AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Adminis tered by the Defense Information Sys tems Agency, Defense Technical Information Center

The United States military has recently tackled some tremendouschallenges, the most difficult of which being the global war on ter-rorism. Even while military operations are underway in Iraq andelsewhere, the Department of Defense (DOD) is directing some oftheir energies against other threats less obvious, but nonethelessharmful and insidious. By the encouragement of the Congress(through an amended federal law), the DOD is now waging waragainst corrosion. The DOD has embraced both the spirit andintent of the congressional action, and efforts are already underway.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has appointed a CorrosionExecutive to lead this initiative, and the Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD) has established within its organization the Office ofCorrosion Policy and Oversight. A formal policy requiring all pro-grams to develop and implement corrosion prevention and controlplans is being written. This policy will apply evenly to weapon sys-tems, support equipment, and infrastructure. OSD has chosen thisspecial issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly to announce the initiative.

Effectively mitigating and controlling corrosion on a Depart-ment-wide basis requires a new and innovative process; one thatinvolves all stakeholders. In the past, individual Defense programshave implemented an array of highly effective corrosion preventionand control (CPC) processes. Unfortunately, little has been done totransition the CPC technologies developed in support of a specificprogram (and their resulting benefits) to other applicable programs,oftentimes leaving program managers to “reinvent the wheel.” Thisway of doing business must change. If we can become proactive attransitioning technologies between programs, then the DOD willsee much greater returns on their acquisition investments. Makingour existing assets more impervious to corrosion’s effects can ulti-mately reduce maintenance costs, extend life (thus reducing repro-curement costs), and increase readiness. The support of all stake-holders is needed to make this strategy a reality.

Mitigating corrosion in existing systems is only part of the battle,as it only strives to manage the vulnerabilities inherent in these sys-tems. At the same time we must also endeavor to develop new sys-tems that are corrosion resistant. We can only achieve this throughimproved diligence on the part of Defense contractors. More rigor-

ous materials selection practices that stress upfront corrosion analy-ses are needed to make this happen. But the burden is not the con-tractors’ alone. The DOD has a responsibility to provide them withthe requirements to ensure rigor in their design practices. About tenyears ago the Pentagon’s Acquisition Reform initiative eliminatedmany standards, converted some to performance-based specifica-tions and others to commercial “equivalents.” Today a team is exam-ining various existing and rescinded corrosion-related specificationsand standards to identify elements that should be emphasized infuture contract requirements.

DOD also must provide the tools and information needed bydesigners so they can employ the best available technology. Fullyinformed materials selection decisions are needed to ensure adequatecorrosion resistance. Achieving this requires the DOD to providetechnical information directly to designers so they can quickly andcost effectively select the best available technologies. DOD hasalready invested untold millions in CPC technologies, but the dataaddressing these programs are difficult to obtain and use. Providingit directly through on-line expert systems is sure to enable realreform of current design practices.

Changing the current culture is a long-term proposition – onethat will be facilitated if we address the very root of the problem.Designers coming out of our universities do not have a fundamen-tal understanding of corrosion processes and prevention. TheAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) mustget involved and implement changes to college curricula that stressa more thorough understanding of materials selection and corrosionprevention and control. Increased sensitivity towards corrosion, cou-pled with improved access to DOD’s corrosion knowledgebase willhelp ensure future success.

The DOD has embraced the need to improve acquisition andsustainment practices by placing a focus on CPC, but truly solvingthis difficult problem requires all stakeholders to accept the need forchange. We must collectively change our culture to reflect thisincreased CPC emphasis. There certainly are some challenging timesahead, but I have no doubt that as the DOD corrosion preventionand control program evolves, readiness of our warfighting assets willimprove. As a consequence, our country will be in a better positionto defend against those who would like nothing more than todestroy our way of life.

