate coatings. 

Chromate conversion coatings yield a practical color change that is relied upon by quality control 

and assurance personnel as visual proof that coatings were deposited during a given production 

shift. Only one product evaluated in this project, Sanchem 7000, yielded coatings with a 

practical color change. Technical performance aside, the lack of color change is an important 

weakness in alternative coatings when a materials engineer needs to decide whether to 

implement a product. At least one strong performer from this project (Alodine 5700) is not 

being implemented by a large user in part because of this issue. A recommendation to all 

developers of alternatives is to strongly consider color change during the optimization of new 

products. 

Chromate conversion coating products are very mature and typically have good technical support 

behind them from established manufacturers. They are widely available around the world and 

are relatively inexpensive. The alternatives in this test are all new to the market. Alodine 5200 

is probably the most mature of the group but still unproven in the long term for high volume 

production. Other products range from medium maturity to new single-batch products from 

research and development laboratories. This may result in varying consistency between 

alternatives as tested in this project and what may be available in the future. Specific sources of 

variability include batch-to-batch variations, marketing and organizational changes and product 

reformulations. During the course of this effort, one product (Boegel) was licensed from the 

developer to a manufacturer with a change in the source of the product. The manufacturer of 

another product (OXSiLAN AL-0500) was acquired by a different manufacturer, which is 

considering discontinuing the specific alternative tested in this project. These types of events 

can possibly affect the consistency or availability of any alternative and need to be considered 

when selecting alternatives for field-testing or implementation. 

Another complicating factor in the testing and evaluation of non-chromate pretreatments, 

primers, and topcoats is the inherent robust corrosion inhibiting properties of hexavalent 

chromium. It passivates numerous metals and alloys by multiple mechanisms and very small 

amounts are necessary to be effective. Non-chromate inhibitors are not as robust as their 

chromated counterparts. High-quality non-chromated organic coatings typically rely on a 

synergistic combination of inhibitors to achieve their performance. Each pretreatment alternative 

has a unique chemistry and in many cases offers no corrosion inhibition, only adhesion 

promotion. Combining alternative pretreatments and primers or self-priming topcoats creates 

additional coating system performance uncertainty due to largely unknown, and sometimes 

synergistic, effects between pretreatment and primer or topcoat. The most desirable coating 

systems are those that perform well despite the alteration of components. Systems containing 

91 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

some chromated components can accommodate changes in other components without necessarily 

compromising system performance. This co-dependence of inorganic and organic coatings must 

be taken into consideration when evaluating new coating combinations and contemplating 

implementation on complex systems. 

Finally, the corrosion tests used in this evaluation were conceived to a large extent based on the 

performance of chromated systems. Discrepancies in the performance of non-chromated versus 

chromated systems have been observed by NAVAIR beyond the normal test time of 500 hours in 

SO2 salt fog testing. This may lead to an increase in the duration of the SO2 salt fog test to better 

discriminate amongst candidate coating systems. Care must be taken when using these results to 

not make sweeping conclusions about actual performance. Rather, this data can be used to lower 

the risk of field-testing promising alternatives. In the end, while laboratory testing might be able 

to give a good indication of performance, the only true determination of coating system 

performance is in-service, on a platform over an extended period of time. 

This leads to the next phase of this ESTCP project, which is dedicated to the field-testing of 

alternative pretreatments. Section 7 describes several efforts underway to field-test or implement 

alternatives, several of which are leveraged with this project. 

92 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

7.0 IMPLEMENTAION STATUS OF ALTERNATIVES IN DoD AND 

NASA 

7.1 NASA (Alodine 5700) 

The Space Shuttle So lid Rocket Booster (SRB) ha d only one set of c oatings and one type of 

pretreatment qualified for protection of alum inum hardware. All of the m aterials contained 

chromate compounds. A project was conducted to identify and qualify alternatives for the 

currently qualified coating system and pretreatm ent. Three altern atives each for p retreatment 

and coating systems were tested for SRB Program qualification. Baseline materials for candidate 

comparison were Alodine 1201 (Henkel Corp.) and 44-

GN-7 primer with 03W127A t opcoat (Deft, Inc). The 

three pretreatment nominees were Okem coat 4500 

(Oakite Products, Inc.), Alodine 5700 (Henkel Corp.), and 

Chemidize 727ND (MacDerm id Inc.). The coating 

systems chosen for evaluation were: Hentzen Coatings 

Inc. 05510WEP-X/05511CEH-X primer with 4636WUX3/4600CHA-SG topcoat, Lord Corp. 9929A/B prim er 

with A276 topcoat, and PRC-De Soto International, Inc. 

