navy ships corrosion project implementation · 2011-11-15 · maintenance cost to fleet currently,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Navy Ships Corrosion Project
Implementation
DoD Maintenance Conference Fort Worth, Texas
November 15 , 2011
2
Outline
• Corrosion Detection Methods – Tank Sensors – Corrosion Detection Algorithm – Topside /Freeboard surveys
• Composites – Electrical enclosures – Electrical conduit and end connectors – Rapid Manufacturing
• Paint Removal – Induction Heating
Economic Relevance: Corrosion Costs for Naval Platforms
Total Annual DoN Cost: $7.36B
3.0
3.2
0.70.46
Corrosion Maintenance Cost, $B
Aviation
Ships
Ground Vehicles
Facilities
Top 20 Corrosion Cost Drivers Navy Ships
4
Ballast Tank Corrosion Importance to the Navy
Represervation of US Navy ship tanks represented # 1 annual maintenance cost to fleet Currently, 4000 shipboard tanks opened, cleaned, inspected and gas-freed each year at a total cost $32M/yr Cost of preservation over $250M to preserve tanks each year 50 % of tank work is unplanned due to corrosion occurring during the interval between cyclic inspections Tanks are difficult to inspect and evaluate, at a cost of $8-15K per tank gas-free, open & inspect
5
Maintenance $ Savings Open, Cleaning, Gas-free & Inspect
Current Cost of $32M per year Eliminate Cleaning & Gas-Free w/Remote Monitoring Savings of $15M per year
Improved Resource Application Better Maintenance Planning - 10% Saving Savings of $25M per year
Reduced Structural Damage Savings from Improved Inspections & Analysis, Early Detection, Re-preservation & Remedial Actions Est. Savings of $10M per year
$50M = Total Expected Annual Savings
6
Corrosion Sensor Overview
Measures the “state of preservation” without the need for costly opening/gas-freeing or manned entry.
Consists of a polarization sensors and instrumented anode and to establish tank coating condition. Allows for monitoring of both electrochemical potential (at multiple points) and the measurement of current requirements via instrumented anodes. Resultant data and analyses allow for quantitative determination of tank coating condition.
7
Corrosion Sensor Components Measures the “state of preservation” without the need for costly opening/gas-freeing or manned entry. Consists of :
Ag/AgCl Chloride Reference Half-Cells (qty. 2-5 per sensor system): measures the polarization behavior of the tank (Corrosion Protection Level) Instrumented Zinc Anode which allows for independent measurement of anode current output (Relates to Tank Coating Condition and allows for Cathodic Protection System Life Prediction) Integral Logging System for long-term data storage (Stand Alone or Ship Tie-in System with 15yr Battery Life) Analysis Software for Corrosion Risk Assessment, Ranking and Trend Analysis of single or multiple tanks aboard ship
8 8
USS SAIPAN Corrosion Sensor Installation
9
Hatch
Hatch
Third Deck Ballast Tank
Fifth Deck Ballast Tank
Portable Antenna
Wing Tank Cutaway
Third Deck
Fifth Deck
Corrosion Sensors
10
Raw Sensor Data (6 fill events)
550
650
750
850
950
1050
Jun-18
Jun-28
Jul-8
Jul-1
8
Jul-2
8
Aug-7
Aug-17
Aug-27
Sep-6
Sep-16
Sep-26
Oct-6
Oct-16
Oct-26
Nov-5
Nov-15
Nov-25
Dec-5
Date
Pote
ntia
l Vs
Ag/
AgC
l (-m
V)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Zinc
Cur
rent
OU
tput
(mA
)
Low RefMid RefTop RefZinc
USS GUNSTON HALL
Naval Research Lab. DEC 2003
11
0.600 0.650 0.700 0.750 0.800 0.850 0.900 0.950 1.000
6-196-2-W
6-196-O-W
6-196-1-W
3-248-2-W
3-248-1-W
6-228-O-W
6-228-1-W
6-228-2-W
3-228-1-W
3-338-2-W
6-96-1-W
6-96-2-W
6-84-O-W
6-52-2-W
6-52-1-W
6-52-O-W
6-180-O-W
6-212-O-W
Tan
k
Potential vs Ag/AgCl(-V)
Ranking Algorithm Results Seawater Tank Population
Average Estable Events