David H. RoseAMPTIAC Director

Editorial: New DOD Policy Will Reduce the Cost of Corrosion

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology InformationAnalysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, administrativelymanaged by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 15,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to David H. RoseDirector, AMPTIAC315-339-7023

E M A I L : a m p t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o mU R L : http :/ / a m p t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

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

AMPTIACATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK201 Mill StreetRome, New York 13440

PHONE : 315 .339 .7008

FAX : 315 .339 .7107

E M A I L : a m p t i a c _ n ews @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

Editor-in-ChiefWade G. Babcock

Special Issue EditorChristian E. Grethlein, P.E.

Creative Director Cynthia Long

Information ProcessingJudy E. TallarinoPatricia McQuinn

Inquiry ServicesDavid J. Brumbaugh

Product SalesGina Nash

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 47

INTRODUCTIONThe Tri-Service Facilities Corrosion Working group (TSFCWG)is composed of Army, Navy, and Air Force experts with manyyears of combined corrosion control experience concerning allaspects of facilities components. Their corrosion preventionexpertise ranges from direct buried utility distribution systems,cathodic protection, waterfront structures, water treatment sys-tems, and a wide variety of coating applications. The group haschampioned the need to provide centrally funded corrosion con-trol training to all levels of facilities acquisition and maintenancepersonnel. Other problems addressed by the group include:eliminating poor contractor and acquisition performance,improving Tri-Service guidance criteria, ensuring the inclusionof corrosion control criteria in future system acquisition, andcentrally funding large scale corrosion control technologydemonstrations. The working group has also reviewed issuesrelated to the major DOD sectors, including aerospace systems/aerospace weapons, marine platforms and weapons systems, ground platforms and weapons systems, and facilities.

In addition to providing technical input to OSD, the grouphas developed and implemented a number of successful policyinitiatives and technology demonstrations at DOD facilitiesaround the world. Representative highlights of the group’s effortto implement corrosion control and prevention at DOD facili-ties are presented here.

AIR FORCE INITIATIVESEstablishing Corrosion Programs at Installations and FacilitiesIt is highly important that DOD installations have an in-housetechnical representative with a background in corrosion controlin order to adequately oversee corrosion control projects. TheTSFCWG is working to expand an Air Force instruction (a pro-cedural document) to establish corrosion control programs atinstallations.

The Air Force first pioneered a corrosion control instructionto delineate responsibilities and requirements for facility corro-sion control programs at major commands and bases. This

instruction applies to personnel involved in design, construc-tion, acquisition, operations, and maintenance of real propertyassets and installed equipment at installations and facilities. Theinstruction implements Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Occupa-tional Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations,and guidelines pertaining to corrosion control activities. It alsofollows selected industry standards published by NACEInternational (formerly National Association of CorrosionEngineers). The primary goals of the corrosion control programare to:• Develop and maintain dependable and long-lived structures,

equipment, plants, and systems.• Conserve energy.• Reduce costs due to corrosion, scale, and microbiological

fouling.• Ensure compliance with EPA, DOT, and OSHA regulations

and guidance, among others.

The program includes corrosion control by design and mate-rials selection, use of cathodic protection to eliminate electro-chemical reactions, and use of industrial water treatment toreduce corrosion, scale-forming deposits, and biological growthsin heating and cooling systems. The program also mandates theuse of protective coatings to reduce atmospheric corrosion,cathodic protection current requirements, and the analysis oflogs and records for failure prediction and selection of correctiveactions. It also dictates the incorporation of corrective actions inrepair and construction projects when corrosion, scale, or mate-rial deterioration is detected.

