Joint Test Report TI-R-1-2 - For Alternatives to High

Engineering and Technical Servicesfor Joint Group on AcquisitionPollution Prevention (JG-APP) PilotProjects

Joint Test ReportTI-R-1-2

for Alternatives to High VolatileOrganic Compound Primers andTopcoats Containing Methyl EthylKetone, Toluene, and Xylene

May 13, 1998

Contract No. DAAA21-93-C-0046Task No. N.072CDRL No. A006

Prepared byNational Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE)

Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation

Engineering and Technical Servicesfor Joint Group on Acquisition Pollution

Prevention (JG-APP) Pilot Projects

Joint Test ReportTI-R-1-2

for Alternatives to High Volatile Organic CompoundPrimers and Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl

Ketone, Toluene, and Xylene

May 13, 1998

Distribution Statement “A” applies.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Contract No. DAAA21-93-C-0046Task No. N.072

CDRL A006

Prepared by:

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE)Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC)

1450 Scalp AvenueJohnstown, PA 15904

Joint Test Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ iv

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

2. ENGINEERING AND TEST REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................42.1. Test Requirements ...............................................................................................42.2. Test Flow Procedure ............................................................................................92.3. Interpretation of the Joint Test Protocol ............................................................. 11

2.3.1. Interpretation of GE Impact Test (JTP Test 3.1.5) .................................. 112.3.2. Interpretation of SO2 Salt Spray (Scribed) Retest (JTP Test 3.1.6).......... 112.3.3. Interpretation of Accelerated Weathering Retest (JTP Test 3.2.7) ........... 122.3.4. Interpretation of Specialized Wet Tape Adhesion Retest (JTP Test

3.2.21).................................................................................................... 122.3.5. Interpretation of Humidity Resistance Test (JTP Test 3.2.5) ................... 132.3.6. Interpretation of Specialized Fluid Resistance Test (JTP Test 3.2.23)...... 13

3. ALTERNATIVES TESTED ......................................................................................... 14

4. TEST RESULTS........................................................................................................... 154.1. Control MIL-C-22750 (White)........................................................................... 154.2. Control MIL-C-85285 (Black) ........................................................................... 204.3. MetalMate 6P124A (Black) ............................................................................... 244.4. MetalMate 7P131B (White) ............................................................................... 324.5. Devran 122UD (Seafoam Green)........................................................................ 404.6. Devran 122UD (Off-White)................................................................................ 434.7. Summary of Results ........................................................................................... 45

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Test Flow Diagram .................................................................................................. 10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. RTIS Target HazMat Summary .................................................................................3Table 2. Common Primer Test Requirements...........................................................................6Table 3. Extended Primer Test Requirements...........................................................................6

ii Joint Test Report

Table 4. Common Topcoat Test Requirements ........................................................................7Table 5. Extended Topcoat Test Requirements ........................................................................8Table 6. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer.......................................... 17Table 7. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer ....................................... 18Table 8. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer .......................................... 21Table 9. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer........................................ 22Table 10. Primer Tests: MetalMate 6P124A Black Epoxy Powder Coating with Primer......... 26Table 11. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 6P124A Black Epoxy Powder Coating without

Primer...................................................................................................................... 27Table 12. Primer Tests: MetalMate 7P131B White Epoxy Powder Coating with Primer ........ 34Table 13. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 7P131B White Epoxy Powder Coating without

Primer...................................................................................................................... 35Table 14. Primer Tests: Devran 122UD Seafoam Green 100% Solids with Primer ................. 40Table 15. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD Seafoam Green 100% Solids without Primer ......... 41Table 16. Primer Tests: Devran 122UD White 100% Solids with Primer................................. 43Table 17. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD White 100% Solids without Primer......................... 44

Products and companies mentioned here may be the trademarks of their respective owners.

Joint Test Report iii

PREFACE

This report was prepared by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) through the NationalDefense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) under Contract Number DAAA21-93-C-0046. This report was prepared on behalf of, and under guidance provided by, the JointGroup on Acquisition Pollution Prevention (JG-APP) through the Joint Pollution PreventionAdvisory Board (JPPAB). The structure, format, and depth of the report's technical content wasdetermined by the JPPAB, Raytheon TI Systems, Inc. (RTIS), and government technicalrepresentatives in response to the specific needs of this project. Invaluable technical, business,and programmatic contributions were provided by the organizations listed below.

Air Force Aeronautical Systems CenterAir Force Corrosion Program OfficeAir Force Materiel CommandAir Force Systems Command, EnvironmentalArmy Industrial Ecology CenterArmy Materiel CommandAvenger Tactical Missile Program OfficeAbrams Tank System Program OfficeClose Combat Anti-Armor Weapon System Program OfficeDefense Contract Management Command, RTIS, DallasF3 Production OfficeF-16 Program OfficeF/A-18 Program OfficeHARM Program Office, PMA 242Harpoon Program Office, PMA 258Javelin Program OfficeJoint Depot Environmental PanelJSOW Program OfficeLAMPS Program Office, PMA-299LANTIRN Program OfficeNaval Depot - JacksonvilleNaval Air Warfare Center - China LakeNaval Air Warfare Center - Patuxet RiverNight Vision and Electro Optics, Horizontal Technology Integration Program OfficeOcean City Research CorporationP3 ISAR Program Office, PMA-290PAVEWAY III Program OfficeRaytheon TI Systems, Inc.Tomahawk Program Office, PMA 280

iv Joint Test Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of the Raytheon TI Systems (RTIS) Joint Group on Acquisition PollutionPrevention (JG-APP) project was to identify acceptable alternatives to Military Specification(MIL SPEC) organic coatings containing the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) methyl ethylketone, toluene, and xylene. Previous efforts in the RTIS JG-APP project identified existing MILSPEC coatings with reduced levels of the target VOCs. Additional work was then performed toidentify coatings that could further reduce VOC emission levels. To do so, a survey ofcommercial coating technologies was completed that identified nine coating materials or processesto be evaluated. Two of these alternatives, an epoxy powder coating (Jones Blair MetalMate)and a 100% solids coating (ICI Devoe Coatings Devran 122UD), were selected in accordancewith the Potential Alternatives Report TI-A-1-1 for Alternatives to High Volatile OrganicCompound Primers and Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Toluene, and Xylene, datedFebruary 5, 1998 (PAR TI-A-1-1) and tested according to the Joint Test Protocol TI-P-1-1 forAlternatives to High Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Primers and Topcoats Containing:Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), Toluene, and Xylene, dated June 20, 1996 (JTP TI-P-1-1 or theJTP) and the Statement of Tasks TI-S-1-1 for Validation of Alternatives to High Volatile OrganicCompound (VOC) Primers and Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), Toluene, andXylene, dated April 16, 1997 (SOT TI-S-1-1). After review of the results of ten tests performedon Devran 122UD, this product was dropped from further consideration. Reformulation orchanges in application procedures may improve the performance of this coating; however, neitherone of these activities was pursued.