12
Tank Corrosion Sensors Current Ship Installations
Ship Tank Type Sensor Type Program Year
USS PORTLAND LSD-37** 4 SW Ballast Demonstration ONR – CBM 2/1997 USS RUSHMORE LSD-47* 4 SW Ballast * Demonstration ONR – CBM 5/1997 USS WASP LHD-1 6 SW Ballast Demonstration ONR – CBM 1/1998 USS WASP LHD-1 4 SW Ballast Semi-Permanent NAVSEA ERM-1 3/2001 USS WASP LHD-1 1 SW Ballast Permanent ONR Single Coat 12/2003 USS SAIPAN LHA-2 4 SW Ballast Demonstration ONR – CBM 2/1998 USS SAIPAN LHA-2 4 SW Ballast Permanent NAVSEA ERM-1 6/2002 USS KINKAID DD-965** 2 Comp Fuel Demonstration ONR – CBM 5/1998 USS COMSTOCK LSD-45 4 SW Ballast Demonstration ONR – CBM 2/1999 USS TORTUGA LSD-46 4 SW Ballast Demonstration ONR – CBM 4/1999 USS TORTUGA LSD-46 6 SW Ballast Demonstration NAVSEA ERM-1 6/2000 USS TORTUGA LSD-46 3 SW Ballast Permanent ONR Single Coat 10/2003 USS OLDENDORF DD-972** 1 Comp Fuel Demonstration ONR – CBM 7/1999 USS CLEVELAND LPD-07 6 SW Ballast Demonstration JASPA 6/2000 USS MT VERNON LSD-39** 6 SW Ballast Demonstration JASPA 2/2001 USS GUNSTON HALL LSD-44 1 SW Ballast Permanent ONR Single Coat 5/2002 USS WHIDBEY ISLAND LSD-41 2 SW Ballast Permanent ONR Single Coat 5/2003
* ICAS Tie-in System, ** Decommissioned
13
Imaging Issues Significant Variation - Imaged Areas Shipboard Tank & Void Imagery Significant Variation in Coatings’ Color, Texture and Sheen and Coatings
Damage Shapes and Colors
Optical Inspection
14
Insertable Stalk Imaging System (ISIS) Optical Inspection
15
Insertable Stalk Inspection System (ISIS)
16
Insertable Stalk Inspection System (ISIS)
Remote Tank Inspection System with Corrosion Detection Algorithm (CDA)
17
ISIS Image Collection and Analysis 1% > 3.5% Degradation
7.26 %
10.26 %
4.04 %
1.86 %
2.18 %
Front View Typical Tank Configuration
Visual Image Analyzed Image
Visual Image Analyzed Image
ISIS Image
Capture Areas
Optical Inspection
18
Image of tank structure showing 0.5% damage
Seawater Ballast Tank Images, Showing Varying Degrees of Damage
with Respective Tank Ranking
Image of tank structure showing 1% damage
Image of tank structure showing 3 % damage
Image of tank structure showing 4 - 5 % damage
Corrosion Detection Algorithm
• Topside – Freeboard coatings – Painting was the highest cost area in the
2006 and 2007 cost of corrosion study – Cost of painting was $451 M in FY 2007 – $300M Freeboard – Almost 10 percent of total corrosion cost
USS Truman (CVN-75) FY-06 DPIA Freeboard Preservation Analysis (63141)
Orig Award $10.5 milAward After Aval Start $1.1 mil
Total Cost at Completion $11,587,806
Blast & Prep $4.8milPainting $1.6milMisc Matl & Equip Rntl $1.0milStaging, Contain, Blank $1.3milServices $1milQA $0.2milPaint Matl $0.5mil
Orig Award Price $10.5 mil
Growth $410KSponsons $575KPlanning Error $70KD & D $35KSF $3K
Awarded After Avail Start $1.1 mil
Orig gov’t est $10.6 mil
Scope of Work Hydro Blast and paint top of boot top to bottom edge of catwalks. From bottom edge of catwalk to wheel stops low pressure wash 3K-5K PSI and preserve. REDUCED SCOPE FROM GW
46%
15%
10%
14%
2%
52%
6%
3% 1%
90%
10%
38%
Costs per sq/ft = $19.74 587K sq/ft
8%
Marriage of New Coating Systems with New Inspection Technology
• Current legacy products have been proven to be poor performers
• The necessary inspection tools AND procedures have not been employed for assessing topside and nonskid coating condition and arguably not previously existed
June 2010 USS Nimitz survey found an average of 23 mils extra paint from overcoating → 14 tons extra topside weight
Composites - The Problem • Due to prolonged exposure in a harsh sea environment, the
traditional materials used in the manufacture of electrical boxes and conduit consistently require maintenance or replacement.