In-Situ Pipe Coating for Corrosion Control in Water Supply PipingSevere corrosion products and high metal concentrations werefound in the water of supply and distribution systems in a newDOD medical facility at an Air Force Base. The most seriousform of corrosion (iron corrosion) occurred in the unlined steel

Vincent Hock, Sean Morefield, Susan Drozdz, Michael McInerney,Dr. Charles Marsh, Dr. Larry Stephenson

Construction Engineering Research LaboratoryEngineer Research and Development Center

US Army Corps of Engineers

Nancy Coleal, Soloman WilliamsTechnical Support Directorate

Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency

Thomas J. TehadaDaniel A. Zarate

Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center

Corrosion Prevention and Control Success Stories Section III

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 448

water main leading to the Medical Facility. As a result, waterfrom most any fixture in the new building had some degree ofrust color to it as well as high levels of copper and lead. Despiteefforts to prevent corrosion by adding a zinc phosphate corro-sion inhibitor, some corrosion persisted because of low flow inportions of the system and a slightly acidic water supply.

A pipe coating was applied to the water distribution system insitu. Corrosion of the existing steel piping was minimal, thusnone needed to be replaced. The chosen solution for preventingadditional corrosion in the steel water main and cooling watersupply was to apply an epoxy coating on the interior of the steelpiping. (See Figure 1.) The epoxy coating formed a protectivebarrier to prevent the water from contacting the steel surface.

Non-Chemical Water Treatment TechnologyMost pieces of base equipment are susceptible to the deteriorat-ing effects of corrosion to some degree. Hardware that uses water

in one form or anotherare particularly at risk –heat exchangers, boilers,steam pipes, water pipes,pumps, tanks, and oth-ers. One of the moreeffective ways to preventcorrosion is to pre-treatthe water to removesome of the more corro-sive chemical and bio-logical components.There are a number of

ways to treat water to remove these contaminants; both chemi-cal and non-chemical. Non-chemical water treatment technolo-gy has been in use since the 1930s. Lack of reproducible resultsand company secret performance characteristics have preventedengineers from specifying non-chemical technology in standardgovernment contract documents. Government-wide downsizingand reduced expertise at installations have resulted in programmanagers seeking new methods and technologies to ensure mis-sion success. This initiative provides a model measurement andverification procedure for evaluating the technology’s perform-ance under Energy Savings Performance Contracting.

The method focuses on a specific model procedure recom-mended for the measurement and verification of non-chemicaltechnology. Four objectives are sought in this model procedure:water conservation, energy conservation, pollution prevention(reduction in chemical use and disposal of chemically treatedwater), and equipment life extension (Figure 2).

ARMY INITIATIVESRobotic Inspection for Corrosion Condition Assessment ofUnderground Storage TanksNationwide it is estimated that there are more than 300,000metallic underground storage tanks (USTs). Replacing all agingand failing USTs would be prohibitively expensive. One alterna-tive is to retrofit existing USTs with cathodic protection for continued use. However, there is a need for more cost-effectiveand reliable UST condition assessment methods in order to support better informed management decisions.

To meet this need, a remote robotic UST condition inspec-tion/assessment system named “Fury” was developed and is currently undergoing field testing and validation. (See Figure 3.)Fury enters the UST through an existing opening (4 inch diam-eter minimum) and navigates using magnetic wheels to accessvirtually a tank’s entire interior. A sensor sled takes multiple(approximately 90,000 per hour) ultrasonic thickness measure-ments while in motion, and relays the readings along with position information to a computer. In its final form Fury isintended for immersion into fuel, thus allowing no interruptionof normal operations.

In addition to providing a non-destructive evaluation toolwhich delivers considerably more quantitative data compared toexisting assessment technologies, a Fury UST inspection is alsoa significantly faster alternative compared to pumping the tankdry and preparing it for human entry and inspection. An equal-ly important benefit is the avoidance of the expense and dangerassociated with confined space entry.

Fury was developed by the US Army Engineer Research andDevelopment Center’s Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratory (ERDC-CERL) in con-junction with RedZone Robotics,Inc., of Pittsburgh, PA. The effortwas funded by the Small BusinessInnovation Research Program(SBIR), the Environmental SecurityTechnology Certification Program(ESTCP) and the Army PetroleumCenter.