EEAE152A/B primer with EUAW 098A/EUAC082B 

topcoat. T he Okemcoat 4500 pretreated panels were 

dropped from the qualification program due to poor 

performance during the Bond Strength – Flexibility and 

Water Resistance qualification testing. The PRC-DeSoto 

EEAE152A/B primer and EUAW098A /EUAC082 B 

topcoat were dropped from the qualification program due 

to the manufacturer ceasing production of the topcoat. 

Figure 7.1.1: Launch Photo of the SRBs 

For More Information Contact: 

Paul W. Hayes 

Phone: 321-853-5774 

HayesP@usasrb.ksc.nasa.gov 

Testing gathered inform ation on c orrosion protection, bond strength, com patibility with other 

SRB materials, batch-to-batch consistency, and thermal environments data. Two pre treatments 

and two coating systems met the SRB program c riteria. The recommended products are Henkel 

Alodine 5700, MacDermid Chemidize 727 ND, and the coating systems submitted by Hentzen 

and Lord. Coatings were tested in both a prim er only and a primer/topcoat configuration. Both 

were found to be acceptable for flig ht. There ar e significant processing advantages for each of 

the materials depending on how they are used. The Hentzen coatings are chromate free and have 

very good processing characteristics along with good overall properties and are recomm ended 

for first implem entation as an alternate. Li kewise, Alodine 5700 had very robust processing 

parameters and is recommended for first implementation as a pretreatment alternate. 

93 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

NASA’s changed to the Hentzen / Alodine 5700 syst em in June 02. This change affected all 

structural aluminum (2219, 6061, and 7075) part s of the solid rocket boosters. The first 

hardware flew in the fall of 2002. 

7.2 US Army TACOM (Alodine 5700) 

The Army/Tacom is planning to implem ent Alodine 5200 for use on Al 2024-T4 and 2014-T6 

roadwheels. They plan to implement Alodine 5200 in Red River Army Depot's (RRAD) Rubber 

Products Operations in the Feb-Mar 2003 timeframe. 

For More Information Contact: 

Heidi Nicely 

Phone: 814-269-6461 

nicelyh@ctc.com 

7.3 USAF (X-It PreKote) 

A multi-year effort at Hill Air Force Base (AFB) was under taken to reduce or eliminate the use 

of chromate compounds in the paint preparation process for aircraft, predom inantly F-16s. Of 

the four products tested, three wer e eliminated early through laboratory testing. The fourth 

candidate, X-It PreKote, was tested extensivel y against the curren t process. X-It PreKote 

performed better than chrom ate conversion coating in adhesion/fl exibility tests and performed 

equally well in other testing. In addition, it was found that X-It PreKote could elim inate the 

solvent wipe down and the acid brightener used in conventional paint preparation procedures. 

Use of X-It PreKote also reduces th e need to sand anodized surfaces before repain ting, but the 

limitations are that the application process is labor intensive. 

Operational tests have been conducted on severa l aircraft and are ongoing. Air Education & 

Training Command (AETC) used X-It PreKote on two aircraft in 1996. In March 1997 an F-16 

was scuff sanded and repainted using X-It PreKote in the prep for paint process. In Nove mber 

1997 two fully stripped F- 16 aircraft had their right wings tr eated with X-It PreKote while the 

rest of the aircraft was treated with chrom ate conversion coating. These aircraft are in service at 

Eglin and at Homestead. Hill AFB and the owning units have examined each of the test aircraft. 

The results so far are very positive and no detrim ental effects from the X-It PreKote have been 

discovered. By September 1999, Hill AFB had painte d over fifty aircraft using the X-It PreKote 

process. The T-38, F-16, A-10, a nd C-130 aircraft were prepared half with Alodine and half 

with PreKote. X-It PreKote performed better than the Alodine side in all cases. 

The F-16 System Program Office (SPO) has approved the use of the X-It PreKote process in 1F16-23 Technical Order (TO). All F-16 that are painted at Hill AFB are X-It coated. For the F-16 

Program at Hill AFB, the use of X-IT has resu lted in 35 % increase in productiv ity, hazmat 

reductions, reduction on paint system failures, a nd no paint failures have occurred in the last 

three years. The T-1, T-37, and T-38 SPOs are cu rrently revising their TOs to include the use of 

X-It PreKote. 

