u.s. coast guard wages war on corrosion -...

________________________________ © 2005-2010 CorrDefense Online Magazine

Volume 7, Number 3 Fall 2011 Top Stories

U.S. Coast Guard Wages War on Corrosion

Coating Application and Inspection Training Helps Reduce Hull Failures and Keeps High Tempo, High Maintenance Fleet Fully Deployed

By Kathy Riggs Larsen

Along the southeastern coast of the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard has declared war on an enemy that is particularly treacherous in this region. The Coast Guard has emerged as the victor after carrying out a new strategy for coating application and inspection training to combat corrosion on a fleet of high tempo, high maintenance (HTHM) cutters.

The Coast Guard defends this country’s maritime borders and helps sustain the Maritime Transportation System, the marine portion of the national transportation system. It also responds to disasters involving the nation’s waterways and saves those in peril. To carry out this charge, its assets must be service and mission ready.

The HTHM program is designed to fill a gap caused by the loss of some Coast Guard cutters and the reassignment of others to military missions overseas. The eight 110-foot Island-class (WPB) cutters in the HTHM fleet, assigned to the Coast Guard’s District Seven (comprising South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Puerto Rico), are equipped with advanced electronics and navigation equipment; attain a top speed of 30-plus knots; and perform search and rescue, maritime fisheries law enforcement, drug interdictions, alien migrant interdiction operations, and national security activities.

Unlike traditional Coast Guard cutters, HTHM patrol boats are operated at twice their operational tempo design, with a 21-day period underway that is interrupted by brief stops for fuel and provisions, and an intensive, seven-day maintenance and repair period that is the maritime equivalent of a pit stop for a race car, said Coast Guard Lt. Thomas Lowry, HTHM maintenance coordinator. In addition to its seven-day maintenance, each cutter is scheduled for dry-dock every 24 months for more extensive maintenance.

These HTHM cutters, commissioned in the late 1980s to early 1990s, are exposed to a continuous sea spray environment. Sea spray forms a salt crust layer on the topside surfaces and within compartments sections ventilated from the outside. Saltwater also enters compartments, gets trapped in inaccessible areas, and forms standing water.

Insulated areas wetted by saltwater wick the saltwater up into the insulation layer and form a salt crust in the insulation media.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s 110-foot HTHM cutter Kodiak Island is nearing one year out of dry-dock without any lost days or mission degradation due to corrosion-related events. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.

Corrosion was found in interior spaces of Kodiak Island, such as the engine room. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.


The High Cost of Corrosion

About three years ago, corrosion had become problematic on the HTHM cutters and was the leading cause of lost days and mission degradation—more than mechanical and electrical faults combined, Lowry stated. Not only was corrosion the leading ship repair expense—accounting for more than 50 percent of a ship’s repair budget and typically consuming 60 to 70 percent of resources during dry-dock—but the unavailability of an asset to do its job because of emergency maintenance created a loss of readiness and a gap in overall mission coverage, he explained.

While topside corrosion was easily accessible for repairs and resulted in little structural damage, the most devastating corrosion and substantial metal wastage was found in interior spaces. The hardest hit were compartments with topside hatches that permitted sea spray to enter during routine operations, and inaccessible locations under decking or behind false bulkheads, for example. The main machinery areas, such as the engine room, aft steering, and auxiliary room, experienced significant corrosion fueled by leaks and fluid losses during maintenance activities.

During an emergency dry-docking of one cutter in 2009 to repair a hull breach and flooding in the engine room, Lowry spotted an alarming trend. Almost a year earlier, he had started collecting structural failure data for the four HTHM patrol boats assigned to the Coast Guard Sector Key West, Florida. When he analyzed the data, he found that the total number of hull and structural failures was increasing over time, and had reached the point where one hull failed per week.

“It was at that moment that the insidiousness of corrosion was clear, and I saw the need for action,” Lowry said. The approach to coatings maintenance up to that point had been aesthetically oriented rather than focused on coating performance and substrate protection, he said. While doing research to find a solution, he happened upon the root of the problem. “It wasn’t a lack of high-performance super-coatings aboard our cutters that was the problem, it was a training issue,” he said.

Coast Guard Looks to Training as a Solution

Lowry discovered that 70 percent of coating failures in the industry are due to inadequate surface preparation, and this inadequacy applied to the HTHM fleet. Using funds provided by the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, Lowry and 75 active-duty maintenance personnel received training and certification through the NACE Coating Inspector (CIP) Level 1 program. Thirteen out of this group advanced to the CIP Level 2—Marine Certification. In addition to certifying personnel, preservation work items and standards that govern ship repair contracts were updated to mirror industry preservation standards and also target factors that contributed to the corrosion on the cutters.

Before attending the training, Lowry said, the maintenance team had been burnishing surfaces with wire wheels, painting over surfaces containing soluble chlorides that were more than 10 times the allowable limit, using unauthorized solvents, and engaging in “field chemistry” of liquid coatings. Inspection tools had not been available in the HTHM maintenance inventories, nor had they been part of the normal preparation, priming, and painting efforts.

During the ship repairs that followed the training and new adherence to standards, Lowry mentored the maintenance work force in properly evaluating contractor performance and understanding and enforcing coating standards. Among the host of improvements in maintenance and inspection, personnel are now given the tools needed to apply coatings to meet the standards; coating systems are properly inspected during application and repair; standards for ship repair contractors are fully enforced; and substrate preparation is done according to the standards.

Corrosion under insulation, caused by wicking, was found near a flat panel, corrugated bulkhead interface. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.

The corrosion on this interior bulkhead was caused by sea spray entering through a topside vent. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.


Additionally, the HTHM long-range maintenance plan was expanded to include side scan ultrasonic thickness measurements of the hull plating, and thorough compartment inspections that will be repeated every six years. “We turn the ship inside-out like a sock,” Lowry explained, adding that since it is much less expensive to paint rather than replace steel, compartment inspections are very aggressive and comprehensive.

Lowry stressed that the philosophy now is to get intrusive, get in the tight spaces, and find and eliminate the rust. “If something is close to failure, then it is driven to failure so it can be repaired while in dry-dock,” he said.