Electro Osmotic Pulse Technologyfor Preventing Water Intrusion intoBelow Grade SpacesIntruding water in below-ground concrete structures, such asbasements, raises the interior relative humidity thereby acceler-ating the corrosion rate of mechanical equipment in the area andcreating unacceptable air quality due to the rapid growth of bac-teria and mold. Structural damage can also result from chronicwater seepage through floors and walls. (Water causes corrosionof steel reinforcement, cracks concrete walls, and erodes mortar.)

Concrete is subject to moisture intrusion, primarily due to the hydraulic pressure on the water. Conventional solutions tomoisture control in below-grade structures may be grouped intoeither positive-side or negative-side waterproofing. (Positiverefers to waterproofing that is applied to the outside [wet] faceof a buildings substructure, and negative is applied to the inside[dry] face of the buildings substructure.) Both positive- and neg-

Figure 1. Potable Water Pipe Before and After In-Situ Coating.

Figure 2. Electrostatic Water Treatment.

Figure 3. FURY RoboticInspection Tool.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 49

ative-side methods consist of coatings and membrane barriers.Some common materials used in positive-side waterproofinginclude bentonite clay, modified bitumen sheets, liquid appliedmembranes (LAMs), built-up bituminous membranes, prefabri-cated elastomeric sheets, prefabricated thermoplastic sheets, andcementitious or crystalline coatings. Some common materialsused in negative-side waterproofing include crystalline coatings,cementitious coatings with metallic oxides, and cementitiouscoatings with various densifying additives. When applied aseither initial construction or as a retrofit solution, both positive-and negative-side waterproofing methods generally have highinstallation costs and a short lifespan; failures are mostly due todesigner error, negligent construction practices, and defectivematerials. Additionally, some urban areas have restrictions thatlimit or prevent the application of some types of coatings as theypresent an environmental hazard due to their constituent volatilechemicals.

Both positive- and negative-side waterproofing techniquesrequire drainage, where a drain tile system is installed around thebase of the foundation to divert or remove water. Positive-sidedrainage usually fails within 10 years due to clogging and break-age of the tiles. If a sump pump is employed, it requires routinemaintenance and is subject to failure.

A basic waveform of the electro-osmotic pulse (EOP) tech-nique consists of a positive voltage pulse (as seen from the dryside of the concrete), a negative voltage pulse, and a period ofzero voltage. Figure 4 illustrates an example waveform. The ver-tical scale in this figure is 10 volts/division and the horizontalscale is 1 second/division. The positive voltage pulse has thelongest interval and the negative voltage pulse has the shortestinterval. The amplitude of the signal is typically between 20 and40 Volts DC (VDC). The positive electrical pulse causes the pos-itive ions and associated water molecules to move from theanode (interior or dry side) towards the cathode (exterior or wetside), against the direction of flow induced by the hydraulic gradient, thus preventing water penetration through the struc-ture. One of the most critical aspects of this technology is thenegative voltage pulse (polarity reversal). Note that the negativepulse is of very short duration as compared to the positive pulse.During the time of the negative pulse the water flowsin the opposite direction. This allows some moistureto be retained in the application matrix between theanode and cathode, thus preventing overdrying ofthe material and maintaining the structural integrityof the matrix. Another advantage of the short nega-tive pulse is the reversal in the chemical reactions atthe electrodes (the anode becomes the cathode for aninstant and vice versa). This eliminates electrodepolarization, and guarantees that the system will con-tinue to operate efficiently.

An EOP system is installed by inserting anodes(positive electrodes) into the wall or floor on theinside of the structure and by placing cathodes (negative electrodes) in the soil directly outside thestructure. The number of anodes and cathodes and their placement is determined from an initialelectrical resistivity test of the material and soil. The

objective is to achieve a certain current density and thus create anelectric field strength in the material sufficient to overcome theforce exerted on the water molecules by the hydraulic gradientfrom outside the structure.