94 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Figure 7.3.1: Application of X-It PreKote 

For More Information Contact: 

Richard H. Buchi 

Phone: 801-775-2993 

richard.buchi@hill.af.mil 

7.4 NAVSEA/MARINES (TCP) 

A Navy message stipulating non-use of hexavalent chromate coating systems was released in the 

early 1990’s. For potential fiel d testing on the Marine’s Landi ng Craft, two candidates were 

selected: Brent Chemcote and TCP. The selecti on criteria was targeted at performance on 5000 

series aluminum for anti-corrosion and coatin g adhesion enhancem ent properties. TCP was 

selected for field and beachfront coupon studies. Brent Chemcote is no longer in production. 

TCP test patches for use as a su rface preparation alternative to abrasive blasting were installed 

on the decks of the oily waste tank and another void in a Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) at 

Assault Craft Unit Four (ACU-4), Naval Am phibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia. LCAC hulls 

are predominantly aluminum alloy 5456. 

A beachfront exposure rack was erected at A CU-4 nearly 1.5 years ago. Coupons of alloys 

5083, 5086, and 5456 either receiv ed no surface prepar ation, preparation with TCP, preparation 

with garnet blasting, or were abrasively blasted and treated w ith TCP. The coa ting used was 

MIL-P-24441B Ty III F 150/151 and each coated coupon was scribed. After appro ximately six 

months, the coating on coupons with no surface preparation began to fail by delam ination at the 

scribe mark. As of Dec 02, with the excep tion of one coupon, coatings on coupons without 

surface preparation had entirely d elaminated. Coupons with eith er TCP treatment, abrasiv e 

blasting, or both, have not shown any failure due to delamination. 

For another com ponent of the coupon study, TC P is being evaluated for its anti-corrosion 

properties. What appears to be critical for the success of TCP as an anti-corrosion method is the 

deoxidation of the substrate surface prior to application of TCP. Two test patches of TCP have 

just been installed on the deck of the starboard air inlets of the test platform LCAC. These test 

95 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

patches will be m onitored every six m onths as part of the standard craft corrosion inspections 

and compared with the port side inlets. 

7.5 NAVAIR TCP 

To date 4 S -3Bs, 2 F/A-18s and 2 H-46s have been partially or fully coated with TCP during 

depot maintenance on outer moldine of vehicle. The S-3Bs use a self-prim ing topcoat and thus 

have a chrom ate-free coating on th e TCP test areas. The F/A-18s and H-46s use MIL-PRF85582 C primers and thus the coating system relies heavily on the chrom ates in the prim er for 

corrosion protection. The last platf orm was treated in 2001. One F/A-18, with TCP on entire 

outer surface, inspected after a carrier tour an d one year in se rvice was equivalent to other 

airframes the sam e squadron and looked, on averag e, better than m ost after typical carrie r 

deployment. The 2nd F/A-18 is scheduled for inspection in 2003. Bo th H-46s have been 

inspected after 1 year in service and no differen ce in performance of test coating and control 

areas were noted. For the S-3s, the first two were treated with TCP on the aft section only. The 

3rd and 4th were completely covered with TC P. Of the tail only birds, both have shown 

equivalent performance to the rest of the airframe over 2 years of service. 

Figure 7.5.1: F/A-18 after TCP Application and Painting 

Of the fully coated airf rames, one has shown norm al corrosion compared to s imilar controls. 

The 4th S-3 saw a full deploym ent on the Conestoga, the Navy’s last fuel-burning carrier, which 

generates large amounts of stack gases. The tour was in the South Pacific as well. This airframe 

showed more corrosion than com parable planes in the sq uadron. A specific cau se was no t 

identified but two potential causes were identified: insufficient corrosion protection by the TCP / 

(Self Priming Topcoat (SPT) coating system or inadequate rinsing during processing. Excessive 

TCP residue left during processing may cause corrosion in non-chromate coating systems. Since 

neither can be proven independently or acting t ogether no conclusion can be reached other th an 

more testing with this coating system is required before use in the field. Another outcome is that 

96 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

the 500 hour SO 2 salt fog test done at NAVAIR on th e TCP/SPT coating did not show a 

difference in performance between the TCP/SPT and Accelagold/SPT system that is currently 

used on the S-3. When the test was extended to 1000 hours, corrosion in the unscribed areas did 

appear on non-chrom ated systems but not system s that had chrom ate in the pretreatm ent or 

primer. More testing is under way to investigate this issue. 