• Boxes and conduit provide protection from the harsh topside environment and mechanical damage. Certain electrical systems also require boxes / conduit to provide EMI/EMP shielding. Failure of boxes or conduit is often detrimental to shipboard operations. – Metallic boxes corrode resulting in box seal leakage and loss
of electrical function • Switches and controls are no longer operational • Personnel safety hazard - potential for electrical shock
– Brass boxes corrode the ship structure – Conduit and metal fittings corrode causing electrical system
failure or reduced EMI/EMP performance.
Metal fittings corrode resulting in loss of function of the encased electrical system
Stern gate and lighting control system corrosion
Typical conduit jacket failure Ship structure corrosion due to Brass enclosure box
Demonstration – Stern Gate Controller of Amphibious Ship (LSD)
24
Ship Commanding Officer points out problem
25
COMPOSITE ELECTRICAL BOXES INSTALLATION SYSTEMS APPROACH
• IDENTIFIED COMPOSITE BOX CORROSION MECHANISMS AND ENSURED THAT ENTIRE BOX SYSTEM (INCLUDING MOUNTING) WOULD PREVENT CORROSION.
BRASS BOX
PAINT
STEEL SHIP
CORROSION COMPOSITE BOX
IMPROVED PAINT
STEEL SHIP
CURRENT BOXES
FUTURE BOXES STAINLESSSHOULDER STUD & AIR GAP
Demonstration – Stern Gate Controller of Amphibious Ship (LSD)
26
OSD Composite EMP Conduit Terminations
Objective • Eliminate chronic corrosion issues &
electrical loss associated with CRES • Develop technology that surpasses
the performance of the legacy • Reduce maintenance • Increase system reliability
Payoff • 75 dB attenuation via insertion loss
measurement (NSWCDD) • 1/3 the weight of 316L CRES • Corrosion free (672 hours of SO2
salt fog test) • Lower acquisition costs due to
improved manufacturing • Exceeds the requirements of the
new MIL-PRF-24758A
Composite Boxes and Conduit • Mitigate the effects of corrosion and excessive
weathering with high performance composite materials
Composites in Stern Gate Area
Composite Electrical Connector after 1 ½ years
Composite Box and Conduit
Composite Conduit
Composite Boxes in Fleet USS Vella Gulf on
Deployment
Stern gate and lighting control system corrosion
Composite Phone Jack Box
USS Carter Hall Planned Installation
Quantity NAME New Composite NSN PART/ SYMBOL # Part Number Ref # 17 Quad SPT 5935-01-572-5631 SYMBOL 2843 147-021XMS-03 20 Dual SPT 5935-01-572-6657 SYMBOL 2842 147-021XMS-02 8 Single SPT 5935-01-572-5487 SYM 2841 147-022XMS-01
15 Single 115V 5940-01-557-2667 SYM 1099.1 147-023XMS-02 18 Large 5935-01-557-2679 ENC6X9 140-060XMS-03 8 Small junction w/terminals 5940-01-556-7967 SYMBOL 435.1 140-060XMS-01T3
5 Toggle Switch 147-037XMS-0009 1 Push Button start/stop switch 147-037XMS-0010 1 Dual Lamp Indicator 147-037XMS-0011 2 Rotary Switch 1-9 A, B 147-015XO-2006 1 Single Lamp Indicator 147-037XMS-0012
4 Composite Switch & Receptacle
ASSY 147-038XMS-0008 100
31
COMPOSITE ELECTRICAL BOXES BUSINESS CASE