Note the asymmetric dual polarity pulsed power supply(Figure 4). This waveform is a significant advancement over theconstant direct current (DC) waveform that has been used in thepast. By combining EOP with standard crack and defect repairtechniques, EOP can solve the problems of active water intru-sion (for example, due to a high water table) and saturation (forexample, caused by rising damp vertical flow of water through apermeable wall) caused by the hydrologic pressure of the groundwater table, causing the water to permeate through capillaryaction. In the case of a repaired crack or void, EOP can extendthe life of the repair by controlling the amount of water reach-ing the repair material. Because EOP technology works withinthe material itself, it is the only method of preventing risingdamp and water infiltration though floor slabs.

Moisture intrusion into below-grade and on-grade structuresthat causes “damp basements” is a common and costly mainte-nance problem. In older buildings, where the exterior water-proofing has either completely deteriorated or was neverinstalled, severe “damp-basement” problems can ruin expensiveequipment (e.g., Heating Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning[HVAC] equipment), can increase maintenance requirements(e.g., frequent repainting or cleaning to combat mold growth),and can make affected areas uninhabitable or even unusable(e.g., by causing poor air quality).

Groundwater intrusion through a building’s foundation thatcauses such damage requires immediate action. In problemareas, the usual approach is to “trench and drain,” that is, exca-vate to expose the wall area and the base of the foundation, andthen to replace damp-proofing on the wall surface and to installa drain tile system around the building or affected area. Thisprocess is expensive and can be further complicated by the factthat most contractors limit their warrantees against future seep-age in areas with high water tables. Any interior application thatcan mitigate some of the water-related problems will save thecost, inconvenience, and disruption of excavation.

Figure 4. General Schematic of EOP Operation.

Cathode - Copper GroundRod Embedded in Soil 3 to 6 Feet From Basement Wall

Soil Side ofBasement Wall

Basement Wall Cross Section

Inside Surfaceof BasementWall

Anode - MortaredInto BasementWall and/or Floor

Volts

Cations

Water

Pulsed DC Power Supply

(+)(–)

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 450

The EOP technology installed in a facility at Fort Jackson, SCsuccessfully prevented water seepage and reduced the relativehumidity of the concrete to 70 percent (Figure 5). The cost ofinstallation has been determined to be 40 percent lower than thecost of the conventional “trench and drain” approach. The oper-ating, or energy cost, of the EOP system is negligible – aboutthat of continuously burning a 60W light bulb.

Previous to the installation of the EOP system at Fort Jackson,the basement mechanical room contained approximately$275,000 in hot water equipment to support the barracks.Accelerated corrosion due to the high moisture environmentseverely shortened the lifetime of this equipment, forcing its pre-mature replacement, sometimes as short as two years. Because ofthis successful demonstration, two additional water tanks havebeen added, increasing the value of the equipment to over$500,000.

EOP technology has a low maintenance cost, contributes tolow cost of ownership per year and to long system lifetime. EOPtechnology is a much less intrusive repair technology than con-ventional methods. It is an environmentally sound solutionwhen compared to many alternative coating systems high involatile organic compounds. Because EOP is capable of acting asa negative side waterproofing technique, and because it workswithin the porous material itself, the technology may be espe-cially effective when applied to counteract water seepage causedby rising damp.

EOP is an innovative technology that can mitigate mostwater-related problems from the interior of affected areas with-out the cost of excavation. By lessening water seepage throughconcrete, masonry, and stone walls and floors, indoor humidityis reduced, thereby alleviating corrosion damage to mechanicalequipment, reducing or eliminating mold problems, andenhancing indoor air quality.