The increased level of knowledge and understanding of the industry standards for surface preparation, as well as the improvement in coating systems application and inspection techniques has helped the Key West HTHM fleet to move away from a failure rate of one hull per week and operate more than one year—and still counting—without a corrosion-related hull or structure failure, lost cutter day, or mission degradation event.

Overall, the HTHM fleet is at a steady state and fully deployed. The cutters are no longer undergoing emergency dry-docking for corrosion, or being taken out of service to weld temporary corrosion-related repairs, Lowry said. The ships are launched on time and recovered on time. The routine "chasing rust" during normal seven-day maintenance periods has been replaced with routine washing and repair of any scratch or scrape in the coatings, which is effectively a maintenance-free posture, he added.

Now the Coast Guard highly recommends that port engineers who administer and oversee ship repair contracts be certified as professional coating inspectors. In addition, coating inspector training has been added as a training module to the course that is recommended for all Coast Guard personnel who transfer to a port engineer position.

Based on the success of the HTHM corrosion prevention program, the Coast Guard is working to implement an organization-wide policy that requires a coating inspector to be certified by an accredited institution. It also mandates a comprehensive coating inspector training course for port engineers in order to broaden the education base of its front line naval engineers.

“The HTHM program is the epicenter of the war on corrosion, and this paradigm shift is spreading across the U.S. Coast Guard, but we are not at a fully deployed status across all platforms,” Lowry concluded. “We are making huge progress toward getting the Coast Guard up to the same steady state as the HTHM fleet, but it will take time to train the rest of our personnel, get the tooling fully deployed, and for the new personnel to become proficient.”

Editor’s Note: A version of this article originally appeared in the October 2011 issue of Materials Performance magazine.

A “before” (left) and “after” (right) view shows the battery cableways and wiring in an engine room after the preservation coating was applied using updated standards and trained personnel. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.

________________________________ Page 1 © 2005-2010 CorrDefense Online Magazine


Saltwater Corrosion Causes Buckets of Rust

By Kathy Riggs Larsen

The most devastating corrosion and metal wastage on the U.S. Coast Guard’s high tempo, high maintenance (HTHM) cutter fleet was typically found in interior spaces—compartments with topside hatches that permitted the ingress of sea spray during routine operations, as well as inaccessible locations under decking or behind bulkheads full of dead spaces.

Several years ago, around the same time that Lt. Thomas Lowry, HTHM maintenance coordinator, waged his war on corrosion of the HTHM Island-class cutter fleet, an encounter with exfoliation corrosion on top of a fuel oil tank prompted the Coast Guard to launch an aggressive battle to stop corrosion.

During a scheduled dry-dock for maintenance inspection, a layer of exfoliating corrosion around two inches thick in some areas was found over a 40-square-foot area of the starboard fuel oil tank located beneath the galley’s floating deck. Using a shovel, maintenance personnel removed 70 pounds of rust in about 30 minutes. An estimated 35 percent of the original hull plating on the tank top was removed, equivalent to about 200 pounds of metal at original construction, Lowry said. As scale was cleared from dimples and depressions in the deck, holes in the top of the tank top were discovered in several areas, which explained why personnel periodically found

fuel in the insulation between the floating deck and the tank top.

“We had no previous indications of the problem because the tank top was under an insulation bag and under a flooring system. We couldn’t see it—it was inaccessible,” Lowry said.

Since that day, the cutter fleet has revamped its preservation work items and standards as well as its long-range maintenance plans so that interior compartments and spaces are thoroughly inspected for signs of coating failures and corrosion, and repairs can be implemented before structural failures occur.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the October 2011 issue of Materials Performance magazine.

Exfoliating corrosion was found on the top of the fuel oil tank on a Coast Guard high tempo, high maintenance cutter. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.

A shovel was used to clear 70 pounds of rust from the cutter’s tank top. Photo by Thomas Lowry, U.S. Coast Guard.



Air Force Prepares to Certify Fuel Infrastructure for Alternative Blend

Effort Advances Goal of a Secure and Environmentally Sound Energy Strategy

By Cynthia Greenwood

In order to meet aviation fuel demands in the face of energy security concerns and the quest for greener fuels, the United States Air Force is evaluating the introduction of bio-based fuel blends into its aircraft and fuels infrastructure. While the use of bio-based jet fuels has been in the news lately, what has been less visible are the details associated with transporting the fuel to the aircraft.

“Before we can go prime time with bio-based fuels, we want to understand their compatibility with our existing fuels infrastructure. Our desire is to use a drop-in fuel that requires no change to existing piping, storage tanks, and pumping facilities when these bio-based fuel blends are fully operational,” said Michael Zapata, the Air Force Fuels Engineer at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA), headquartered at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. Zapata oversees efforts to certify that the Air Force fuels infrastructure is ready for the use of biofuels.

“In fiscal year 2008, the Air Force spent approximately $9 billion to fuel aircraft and ground vehicles and provide utility services such as electricity and natural gas to installations,” according to the most recent Air Force energy plan. The cost of aviation jet fuel comprised 84 percent of that amount. Moreover, the Air Force is the single largest consumer of fuel in the federal government, and it consumes 50 percent of all fuel used by the Department of Defense.

“The increased demand for imports, coupled with dwindling resources, the instability in the Arabian Gulf region, and industrial expansion worldwide, makes it clear that the need for an effective energy strategy is just as important now as it was during the oil crises

of the 1970s,” stated Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley in an energy program policy memo issued on December 19, 2008. The Air Force strategy outlined in the memo includes the introduction of alternative fuel to the fuel stocks being used today.

According to Zapata, the Air Force is evaluating the use of a bio-based fuel known as HRJ, or Hydro-processed Renewable Jet fuel. Derived from bio-feedstock such as animal tallow or camalina plant oil, HRJ undergoes a refining process that turns it into a hydrocarbon jet fuel. To fulfill the goals expressed in its energy plan, the Air Force is preparing to acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel cost-competitively by way of an alternative fuel blend whose “alternative” component is derived domestically, and in a manner that is greener than fuels produced from conventional petroleum, Zapata explained.

An A-10C Thunderbolt II from Eglin Air Force Base flies along the coast of Florida March 25, 2010, during the first flight of an aircraft powered solely by a biomass-derived jet fuel blend. The A-10 was fueled with a 50/50 blend of Hydrotreated Renewable Jet and JP-8. Photo by Sr. Master Sgt. Joy Josephson, U.S. Air Force.