Based on the JTP test results, MetalMate proved to be an acceptable alternative to high VOCcoatings in many applications. MetalMate is resistant to Chemical Agent HD. It can provide afuel, decontaminant (DS2), oil, lubricant, scratch- and marr-resistant surface in many of theenvironments typically encountered by defense systems. MetalMate eliminates the need for MIL-P-23377F and MIL-P-85582 primers in certain applications because it can be used without aprimer. However, the decision to use MetalMate as a primerless coating should be based on theintended operating environment of the defense system. For instance, when MetalMate is intendedfor use in marine (salt spray) environments, the use of a primer should be considered. AlthoughMIL-C-22750 is still being used at RTIS because of its good resistance to DS2 decontaminant,test results indicate that MetalMate can replace MIL-C-22750 in most baseline applications.MetalMate can replace MIL-C-46168 Type II, MIL-C-46168 Type IV, MIL-C-85285, and MIL-C-83286 in applications where chalking from ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and the need fora very low gloss surface finish are not concerns. Because of substrate material limitations (primarily cure temperature limitations) and expectedUV radiation exposure, the extent to which MetalMate can replace existing coatings will dependon the intended application and known performance environment. The decision to replace acoating with MetalMate on an existing part or subassembly must be determined on a case-by-casebasis. Because MetalMate has the properties of low gloss, low-temperature cure, chemical agentresistance, and resistance to accelerated weathering, it can be a suitable coating for many defensesystems applications.

Joint Test Report v

All test data were reviewed jointly by technical personnel from RTIS and ConcurrentTechnologies Corporation (CTC). Subjective or unclear acceptance criteria in JTP TI-P-1-1required joint interpretation to achieve a pass or fail rating for each coating and test combination.The initial results of some tests were judged to be inconclusive because a) there was a possibilitythe powder coated test panels were not adequately cured, b) the acceptance criteria or testprocedures given in JTP TI-P-1-1 were vague which permitted differing interpretation of the testresults or procedures by the laboratory technician, or c) the test results were unexpected by RTIS,based on their past experience with similar coatings. Due to unexpected or inconsistent testresults, five tests were repeated on the MetalMate and the control coatings: GE Impact, SO2 SaltSpray (scribed), Accelerated Weathering, Specialized Wet Tape Adhesion, and Flexibility. RTISand CTC also jointly reviewed these data . This Joint Test Report TI-R-1-2 for Alternatives toHigh Volatile Organic Compound Primers and Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone,Toluene, and Xylene documents the results of the testing performed on MetalMate, as specified inthe JTP.

Joint Test Report 1

1. INTRODUCTION

On September 15, 1994, the Joint Logistics Commanders (JLC) chartered the Joint Groupon Acquisition Pollution Prevention (JG-APP) to coordinate joint service activitiesaffecting pollution prevention issues identified during the defense system acquisitionprocess. The primary objectives of the JG-APP are to:

• Reduce or eliminate hazardous materials (HazMats)• Avoid duplication of efforts in actions required to reduce or eliminate

HazMats through joint service cooperation and technology sharing. The focus of JG-APP is on original equipment manufacturer (OEM) design,manufacturing, and remanufacturing locations, with subsequent technology transfer toSustainment Community locations. OEMs currently participating in the JG-APP processproduce multiple defense systems for more than one of the tri-services. JG-APP technicalrepresentatives for each project begin by selecting a target HazMat that is used in theOEM’s production process that may cause environmental and/or worker health concerns. Raytheon TI Systems, Inc. (RTIS) (formerly Texas Instruments - Defense Systems andElectronics), located in Dallas, Texas was the targeted OEM for this project. RTIScurrently uses conventional wet-spraying to apply high-volatile organic compound (VOC)topcoats and primers (designated by military specifications MIL-C-22750; MIL-C-83286;MIL-C-46168, Type II; and MIL-P-23377E) on small metal parts, such as covers, panels,and latches. These topcoats and primers contain the VOCs toluene, xylene, and methylethyl ketone (MEK), which were identified as the target HazMats to be eliminated orreduced through the JG-APP process. The substrates to which the primers and topcoatsare applied are aluminum alloys 2024-T0, 2024-T3, A356-T6, and 7075-T7; carbon steelalloy 1018; stainless steel alloy 17-4PH; and titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Table 1 lists thetarget HazMats, process and material, application, baseline specification, and affectedprograms associated with these coatings. For the RTIS JG-APP project, different alternatives were considered for adoption atdifferent times. Early in the project, three drop-in replacements for high VOC, baselineprimers and topcoats were adopted by RTIS through Block Change ModificationARZ998. These military specification (MIL SPEC) alternatives required no validationtesting under JG-APP. The characteristics and acceptance criteria for these alternativecoatings were reported in the Joint Test Report TI-R-1-1 For Alternatives to HighVolatile Organic Compound (VOC) Primers and Topcoats Containing Methyl EthylKetone (MEK), Toluene, and Xylene, dated June 20, 1996 (Revised October 24, 1997)(JTR TI-R-1-1).

After adopting the drop-in alternative coatings, a technology survey was performed as partof the standard JG-APP methodology to identify other commercially available coatingsand processes that might replace the baseline coatings. This technology survey revealedthat other coatings were available that had even lower VOC levels than the coatings

2 Joint Test Report

adopted by the block change. Since RTIS had already initiated studies on the use ofpowder coatings as an alternative to high VOC coatings, the search for alternativesconcentrated on powder coatings. However, 100% solids coatings as identified in thetechnology survey were also considered, as documented in the Potential AlternativesReport TI-A-1-1 for Alternatives to High Volatile Organic Compound Primers andTopcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Toluene, and Xylene, dated February 5, 1998(PAR TI-A-1-1). As a result of the technology survey and screening processes, two materials were selectedfor testing: MetalMate, an epoxy powder coating from Jones Blair, and Devran 122UD, a100% solids coating from ICI Devoe Coatings. These materials were tested according tothe Joint Test Protocol TI-P-1-1 for Alternatives to High Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs) Primers and Topcoats Containing: Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), Toluene, andXylene dated June 20, 1996 (JTP TI-P-1-1). This JTP was developed from discussionswith RTIS and government technical representatives and documents the critical technicaland performance requirements that an alternative material must satisfy to be technicallyacceptable for use as a replacement material for high VOC primers and topcoats. This Joint Test Report TI-R-1-2 for Alternatives to High Volatile Organic CompoundPrimers and Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Toluene, and Xylene documentsthe results of the testing as specified in the JTP. To minimize duplication of effort withinthe defense community, both JTR TI-R-1-2 and JTR TI-R-1-1 will be made available as areference for future pollution prevention efforts by other Department of Defense (DoD)and commercial users.

Joint Test Report 3

Table 1. RTIS Target HazMat Summary

TargetHazMats Used

in 1994

Baseline Process/Material

Application BaselineSpecification

Affected DoDPrograms

Toluene 22,000 lb

MEK 9,000 lb

Xylene 4,000 lb

Conventional,wet-spray coatingprocess High VOCprimers and paints

Primer MIL-P-23377 Navy: P3, HARM,JSOW, F/A-18 Air Force: PVWYIII, F3, F-16,LANTIRN Army: Avenger

Groundsystemstopcoat

MIL-C-22750 Navy: None Air Force: None Army: M1A2CITV/ HTEU

Airbornesystemstopcoat

MIL-C-22750 Navy: P3, F/A-18 Air Force: PVWYIII, F3 Production,LANTIRN Army: None

MIL-C-83286 Navy: P3, JSOW,F/A-18 Air Force: PVWYIII, F3 Production,F-16, LANTIRN Army: None

Chemicalagentresistantcoatingcamouflagetopcoat

MIL-C-46168Type II

Navy: None Air Force: None Army: Avenger,M1A2CITV/HTEU

4 Joint Test Report

2. ENGINEERING AND TEST REQUIREMENTS

A joint group consisting of technical representatives from RTIS, the affected DoDProgram Managers, representatives of the Sustainment Community, and other governmenttechnical representatives identified application, performance, supportability, andoperational impact requirements. The group then agreed upon the test procedures,methodologies, and acceptance criteria (documented in JTP TI-P-1-1) that alternativesmust meet to be judged technically acceptable. The following sections describe the testprocedures given in the JTP and the interpretation of those procedures required for thisproject.