New Environmentally Friendly Water Treatment for CorrosionPrevention in Heating and Cooling SystemsDeveloping up-to-date selection criteria for chemicals whichpromote corrosion inhibition, as well as accomplish all conven-tional water treatment requirements is essential. Only throughthe development of such a process will DOD installations

become “smart buyers” of new and existing heating and coolingsystems. This includes central plant heating and cooling systems,and building HVAC systems. Specifically, treatment for coolingtowers, steam boilers, condensate return systems, and closedheating and cooling systems needs to be addressed.Manufacturers continue to introduce new corrosion controlchemicals and treatment programs for steam, condensate andchill water systems onto the market, and old products have beendiscontinued, creating a need to inform DOD installations ofthe effectiveness of available treatment technologies.

The lack of current and consistent guidelines has resulted inpoor control of water treatment at many facilities, and subse-quently reduced system reliability and efficiency. There have alsobeen increased maintenance costs due to premature failure ofsystems and components.

There have been a significant number of new corrosion control chemical formulations introduced in the last severalyears, most notably in the areas of: 1) phosphonates and phos-phonate alternatives and new, highly effective polymers for scaleinhibition, and 2) microbiocides for inhibition of bacteria andalgae. There has been an increased interest and emphasis onenvironmentally friendly chemicals. The term “environmentallyfriendly” refers to the environmental persistence of the chemicaland the measure of environmental impact from the time ofcompound production to the time of disposal of the spentchemical mixture.

Steam condensate containing dissolved carbon dioxideand/or oxygen can cause severe corrosion of the return line sys-tem. Carbon dioxide is introduced into the system by thermaldecomposition of the natural carbonate and bicarbonate in thewater. The carbon dioxide travels from the boiler with thesteam and, once dissolved in the condensate, forms the weak,but destructive carbonic acid. Oxygen also enters the system inthe makeup water or by air infiltration. The combination ofcarbon dioxide and oxygen will result in the rapid destructionof the steam condensate return system. (See Figure 6) Abiodegradable, vegetable-based filming inhibitor based onethoxalyated soya amines was formulated. The film forms abarrier to protect the return lines from the corrosive effects ofthe condensate. These new formulations are highly effective for

Figure 5. Building 3265, Fort Jackson, South Carolina (Before and After) EOP System Installation.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 51

microbiological, corrosion, and mineral scale control.Some of the most promising of these green corrosion

inhibitors, such as the new ethoxalyated soya amines, have beendemonstrated in steam condensate systems at Ft. Stewart and Ft.Hood. The Ft. Hood DPW has fully implemented the treatmentprogram for condensate systems. This technology could save theDOD millions of dollars by preventing premature replacementof condensate lines due to corrosion.

Remote Monitoring of Water Storage Tank Cathodic Protection SystemsCathodic protection is used to prevent internal corrosion ofpotable water storage tanks by applying a negative potential tothe structure from an external source. Cathodic protection (CP)systems for water storage tanks must be periodically tested inorder to ensure proper performance. Remote monitoring units(RMUs, as seen in Figure 7) provide the ability to monitor CPsystem performance data from remote locations using modem-

equipped personalcomputers. RMUsallow continuous mon-itoring of CP systemsfrom a central location,and will provide per-sonnel with immediatewarning of potentialcorrosion hazards.These units are avail-able as a commercialoff-the-shelf technolo-gy in the $500 to$1000 price range.

The technology has been implemented at Ft. Hood, a verylarge installation with 8 potable water storage tanks and manymiles of piping that use ceramic-coated anode, cathodic protec-tion systems. ERDC-CERL determined RMU requirements forCP systems on two potable water storage tanks at Ft. Hood, anddeveloped performance specifications based on a site visit inDecember 2000. In July 2001, ERDC-CERL installed twoRMUs on water storage tanks of 1.5 and 2 million gallon capac-ities. The units remotely monitor the cathodic protection sys-tem’s current and “instant-on” and “instant-off ” potentials,which are displayed at the utility control system administrator’soffice. Procurement specifications were developed, and trainingwas provided to Ft. Hood staff on operation and maintenance ofthese systems. Based on the success of these units, ERDC-CERLis in the process of implementing this technology at two similarwater tanks at Ft. Carson, CO.

