air force sustainment centerafcpo.com/assets/stamey-corrosion-impacts-with-the-afsc...kevin stamey,...
Post on 07-Aug-2020
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Air Force Sustainment Center
Corrosion Impacts
within the
Air Force Sustainment Center
Kevin Stamey, SESDirector, Engineering & Technical Management
AFSC/EN
6 June 2017DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Introduction
2
Impact of Corrosion to the Air Force
AFSC Goals for corrosion cost reductions
▪ Reduce/eliminate Hazardous Materials risks
and costs
▪ Ensure product quality through
collaboration, when updating T.O.
▪ Resolve engineering dispositions faster
Conclusion
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 3
Reference: Estimated Impact of
Corrosion on Cost & Availability
of DOD Weapon Systems –
FY17 Draft report
Air Force has highest
aviation & missiles
Study Segment Corrosion Cost
($ million)
Air Force aviation and missiles 5,325
Navy and Marine Corps aviation
and missiles
3,021
Army aviation and missiles 625
Other:
Navy vessels 3,849
Navy other equipment 1,178
Army ground vehicles 797
Army other equipment 450
Marine Corps ground vehicles 593
Air Force other equipment 213
Infrastructure and facilities 2,991
TOTAL DoD 19,042
Corrosion Cost = $5.3 Billion
Impact of Corrosion
to the Air Force
AFSC’s Corrosion:
Cost = $1.75 billion
Non-avail Hrs = 1.17 million hrs
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 4
Air Force Aviation and Missile
Total Maintenance and Corrosion Costs:
Total Corrosion Cost increased by 42% between FY06 & FY15
Reference:
Estimated Impact
of Corrosion on
Cost & Availability
of DOD Weapon
Systems – FY17
Draft report
Impact of Corrosion
to the Air Force
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 5
AF Aviation and Missile Corrosion Maintenance Actions -
Non-Available Hrs (NAHs)
Preventive Actions
Top 3 Maintenance Actions:
• Inspect/Test
• Clean & Wash
• Treat
are low cost maintenance that
eliminate higher cost
replacement/repair actions
Impact of Corrosion
to the Air Force
Reference: Estimated Impact of
Corrosion on Cost & Availability of DOD
Weapon Systems – FY17 Draft report
Maintenance
Actions
Corrosion
NAHs
Focus on safer, better performing products and processes to
protect weapon systems and reduce field/depot maintenance
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
AFSC’s Goals for Cost Effective Readiness
during Corrosion Protection/Prevention:
▪ Reduce/eliminate
Hazardous Materials
risks and costs
▪ Ensure product quality
through collaboration,
when updating T.O.
▪ Resolve engineering
dispositions faster
AFSC’s Goals for
Corrosion Cost Reduction
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 7
AFSC has authority to
manage bottom 3 levels
in protecting workers
from the HazMat during
corrosion protection &
prevention activities.
AFNWC and AFLCMC
has authority to address
top 2 levels with T.O.
change.
Most
Effective
Less
Effective
Weapon System Engineers are key to the most effective
method of addressing Hierarchy of Controls
Cost of HazMat
Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 8
Hrs Task
1.5 Don & Doff PPE (Work Force)
HazMat housekeeping &
paperwork (Support)
0.5 Housekeeping per Expanded
Standards
(regulations/requirements)
1.0 Lunch and breaks
4.5 Actual Production Work
0.5 Clean up at end of shift &
changing out processes
8.0 HOURS TOTAL
25% of
workday is
spent on
HazMat
related
activities
8-hours workday in Paint Hangar:
Required Maintenance Effort
Cost of HazMat
Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention
SOURCE: 569 AMXS/MXDPA
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 9
Different PPEs for different jobs in Paint Hangar at Tinker:Required Maintenance Effort
Cost of HazMat
Assoc. with Corrosion Prevention
Source: 566 AMXS/MXDVA
Working in PPE is
slow and difficult.
Either substitute
hazardous materials
Ex: Cr-free product
Or remove the worker
from the threat
Ex: robotic laser
depaint
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Request DOEs
and Program
Offices
participate in
HMR GB and IPT
Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous
Materials costs and risks
10
Addressing HazMat Reduction:
1) Established HazMat Reduction Governance Board (HMR GB) to
take an enterprise approach in addressing reduction initiatives and
proliferation opportunities across AFLCMC, AFNWC and AFSC.