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_fall_2011/images/AFEnergyPlan.pdf


“To fulfill this plan, the Air Force plans to use a blend that combines military-grade fuel known as JP-8 with up to 50 percent HRJ, or a blend that may consist of a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and HRJ,” Zapata said.

Fueling facilities at Air Force bases are very similar to those found at commercial airports. Commercial suppliers transport fuels to the base facilities by way of pipelines, tank trucks, or fuel barges. The fuels are then stored and checked for quality and are subsequently delivered to the aircraft via refueling trucks or a piping network system known as a hydrant fueling system.

In its effort to certify that the Air Force fuels infrastructure is ready for the use of biofuels, AFCESA is investigating whether the introduction of the fuel blends would affect the existing infrastructure.

“The key areas we are looking at are material compatibility and fuel filtration,” Zapata explained. “As with anything new, it is unclear to us what a non-petroleum-based fuel would do to fuel systems that have become accustomed to petroleum-based fuels. While there are a variety of materials that make up fuel systems, of particular interest to us are the non-metallic components that are in contact with fuel. While minimum or zero effects are anticipated, since the blend is a hydrocarbon fuel, AFCESA needs to ensure that there are no surprises, such as accelerated material degradation that would lead to fuel leaks when a fuel conversion occurs.”

“We want the conversion to be a non-event,” Zapata said.

AFCESA is evaluating the effects of HRJ on the Air Force fuels infrastructure by looking at what the commercial jet fuel industry has come across in its use

of equivalent fuel blends, by examining the industry’s knowledge gaps, and by conducting selected material testing. AFCESA is also looking at the effects of blended fuel on fuel filtration systems. Fuel is filtered at key locations in the fuel system to remove any particulate and water that could affect an aircraft’s engine performance during flight. “We want to know if there is any change in the performance of our fuel filters to ensure that quality fuel is being provided to the aircraft,” Zapata said.

“Ultimately what we want is clean, dry fuel transported to the skin of the aircraft on demand,” Zapata stated. “With the use of HRJ, this fuel will constitute a greener and better energy security choice for our Air Force.” The investigation of the effects of HRJ on the existing fuels infrastructure should be complete in the next six months, he concluded.

"By 2016 the Air Force should be prepared to cost competitively acquire up to 50 percent of its aviation domestic fuel by way of an alternative fuel blend."

An airman prepares to fuel an A-10 Thunderbolt II March 25, 2010, with a 50/50 blend of Hydrotreated Renewable Jet and JP-8 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. The A-10 then flew what was the first flight of an aircraft powered solely by a biomass-derived jet fuel blend. Photo by Samuel King, Jr., U.S. Air Force.



A Study of How Corrosion Affects Electromagnetic Devices (and How They Impact Corrosion)

By Chris Grethlein

Past issues of CorrDefense are replete with examples of how corrosion impacts the readiness and missions of the DoD’s myriad weapons platforms and facilities. For the most part, these stories have examined mission impact from the standpoint of an asset’s mechanical or structural performance.

But what about the impacts of corrosion to an asset’s electrical systems? More specifically, how does corrosion affect a platform’s electromagnetic performance, and quite possibly, how do electromagnetic emissions affect corrosion? For an entire class of weapons systems, these questions are more than academic ones.

Nowhere is this issue more prevalent than on a ship’s superstructure—comprising all structures built above the main deck of a vessel—where corrosion can alter the electrical nature of the structure itself. This alteration, in turn, can hamper the performance of a ship’s many electrically powered devices, such as radar and communication systems.

Topside Ship Corrosion Poses Unique Challenges

The topside structures of all surface Naval vessels house numerous electromagnetic (EM) systems, which are exposed to the same environmental influences that affect their surrounding structures, such as salt spray from ocean waves. For example, Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) destroyers include among their topside systems 39 communications and intelligence antennas and five radar and Identification, Friend, or Foe (IFF) antennas.

However, the performance of these EM systems is also affected by the structures, fixtures, and other equipment stationed around them.

Most of them conduct electricity, and can deflect or attenuate the signals from the various antennas, all of which affect the performance of these shipboard systems. EM systems functions are protected to the extent possible by electrically grounding all topside structures, so when they start to corrode, their electrical properties are altered, which in turn affects the nominal function of the EM systems.

The structural and electrical components that affect EM performance are too many to cite, but one can gain some appreciation from a few examples. For instance, DDG-51 destroyers feature no less than 55 bond straps connecting individual structures to the ship’s electrical ground, and six refueling ports known as Replenishment-at-Sea Stations, which are used when the ship is provisioned from a supply ship at sea. Bond straps and refueling ports are all subject to significant corrosion. Also contributing to effects on EM performance are the ship’s four launchers for Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and two different missile decoy systems.

The topsides of Navy ships are equipped with numerous electromagnetic systems. Many of the communications and radar antennas are readily visible in this picture of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, as are several of the weapons systems. Photo courtesy of U.S. Navy.


To help minimize adverse effects on EM performance, engineers examine the overall Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of each vessel. EMC is a system engineering discipline that ensures that all systems installed on a platform can function as designed without adverse effects from electromagnetic energy either radiated or conducted. To do that, it is necessary to identify both the source of electromagnetic energy, any electromagnetic vulnerability of the installed systems, and how that energy is propagated to the affected components.

The interaction of all EM systems is rigorously tested according to military standards to ensure that each vessel is run at the highest overall state of readiness. During asset acquisition, developers and testers ensure that all EM devices are properly bonded and grounded electronically to maximize performance. Once deployed though, EM systems take their place in the maintenance queue alongside the multitude of other systems. It is then up to maintenance personnel to determine when electrical grounds deteriorate or connectors decay because of aging or use, and institute repairs.

Maintenance is of prime concern on all ships, and the DDG-51 is no exception. It is considered fully manned with a crew of 261, but is typically manned to about 80 percent of that figure. About half of the crew are ship’s engineers. Therefore, approximately one hundred crewmen are available to perform some corrosion control activities topside. These maintainers possess the tools and training to address the full range of naturally originating corrosive threats to topside structures, but there is a small but growing body of anecdotal data that suggest that there might also be manmade aspects of the operating environment that contribute to the problem.