2.1. Test Requirements

Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 list the common and extended test requirements identified bythe RTIS JG-APP project participants. Some of the test names in these tableswere changed slightly from those given in JTP TI-P-1-1 for clarity, but the testnumbers remain the same. As directed in the Statement of Tasks TI-S-1-1 forValidation of Alternatives to High Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Primersand Topcoats Containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), Toluene, and Xylene,dated April 16, 1997 (SOT TI-S-1-1), these tests were conducted by ConcurrentTechnologies Corporation in Johnstown, Pennsylvania (CTC), the Naval AirWarfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, California (NAWCWPN), andthe U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in Utah (DPG). Common tests are thosethat are required for all affected programs. Extended tests are required by at leastone, but not all, of the programs. Each test procedure is fully described in the JTP.

As directed in SOT TI-S-1-1, selected tests were performed on two coatingscurrently in use at RTIS: MIL-C-22750 and MIL-C-85285. MIL-C-85285 is oneof the coatings adopted by the block change process as described in PARTI-A-1-1. These tests provided control data for comparison with the results of thealternative coating tests. Selected JTP TI-P-1-1 tests were conducted on thecontrol coatings if historical data was not available for the test, or if the test wassubject to experimental error. Two colors (light and dark) of each alternative coating and control coating weretested to determine the range of properties (related to variations in coatingformulation) required for color changes. Tests on light and dark samples were alsoconducted because some of the tests measure optical properties, which may varywith color.

Since both alternative materials can be used with or without a primer, some testswere conducted on panels with a topcoat and MIL-P-85582 primer, and other testswere conducted on panels with only a topcoat. MIL-P-85582 is the primeradopted by the block change process. To avoid duplication in testing, some tests

Joint Test Report 5

were conducted on only one of the groups of panels (primed or unprimed). Forexample, the wet tape adhesion test (JTP TI-P-1-1 Test 3.1.2) was conducted onthe panels with only a topcoat, since the test measures the performance of thetopcoat only. All control panels used a MIL-P-85582 primer and a topcoat.

6 Joint Test Report

Table 2. Common Primer Test Requirements

JTPTest #

Test Name Acceptance Criteria Testing Facility

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) No blistering or lifting CTC 3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion No peel away CTC 3.1.3 Recoatability No lifting of topcoat NAWCWPN 3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub No substrate show-

through CTC

3.1.5 GE Impact No cracks at 10%elongation

CTC

Table 3. Extended Primer Test Requirements

JTPTest #


3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray(scribed)

No corrosion after 500 hr NAWCWPN

3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance 600 nm - 2700 nm = 10 NAWCWPN 3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion All filaments ≤ 1/4 inches

Majority of filaments< 1/8 inches

CTC

3.1.9 Fluid Immersion:hydraulic fluid, lubricating oil, deionized water

No blistering, whitening,or dulling

CTC

Joint Test Report 7

Table 4. Common Topcoat Test Requirements

JTP Test #


3.2.1 High: ≥ 90 units

Semi: 15 - 45 units CTC

Gloss Low: ≤ 5 units

3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion No peel away CTC 3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub No substrate show-

through CTC

3.2.4 Hiding Power ≥ 0.95 (white only) NAWCWPN 3.2.5 Humidity Resistance No film defects CTC 3.2.6 Heat Resistance Color change ≤ 1.0∆E CTC 3.2.7 Accelerated

Weathering Color change ≤ 2.0∆E NAWCWPN

3.2.8 Tape Resistance No marring CTC 3.2.9 Color Visual match CTC 3.2.10 Fluid Immersion:

Hydraulic fluid, Lubricating oil

No blisters, no darkstains, no soften toscratch

CTC

8 Joint Test Report

Table 5. Extended Topcoat Test Requirements

JTP Test #


3.2.1a Gloss Very low: ≤ 1.0 units CTC

3.2.7a Special AcceleratedWeathering

Color change ≤ 1.0∆E NAWCWPN

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance 600 nm – 2700 nm = 8 NAWCWPN 3.2.12 DS2 Resistance No blisters, wrinkles,

soften to scratch NAWCWPN

3.2.13b Chemical AgentResistance: Agent HD

180 µg maximumdesorption

Agent GD 40 µg maximumdesorption

DPG

Agent VX Program requirement

3.2.14 Temperature Shock Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN 3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN 3.2.16 High-Temperature

Resistance Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN

3.2.17 Low-TemperatureResistance

Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN

3.2.18 Rain Resistance Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN 3.2.19 Salt Fog (cyclical)

Resistance Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN

3.2.20 Humidity (watersoak)

Visual (no film defects) NAWCWPN

3.2.21 Specialized WetTape Adhesion

15% maximum latticeremoval

CTC

3.2.22 Recoatability No lifting NAWCWPN 3.2.23 Specialized Fluid

Resistance: Hydrocarbon, Skydrol, JP4 JP6, JP8, JP10 RJ4

No blisters, dark stains,soften to scratch

CTC

3.2.24 CTC

Flexibility: Impact, Low-temperature

No adhesion loss

a These tests are the same as the common tests, but the acceptance criteria are different. b The acceptance criteria for these tests have been corrected from those listed in JTP TI-P-1-1.

Joint Test Report 9

2.2. Test Flow Procedure

Alternatives testing initially followed the test flow procedure shown in Figure 1.As documented in PAR TI-A-1-1, no screening tests were conducted on Devran122UD prior to the start of JTP testing. Therefore, it was necessary to performthe ten shortest duration JTP tests to determine if further testing was warranted.As will be discussed further in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, Devran 122UD was droppedfrom consideration after these first ten JTP tests. This procedure follows the testflow procedure illustrated in Section 2.2.2 of the JTP, in that intermediate reviewsof the test results were conducted to determine if continued testing was warranted.The JTP also states that the common tests are to be conducted prior to theextended tests. However, since only one alternative was being tested (afterDevran 122UD was removed from consideration), both common and extendedtests were conducted concurrently to reduce the total testing time.

As directed by SOT TI-S-1-1, tests on MetalMate and Devran 122UD wereconducted in a manner that eliminated duplication and maximized the use of eachtest coupon. For example, whenever possible, more than one test was performedon each panel. The destructiveness of the tests conducted on each paneldetermined the amount and type of subsequent tests performed on the panel.There were no deviations from the basic test procedures and acceptance criteriagiven in the JTP, although for some tests the acceptance criteria were unclear andrequired interpretation. These acceptance criteria interpretations are discussed inSection 2.3.

