Navy Ships Corrosion Project Implementation. DoD Maintenance Conference Fort Worth, Texas November 15, 2011

Transcription

1 Navy Ships Corrosion Project Implementation DoD Maintenance Conference Fort Worth, Texas November 15,

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 2

3 Economic Relevance: Corrosion Costs for Naval Platforms Total Annual DoN Cost: $7.36B Top 20 Corrosion Cost Drivers Navy Ships Corrosion Maintenance Cost, $B Aviation Ships Ground Vehicles Facilities

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 gasfreed 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 4

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 5

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. 6

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 7

8 USS SAIPAN Corrosion Sensor Installation 8 8

9 Portable Antenna Corrosion Sensors Hatch Third Deck Ballast Tank Third Deck Hatch Fifth Deck Ballast Tank Fifth Deck Wing Tank Cutaway 9

10 1050 Low Ref Mid Ref 300 Top Ref 950 Raw Sensor Data (6 fill events) Zinc 250 Potential Vs Ag/AgCl (-mv) Zinc Current OUtput (ma) Jun-18 Jun-28 Jul-8 Jul-18 Jul-28 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 USS GUNSTON HALL 10

11 Ranking Algorithm Results Seawater Tank Population Tank O-W O-W 6-52-O-W W W 6-84-O-W W W W W W W O-W W W W O-W W Average E stable Events Potential vs Ag/AgCl(-V) Naval Research Lab. DEC 11

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 12

13 Optical Inspection Imaging Issues Significant Variation - Imaged Areas Shipboard Tank & Void Imagery Significant Variation in Coatings Color, Texture and Sheen and Coatings Damage Shapes and Colors 13

14 Optical Inspection Insertable Stalk Imaging System (ISIS) 14

15 Insertable Stalk Inspection System (ISIS) 15

16 Insertable Stalk Inspection System (ISIS) Remote Tank Inspection System with Corrosion Detection Algorithm (CDA) 16

17 Optical Inspection ISIS Image Collection and Analysis 1% > 3.5% Degradation Visual Image Analyzed Image Front View Typical Tank Configuration Visual Image Analyzed Image 4.04 % 1.86 % % 7.26 % ISIS Image Capture Areas 2.18 % 17

18 Seawater Ballast Tank Images, Showing Varying Degrees of Damage with Respective Tank Ranking Image of tank structure showing 0.5% damage Image of tank structure showing 4-5 % damage Image of tank structure showing 1% damage Image of tank structure showing 3 % damage 18

19 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

20 USS Truman (CVN-75) FY-06 DPIA Freeboard Preservation Analysis (63141) Total Cost at Completion $11,587,806 Costs per sq/ft = $ K sq/ft 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 10% Orig Award Price $10.5 mil Orig Award $10.5 mil Award After Aval Start $1.1 mil 90% Orig gov t est $10.6 mil Awarded After Avail Start $1.1 mil 3% 1% 8% 2% 6% 38% Growth $410K Sponsons $575K Planning Error $70K D & D $35K SF $3K 14% 10% 46% Blast & Prep $4.8mil Painting $1.6mil Misc Matl & Equip Rntl $1.0mil Staging, Contain, Blank $1.3mil Services $1mil QA $0.2mil Paint Matl $0.5mil 52% 15%

21 Marriage of New Coating Systems with New Inspection Technology Current legacy products have been proven to be poor performers June 2010 USS Nimitz survey found an average of 23 mils extra paint from overcoating 14 tons extra topside weight The necessary inspection tools AND procedures have not been employed for assessing topside and nonskid coating condition and arguably not previously existed

22 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.

23 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

24 Demonstration Stern Gate Controller of Amphibious Ship (LSD) Ship Commanding Officer points out problem 24

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 CURRENT BOXES STEEL SHIP CORROSION FUTURE BOXES STAINLESS SHOULDER STUD & AIR GAP COMPOSITE BOX IMPROVED PAINT STEEL SHIP 25

26 Demonstration Stern Gate Controller of Amphibious Ship (LSD) 26

27 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 SO 2 salt fog test) Lower acquisition costs due to improved manufacturing Exceeds the requirements of the new MIL-PRF-24758A

28 Composite Boxes and Conduit Mitigate the effects of corrosion and excessive weathering with high performance composite materials Composite Conduit Composite Electrical Connector after 1 ½ years Composite Box and Conduit Composites in Stern Gate Area

29 Composite Boxes in Fleet USS Vella Gulf on Deployment Composite Phone Jack Box Stern gate and lighting control system corrosion

30 USS Carter Hall Planned Installation Quantity NAME New Composite NSN PART/ SYMBOL # Part Number Ref # 17 Quad SPT SYMBOL XMS Dual SPT SYMBOL XMS-02 8 Single SPT SYM XMS Single 115V SYM XMS Large ENC6X XMS-03 8 Small junction w/terminals SYMBOL XMS-01T3 5 Toggle Switch XMS Push Button start/stop switch XMS Dual Lamp Indicator XMS Rotary Switch 1-9 A, B XO Single Lamp Indicator XMS Composite Switch & Receptacle ASSY XMS

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 ,724 LHD, LHA, LSD, LPD ,280 COMBATANT & OTHER ,838 MSC ,960 ARMY ,814 TOTAL ,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 31

32 $4,000,000 COMPOSITE ELECTRICAL BOXES BUSINESS CASE LIFE-CYCLE COSTS FOR CVN SHIP SET COMPOSITE BOX Materials & yard Labor ($) METAL BOX Materials & Yard Labor ($) $3,500,000 $3,000,000 COMPOSITE BOX COSTS $159 & INSTALLATION LABOR COSTS $1,608 & HIGHER SOLIDS PAINT INSTALL COSTS $478 or $1,070,865 FOR A CARRIER SHIP SET $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 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 $

33 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 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.

34 Surface Ship Composite Potential Applications Flight Deck Edge Light LPH/LHA/LHD Cable Wraps and Brackets Sound Powered Telephone Handset Cabinet Kick Pipe

35 Heat Induction Coating Removal Coating removal is the highest percentage cost for recoating most surfaces including tanks and freeboard Blast & Prep $4.8mil Painting $1.6mil Misc Matl & Equip Rntl $1.0mil Staging, Contain, Blank $1.3mil Services $1mil QA $0.2mil Paint Matl $0.5mil

36 Heat Induction Coating Removal

37 Heat Induction Coating Removal

38 Heat Induction Coating Removal

39 Heat Induction Coating Removal

40 Heat Induction Coating Removal Coating Removal Energy Consumption kwh ft² Abrasive Water Jet Induction Chemical Coating Removal method 90% Efficient Energy to Heat Transfer, 75% Reduction in Energy Consumption

41 Heat Induction Coating Removal Historical Work Performance for Rubber & Residue Removal in Battery Well 24 Man-Days Actual Work Performance 8 Man-Days

42 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