Do Electromagnetic Systems Contribute to Corrosion?

The effect of corrosion on a ship’s electromagnetic compatibility is well documented. It generates spurious frequencies affecting the use of parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. It generates broad band noise and can affect ground circuitry. However, the question of whether the electromagnetic environment created by a ship’s many EM emissions promotes additional corrosion remains unclear, and is only now starting to garner some attention. A review of basic electrochemical theory would suggest it is possible, but only a well-planned and extensive study could provide the data to verify and quantify this assertion.

Recall that corrosion is an electrochemical process, wherein minute electrical currents flow through metallic structures, causing them to undergo a chemical reaction, known as oxidation. Most corrosion prevention efforts focus on the chemical causes of corrosion—metals reacting with oxygen in an electrolytic medium, such as saltwater, to form metallic oxides, known more commonly as rust. Most corrosion protection strategies employ other chemicals in the forms of paints and coatings, primers, sealants, and chemical surface treatments. While exposure to certain chemical compounds can initiate or accelerate the degradation of materials and structures, they are not the only causes of corrosion. There are several other causes.

Through corrosion’s electrochemical definition, one might infer that there must also exist one or more electrical causes of corrosion. As it turns out, there are a number of them. Electrical sources of corrosion are generally not as well understood as their chemical counterparts. In spite of that, there are several electrical methods currently used to prevent corrosion. The most commonly used is cathodic protection, which consists of a device that imparts an electric current into a structure to cancel out the natural current created by the corrosion source.

Personnel responsible for topside maintenance encounter various types of corrosion on a Navy ship. Above, the base of an antenna mount is shown in a highly corroded state. Below, corrosion has caused a split in the cover of a power line (topside conduit), illustrating how corrosion can adversely affect power systems, potentially resulting in unscheduled maintenance and repair. Photos courtesy of General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT).


While the contribution of electromagnetism to corrosion is still being quantified, it stands to reason that structures that exist in highly electromagnetic environments would be most susceptible to these phenomena. Navy surface ships are a prime example.

While it is still unknown how much EM emissions impact the corrosion of topside structures, a concerted effort to better understand this phenomenon would benefit the Navy, and could have significant implications for how ships are maintained in the future.



DoD Corrosion Office Deepens its Partnership with Universities

Government and Academe Raise Expectations for Collaboration


The Department of Defense has raised the stakes of a four-year-old partnership that aligns the research goals of DoD corrosion prevention experts with those of university scientists.

“As the DoD community identifies serious corrosion problems and develops new technologies and applications to solve those problems, we’re looking for a higher level of research support than we’ve had in the past,” said Rich Hays, Deputy Director of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office. “To meet this objective, we are stepping up our research collaboration with academic scientists from universities renowned in corrosion science, and encouraging more of their students to consider careers in the DoD corrosion community,” Hays said.

The Original Collaboration

DoD and academic corrosion scientists began partnering in 2007 when the DoD Corrosion Office formed the University Corrosion Collaboration (UCC), a Congressionally supported effort. Participating schools included The Ohio State University, The University of Virginia, The University of Akron, Southern Mississippi University, The University of Hawaii, and the U.S. Air Force Academy. The Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Naval Academy, and Air Force Institute of Technology joined the group in 2011. When the UCC met

for two days in January 2010 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Carderock Division, experts from DoD’s research laboratories began discussing their studies in corrosion mitigation with university peers to see how they might collaborate on technologies required for DoD aircraft, ground vehicles, and facilities structural innovation.

Since that meeting and subsequent forums, the UCC has grown into a better-funded, broader consortium known as the Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC). The Corrosion Office is hoping to add two new potential TCC partners, including the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 2012.

Christine E. Lemon, a doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University, discusses her corrosion technology research during the 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference student poster session contest. Lemon worked with Heather C. Allen on the project, titled “Field Studies of the Atmospheric Corrosion of Silver.” Photo by Diana Zalucky.


Gerald Frankel, Professor of Materials Science Engineering at Ohio State University, a TCC participant from the outset, is enthusiastic about the evolution of the collaboration’s vision. “I have no doubt about the ability of each university to do interesting and relevant work, but transitioning the results to the DoD has been almost impossible for us in the past. The military labs are now perfectly situated to implement and apply our research.”

Foundations and New Objectives

Thus far, the military-academic collaboration has yielded a specific understanding of certain environmental effects on coating formulations, inhibitor-binder synergy, the corrosion-resistance characteristics of a magnesium-rich primer, and the relation between accelerated lab test data and field data.

But DoD’s attempt to forge a partnership with the universities did not happen overnight.

“Before the partnership got underway, we at Ohio State had interaction with some military labs, but now under the aegis of the TCC, the labs are much more interested and welcoming,” Frankel said. “Ohio State now has a strong collaboration with NAVAIR (Naval Air Systems Command) on topics that are of real interest to them, and we are slated to provide the fundamental understanding that will underlie their development programs. It is a win-win.”

The DoD corrosion community expects the TCC to build upon UCC’s successful foundation, but the initiative’s goals are now multi-layered, Hays said. Working with university experts in materials science, metallurgy, electrochemistry, fatigue, fracture mechanics, and polymer engineering, the TCC plans to prioritize areas of joint research in corrosion prevention that are most pressing for the war fighter, while balancing the needs of taxpayers, he said. “We aim to produce technologies, advanced components, and knowledge technologies, processes, and commodities that tangibly reduce the impact of corrosion on DoD weapons systems and infrastructure.”

To realize this goal, DoD is committed to helping universities understand the constraints engineers work under in applying technology within various environments where military aircraft are flown and vehicles are driven, Hays explained. At TCC workshops slated for 2012, military experts will be able to discuss the challenge of working with industry partners and working within existing platforms.

“Through the TCC, the Corrosion Office will strive also to balance its investment portfolio by actively seeking out areas of high-risk, high-reward research to complement the lower-risk, more technically mature efforts that we currently sponsor through technology validation projects that the services have carried out since 2005,” Hays said. “What is most exciting for us is that, finally, the TCC can begin investing in emerging technologies designed to prevent corrosion on military weapon systems and facilities.

Equally important is TCC’s second objective—to foster a joint commitment between DoD and universities to develop graduate students who are committed to making careers with DoD and its industry partners. “We want individuals with advanced education who can make up the future core of our

corrosion prevention and control technical community within DoD, its support network, and its suppliers,” Hays explained.