For More Information Contact: 

Craig Matzdorf 

Phone: 301-342-9372 

matzdorfc@navair.navy.mil 

7.6 USMC (TCP and Alodine 5200/5700) 

The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV) is a n ew acquisition platform in the SDD 

phase. Environmental, safety and health restrictions on the platform require the use of chromate 

and cadmium free coating system s. As a resu lt, the program has evaluated TCP and Alodine 

5200 on aluminum 2519 with a variety of non-chrom ate coating systems for potential use on the 

platform. In addition, the platform is participa ting in the f ield test po rtion of this project by 

having a variety of AAAV hulls coated with co mbinations of TCP and Alodine 5200 with MILPRF-85582N and MIL -P-53022 primers. These vehi cles will be evaluated over a two year 

period. Additionally, two rebuilt AAAV prototype s were coated with TCP and a chrom ate 

conversion coating control on hull s urfaces. These vehicles are currently in service and will be 

evaluated in 2003 for coating system performance. 

 Figure 7.6.1: Spray Applied Alodine 5700 to AAAV 

For More Information Contact: 

Craig Matzdorf 

Phone: 301-342-9372 

matzdorfc@navair.navy.mil 

97 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

7.7 Joint Boeing/Air Force/Navy (Boegel) 

The objective of the program is to develop/de monstrate a coating s ystem process including 

environmentally friendly cleani ng and sol-gel-based conversi on coating processes and the 

Advanced Performance Topcoat. The project was funded by the Aging Aircraft Division of the 

Aeronautical Enterprise Program Office (ASC/AAAV). The surf ace treatment system used was 

Boegel/AC-131 from Advanced Chemistry and Technology in Garden Grove, CA. 

The first significant m ilestone of the project was to investigate ways to m ake Boegel/AC-131 

visibly inspectable. Pigments or fillers where added to Boegel/AC-131, however they did not 

provide sufficient differentiation between coated and uncoated surfaces. The addition of the 

pigments and fillers caused degradation of the adhesion promoting characteristics of the coating. 

Dyes, on the other hand, were successfully heat-added to the conversion coating promoting color 

definition. . Additional work is needed to define the adhesion perf ormance of the colored 

coatings and to determine the effect of the dye on long term coating system performance. 

Steve.Szaruga@wpafb.af.mil 

The second milestone was to validate the adhesion promoting characteristics of Boegel/AC-131 

on a variety of metal substrates and metal surface conditions. To accomplish th is goal, the team 

worked to define the cleaning and deoxidizing requirements for aluminum and titanium surfaces 

required for good adhesion. Based on the ability of Boegel/AC-131 to bond to oxidized surfaces, 

the goal was to reduce the aggressiveness of the de oxidation/brightening step or to e liminate it. 

Adhesion to all of these surfaces was good when a conversion coating, either Boeg el/AC-131 or 

Alodine 1200S was used. W hen no conversion coating was applied, wet a dhesion failures were 

observed. The waterbo rne primer (MIL-PRF-85582) showed poor adhesion to surfaces treated 

with Cee-Bee R-66C. The solvent borne prim er (MIL-PRF-23377) showed poor adhesion to 

surfaces rinsed with water or exposed to high hum idity. In other adhesion tests, ad hesion of a 

solventborne coating system to Boegel/AC-131 or Alodine 1200 on titanium and bare and clad 

aluminum were equivalent. The values for wet tape adhesion and HATE adhesion were the same 

for the two conversion coatings. In reverse im pact testing, interfacial failure between the primer 

and Alodine conversion coating was observed whereas the failure mode was prim arily in the 

primer for the Boegel/AC-131 coated panels. Further testing will be conducted to fully determine 

adhesion performance of coatings to a luminum, titanium, magnesium, and ste el substrates. 

(Osborn, 2003) 

For More Information Contact: 

Steve Szaruga 

Phone: (937) 255-9064 

98 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALY 

99 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

All alternatives are aqu eous solutions designed to deposit a very thin coating on the alum inum 

substrate to enhance paint adhesion and painted co rrosion protection. Some alternatives provide 

unpainted corrosion protection as well as electrical c onductivity in corrosi ve environments. 