A deviation from the test flow diagram was followed after completing the initial setof tests, in that an analysis of the data required some of the tests to be repeated. Ina meeting between RTIS and CTC technical personnel on January 19-20, 1998, theJTP test results were discussed and test panels were examined to establish a passor fail rating for each test. The results of some tests were judged to beinconclusive because a) it was uncertain the powder coated test panels wereadequately cured, b) the acceptance criteria or test procedures given in the JTP were vague and allowed differing interpretations of the test results or proceduresby the laboratory technician, or c) the test results were unexpected by RTIS basedon their past experience with similar coatings. (Unexpected results could be due toimproper test panel preparation). The tests which resulted in inconclusive resultswere JTP Tests 3.1.5 (GE Impact), 3.1.6 (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed), 3.2.7(Accelerated Weathering), 3.2.21 (Specialized Wet Tape Adhesion, 24-hourexposure only), and 3.2.24 (Flexibility). RTIS, CTC, and JPPAB agreed that allthese tests should be repeated to reconcile the uncertainties. CTC conducted Tests3.1.5, 3.2.21, and 3.2.24 on the MetalMate and control panels. RTIS and JPPABselected Dallas Laboratories in Dallas, Texas to perform Tests 3.1.6 and 3.2.7 onthe MetalMate and control panels. The testing in Dallas was funded by RTIS.Dallas Laboratories was chosen because RTIS had confidence in the firm's abilityto perform the work, and because RTIS would be able to closely monitor the tests.

10 Joint Test Report

Repeat Test 3.2.7Ra (Accelerated Weathering) was not required by SOT TI-S-1-1because it is not a requirement for MIL-C-22750, but the repeat test wasconducted as a comparison to white MetalMate.

Figure 1. Test Flow Diagram

a An “R” following the test number indicates a repeated test.

Select Alternatives

Perform ShortDuration Tests

Do coatingsmeet the

requirements?

Stop testing of coating(s)

ContinueCoating

Tests

Do coatingsmeet the

requirements?

RecommendAcceptance

No

Yes

No

Yes

Stop testing ofcoating(s)

Joint Test Report 11

2.3. Interpretation of the Joint Test Protocol

As described in the PAR TI-P-1-1, the RTIS JG-APP effort initially sought toqualify a low gloss (≤ 5 units), low-temperature cure, chemical agent resistant,epoxy powder coating. Consideration of a 100% solids coating was included inthe RTIS project because product data sheets indicated it was a promisingalternative to high VOC coatings, and because RTIS expressed an interest in thistechnology. Primarily because of the state of the art of commercial epoxy powdercoatings and the volume of coating required at RTIS, the initial goal was changedto seek a qualified, general purpose, epoxy powder coating. Thus, chemical agentresistance was not a requirement of the powder coatings, but was measured forMetalMate by DPG. DPG could only test for resistance to Agent HD and notAgent VX or Agent GD, so only data on the resistance of MetalMate to Agent HDis provided in this report.

2.3.1. Interpretation of GE Impact Test (JTP Test 3.1.5)

The protocol for Test 3.1.5 allowed for procedural variations depending onthe substrate material used, but did not clearly state the exact procedure foreach substrate. The acceptance criteria was given as 10% elongation, butthis amount of elongation depends on the exact GE indentor and substrateused. Only aluminum substrates were used for Test 3.1.5, but it was notclear which indentor would give 10% elongation. Thus, the results of thetest were given in the number of inch-pounds of force generated. Test 3.1.5in JTP TI-P-1-1 also describes the test protocol for low-temperatureflexibility, but the test methodology was not well defined. Since thisproperty is measured in Test 3.2.24, the results of Test 3.2.24 were used tomeasure low-temperature flexibility.

2.3.2. Interpretation of SO2 Salt Spray (Scribed) Retest (JTP Test 3.1.6)

The procedures and acceptance criteria for Test 3.1.6R were confirmed byCTC and RTIS before the start of the test because these parameters werenot clear in the JTP. Test 3.1.6R was conducted according to ASTM G-85.A4 in which the test coupon is exposed to a 5% salt solution and sulfurdioxide (SO2) gas. Alloys tested were 2024-T3, 7075-T7, and 17-4 PH,with five panels per alloy. One trial was conducted for each panel. Theacceptance criterion was less than or equal to 1/64-inch creepage after 500hours of exposure. Tests were conducted on Control MIL-C-22750(white), Control MIL-C-85285 (black), MetalMate 6P124A (black), andMetalMate 7P131B (white). RTIS prepared the panels for testing byscribing the coated surface with an "X" and covering all non-coated areasof the panels with tape. Dallas Laboratories conducted the exposuretesting by introducing SO2 gas into the test chamber for one hour at four-


hour intervals. These cycles were repeated for 500 hours. Upon removalfrom the chamber, the panels were rinsed with deionized water andallowed to dry at room temperature. Panels were returned to RTIS formeasurement of creepage.

2.3.3. Interpretation of Accelerated Weathering Retest (JTP Test 3.2.7)

The procedures and acceptance criteria for Test 3.2.7R were confirmed byCTC and RTIS before the start of the test because these parameters werenot clear in JTP TI-P-1-1. Test 3.2.7R was conducted according to ASTMG-26 in which the test coupon is exposed to incident light of 0.35 watts persquare meter for 500 hours in a weatherometer chamber and checked forchanges in color or gloss. Alloy 2024-T0 was the only alloy tested, withthree panels for each coating. The acceptance criterion was a color changeof less than or equal to 2.0∆E for common requirements or 1.0∆E forextended requirements. Tests were conducted on ControlMIL-C-22750 (white), Control MIL-C-85285 (black), MetalMate 6P124A(black), and MetalMate 7P131B (white). RTIS performed colormeasurements on each panel prior to testing. Exposure of the panels wasconducted at Dallas Laboratories for the required 500 hours, then returnedto RTIS for color measurement and color change determination.

2.3.4. Interpretation of Specialized Wet Tape Adhesion Retest (JTPTest 3.2.21)

The acceptance criteria for Test 3.2.21 as stated in the JTP is confusing,because it is given both as "no peel away" and as "5-15% lattice removal."The test description requires an X to be scribed in the sample, which isconsistent with evaluating gross observations of peel away. Specifying adegree of peel away implies that a lattice pattern has been scribed on thesample. Test 3.2.21R was conducted by scribing both an X and a lattice,following the procedures and evaluation criteria in ASTM D-3359. RTISpreferred the more stringent degree of coating adhesion measured by thelattice test, so those data are reported in Section 4 of this report. Thisprocedure was also followed for Tests 3.1.2 and 3.2.2, but it should benoted that these tests require distilled water exposures at room temperaturefor 24 hours. Test 3.2.21 is more demanding, as the exposure to distilledwater is as much as 168 hours at 65°C.


2.3.5. Interpretation of Humidity Resistance Test (JTP Test 3.2.5)

The acceptance criteria for Test 3.2.5 as stated in the JTP is confusingbecause the JTP states that the samples are to be "rated for changes incolor, blistering, etc.". The acceptance criterion was given as "no softeningor blistering." To better quantify these somewhat subjective criteria, thepencil hardness of the coating was measured before and after exposure.These pencil hardness measurements follow the 18 standard graphite pencillead hardness values from 9H (hardest) to 7B (softest).

2.3.6. Interpretation of Specialized Fluid Resistance Test (JTP Test 3.2.23)

Test 3.2.23 required testing for the resistance of the coating to severalfluids. Tests were not conducted for resistance to the fuels JP4, JP6, JP10,and RJ4 because these fuels are seldom used or are obsolete, and samplescould not be obtained. Tests were conducted only for resistance to JP8,the fuel used in most military applications.