There are several ways in which TCC can carry out this objective strategically, from providing funding to military research labs that encourage working with academe to encouraging existing government employees to return to school to earn a master’s or Ph.D. degree in a relevant field.

Hays believes that more graduate students would choose careers in government if they knew more about the existing opportunities. “There are many ways for advanced engineering students to join the DoD corrosion community. Ph.D.-level

Ben K. Hoff, a graduate student at the United States Air Force Academy, discusses his project on the effects of using a specific aluminum alloy within areas of corrosion fatigue with Office of Naval Research expert Dave Shifler during the 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference student poster session contest. Photo by Diana Zalucky.

Niteen Jadhay, a North Dakota State University graduate student, discusses his research project with DoD Corrosion Conference attendees at the student poster session contest. Jadhay’s project, co-authored with Christopher A. Vetter, is titled, “Synthesis and Electrochemical Investigations of Polypyrrole/Aluminum Flake Pigment Compositions.” Photo by Diana Zalucky.


experts might work in a government lab or join a program office that procures a specific model of jet fighter, for example. Others may prefer to produce equipment as an entrepreneur. Still others graduating from a military academy might join the uniformed services as a technical expert.”

“Within the TCC, we are committed to helping universities understand the opportunities that exist for students who aspire to become corrosion experts within DoD, while also educating them about DoD’s practice of working with contractors within certain budget constraints,” Hays said. “If we increase DoD’s interaction with graduate students in engineering fields such as materials science, for example, it will broaden their awareness of the career paths available to them. It will let them know that the government can be an exciting place to work.”

The student research contest at the biennial DoD Corrosion Conference is one forum that fulfills the TCC's goal of bringing corrosion professionals in contact with university researchers. At the 2011 meeting, a record number of 32 graduate students discussed poster-sized displays—each illustrating advanced research in corrosion science, engineering, and technology—with military scientists and engineers.

A Movement Gathers Steam

Besides being supported by researchers, the TCC is gaining support from military officials who write and enforce corrosion policy. “The TCC concept and accomplishments are being embraced by corrosion executives in the Army, Navy, and Air Force who oversee the implementation of DoD’s corrosion policies and practices,” Hays contended. The TCC was a subject on the agenda at the last Corrosion Board of Directors meeting, which included Daniel J. Dunmire, Director of the Corrosion Office; Wimpy Pybus, Army Corrosion Executive; Steve Spadafora, Navy Corrosion Executive; and Col. Elizabeth Arledge, Acting Air Force Corrosion Executive. “All three corrosion control and prevention executives have been supportive and constructively critical, and we want them to guide us and help us do the right thing,” Hays noted.

At the DoD Corrosion Forum on December 8, 2010, at LMI Government Consulting, the TCC will kick off a series of three all-day workshops to develop a 20-year technology roadmap that will lead to a more focused, long-term mission and strategic outlook for both sets of partners. Periodic seminars will also be held to promote interaction between researchers at military labs and universities. “Our first TCC seminar will take place from January 10-12 at The University of Southern Mississippi and it is designed to generate self-sustaining, collaborative efforts between government researchers and universities who are willing to share interests and build a team,” Hays said.

“Through the workshops and seminars, the Corrosion Office hopes to get a critical mass going that becomes self-propagating and doesn’t need our continued investment,” Hays said. “For example, we envision creating opportunities for research professors at our partner universities to do a sabbatical at a government lab and take their experience back to the university community.”

“Both DoD and university researchers benefit from understanding what the other sector is doing. For example, some government researchers may not have a strategic perspective because they’ve only worked on projects they understand and like,” Hays said. “And likewise, academic scientists immersed in theoretical research can benefit from seeing the applications of their research.”

Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series exploring the goals and objectives of the new Technical Corrosion Collaboration. The Spring 2012 issue of CorrDefense will detail how universities view the partnership in a discussion of TCC’s benefits and challenges.

Receiving the Robert Ferrara Award for Corrosion Engineering at the 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference reception is the first-place winner, Anusha Chilukuri, (left), from The Ohio State University, and the second-place winner, Rebecca F. Schaller, from The University of Virginia. Corrosion Office Deputy Director Rich Hays presented the award. Both students displayed their advanced research projects during the conference poster session contest on August 1. Photo by Diana Zalucky.


Volume 7, Number 3 Fall 2011 Featured Projects

Corrosion Experts Track “Stray Currents” for DOT

By Dana Finney

An independent review of engineering reports for the Department of Transportation (DOT) has answered critical questions about potential stray current corrosion on the Dulles Metrorail Extension Project. Corrosion researcher Vincent Hock and structural engineer Steven Sweeney, both from the Engineer Research and Development Center’s Construction Engineering Research Lab (ERDC-CERL), provided expert consultation in assessing the results of inspections and testing for 30-year-old pile foundations to be reused in extending the railway. They were assisted by James Bushman, a world-renowned corrosion consultant.

DOT’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is auditing the Federal Transit Administration’s oversight of the Metrorail project in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The project will extend the existing Metrorail line more than 11 miles through the Tysons Corner commercial district to Reston, Virginia. OIG asked CERL to support its evaluation of potential safety concerns in reusing the steel piles that were driven into the site in the early 1980s.

The old piles are to be reused as footings for 11 piers that will support a new heavy rail viaduct structure. No as-built drawings exist—only the design plans. The engineering reports indicated that the piles have optimal load capacity, exhibit minimal corrosion, and the steel section areas measured are larger than the design section. However, severe “stray current” levels have been detected from the adjacent Metro Orange line.

“The electric current that operates the trains is supposed to travel down the rail, but in reality, the rail will not be totally isolated,” said Sweeney. “That means you have some stray current traveling into the surrounding soil, which may be conductive. If a steel structure, like a pile or pipeline, is buried nearby, the stray current can pass through the pile, then flow back to the rail. That causes the steel material to act as an anode, which loses electrons, causing corrosion.”

To determine how many years of service can be expected from the steel structure, it is critical to estimate the steel lost over time due to corrosion. A structure could fail over time, which would be especially catastrophic for a load-bearing pile. The most common remedy for stray current corrosion is to equip the steel structure with a cathodic protection system.