• NAVSEA COLLECTED DATA FROM SHIPBUILDERS AND FLEET REGARDING NUMBER OF BOXES ON SHIPS. Ship Type Number of Boxes Number of Ships Total CVN, CV 477 12 5,724 LHD, LHA, LSD, LPD 230 36 8,280 COMBATANT & OTHER 125 190 23,838 MSC 60 116 6,960 ARMY 29 166 4,814 TOTAL 520 49,616 • 26% OF CARRIER METAL BOXES REPAIRED PER YEAR. 35% OF SMALLER COMBATANT BOXES REPAIRED PER YEAR. INCLUDES ELECTRICAL REPAIR, PAINTING, AND PART REPLACEMENT AT A COST OF $422/BOX. 4-hours ELECTRICIAN AT $53/hr = $212 5-hours PAINTER LABOR AT $40/hr = $200 PAINT & PARTS WERE $10 = $10
32
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
COMPOSITE BOX Materials & yard Labor ($) METAL BOX Materials & Yard Labor ($)
COMPOSITE ELECTRICAL BOXES BUSINESS CASE – LIFE-CYCLE COSTS FOR CVN SHIP SET
COMPOSITE BOX COSTS $159 & INSTALLATION LABOR COSTS $1,608 & HIGHER SOLIDS PAINT INSTALL COSTS $478 or $1,070,865 FOR A CARRIER SHIP SET
BRASS BOX COSTS $60, INSTALLATION LABOR COSTS $1,608 SUBSTRATE REPAIR PAINT COSTS $436 SCRAP VALUE IS $251 or $1,004,511 PER SHIP SET
Rapid Manufacturing • Rapid Manufacturing Task
o 2 techniques and 2 components were evaluated under this task
• Techniques Evaluated 1. Fused Deposition Molding (FDM) 2. Sheet Fold and Weld Process
• Components Evaluated 1. Brow Chain Storage Box 2. Sound Powered Telephone Handset
Cabinet, MIL-T-24649/13 • Fleet Installation
1. Brow Chain Storage Box 1. USS Nitze (Method 2) 24 Mar
2011 2. USS Cole (Method 1) TBD
Side by Side Comparison of Brow Chain Storage Box
Installation of Brow Chain Storage Box on USS Nitze (Method 2)
• Outcome • FDM being used in NAVAIR Depots for small components, appears to be cost prohibitive for
larger scale components • Path forward with SPT Handset cabinet stopped at this time since cabinet did not turn out to
be a “simple box” which was the original intent of the task.
Surface Ship Composite Potential Applications
Flight Deck Edge Light LPH/LHA/LHD
Sound Powered Telephone Handset Cabinet
Cable Wraps and Brackets
Kick Pipe
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Blast & Prep $4.8milPainting $1.6milMisc Matl & Equip Rntl $1.0milStaging, Contain, Blank $1.3milServices $1milQA $0.2milPaint Matl $0.5mil
Coating removal is the highest percentage cost for recoating most surfaces including tanks and freeboard
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Coating Removal Energy Consumption
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Abrasive Water Jet Induction Chemical
Coating Removal method
kWh
ft²
90% Efficient Energy to Heat Transfer, 75% Reduction in Energy Consumption
Heat Induction Coating Removal
Historical Work Performance for Rubber & Residue Removal in Battery Well
24 Man-Days Actual Work Performance
8 Man-Days
Summary
• DoD Corrosion Projects led to successful technology transitions to reduce cost – Corrosion Detection
• Hardware tank sensors • Software tank and topside algorithms
– Composites – Coating Removal