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