This aerial view of construction on a historic foundation in mid-August, 2011, during DOT’s extension of the Dulles Metrorail Extension Project, involving consulting by Army corrosion researchers. Photo courtesy of Army Corps of Engineers ERDC-CERL.


The CERL team's rigorous review of the test and inspection results in the reports answered the OIG's questions about proper methodologies needed to measure the stray current corrosion along the full length of the pile, how to calculate their remaining service life, and whether cathodic protection measures are indicated. The team's expert advice to the OIG will strengthen the credibility and transparency of the audit recommendations pertinent to stray current tests for assessing pile corrosion and estimate useful life, and for cathodic protection measures.

OIG anticipates that the team's review will be very useful to explain the audit conclusions and recommendations to the stakeholders of the Metrorail project. According to Rodolfo Pérez, OIG engineer advisor, “Since 1998, the Corps has been a valuable resource to supplement the services the OIG engineering group provides to audits and investigations.” He noted that the Corps has also helped the agency tackle complex engineering issues that emerged during audits of controversial transportation projects and programs, such as the safety review for the Boston “Big Dig” tunnel and the Oversight of Load Ratings and Postings of Structurally Deficient Bridges on the National Highway System program.

Another birds-eye view of construction on the Dulles Metrorail project is pictured, from early in September 2011. Photo courtesy of Army Corps of Engineers ERDC-CERL.



The DoD Releases a Report on the Cost and Availability of Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Systems

By Eric Herzberg

LMI was asked by the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPC IPT) in May of 2010 to measure the corrosion impact on availability of all DoD aviation weapon systems and the corrosion impact on the cost of Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aviation systems. This report documents both the cost and availability effects of corrosion for Navy and Marine Corps aviation equipment.

Using fiscal year (FY) 2008 and FY 2009 as a measurement baseline, we estimated the annual corrosion cost for Navy and Marine Corps aviation to be $2.6 billion or 26.1 percent of maintenance costs. We also estimated the effect of corrosion on non-available days for all Navy and Marine Corps flying assets to be 87,029 days or 15.7 percent of the total. This equates to an average of 24 days of corrosion-related non-availability per year for each aircraft on active status.

1

Our review of Navy and Marine Corps aviation is part of a multiple-year plan to measure the impact of corrosion on cost and availability. This is the first of the availability studies. Past and future cost study areas are listed in Table 1; availability studies are listed in Table 2.

Table 1 - Cost of Corrosion Studies

1The cost estimation and availability methods were documented in a separate report issued by the CPC IPT: Proposed Method

and Structure for Determining the Cost of Corrosion for the Department of Defense, August 2004, and The Impact of Corrosion on the Availability of DoD Weapon Systems and Infrastructure, October 2009.


Table 2 - Effect of Corrosion on Availability Studies

Navy and Marine Corps aviation corrosion costs as a percentage of total maintenance costs are in the mid-range of the studies completed thus far. The overall Navy and Marine Corps aviation corrosion cost percentage has been fairly stable over the four years of the study, averaging 26.6 percent of maintenance costs.

Our estimated corrosion costs apply to 98 types of Navy and Marine Corps aviation equipment, including 14 different models of engine. The scope of the study included an inventory of 3,784 aircraft.

We used three schema groups to categorize corrosion costs associated with aviation equipment. Group 1 includes depot maintenance costs ($548 million, or 21.4 percent), field-level maintenance costs ($1,914 million, or 74.9 percent), and costs that are outside normal reporting ($94 million, or 3.7 percent). Group 2 compares corrective costs ($625 million, or 25.4 percent), preventive costs ($1,619 million, or 65.7 percent), and neither corrective nor preventive costs ($218 million, or 8.9 percent). Group 3 compares structure-related costs ($328 million, or 13.3 percent) versus parts-related costs ($2,134, or 86.7 percent)

2. We distributed the $2.6 billion corrosion cost within each schema separately to the extent we

could classify the respective maintenance records by their schema.

We stratified the corrosion costs of Navy and Marine Corps aviation systems by type, model, series (TMS), total cost, and cost per item. We then ranked the top 10 systems for total corrosion cost and average corrosion cost. The order in which aircraft are listed in Table 3 suggests a priority for further examination from a corrosion cost standpoint. The highlighted items ranked among the top 10 for both total and average corrosion cost for each of the study years. In FY2009, the SH-60B, CH-53E, and P-3C are the top three greatest contributors from a combined total and average corrosion cost standpoint for Navy and Marine Corps aviation.

Table 3 - Highest Combined Ranking for Average and Total Corrosion Cost (FY2009: $ in millions)


The total corrosion-related non-available days (95,237) counts 69,094 not mission capable (NMC) days that are included in the Department of the Navy’s current method for reporting non-availability, and 26,143 non-available days that are unreported not available (UNA) days. UNA days include unreported non-availability due to depot maintenance, transit, temporary storage, etc. Corrosion-related non-available days account for 17.3 percent of the total non-available days. For consistency with current policy on availability reporting, the estimated effect of corrosion is 22.7 percent of the total reported NMC for all Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. We show non-availability results by TMS in Table 4.

Table 4 - Corrosion Impact on Total Non-Available Days by TMS - FY2009

Preventive maintenance accounts for nearly 64 percent of all non-available days for all aircraft. We show a breakdown of the preventive non-available days in Table 5. Inspection is by far the major contributor to corrosion-related total non-available days due to preventive maintenance.

Table 5 - Preventive Total Non-Available Days by Activity - FY2009

There is a strong relationship between corrosion cost and corrosion-related non-available days. Seven of the nine aircraft with the highest corrosion cost are also among the greatest contributors to corrosion-related non-available days. The P-3C, SH-60B, and EA-6B are among the top 10 highest total corrosion costs, average corrosion cost per aircraft, total non-available days, and average non-available days per aircraft. They present an opportunity for corrosion-related improvement.


There also appears to be a strong relationship between corrosion cost and corrosion-related non-available days by nature of work. We show this relationship in Table 6.

Table 6 - Total Corrosion Cost and Non-Available Days by Nature of Work

There are more than 8.4 million maintenance records classified as corrective or preventive maintenance. The fact that the preventive work percentages for both corrosion cost and corrosion-related non-availability are so close is significant. This would imply there is an opportunity to closely examine preventive maintenance activity to determine if both corrosion costs and non-available days can be reduced.