The primary benefit of remote monitoring is ensuring protec-tion of facility assets. Additionally, the implementation of theRMUs saves the cost of traveling to remote sites to check each

rectifier, and they add the capability of instant notification whenthere is a malfunction in the cathodic protection system. Withthe implementation of remote monitoring, tank life is expectedto be extended by 20 years.

NAVY INITIATIVESHigh Performance Waterfront Maintenance CoatingsWaterfront structures are particularly susceptible to corrosiveattack, as seen in Figure 8. A typical waterfront coatings systemis an epoxy system topcoated with an aliphatic polyurethane andfor immersion service, coal tar epoxy is still a preferred system.Other coating systems havebeen developed that showpromise for much longerlife cycles (up to twice aslong) thereby reducing lifecycle costs of the structure.Up to 80% to 90% of thetotal cost for a coatingsproject is surface prepara-tion and application.Coating maintenance onwaterfront structures inimmersion service is very expensive and historically has notoccurred due to lack of funding. By extending the service life ofthe protective coating then the service life of the structure will beextended. Investigations will include ambient temperature cured(ATC) coatings.

Heat Resistant Pavements and Joint SealantsThe Navy needs heat resistant pavements to withstand the hightemperatures of VSTOL and similar aircraft which direct high-temperature jet exhaust downward. Some success has beenobtained with lightweight concrete pavements. Alumina andmagnesia based refractory (heat resistant) concretes have beentested in the past, but have also had limited success at very hightemperatures. Newer, very high temperature zirconia, yttria andspinel based refractories (and composites of inorganic boridesand nitrides) should also be tested and evaluated because of theirmuch higher thermal resistance properties.

Airfield pavements for high temperature VSTOL aircraftrequire flexible pavement joint sealants that can withstand temperatures from 300°F to more than 800°F. A recent demon-stration/validation (DEMVAL) project indicated that severalmaterials are stable to 500°F and a few at 600°F (for short periods of time). However, newer commercial elastomers (prin-cipally fluorinated polymers) are being developed for aerospaceapplications that may be stable at temperatures of 700°F orhigher. The proposed advanced technology development program (6.3) would allow testing and validation of these materials for high temperature airfield pavement use.

Research and Development to Increase Fly Ash Concentrations in Concrete up to 30%Under the RPM DEMVAL Program, the Navy FacilitiesEngineering Service Center (NFESC) has completed a 3-yearproject to demonstrate construction of Navy concrete facilities

Figure 6. Groove in Steam Condensate ReturnLine Due to Corrosion and Improper WaterTreatment.

Figure 7. Remote Monitoring Unit (RMU) forCathodic Protection Systems.

Figure 8. Improved Coatings areNeeded to Extend the Design Lifetimeof New Waterfront Structures.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 452

using up to 30 percent fly ash as a partial replacement toPortland cement. The technology promises many benefitsincluding:• Improved long term durability.• Improved workability of fresh concrete.• Lower construction costs.• Reduction in cement production thereby reducing CO2 emis-

sions, one of the gasses involved in global warming. • Use of fly ash constitutes affirmative procurement of recovered

materials as directed by EPA.

Material Savings Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of concreteare used annually in Naval construction. Use of 30% fly ashallows an immediate reduction in the material cost of concreteby $5 per cubic yard, for an annual savings in Naval construc-tion of $305,000. The fly ash (HVFA) concrete is expected tohave twice the life of ordinary concrete. Subsequently, doublingthe life will halve the replacement cost of concrete in Naval con-struction for an annual cost savings of $9,500,000. Note thatthese are material savings only, and do not include operationalsavings that will result through reduction in disruption in oper-ations during replacement of facilities. Savings are assumed tobegin in year four at the conclusion of the demonstration andvalidation of the HVFA concrete and continue for the next 17years. In fact, annual savings will continue to accrue into thefuture. Projected onto a national level, the savings are estimatedto be greater than $1 billion per year.