3. ALTERNATIVES TESTED

For this project, VOCs in coatings were identified as hazardous materials of concern, andtargeted for elimination or reduction. Low gloss, low-temperature cure, chemical agentresistant powder coatings were identified as the preferred alternative to high VOCcoatings, but other alternatives were also investigated. Nine alternative materials orprocesses having the potential to replace primers and topcoats containing large amounts ofthe VOCs methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, and xylene were identified through literaturesearches and direct vendor queries. These identified alternatives were high solids, 100%solids, waterborne, alternative solvent, ion vapor deposited, powder, radiation curable,self-priming topcoat, and supercritical CO2 sprayed coatings. Of the nine identifiedalternatives, MIL SPECs were available for acceptable high solids and waterbornecoatings. These MIL SPEC coatings were adopted by the block change process asdocumented in JTR TI-R-1-1. Of the seven remaining identified alternatives, five coatingswere considered unsuitable for further consideration. The two remaining identifiedalternatives were a powder coating (MetalMate, in 6P124A black and 7P131B white) anda 100% solids coating (Devran 122UD in seafoam green and off-white). These materialswere evaluated further by testing them according to JTP TI-P-1-1. Details of the selectionprocess are given in PAR TI-A-1-1. Results of the tests are given in Section 4.


4. TEST RESULTS

The results of the JTP tests are given in Tables 6 through 17 for each coating tested.Common and extended tests for primers and topcoats are presented together in each table.The tests were conducted in accordance with JTP TI-P-1-1 and SOT TI-S-1-1, subject tothe minor variations and interpretations as described in Section 2. Measurement accuracywas equal to or greater than that required by the acceptance criteria given in the JTPTI-P-1-1. Substrate alloys are indicated by the following codes:

• Al 1 = 2024-T0 clad aluminum, chromate chemical conversion coated• Al 2 = 2024-T0 clad aluminum• Al 3 = 2024-T3 clad aluminum, chromate chemical conversion coated• Al 4 = A356-T6 cast aluminum, chromate chemical conversion coated• Al 5 = 7075-T7 bare aluminum, chromate chemical conversion coated• ST = 1018 low carbon steel, pretreated with zinc phosphate• SS = 17-4 PH age hardenable stainless steel• T = Ti-6AL-4V titanium alloy.

The last column of the tables indicates if the coating passed or failed the test, or if theresults were inconclusive. Most of the inconclusive data were resolved after the repeatedtests. Explanations for data that were still inconclusive are noted in the tables. For someindividual tests of a specific coating, testing was not conducted because the test wasperformed on another test panel or the test was deleted pursuant to SOT TI-S-1-1. An"R" after the test number in the first column of the tables indicates a repeated test.

RTIS and CTC jointly reviewed the initial JTP test results on January 19-20, 1998, and therepeated test results on March 11, 1998. The following discussion represents the jointinterpretations and conclusions made by RTIS and CTC for each alternative and thecontrol panels, and focuses on the failed tests to help define the most suitable applicationscenarios. Because of significant RTIS experience with coatings in general andspecifically with the control (baseline and block change) and powder coatings, the finaldecision on the recommendation for use of a coating in a specific application was based ona combination of the test results and RTIS experience. The pass or fail rating for each testwas determined by consensus between RTIS and CTC.

4.1. Control MIL-C-22750 (White)

MIL-C-22750 is one of the coatings currently in use at RTIS and thus was selectedas a control coating to be tested for comparison to the alternatives. The results oftesting MIL-C-22750 are given in Tables 6 and 7. As directed in SOT TI-S-1-1,only selected JTP tests were performed on the control coatings either becausesufficient historical data was not available for the control coating or because thetest method itself was susceptible to experimental error. Some common primertests were conducted on MIL-C-22750. These tests provided data on the


interaction of the topcoat with the MIL-P-85582 primer. Test 3.1.3(Recoatability, primer) was not conducted because MIL-C-22750 is a topcoat andnot a primer. Test 3.1.8 (Filiform Corrosion) was performed on the controlpanels, but SOT TI-S-1-1 incorrectly indicated that it was not required. Test3.2.22 (Recoatability, topcoat) was not conducted because it was not required bySOT TI-S-1-1.

For Test 3.1.6 (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed) corrosion was evident around the holeand the edges. The edges and hole of samples are typically taped before testing,but JTP TI-P-1-1 instructions were unclear for this test. Corrosion only aroundthe edges and the hole are not usually sufficient enough to cause a sample to fail.The degree of corrosion of the test samples was checked several weeks aftercompleting the tests, but too much time had passed to accurately examine theresults. Test results were judged inconclusive and the tests were repeated. For Test 3.1.6R, alloy Al 5 did not pass the acceptance criteria, but alloys AL 3and SS did pass. Testing for SO2 salt spray is a severe test which is not part of theMIL SPEC for MIL-P-85582 and is not typically a requirement for primer/topcoatsystems used at RTIS. These test results indicate that resistance of the coating tocorrosion could depend on the alloy, so care must be taken in selecting a coatingfor a specific application. Alloy Al 3 failed Test 3.1.8 (Filiform Corrosion). This was not a predicted result,as this primer/topcoat system typically passes this test. This test was not repeatedbecause the unexpected results were attributed to variations in panel preparationand coating application, and because the tests would take too long to complete. Alloy Al 1 failed Test 3.2.7R (Accelerated Weathering). This test was notrequired by SOT TI-S-1-1 because it is not a requirement for MIL-C-22750, butthe repeat test was conducted as a comparison to the white MetalMate. Thisresult is consistent with past experience at RTIS. As shown in Table 7, all panels failed Test 3.2.21 (Specialized Wet TapeAdhesion) the first time. The failure was attributed to improper surfacepreparation, and as a result the test was repeated (see results for Test 3.2.21R).Upon retesting with newly prepared panels, all specimens passed.


Table 6. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer

JTPTest #

Test Name Substrate/# Panels

Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 1 panel: 1/64 inch average creepagefrom scribe, 1/64 inch maximumcreepage from scribe (This amountof creepage was judgedinsignificant.)4 panels: Pass with no loss ofadhesion in scribe

P

Al 4/ 1 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 5/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe PSS/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe P

3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Test not required (Control coating is

not a primer. The SOT requires thistest for primers only.)

NT

3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Bubbles around hole (Corrosion

around hole or edges is not usually asignificant factor in evaluation of thepanels, but sufficient data was notavailable to determine extent ofcorrosion.)