Alternatives face the challeng e of the low co st and eas e of application of the chrom ate 

conversion coatings while providing a coating th at provides acceptable technical p erformance. 

Along with technical perform ance, processing and toxicity issues are important to consider in 

capturing the overall impact of an alternative. 

The only compositions that come close to matching the technical, process, cost, and flexibility of 

chromates are based on trivalent chromium. They offer coatings with excellent u npainted or 

bare corrosion resistance on a broad range of alloys, most notably on 2000-series alum inum 

where performance excels over an y other alternat ives. T hey also provide excellent paint 

adhesion and painted corrosion perf ormance as well as m eeting the requirements for electrical 

conductivity. These form ulations are used at room temperature and can be applied by 

immersion, spray or wipe on tec hniques. The m ain drawback to the process is the presence of 

trivalent chromium. Although trivalent chromium is present in the solution and coating, toxicity 

studies and OSHA PELs suggest that the use of TCP is ac ceptable, especially given its wellrounded performance. Users will need to balance total chrom ium, heath and technical 

performance requirements when deciding if TCP is a viable chrom ate substitute for their 

facilities and platforms. 

The second-best product in these tests was Al odine 5200/5700. Althou gh it does not perform 

well in unpainted applications, it perform s similarly to TCP in m ost painted system s. One 

important exception is the f iliform corrosion test where T CP was clearly superio r. Alod ine 

5200/5700 contains no chrom ium, is process fl exible and can be applied like chrom ate 

conversion coatings. 

The remaining alternatives performed variably in the evaluation. So, although none can compete 

with the overall perf ormance of TCP and Alodine 5200/5700, many could be selected for 

specific coating sy stem application and ach ieve the desired performance. The ch oice of any 

alternative will dep end on prio r testing an d comfort with products, institutional leverage, an d 

other sources of information regarding performance. 

A clear outcome of this study is the superior perfor mance of chromate-based primers compared 

to their non-chrom ate counterparts. For the more challenging a lloys, the better non-chrom ate 

systems in som e cases approached or equale d the perform ance of system s with chrom ate 

primers, but generally, perform ance is not as good. More work needs to be put tow ard 

developing improved non-chromate organic systems as well as pretreatments. In most cases with 

the better performing pretreatments, the primers drive the corrosion perfor mance. This is good 

in the sense that there are oppo rtunities to replace chrom ate conversion coatings used under 

chromated primers and maintain overall system performance. 

100 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

9.0 REFERENCES 

Technology Demonstration Plan “Dem onstration and Validation of Non-Chrom ate Aluminum 

Pretreatments,” Science Applications International Corporation for the Naval Aviation Systems 

Command (NAVAIR), May 2002. 

Joint Test Protocol, “Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Non-Chrom ate Aluminum 

Pretreatments,” Naval Air Systems Command Inorganic Coatings Team, December 13, 2000. 

Section 2.1: 

40 CFR 156, “Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices,” United States 

Federal Environmental Regulations, 1998. 

Sections 2.1, 4.1, 5.2, 5.11: 

MIL-C-81706, “Chemical Conversion Materials for Coating Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” 

U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1999. 

Sections 2.2, 4.2, 5.11: 

MIL-PRF-85582, “Primer Coatings, Epoxy, W aterborne,” U.S. Departm ent of Defense, 

Washington, DC, September 1997. 

Sections 2.2, 4.2: 

MIL-P-53030A, “Primer, Epoxy Coating, Water Reducible, Lead and Chromate Free,” Revision 

A, Amendment 2, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1992. 

Sections 2.2, 4.2: 

MIL-P-53022-10, “Primer, Epoxy Coating, Corrosion Inhibiting, Lead and Chromate 

Free,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington DC, February 1992. 

Sections 2.2, 4.2, 5.9, 5.11: 

MIL-PRF-23377G, “Primer Coatings, Epoxy, High Solid,” U.S. Departm ent of Defens e, 

Washington, DC, September 1994. 

Sections 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.11: 

ASTM D1654, “Standard Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specim ens Subjected to 

Corrosive Environments,” ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1984. 

Section 4.1: 

ASTM F22-65, “Standard Test Method for Hydrophobic Surface Films by the Water-Break Test, 

ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1965. 

Lab Report #LR02-004, “Coating Weights and Pro cessing of Alternativ es for ESTCP NCAP 

Project PP0025,” Craig Matzdorf ESTCP for the NCAP Project PP0025, July 24, 2002. 