HMR GB Membership
AFSC/EN (Co-Chair)
AFLCMC/EN (Co-Chair)
AFNWC/EN (Co-Chair)
AFRL/RX
AFTC/CA
AFMC/A4 Tech Dir
AFMC/SGPB
AFMC/EN Tech Dir
AFSC/EN Tech Dir
OC-ALC/EN Tech Dir
OO-ALC/EN Tech Dir
WR-ALC/EN Tech Dir
448 SCMW/EN Tech Dir
USAF HQ/AQR
HMR IPT MembershipAFSC/EN OL-HILL (Co-Chair)AFNWC/NI ESOH (Co-Chair)AFLCMC/WNV (Co-Chair)AFLCMC/EZPAFRL/RXS (Materials)AFTC Tech Advisor (412 TENG) AFMC/A4FUSAFSAM/OE
OO-ALC, OC-ALC, and WR-ALC Production Engineering
OO-ALC, OC-ALC, and WR-ALC ESOH Representatives
72 ABW, 75 ABW, and 78 ABW ESOH Representatives
448 SCMW EngineeringAFSC/ENSAFCEC/CZTQAFSC/SESAF/AQRE
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous
Materials costs and risks
11
Addressing HazMat Reduction:
2) Developed AFSC Logistics Sustainment Enterprise Roadmap
(LSE) 2040 for Attribute #3 – Safety and Environmental Excellence:
• Identify and track initiatives, focused on reducing and eliminating
HazMat and establishing safer engineering controls and
technologies.
• Assess proliferation opportunities of proven alternatives to like
processes across other weapon systems and ALCs.
Safety and Environmental Excellence
Requires Program Office support to be successful
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous
Materials costs and risks
12
Addressing HazMat Reduction:
3) Developed the HazMat Matrix: Data-driven prioritization of
enterprise-level HazMat reduction efforts, based on ESOH,
production impact, and alternative technology assessment
• First iteration identified 16 chemicals of concern to focus on.
Currently modifying the HazMat Matrix Process.
• Collaboration is needed to evaluate tools and processes to tie
HazMat data in EESOH-MIS with DOEHRS, IPIMS and other
key databases to easily do data mining
Request Program Offices’ support in
identifying/prioritizing HazMat reduction opportunities that
will minimize ESOH risk and cost for weapon systems.
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 13
Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous
Materials costs and risks
Focus in the next 2 years:
• Link chemicals to
product and processes
• Evaluate usage &
reduction
• Revise Matrix Process
• Improve data
accessibility &
consistency
Highlighted (in orange) are
materials used in paints, sealants,
cleaners and strippers.
Identified Chemicals
of Concern –
HAZMAT MATRIX
Occ Health
Combined
Effects
Inhalation
Risk
Safety
Rating
Isocyanates 11 16 0
Chrome Plate Soln 11 15 0
Chrome coating, spray 10 15 3
NMP 8 20 0
n-Hexane 8 20 0
Phenol 8 20 0
Ethylene Glycol 8 9 0
Hydrofluoric Acid 7 20 0.5
Ethyl Benzene 7 20 0
MeCl 6 20 0
MEK 6 20 0
Toluene 6 20 0
Xylene 6 20 0
Cad coating, abrasion 6 15 3
Lead 6 5 0
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 5 20 0
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 14
Lbs of Hex Chrome used in the AF
Primers 55,792.89
Adhesives/Sealants 9,187.11
Chrome Plating 5,312.5
Coatings Removal/Cleaners 1,544
Coatings & Topcoats 1,499.39
Conversion Coatings 576.33
Sealers 159.98
Total lbs 74,072.2
Hexavalent Chrome (Cr6+): ESOH’s highest priority is eliminating (Cr6+),
as it’s a toxic carcinogen, with highest exposure risk during application and
removal of chromate coatings, when Cr6+ may be inhaled.
REFERENCE: Cr6+ Usage in the AF: July 2014 - July 2015
SERDP/ESTCP special study “Advanced Coatings 5-year Strategy and
Roadmap”, championed by Dr. Robin Nissan, Weapon Systems and
Platforms Program Manager (Sept 2015)
Request participation at Cr6+
Technical Interchange Meeting• AFLCMC/EZP hosted
• San Antonio, TX, 12-14 Sep 17
• Discuss test results and
Strategy Forward
Reduce/Eliminate Hazardous
Materials costs and risks
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 15
Ensure Product Quality through
Collaboration Work, when Updating T.O.
When updating T.O. with safer alternatives that perform
equal or better than current products:
• Collaborate and reduce duplicate testing
• Standardized requirements – 1 common process and
1 quality product across all aircraft -- easier for
depot to manageEx: AF-wide proliferation and standardization opportunities
with recent update to T.O. 35-1-3 Corrosion Prevention
and Control, Cleaning, Painting, and Marking of USAF
Ground Support Equipment authorizing non-chrome
primer.