I

Al 5/ 5 Bubbles 0.25 inch to 0.75 inchdiameter

F

SS/ 5 Corrosion around edge and hole IAl 3/ 5 No creepage from scribe PAl 5/ 5 Longest creepage from

scribe = 0.0655 inch, averagecreepage = 0.0453 inch

F3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed)

retest

SS/ 5 No creepage from scribe P3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 1 panel:

Filiform corrosion = 3/16 inch2 panels:Filiform corrosion = 1/4 inch

F

P = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted (Table 6 continued on next page)


Table 6. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.9 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic fluid Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT

Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NTLubricating oil Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT

Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NTDeionized water Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT

Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NTP = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted

Table 7. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 6 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.7R Accelerated Weatheringretest

Al 1/6 ∆E = 4.34, 3.65, 4.41 F

3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/1 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.10 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic fluid Al 3/ 6 Test not required per SOT NTLubricating oil Al 1/ 6 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 9 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 Slight yellowing, no loss of adhesion P

ST/ 1 Slight yellowing, no loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 Slight yellowing, no loss of adhesion PT/ 1 Topcoat depression in one area, no

loss of adhesionP



Table 7. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion, No growth offungus

P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion, No growth offungus

P

SS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, No growth offungus

P

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion, No growth offungus

P

3.2.16 High-TemperatureResistance

Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion, slight yellowing P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion, slight yellowing PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, slight yellowing PT/ 1 No loss of adhesion, slight yellowing P


Al 3/ 1 No change P

ST/ 1 No change PSS/ 1 No change PT/ 1 No change P

3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTST/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTSS/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTT/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.19 Salt Fog (cyclical)Resistance

Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion PT/ 1 No loss of adhesion P

3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTST/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTSS/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTT/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.21 Specialized Wet TapeAdhesion

Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 3 panels 0B (> 65% fail)96 hr: 3 panels 0B (> 65% fail)168 hr: 2 panels 2B (15 – 35% fail),1 panel 0B (> 65% fail)

FFF



Table 7. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-22750 White with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.21R Specialized Wet TapeAdhesion retest

Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 2 panels 4B (< 5% fail), 1panel 3B (5-15% fail)96 hr: 3 panels 4B (< 5% fail)168 hr: 3 panels 4B (< 5% fail)

P

PP

3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.23 Specialized Fluid Resistance

Hydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTSkydrol Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTJP8 Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no staining, no

softeningP

JP4 Al 3/ 2 Fluid not available NTJP6 Al 3/ 2 Fluid not available NTJP10 Al 3/ 2 Fluid not available NTRJ4 Al 3/ 2 Fluid not available NT

3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NTLow-temperature Al 2/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT

P = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted

4.2. Control MIL-C-85285 (Black)

MIL-C-85285 is one of the coatings currently in use at RTIS and thus was selectedas a control coating to be tested for comparison to the alternatives. The results oftesting MIL-C-85285 are given in Tables 8 and 9. As described in SOT TI-S-1-1,only selected tests were performed on the control coatings because either sufficienthistorical data was not available for the control coating or because the test methoditself was susceptible to experimental error. Some common primer tests wereconducted on MIL-C-85285. These tests provided data on the interaction of thetopcoat with the MIL-P-85582 primer. Test 3.1.8 (Filiform Corrosion) wasperformed on the control panels. (Note, SOT TI-S-1-1 incorrectly indicated thatthis test was not required.)

Test 3.1.3 (Recoatability, primer) was not conducted because MIL-C-22750 is atopcoat and not a primer. Test 3.2.22 (Recoatability, topcoat) was not conductedbecause it was not required by SOT TI-S-1-1.

For Test 3.1.6 (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed), corrosion was evident around the holeand the edges. Test results were judged inconclusive and the tests were repeated.


For Test 3.1.6R, all alloys passed the acceptance criteria. Testing for SO2 saltspray resistance is a severe test which is not part of the MIL SPEC forMIL-P-85582 and is not typically a requirement for primer/topcoat systems used atRTIS. As evidenced in the results for Control MIL-C-22750, this is a severe testthat may be sensitive to the substrate alloy. The performance of theprimer/topcoat system will also depend on the application procedure. Thus caremust be taken in selecting a coating for corrosive environments above and beyondstandard salt spray resistance requirements (Test 3.1.1).

For Test 3.2.21R (Specialized Wet Tape Adhesion), the coating failed for alloyAl 3. This result was expected because the acceptance criterion is more severethan the criteria in MIL-C-85285. The more severe criteria were used forcomparison to MetalMate, as MetalMate was expected to pass.

Table 8. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe for allpanels

P

Al 4/ 1 No loss of adhesion in scribed areaP

Al 5/ 5 3 panels: No loss of adhesion inscribe2 panels: 1/64 inch maximumcreepage from scribe, < 1/64 inchaverage creepage from scribe(amount of creepage consideredinsignificant)

P

SS/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe P3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Test not required (Control coating is

not a primer. The SOT requires thistest for primers only.)

NT

3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Slight foggy appearance P

Al 5/ 5 Slight foggy appearance PSS/ 5 Hazy with corrosion around hole and

edge (Corrosion around hole oredges is not usually a significantfactor in evaluation of the panels, butsufficient data was not available todetermine extent of corrosion.)

I



Table 8. Primer Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

Al 3/ 5 No creepage from scribe PAl 5/ 5 No creepage from scribe P

3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed)retest

SS/ 5 No creepage from scribe P3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 No filiform corrosion P3.1.9 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic fluid Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTAl 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTAl 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT

Deionized water Al 1/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTAl 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT


Table 9. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 6 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/1 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.10 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic fluid Al 3/ 6 Test not required per SOT NTLubricating oil Al 1/ 6 Test not required per SOT NT

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 9 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 No change P

ST/ 1 No change PSS/ 1 Slightly more gloss, no loss of

adhesionP

T/ 1 No change PP = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted (Table 9 continued on next page)


Table 9. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion or growth offungus

P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion or growth offungus

P

SS/ 1 No loss of adhesion or growth offungus

P

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion or growth offungus

P


Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no visiblechanges

P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no visiblechanges

P

SS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no visiblechanges

P

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no visiblechanges

P




3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTST/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTSS/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTT/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT



ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, slight graying of

surfaceP

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion, small bumps P3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT

ST/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTSS/ 1 Test not required per SOT NTT/ 1 Test not required per SOT NT



Table 9. Topcoat Tests: Control MIL-C-85285 Black with Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail


Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 2 panels 0B (> 65% fail), 1panel 1B (35-65% fail)96 hr: 3 panels 0B (> 65% fail)168 hr: 1 panel 3B (5-15% fail), 1panel 2B (15 -35% fail) 1 panel 0B(> 65% fail)

F

FF


Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 3 panels 0B (> 65% fail)96 hr: 1 panel 2B (15-35% fail), 1panel 1B (35-65% fail), 1 panel 0B(> 65% fail)168 hr: 1 panel 2B (15-35% fail), 2panels 0B (> 65 % fail)

FF

F

3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NT3.2.23 Specialized Fluid Resistance

Hydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTSkydrol Al 3/ 2 Test not required per SOT NTJP8 Al 3/ 2 No blisters, slight color fade, no

softeningP


3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 Test not required per SOT NTLow-temperature Al 2/ 3 Test not required per SOT NT


4.3. MetalMate 6P124A (Black)

The test results for Jones Blair MetalMate 6P124A (black) are given in Tables 10and 11. Black MetalMate without primer failed Test 3.1.1 (Salt Spray, scribed), but passedthe same test when primed. This again indicates the intended-use environmentmust be considered when deciding to use a primer. For Test 3.1.5 (GE Impact), the value of 190 inch-pounds resulted in failure of thecoating, but it was assessed that these loading values were too high for aluminumsubstrates. Thus, the tests were repeated with another GE indentor to yield 10%elongation in the sample, and the coating passed the test.