Army Engineering Research Laboratory Wins Latest “R&D 100” Awards

Two technologies developed by the Engineer Research Development Center (ERDC) of the Army Corps of Engineers and its industry and academic collaborators received the R&D 100 Award from R&D Magazine at an event in Orlando, Florida, on October 13, 2011. Dubbed the “Oscar of Innovation,” the award is presented annually and recognizes the top 100 product innovations introduced into the worldwide marketplace during the previous year.

ERDC’s winning technologies included a carbon nano-coating to protect against corrosion and a thermoplastic composite bridge that uses recycled plastics and can support loads of more than 70 tons. In addition, the composite bridge was selected as one of the Top Three Editor’s Choice awards. ERDC team members receiving the awards were Susan Drozdz, Richard Lampo, Vincent Hock, and James Wilcoski of the Construction Engineering Research Lab, and Henry Diaz-Alvarez of the Geotechnical and Structures Lab. (See Nanotechnology Helps Army Usher in Coatings Evolution, and also view Recycled Plastic Bridge Stands Up to M-1 Traffic? Twice…)

Both technologies were developed and demonstrated under the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, for which the proponent is the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. In addition, construction of the first prototype recycled plastic bridge at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was executed under the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management’s Installation Technology Transition Program.

An M-1 tank crosses a thermoplastic composite bridge during load testing. An Army Corps of Engineers team of corrosion and geotechnical researchers received a 2011 award from R&D Magazine for the bridge system and design. Photo courtesy of Army Corps of Engineers ERDC-CERL.

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_summer_2010/project_news1.asp

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_summer_2010/project_news1.asp

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_fall_2009/project_news2.asp

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_fall_2009/project_news2.asp


Volume 7, Number 3 Fall 2011 Inside DoD

Corrosion Conference Features Education’s Role in Acquisition Policy

Army-led Technical Program Attracts Record Number of Exhibitors


It was a rare chance for coatings experts to convene with technology experts from all U.S. military departments and engineering sub-specialties. Likewise, subject matter experts in myriad facets of corrosion science met with weapon systems and facilities specialists in corrosion maintenance and life-cycle management from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

During the 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference in La Quinta, California, held July 31-August 5, the DoD corrosion community sponsored keynote panel discussions and symposia to ensure that military program and facility managers understand corrosion at all levels. “The university research community has become a key part of this initiative,” said Daniel J. Dunmire, director of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.

“At this year’s DoD Corrosion Conference, 602 participants and 69 exhibitors from government, academia, and industry discussed the myriad ways in which more widespread knowledge of corrosion science and technology can influence how well our military weapon systems and facilities are acquired and maintained,” said Dunmire, who oversees the conference every two years.

Noted speakers who advanced the meeting’s education agenda included celebrated actor and director LeVar Burton, Luis Proenza, President of the University of Akron (UA), Neil Thompson, President of the NACE International Foundation, Bob Chalker, Executive Director of NACE International, The Corrosion Society, and Bill Shoup, Executive Director of SSPC—The Society for Protective Coatings.

Burton, acclaimed star of the Reading Rainbow public television series, delivered the keynote address on Wednesday night. Some of Burton’s recent work in film and video is directed toward the education of adults and children. He is featured in four DoD-sponsored videos on the science of corrosion, polymers, and ceramics.

During the Tuesday panel discussion, moderated by DoD Corrosion Office Deputy Director Rich Hays, academic experts from four international universities spoke about leading research initiatives in corrosion science. They included George K. Haritos, UA Dean of the College of Engineering; Stuart Lyon, head of the Corrosion and Protection Center at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom; and Moses Tade, Dean of Engineering at Curtin University in Australia, among others.

The 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference opened its Monday keynote luncheon panel with a color guard ceremony inside the La Quinta Resort and Conference Center ballroom near Palm Springs, California. Photo by Diana Zalucky.

Corrosion Office Director Daniel Dunmire presented actor LeVar Burton with an appreciation award for his involvement in five videos designed to educate laymen and experts about the science of corrosion and corrosion mitigation. Photo by Diana Zalucky.

http://corrdefense.nace.org/corrdefense_fall_2011/DoD_4.asp


The Thursday luncheon panel featured a forum of experts who had served on the congressionally mandated 2010 corrosion evaluation team of the F-22/F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, under the auspices of the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office.

Panelists included Deborah Peeler of the U.S. Air Force and Technical Leader of the F-22/F-35 evaluation team; Scott Fawaz, the team’s structural engineer and Vice President of Engineering at Avenger Aircraft and Services, David Robertson, Executive Secretary of the DoD Corrosion Office Technical Corrosion Collaboration, and Dick Kinzie, Chief Engineer of the DoD Corrosion Office.

Led by Army Research Laboratory (ARL) scientist Brian Placzankis and Ralph Adler, a retired ARL scientist, the Army spearheaded the technical program. NACE International, The Corrosion Society, served as conference presenter and facilities organizer, attracting a record number of exhibits since it began partnering with DoD to mount the conference in 2005. The technical program included symposia on corrosion and facilities management; corrosion modeling, fundamentals, detection, and sensors; and life cycle management. Other session topics included paints and coatings and their application processes, corrosion inhibitors, surface preparation, inorganic and metallic coatings, and corrosion-resistant metallic alloys.

On Monday, Dunmire presided over the forum involving the DoD Corrosion Prevention Integrated Product Team. Forum members were briefed by Corrosion Office officials about initiatives involving the Technical Corrosion Collaboration, the University of Akron National Center for Education and Research, and revisions to the DoD cost of corrosion and availability studies, among other technical and policy updates.

The next DoD Corrosion Conference will be held in Honolulu, Hawaii, from September 22-27, 2013.

Daniel Dunmire (right) presented Ralph Adler, a retired Army Research Lab scientist, with the inaugural Ralph P. Adler Achievement Award at the awards banquet on August 3. Photo by Diana Zalucky.



Kendall Named as Acting Defense Acquisition Chief

Senate Confirms Ashton Carter as Deputy Secretary of Defense


After the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Ashton B. Carter to the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense under Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta on September 23, Carter’s principal deputy, Frank Kendall, prepared to step into his shoes and serve as Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L).