Epoxy Coated RebarSteel reinforcement corrosion is the most common form of dete-rioration in marine concrete structures and often results in thespending of millions of dollars to repair damage to a single pier.The use of epoxy-coated rebar (Figure 10) to delay the onset ofrebar corrosion has been a popular choice since it was introducedin 1973. However, it was not until NFESC developed a User’sGuide for Epoxy-coated Prefabrication Steel Reinforcing Bars inMarine Concrete, A Naval Facilities Guide Specification, andthe acceptance of a new ASTM standard (A-934A) that standardpractices were established. The epoxy-coated rebar technology isthe result of NFESC research in affiliation with the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM). This is just oneexample of how addressing a DOD infrastructure problem canhave a national impact.

CONCLUSIONSThe initiatives pioneered by members of the Tri-Service FacilitiesCorrosion Control Working Group have made significant con-tributions to maintain DOD facilities and infrastructure. Thegroup has worked hard to bring the best practices of corrosioncontrol from industry to the DOD, as well as validate their in-house research and development products at DOD facilities, toplot a path forward in corrosion control. Tri-Service representa-tion on the working group is helping to ensure the broadest pos-sible transfer of corrosion prevention and control, as they relateto facilities and infrastructure, between the Army, Navy, AirForce, and Marine Corps.

Figure 9. A Joint US Navy, Army and Air Force Study InvestigatedSeverity of Alkali Silica Reactions and Recommended Methods ofMitigation.

Figure 10. Epoxy Coated Rebar in Pier Construction.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 7, Number 4 53

The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) provides corrosion prevention and controlexpertise to the US Army Corps of Engineers worldwide. ERDC corrosion control experts, and the chemists atthe ERDC Paint Technology Center provide technical assistance to Corps activities through R&D, technical con-sultation, training, failure analysis, and contract and design review.

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at ERDC are:

Mr. Vincent F. Hock, Corrosion Technical Expert217.373.6753, vincent.f.hock@erdc.usace.army.mil

Ms. Susan A. Drozdz, Chemist, Paint Technology Center217.373.6767, susan.a.Drozdz@erdc.usace.army.mil

The Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA), Tyndall AFB, Florida provides Air Force policy, guid-ance and technical support in the areas of cathodic protection, protective coatings, industrial water treatment,and non-destructive testing for corrosion control.

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at AFCESA are:

Ms. Nancy Coleal, Air Force Facility Corrosion Control Engineer850.283.6215, nancy.coleal@tyndall.af.mil

Mr. Soloman Williams, Air Force Industrial Water Treatment Program Manager, Boiler/Unfired PressureVessel Inspection Program Manager, and a certified Level 2 Cathodic Protection Techniciansol.williams@tyndall.af.mil

www.afcesa.af.mil

The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) is the home for many of the Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command (NAVFAC) specialized experts who provide world-wide technical support to Navyfield activities and other customers. Public Works Technical Consultants are individuals and organizations rec-ognized as having the technical ability and resources to best provide unique technical expertise to the Navyshore establishment. Corrosion control expertise is provided by the technical consultants for “Paints andProtective Coatings” and “Cathodic Protection/Corrosion” for Naval shore installations.

The primary points of contact for Corrosion Control at NFESC are:

Mr. Daniel A. Zarate, SSPC Protective Coatings Specialist, NACE Certified Coating Inspector NAVFAC Paints and Protective Coatings Technical Expert805.982.1057, zarateda@nfesc.navy.mil

Mr. Thomas Tehada, PE, NAVFAC Cathodic Protection/Corrosion Technical Expert808.472.1254, tehadatj@nfesc.navy.mil

answers materials engineering questions

C A L L : 315-339-7090E M A I L : a m p t i a c _ i n q u i r i e s @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

O R

V I S I T : http : / / a m p t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m / H e l p / i n q u i r y . h t m l

AMPTIAC