For Test 3.1.6 (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed), corrosion was evident around the holeand the edges. Test results were judged inconclusive and the tests were repeated. For Test 3.1.6R, alloys Al 3 and Al 5 did not pass the acceptance criteria, but alloySS did pass. Testing for SO2 salt spray is a severe test which is not part of theMIL SPEC for MIL-P-85582 and is not typically a requirement for primer/ topcoatsystems used at RTIS. These test results indicate that resistance of the coating tocorrosion could depend on the alloy, so care must be taken in selecting a coatingfor a specific application. Powder coatings are hard and more difficult to scratchthan the control coatings, and thus could be more suitable for corrosiveenvironments

For Test 3.2.1 (Gloss), black MetalMate failed the low gloss (≤5 units) acceptancecriteria. This failure is not considered significant, as varying the cure temperatureof the coating can affect gloss; required gloss will also depend on the intendedapplication.

For Test 3.2.2 (Wet Tape Adhesion), MetalMate failed the acceptance criteria.The acceptance criteria given in JTP TI-P-1-1 states that no lifting of the coatingshould occur. Only trace peeling was observed in the test, which is not consideredto be significant. As shown in Table 11, all panels failed Test 3.2.21 (Specialized Wet TapeAdhesion) the first time. The failure was attributed to improper surfacepreparation, and as a result the test was repeated (see results for Test 3.2.21R).Upon retesting with newly prepared panels, all specimens passed.


Table 10. Primer Tests: MetalMate 6P124A Black EpoxyPowder Coating with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 4/ 1 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 5/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe PSS/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe P

3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.2, Table 11 NT3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.22, Table 11 NT3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.3, Table 11 NT3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 See Test 3.1.5, Table 11 NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Corrosion at edge and hole

(Corrosion around hole or edges isnot usually a significant factor inevaluation of the panels, butsufficient data was not available todetermine the extent of corrosion.)

I

Al 5/ 5 No change PSS/ 5 Corrosion at edge and hole I

AL 3/ 5 1 panel: Up to 0.0156 inch creepage2 panels: 0.0156 inch to 0.0313 inchcreepage2 panels: > 1/32 inch creepage

F

AL 5/ 5 Longest creepage fromscribe = 0.1625 inch, averagecreepage = 0.0988 inch, blisteredappearance

F

3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed)retest

SS/ 3 No creepage from scribe, only3 panels tested

P

3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.11, Table 11 NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 No filiform corrosion P3.1.9 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic fluid Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.10, Tables 11 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.10, Table 11 NT

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.10, Table 11 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.10, Table 11 NT

Deionized water Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.20, Table 11 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.20, Table 11 NT



Table 11. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 6P124A BlackEpoxy Powder Coating without Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 1/64 inch average creepage fromscribe, 1/16 inch to 1/8 inchmaximum creepage from scribe

F

Al 4/ 1 1/8 inch to 3/16 inch averagecreepage from scribe, 1/2 inch to 3/8inch maximum creepage from scribe

F

Al 5/ 5 4 panels: 1/16 inch to 1/8 inchaverage creepage from scribe, 1/4inch to 3/8 inch maximum creepagefrom scribe1 panel: 1/32 inch to 1/16 inchaverage creepage from scribe, 3/8inch to 1/2 inch maximum creepagefrom scribe

F

SS/ 3 No loss of adhesion in scribe P3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Failure @ 190 inch-pounds (JTP

acceptance criteria were unclear)I

3.1.5 R GE Impactretest

Al 1/ 3 Pass @ 47 inch-pounds (This valueproduces 10% elongation in the Al 1substrate.)

P

3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No change PAl 5/ 5 Corrosion at edge and hole


I

SS/ 5 Corrosion at edge and hole I3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 > 0.0313 inch creepage from scribe F

retest Al 5/ 5 Longest creepage fromscribe = 0.1625 inch, averagecreepage = 0.0988 inch, blisteredappearance

F

SS/ 5 No creepage from scribe P3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 2 panels: Filiform corrosion, longest

blister = 3/16 inch1 panel: Filiform corrosion longestblister = 1/8 inch

P



Table 11. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 6P124A BlackEpoxy Powder Coating without Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Contrast Ratios:9.4, 10.7, 10.4, 6.9(Quality control panels measuredvalue of 5, or “pass”. Low glosscriteria used)

F

3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Trace peeling F3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No failure P3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Contrast Ratio:

0.9906, 0.9719, 0.9944P

3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 After 5-10 min

2 panels: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 2H,Scratch = HBAverage change in color: 0.43Average change in gloss: 0.21

1 panel: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 4H, Scratch= HBChange in color: 0.67Change in gloss: 0.3

P




JTPTest # Test Name

Substrate/# Panels Result

Pass/Fail

3.2.5(Cont’d)

Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 After 24 hours

1 panel: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 2H,Scratch = HBChange in color: 0.45Change in gloss: 0.32 panels: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = 2HAverage change in color: 0.82Average change in gloss: 0.35

P

3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 0.258∆E = 0.350∆E = 0.214

P

3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 0.47, 0.47, 0.65∆E = 0.00 (before exposure valueswere obtained from the back of thepanel)

I

3.2.7 R Accelerated Weatheringretest

Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 1.19, 1.69, 0.55(passes common topcoatrequirements)

P

3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/1 No change P3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Slightly darker I

3.2.10 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic fluid Al 3/ 6 No blistering, no staining, no

softening (unsubmerged gouge ≥ 8H,submerged gouge = 4H,unsubmerged scratch = HB,submerged scratch = HB)

P




JTPTest # Test Name


Pass/Fail

3.2.10(Cont’d)

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 6 No blistering, no staining,(unsubmerged gouge ≥ 8H,submerged gouge ≥ 8H,unsubmerged scratch = HB,submerged scratch = HB)

P

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Panel 1:0.35 nm = 5.6; 0.4 nm = 5.3;0.475 nm = 4.9; 0.5 nm = 4.9;0.6 nm = 4.8; 0.7 nm = 4.7;0.8 nm = 4.6; 0.85 nm =5.6;0.9 nm = 4.6; 1.0 nm = 4.6Panel 2:0.3 nm = 6.1; 0.4 nm = 5.5;0.5 nm = 5.2; 0.6 nm = 4.9;0.65 nm = 4.8; 0.7 nm = 4.7;0.8 nm = 4.6; 0.9 nm = 4.7;1.0 nm = 4.7; 1.1 nm = 4.8

P

3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 No blistering, wrinkling, or softening P3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 3 Agent HD: 5, 5, 0 µg desorption

(Only 3 panels were required for eachchemical agent.)

