H
HCAT Propeller Chrome Plate Replacement Program
Edward Faillace - Steve Pasakarnis - Aaron Nardi
Hamilton Sundstrand- Engineering
August 29, 2001
H
Program Milestones
Fatigue Testing - completed April 2001 Wear - completed April 2001 Corrosion - completed January 2001 TCLP - completed January 2001 LPS Component Test
Chrome 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
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
HSummary 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
H
0
50
100
150
200
250
104 105 106 107 108
Cycles
Str
es
s (
ks
i)
Unpeened 4340 Steel
Peened WC - 17% Co .003" 4 Ra Finish
Peened WC - 17% Co .010" 16 Ra Finish
Peened WC - 17% Co .010" 4 Ra Finish
Peened WC - 17% Co .015" 4 Ra Finish
Peened EHC .003" 16 Ra
Peened EHC .010" 16 Ra Finish
Peened EHC .015" 16 Ra Finish
Peened T-800 .003" 8 Ra Finish
Peened T-800 .010" 8 Ra Finish
Peened T-800 .010" 16 Ra Finish
Peened T-800 .015" 8 Ra Finish
Peened Fatigue Data
AISI 4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1
H
Macro Cracking from Grinding Operation
H
0
50
100
150
200
250
10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000Cycles
Ma
x S
tre
ss (
ksi)
Bare 4340
Unpeened EHC, 0.003
Unpeened EHC, 0.010
Unpeened EHC, 0.015
Unpeened WC, 0.003
Unpeened WC, 0.010
T-800, Kt=2.70
WC, Kt=2.70
Unpeened and Notched Fatigue Data
AISI 4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1
HAlSI4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1, .010" WC-17Co
Green Points Were Not Peened
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
H4340 HRC40-44, R=0.1,WC-17Co .003" 4Ra
Green Points Were Not Peened
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
HAISI 4340, HRC 40-44, R=0.1, T-800 .015
Green Points Were Not Peened
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
HAISI 4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1,.015" Cr 16Ra
Green Points Were Not Peened
0
50
100
150
200
250
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
HAISI 4340, HRC 40-44, R=0.1, T-800 .010
Green Points Were Not Peened
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
HAlSI4340 HRC 40-44, R=0.1, .010" Cr
Green Points Were Not Peened
0
50
100
150
200
250
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
HAISI 4340, HRC 40-44, R=0.1,.003" T-800
Green Points Were Not Peened
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Cycles
Ma
xim
um
Str
ess
(ks
i)
H
HCAT Propeller Project-Wear Testing
Aaron Nardi
Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering
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
HWear Test Fixture
Load Pin
3000 lb. capacity
Spring Washers
Pivots
Coated Panel Specimen
Flat Counter-face Specimens
HWear 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
HSteel Wear Rate Comparison
-1.5E-12
-1.0E-12
-50.0E-14
00.0E+0
50.0E-14
1.0E-12
1.5E-12
2.0E-12
Low
/Dith
er
Hig
h/Lo
ng
Hig
h/Lo
ng/S
F
Low
/Dith
er/C
Low
/Lon
g/C
Hig
h/Lo
ng/O
Test Condition
Wea
r C
oef
fici
ent
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
Lubrication System Failure
Heavy pitting and adhesion of panel coating on steel
HPanel Wear from Steel Specimens
0
1
2
3
4
5
Test Condition
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
No Wear
Mild Wear
Moderate
Heavy
Pitting
Adh
esiv
e /
Abr
asiv
e W
ear
HDithering Tests With Steel Counterfaces
in Contaminated Mil-PRF-83282
Hard Chrome Plate WC-17Co HVOF T-800 HVOF
HWear Testing Results (cont’d)
• 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
HCopper Specimen Wear Rate Comparison
000.0E+0
5.0E-12
10.0E-12
15.0E-12
20.0E-12
25.0E-12
30.0E-12
35.0E-12
40.0E-12
Test Condition
We
ar
Co
eff
icie
nt
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
HPanel Wear from Copper Specimens
0
1
2
3
4
5
Test Condition
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
No Wear
Mild Wear
Moderate
Heavy
Pitting
Ad
he
sive
/
Ab
rasi
ve W
ea
r
HStroking Tests With Copper Counterfaces in
Clean Mil-PRF-83282
Hard Chrome Plate WC-17Co HVOF T-800 HVOF
HWear Testing Results (cont’d)
• 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
HViton Wear Rate Comparison
-200.0E-12
-100.0E-12
000.0E+0
100.0E-12
200.0E-12
300.0E-12
400.0E-12
Test Condition
Wea
r C
oef
fici
ent
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
Acetone Exposure, weights inaccurate
HPanel Wear from Viton Specimens
0
1
2
3
4
5
Test Condition
Chrome Plate
Tungsten Carbide
Tribaloy T-800
No Wear
Mild Wear
Moderate
Heavy
Pitting
Adh
esiv
e /
Abr
asiv
e W
ear
HWear Testing Results (cont’d)
• 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
HDithering Tests With Glass Filled PTFE Counterfaces in Clean Mil-PRF-83282
Hard Nickel Plate WC-Co-Cr HVOF
H
HCAT Propeller Project-Corrosion Testing
Aaron Nardi
Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering
HCorrosion 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
HResults 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.
HAs Coated Nickel Corrosion Panels
W-1, 8 days, 0.001 Thick W-6, 8 days, 0.005 Thick
HAs Coated Tribaloy T-800 Corrosion Panels
T-1, 5 days, 0.001 Thick T-2, 5 days, 0.001 Thick T-3, 5 days, 0.001 Thick
HAs Coated WC-Co Corrosion Panels
W-1, 12 days, 0.001 Thick W-2, 8 days, 0.001 Thick W-6, 20 days, 0.005 Thick
HAs Coated WC-Co-Cr Corrosion Panels
WCR-1, 20 days, 0.001 Thick WCR-2, 8 days, 0.001 Thick WCR-3, 8 days, 0.001 Thick
H
HCAT Propeller Project-Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Aaron Nardi
Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering
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
HTCLP 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