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
EXAMPLE: B-52 Iterative 202s Corrosion-related:
Corrosion 202s FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17
Total 202s 60 82 125 60
Iterative* 22 (37%) 42 (51%) 51 (39%) 14 (23%)
16
• Counts may not include many 202s where corrosion is found during ASIP inspections
(e.g. Sculpted Skin, Splice plates, 538 Lower Longeron box)
Resolve Engineering
Dispositions Faster
▪ 202s related to corrosion require multiple communications between
MX and engineer
▪ First attempted blend may not completely remove corrosion,
requires additional analysis after each maintenance action
▪ Damage/location varies on each occurrence
2015 B-52 Study indicated components with iterative corrosion-related 202s,
such as the R/H 538 Lower Longeron Box & 805 Splice Plates have some of
the longest resolution times
• Iterative count includes repeats and resubmits
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Addressing Iterative 202s:SPO continually improving 202
process/procedures to reduce iterative 202s
▪ Designated Engineering Authority
(DEA) reviews historical 202s
▪ DEA Pre-analyzes typical corrosion
locations
▪ DEA on-site to verify corrosion removal
and authorize resolution
▪ Roughly 25% iterative 202s eliminated
since implemented
▪ Need to evaluate digital real-time tools
17
Resolve Engineering
Dispositions Faster
Corrosion Examples: Upper longeron
chord on the lower longeron box just
behind the side segment
Process has improved, but still significant opportunity to reduce
schedule related to iterative engineering dispositions for corrosion
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Opportunities for Industry
18
Digital real-time tools (video) for 202 communication
➢ Improve real-time collaboration
Qualifications of safer, effective non-Hazardous
Materials for paint and depaint processes
➢ Reduce HazMat risks and costs
➢ Ex: Effective depaint process for non-Chrome coating system
Better engineering controls and more comfortable
PPEs to protect the workers during paint and depaint
processes
➢ Allow personnel to meet the mission more effectively and
efficiently
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Summary
19
Air Force has highest Corrosion Cost in DoD
Focus on improving Preventive Corrosion Actions
with safer, better performing products and processes
to protect weapon systems
Request collaboration among AFLCMC, AFNWC, and
AFSC to accomplish these Goals:
▪ Reduce/eliminate HazMat risks and costs
▪ Ensure product quality through collaboration,
when updating T.O.
▪ Resolve engineering dispositions faster
Air Force Sustainment Center
Corrosion Impacts
within the
Air Force Sustainment Center
Kevin Stamey, SESDirector, Engineering & Technical Management
AFSC/EN
6 June 2017
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 21
Backup Slides
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Corroded C-130 Aft Fuselage
Skins and Ring Segment
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Hexavalent Chrome Reduction
23
AFRL Non-Chrome Coating Testing Type of Testing
MIL-PRF-32239 Qualification Testing
Outdoor Corrosion Testing Qualification Testing
MIL-PRF-32239 (Skydrol Resistance) Qualification Testing
Cure Time Process Integration Testing
Reparability Process Integration Testing
Stress Corrosion Protection Process Integration Testing
Chemical Stripper Removability (OC-ALC) SOCCER Testing
Low IR SOCCER Testing
Sealant Paintability SOCCER Testing
Outdoor Exposure Testing over Mg SOCCER Testing
Reparability of Lazer Stripped Panels SOCCER Testing
Chemical Stripper Removability (Gloss Topcoat) SOCCER Testing
Field Aged Chemical Stripper (C-5) SOCCER Testing
Flamability Testing SOCCER Testing
Composite Compatibility Additional Testing Identified
Investigating C-130 Maxwell Issues Additional Testing Identified
Status of non-chrome coating
systems for Outer-Mold Line:
- Implementation (2): F-15
- Currently field testing (5):
F-16, C-130, KC-135, E-3,
HH-60
- Plans to field test (4):
H-1, C-17, E-8, B-1
- No plans yet to field test (8):
B-52, A-10, KC-46, C-5,
KC-10, MQ-9, RQ-4
- No plans to implement -
retiring, phasing out (2):
QF-4, MQ-1
AFRL’s non-chrome coatings testing (ECD FY17 – FY18)
Data provided by AFRL and AFLCMC/EZP
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 24
.
Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Assets with the Highest
Combined Ranking for Average and Total Corrosion Cost, FY15
Chart from the Estimated Impact of Corrosion on Cost &
Availability of DOD Weapon Systems – FY17 Update report
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7 25
Trends in Air Force Aviation and Missile Maintenance
and Corrosion AVAILABILITY
Chart from the Estimated Impact of Corrosion on Cost &
Availability of DOD Weapon Systems – FY17 Update report
B r e a k i n g B a r r i e r s … S i n c e 1 9 4 7
Labor Costs per FY
Corrosion Related DL/OH/G&A Costs
26
Weapon System Hours / Jet DL/POH/G&A FY18 OUTPUTS Cost
KC-135 11,677 143.10$ 75 125,323,403$
B-52 2,411 158.16$ 17 6,482,504$
E-3 4,000 175.53$ 6 4,212,720$
B-1 666 153.56$ 11 1,124,981$
TOTAL 137,143,607$
FULLY BURDENED RATE
Note:
Costs based on Labor, POH, & G&A required for corrosion hours
No Direct Material is included
Rates are the average cost rates on completed jets FYTD Feb 2017
top related