In his former position as Carter’s principal deputy, Kendall oversaw the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The DoD Corrosion Office, directed by Daniel J. Dunmire, will continue to benefit from Kendall’s purview and guidance.

Kendall detailed six priorities in the memo that will guide him in his new role. His first priority includes a movement to support “rapid acquisition” of equipment to meet the urgent needs of forces engaged in Overseas Contingency Operations. Kendall also expressed an aim to keep programs “within affordable limits,”

improve efficiency by controlling and reducing program costs, “strengthening the industrial base” by offering incentives, and “driving fair business deals that protect the taxpayers’ interest.” Finally, Kendall stated his commitment to increasing the defense acquisition workforce and “making sound investments in the next generation of technologies through the nurturing of small businesses and maintenance of military installations.”

In his initial guidance memo to the AT&L workforce on October 7, Kendall noted that his priorities as acting defense acquisition chief were “tightly aligned” with principles expressed by Secretary of Defense Panetta, to “maintain the best military in the world” and to “take a balanced approach to achieving efficiencies” while also “keeping faith with our men and women in uniform.”

Kendall has more than 35 years of experience in engineering, management, defense acquisition, and national security affairs in private industry, government, and the military. He has been a consultant to defense industry firms, non-profit research organizations, and the Department of Defense in the areas of strategic planning, engineering management, and technology assessment.

Frank Kendall

Daniel J. Dunmire



Corrosion Office Booth Gets a Facelift to Highlight Education

By Chris Grethlein

Readers who attend one or more of the many defense- and technical-oriented conferences that are held each year in varying locales around North America may have seen one of the traveling displays from the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. As part of its mission to promote corrosion awareness within the defense and scientific communities, the Corrosion Office exhibits at a number of conferences each year.

Attendees at this summer’s DoD Corrosion Conference, the premier meeting for the military corrosion community, may have noticed that the Corrosion Office’s traveling display has a brand-new face. Gone are the striking images of weapons platforms and vital infrastructure, and in their place are pictures of people. Why the change? The reasons are many.

The Corrosion Office chooses a new theme for every DoD Corrosion Conference that reflects the current state of corrosion awareness within the defense community of interest, and also establishes the office’s primary area of focus for the coming biennium. One might ask, what thought process goes into creating each new design for the display?

Each design incorporates elements and images that together portray aspects of the new theme. Past themes have focused largely on corrosion policy and integrating the Services’ practices and procedures. This was appropriate as the Corrosion Office dedicated much of the past several years to bringing

together the knowledge and organic talents of the many researchers, technologists, and practitioners within the DoD, industry, and the universities for the benefit of all.

This year’s theme is education, which heralds both the Corrosion Community’s coming of age, as well as the future of corrosion prevention and control within the DoD. Because this theme is a departure from past years, so is the display’s new design. Past versions have highlighted mainly weapons systems and infrastructure to illustrate DoD assets that are most affected by corrosion.

Education, on the other hand, is all about people, and so all of the main images on the display are of the professionals who work every day to combat corrosion.

The current booth design and theme also reflects a key emphasis of the Corrosion Office and its DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team since 2005. Technology will always be an important tool in combating corrosion, but it is the people who take on this challenge who ultimately will make the real difference.

Corrosion Office Financial Manager Jody Tran-Le and Executive Assistant Donna Paulson staff the Office's new booth at the 2011 DoD Corrosion Conference near Palm Springs. Photo by Diana Zalucky.


Through the hard work of many dedicated individuals in government, industry, and academia, the DoD corrosion community now offers many educational and training opportunities: a Corrosion 101 course on the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) website, corrosion training through NACE International and SSPC—The Society for Protective Coatings, training courses within the Services, interactive games and simulations on the Internet, and the country’s first undergraduate degree program in Corrosion Engineering at the University of Akron.

Since 2005, the Corrosion Office has fielded one or more display booths that travel from conference to conference. Over the past several years, the office has maintained three different booths for use at conferences, exhibitions, workshops, and symposia: A 20-foot model that occupies two exhibit spaces, a 10-foot model that occupies one exhibit space, and a 6-foot compact display which mounts on a table top.

To keep its message current and fresh, the Corrosion Office redesigns the graphical presentation of its displays every two years. Each new version of the display debuts at the biennial DoD Corrosion Conference, and each booth redesign bears the theme of that year’s conference. The newest display was unveiled at this year’s meeting, held near Palm Springs, California, and is the fourth iteration of the display.

The theme of this year’s DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Display is education. Photo by Diana Zalucky.



Corrosion Conference Presentations Available Online

By Paul Chang

The DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office has developed a comprehensive strategy to confront the insidious effects of corrosion by raising awareness of corrosion costs and prevention programs throughout the armed forces. One of the office’s outreach venues is the DoD Corrosion Conference, held most recently near Palm Springs, California, from July 31-August 5.

The biennial DoD Corrosion Conference is the largest corrosion conference within DoD. In 2005, the meeting’s scope expanded from a focus on research and development to a focus on equipment, infrastructure, and policy designed to prevent corrosion. Participants from the military services, defense agencies, Coast Guard, NASA, academia, and industrial sectors convene at the biennial event, continuing a tradition established in 1967, the year of the first Tri-Service Corrosion Conference.

All luncheon presentations from the 2011 Corrosion Conference are now available at https://www.CorrDefense.org under the "Reference Library" tab. File names are listed according to the style: "2011 Corrosion Conference xxxxxxx." Presentations include briefings from the University of Akron president on the new National Center for Education and Research on Corrosion and Materials Performance; the NACE International executive director on education and certification support provided to DoD; the Corrosion Office deputy director on the new Technical Corrosion Collaboration; and 12 other topics of interest to the corrosion community.

Participants are also encouraged to access technical presentations from the conference symposia by visiting the NACE International archive and requesting a user name and password.

https://www.corrdefense.org/

http://web.nace.org/Departments/Events/Schedule.aspx?id=%7b4C470CC6-54F6-DF11-9C43-005056AC759B%7d

http://web.nace.org/Departments/Events/Schedule.aspx?id=%7b4C470CC6-54F6-DF11-9C43-005056AC759B%7d

u.s. coast guard wages war on corrosion -...

Documents