1. H HCAT Propeller Chrome Plate Replacement Program Edward Faillace - Steve Pasakarnis - Aaron Nardi Hamilton Sundstrand- Engineering August 29, 2001

2. H Program Milestones 4Fatigue Testing - completed April 2001 4Wear - completed April 2001 4Corrosion - completed January 2001 4TCLP - completed January 2001 4LPS Component Test 4Chrome plated - completed August 2001 WC-17Co - coating in process Full Scale Engine Test of P-3 Hub at HS - Feb. 2002 Original JTP Added Effort

3. H Proposed Follow-on Work Compression - Compression Fatigue –Recent spalling concerns prompted effort –Evaluate effect of compressive fatigue loading on HVOF coating –Funded this year by Navy under Component Improvement Program (CIP) Four Point Bend Testing –Evaluate test techniques for QC of coating application –Requested funding for FY 2002 Residual Stress Evaluation –Evaluate coating/substrate compressive residual stresses using MLRM, XRD and Hole-drill techniques –Correlate test specimen stresses to actual part stresses –Requested funding for FY 2002

4. H Summary Of Fatigue Test Results WC-Co exhibit no strength degradation on AISI 4340 HRC 40-44 WC-Co exhibit superior fatigue properties to both EHC and T-800 Shot peening had minimal effect on the fatigue strength of WC-Co and T-800 Unable to discern surface roughness effect due to final specimen condition WC-Co is more notch sensitive than T-800

5. H Peened Fatigue Data AISI 4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1

6. H Macro Cracking from Grinding Operation

7. H Unpeened and Notched Fatigue Data AISI 4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1

8. H

9. H

10. H

11. H

12. H

13. H

14. H

15. H HCAT Propeller Project- Wear Testing Aaron Nardi Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering

16. H Wear Testing Coating Types WC-Co WC-Co-Cr Tribaloy T-800 Chrome Plate (AMS 2406) Nickel Plate (AMS 2423) Counterfaces 4340 Steel Beryllium Copper Viton Seal Material 15% Glass filled PTFE Test Variables Contamination Oil Type (Mil-H-83282, Mil-H-87257) Stroke Length Load Surface Finish

17. H Wear Test Fixture Load Pin 3000 lb. capacity Spring Washers Pivots Coated Panel Specimen Flat Counter-face Specimens

18. H Wear Testing Results Coatings against Steel Counterfaces –Wear rates of steel specimens were comparable between EHC and WC-Co, but generally lower for T-800 –EHC and T-800 performed much poorer than WC-Co with respect to coating performance –Oil type had negligible effect on wear of steel specimens or coatings –Lower coating surface finishes produced less steel specimen wear –Oil contamination caused marco-spalling of EHC and T-800 in a dithering mode, WC-Co exhibited only a small spot of steel adhesion to the coating –All friction coefficients ranged from 0.1 - 0.15

19. H

20. H

21. H Dithering Tests With Steel Counterfaces in Contaminated Mil-PRF-83282 Hard Chrome PlateWC-17Co HVOFT-800 HVOF

22. H Wear Testing Results (contd) Coatings against Beryllium Copper Counterfaces –Copper specimens exhibited higher wear rates than steel due to poor lubrication of copper by the TCP anti-wear additives in the hydraulic oil –WC-Co far outperformed both EHC and T-800 in Beryllium Copper material wear and panel coating performance –Surface finish did not play a significant role in the wear performance of either coated panel or Beryllium Copper specimen –Contamination resulted in minor overall changes in Beryllium Copper specimen wear but resulted in a reduced performance of all coatings –Friction coefficients were generally higher than for the steel specimens, ranging from 0.1 - 0.2

23. H

24. H

25. H Stroking Tests With Copper Counterfaces in Clean Mil-PRF-83282 Hard Chrome PlateWC-17Co HVOFT-800 HVOF

26. H Wear Testing Results (contd) Coatings against Viton Counterfaces –Viton wear rates were generally similar between coatings but will be evaluated by wear step measurement. –Mil-PRF-87257 hydraulic oil increased the wear and the friction coefficient of the Viton specimens relative to the Mil-PRF-83282 baseline –Contamination had no effect on the WC-Co and had a slight effect on the EHC and T-800 –Dither tests exhibited higher friction coefficients than long stroking tests –Friction coefficients ranged from 0.1 - 0.3

27. H

28. H

29. H Wear Testing Results (contd) Coatings against Glass Filled PTFE Counterfaces –WC-Co-Cr out-performed EHN in both coating performance and PTFE specimen wear –Nickel exhibited moderate abrasion by the PTFE specimens in both contaminated and non-contaminated oil –PTFE specimens exhibited slightly more wear with contaminated oil than with clean oil. –Friction coefficients ranged from 0.04-0.05

30. H Dithering Tests With Glass Filled PTFE Counterfaces in Clean Mil-PRF-83282 Hard Nickel PlateWC-Co-Cr HVOF

31. H HCAT Propeller Project- Corrosion Testing Aaron Nardi Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering

32. H Corrosion Testing Salt Fog Corrosion Testing Per ASTM B117 –Coating Types Nickel Plate (AMS 2423) WC-Co WC-Co-Cr Tribaloy T-800 –Test Variables As Plated vs. Machined Coating Thickness

33. H Results From Corrosion Testing Nickel Plating was the overall top performer WC-Co-Cr was marginally the best HVOF coating In General, the thick coatings performed better than thin coatings Machined specimens generally performed worse than panels in the as coated condition.

34. H As Coated Nickel Corrosion Panels W-1, 8 days, 0.001 ThickW-6, 8 days, 0.005 Thick

35. H As Coated Tribaloy T-800 Corrosion Panels T-1, 5 days, 0.001 ThickT-2, 5 days, 0.001 ThickT-3, 5 days, 0.001 Thick

36. H As Coated WC-Co Corrosion Panels W-1, 12 days, 0.001 ThickW-2, 8 days, 0.001 ThickW-6, 20 days, 0.005 Thick

37. H As Coated WC-Co-Cr Corrosion Panels WCR-1, 20 days, 0.001 ThickWCR-2, 8 days, 0.001 ThickWCR-3, 8 days, 0.001 Thick

38. H HCAT Propeller Project- Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Aaron Nardi Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering

39. H Corrosion and TCLP Testing TCLP Testing –Evaluate environmental impact of powder disposal Unsprayed powder Sprayed Powder –Checks For Leaching of Heavy Metals Into Soil Chrome Nickel

40. H TCLP Testing Results Spent Material Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800) Virgin Powder Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800) NOT HAZARDOUS WASTE In Connecticut Would Be Considered Non- Hazardous Regulated Waste