101 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

MIL-C-53039A, “Coating, Aliphatic Polyuretha ne, Single Component, Chemical Agent 

Resistant,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington DC, May 1993. 

Sections: 5.11: 

MIL-PRF-85285, “Coating, Polyurethane, High Solids,” U.S. Departm ent of Defense, 

Washington, DC, April 1997. 

MIL-T-81772, “Thinner, Aircraft Coating,” U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, Oct 

25, 1991. 

Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.11: 

ASTM B117, "Standard Method of Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus," ASTM, 

Philadelphia, PA, 1990. 

Section 5.5: 

Plazankis, Brian E. and Miller, Chris E., “ASTM B 117 Screening of Non-Chromate Conversion 

Coatings on Aluminum Alloys 2024, 2219, 5083, and 7075 using DoD Paint System s,” Army 

Research Laboratory Report, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 

Sections 5.5, 5.7: 

GM 9540P, “Accelerated Corrosion Test; GM 9540P,” General Motors Engineering Standards, 

1997. 

Section 5.6: 

ASTM G85 “Standard Practice for Modified S alt Spray (Fog) Testing,” ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA, 2002. 

Section 5.6: 

Matzdorf, Craig and Kane, Dr. Michael J., “Eva luation of Non-Chromate Conversion Coatings 

in DoD Coating Systems using ASTM G85 SO2 Salt Fog,” NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD. 

Section 5.7: 

Plazankis, Brian E., Miller, Chri s E., Matzdorf, Craig, “Analy sis of Nonchrom ate Conversion 

Coatings on Alum inum Alloys 2024, 5083, and 7075 with DoD Coatings Using GM 9540P 

Cyclic Accelerated Corrosion Exposure,” Proceedings from the Triservice Con ference on 

Corrosion, San Antonio, TX, January 2002. 

Section 5.9: 

ASTM D1654-92, “Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Pa inted or Coated Specim ens 

Subjected to Corrosive Environments,” ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1992. 

102 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.11: 

FED-STD-141, “Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Materials: Methods of Inspection, 

Sampling, and Testing,” 1986. 

Section 5.4, 5.11: 

ASTM D3359, “ Standard Method for Measur ing Adhesion by Tape Test, Method A & B” 

ASTM International, 1997. 

Section 5.10: 

“Demonstration Report (Technology Improvement Report) for Non-Chromate 

Pretreatments of Non-Ferrous Metals,” Na tional Defense Center for Environm ental 

Excellence/Concurrent Technologies Corporati on for the Environm ental Security Technology 

Certification Program, September 20, 2002. 

Section 5.10: 

Section 5.10: 

“Acute Oral Toxicity/L D50 in Rats,” MB 02- 10327.01, Cerven, Daniel R. for MB Research 

Laboratories, 2002. 

Section 5.10: 

“Acute Dermal Toxicity/LD50 in Rabbits,” MB 02-10327.02, Cerven, Daniel R. for MB 

Research Laboratories, 2002. 

 “Justification Report (Technology Improvem ent Report) for Non-Chrom ate Pretreatments of 

Non-Ferrous Metals,” National Defense Center for Environm ental Excellence/Concurrent 

Technologies Corporation for th e Environmental Security Tec hnology Certification Program, 

September 24, 2002. 

Section 5.11: 

“Nonchromated Conversion Coatings for W eapon Systems Rework and Repair,” National 

Defense Center for Environm ental Excellence/Concurrent Technologies Corporation for the 

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, September 24, 2001. 

Section 7.0: 

Zook L., Clayton C., and Raley R, “Alternate SRB Aluminum Coating System Qualification Test 

Report,” CPC-025-00MP, United Space Alliance, May 1, 2000 

Buchi, Richard H., Patterson, Ken, and Gowers , Clyde J. “Non-Chromate Conversion Coating,” 

Ogden Air Logistics Center, April 3, 1998. 

Section 7.4: 

MIL-P-24441B Ty III F150/151, “Epoxy Polyam ide Formula 150 & Form ula 151,” U.S. 

Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 1994. 

103 
NCAP Phase I Report August 2003 

104 

Section 7.7: 

Osborn, Joseph H., “Advanced Aircraft Corrosion Protection Final Report for period Septem ber 

2002 through April 2003”, Prepared by Boeing for Universal Technologies Corporation under 

contract #02-S470-009-C1, April 25, 2003.