P

3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion PST/ 1 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion PT/ 1 No loss of adhesion P

3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P

SS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P







JTPTest # Test Name


Pass/Fail




3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion, nodulling of surface

P

ST/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion, nodulling of surface

P

SS/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion, nodulling of surface

P

T/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion, nodulling of surface

P




3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 No change PST/ 1 No change PSS/ 1 No change PT/ 1 No change P


Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 1 panel 3B (5-15% fail), 1panel 2B (15-35% fail), 1 panel 1B(35-65% fail)96 hr: 1 panel 3B (5-15% fail), 1panel 2B (15-35% fail), 1 panel 1B(35-65 % fail)168 hr: 2 panels 4B (< 5% fail), 1panel 0B (> 65% fail)

F

F

F


Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 2 panels 4B (< 5% fail), 1panel 3B (5-15% fail)96 hr: 2 panels 4B (< 5% fail), 1panel 3B (5-15% fail)168 hr: 2 panels 4B (< 5% fail), 1panel 3B (5-15% fail)

P

P

P

3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 No loss of adhesion PP = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted (Table 11 continued on next page)



JTPTest # Test Name


Pass/Fail

3.2.23 Specialized Fluid ResistanceHydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no softening, slight

stainingP

Skydrol Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no wrinkling, nosagging, no softening

P

JP8 Al 3/ 2 No blistering, slight color fade, nosoftening

P


3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 Direct = Pass 60 inch-pounds

Reverse = Pass 60 inch-poundsP

Low-temperature Al 2/ 3 2-inch mandrel: No loss of adhesion PP = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted

4.4. MetalMate 7P131B (White)

The test results for MetalMate 7P131B (white) are given in Tables 12 and 13. White MetalMate without primer failed Test 3.1.1 (Salt Spray, scribed) for alloysAl 3 and Al 5 (Table 13), but passed the same test when primed (Table 12). Thisagain indicates that the intended-use environment must be considered whendeciding to use a primer. For Test 3.1.5 (GE Impact), the values of 190 inch-pounds resulted in failure ofthe coating, but it was assessed that these loading values were too high foraluminum substrates. Thus, the tests were repeated with another GE indentor toyield 10% elongation in the sample, and the coating passed the test. For Test 3.1.6 (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed), corrosion was evident around the holeand the edges on both primed and unprimed panels. Test results were judgedinconclusive and the tests were repeated. For Test 3.1.6R (SO2 Salt Spray, scribed), alloy Al 5 did not pass the acceptancecriteria, but alloys Al 3 and SS did pass. Testing for SO2 salt spray is a severe testwhich is not part of the MIL SPEC for MIL-P-85582 and is not typically arequirement for primer/topcoat systems used at RTIS. These test results indicate


that resistance of the coating to corrosion could depend on the alloy, so care mustbe taken in selecting a coating for a specific application. Powder coatings are hardand more difficult to scratch than the control coatings, thus they could be moresuitable for corrosive environments.

For Test 3.1.8 (Filiform Corrosion), white MetalMate passed the test when aprimer was used, and failed the test when primer was not used. These results wereexpected and again indicate that the intended-use environment must be consideredto determine if a primer is needed with white MetalMate. White MetalMate failed Test 3.2.7R (Accelerated Weathering). These resultswere expected for a high gloss epoxy coating, but white MetalMate may besuitable for use in applications where loss of gloss is not important. As shown in Table 13, white MetalMate failed Test 3.2.24 (Flexibility) the firsttime (two of three panels failed both the Impact test and the Low-Temperaturetest, which comprise Test 3.2.24). The failure was attributed to the possibility ofan incomplete cure of some of the panels, and as a result the test was repeated (seeresults for Test 3.2.24R). Upon retesting with newly prepared panels, allspecimens passed.


Table 12. Primer Tests: MetalMate 7P131B White EpoxyPowder Coating with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 4/ 1 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 5/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe PSS/ 5 No loss of adhesion in scribe P

3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.2, Table 13 NT3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.22, Table 13 NT3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.3, Table 13 NT3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 See Test 3.1.5, Table 13 NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No change P

Al 5/ 5 Loss of adhesion FSS/ 5 Corrosion around edges and holes


I

Al 3/ 5 No creepage from scribe PAl 5/ 5 Longest creepage from

scribe = 0.2735 inch; averagecreepage = 0.1506 inch; blisteredappearance

F3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed)

retest

SS/ 5 No creepage from scribe, rustcolored stains in scribe

P

3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 See Test 3.2.11, Table 13 NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 No filiform corrosion P3.1.9 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.10, Table 13 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.10, Table 13 NT

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.10, Table 13 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.10, Table 13 NT

Deionized water Al 1/ 2 See Test 3.2.20, Table 13 NTAl 3/ 3 See Test 3.2.20, Table 13 NT



Table 13. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 7P131BWhite Epoxy Powder Coating without Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Up to 1/64 inch average creepagefrom scribe, 1/64 inch to 1/32 inchmaximum creepage from scribe

F

Al 4/ 1 No loss of adhesion in scribe PAl 5/ 5 4 panels: 1/64 inch to 1/32 inch

average creepage form scribe1 panel: Up to 1/64 inch averagecreepage from scribe

F

SS/ 5 5 panels: No loss of adhesion inscribe

P

3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Fail at 109 inch-pounds (JTPacceptance criteria were unclear)

I

3.1.5R GE Impact Retest Al 1/ 3 Pass at 47 inch-pounds (This valueproduces 10% elongation in the Al 1substrate.)

P

3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 No loss of adhesion PAl 5/ 5 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 5 Corrosion around edges and hole


I

3.1.6R SO2 Salt Spray (scribed)Retest

Al 3/ 5 Up to 0.0156 inch creepage fromscribe

P

Al 5/ 5 Longest creepage fromscribe = 0.0960 inch, averagecreepage = 0.0687

F

SS/ 5 No creepage from scribe, rustcolored stain in scribe

P

3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 2 panels: Filiform corrosion longestblister 1/4 inch1 panel: Filiform corrosion longestblister 5/16 inch

F

3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Contrast ratios:96.7, 98.1, 97.9, 96.9 (High glosscriteria used)

P

3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 No failure PP = pass, F = fail, I = inconclusive, NT = not conducted (Table 13 continued on next page)


Table 13. Topcoat Tests: MetalMate 7P131BWhite Epoxy Powder Coating without Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No substrate show-through1 panel: Obvious depression, heavymarring1 panel: Apparent depression, somemarring

P

3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Contrast ratios:0.9829, 0.9844, 0.9903

P

3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 After 5-10 minutes exposure1 panel: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBColor change: 0.18Gloss change: 1.73

2 panels: No blistering, no rustingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 2H,Scratch = HBAverage color change: 0.4Average gloss change: 2.15

After 24 hours exposure2 panels: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 2H,Scratch = HBAverage color change: 0.38Average gloss change: 2.02

P

P




JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.5(Cont’d)

Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 1 panel: No blistering, no rusting, nocrackingBefore hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = HBAfter hardness: Gouge = 4H,Scratch = 2HColor change: 0.16Gloss change: 1.4

3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 0.468∆E = 0.203∆E = 0.193

P

3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 3.63∆E = 3.31∆E = 2.8∆E = 3.7 (before exposure valueswere taken from back of panel)

I

3.2.7R Accelerated Weatheringretest

Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 4.56, 4.77, 4.63 F

3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/ 1 No change P3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Lighter, less yellow (result is

inconclusive because no quantitativedata was provided)

I

3.2.10 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic Fluid Al 3/ 6 No blisters, slight staining

(unsubmerged gouge ≥ 8H,submerged gouge ≥ 8H,unsubmerged scratch = 2B,submerged scratch = 4B)

P

Lubricating Oil Al 1/ 6 No blisters, faint brown stains, nosoftening (unsubmerged gouge ≥ 8H,submerged gouge ≥ 8H,unsubmerged scratch = HB,submerged scratch = HB)

P

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Results cannot be interpreted throughMIL-C-46168D, no requirements arelisted for white

I




JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 No blistering, no wrinkling, nosoftening

P

3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 3 Agent HD: 0, 0, 0 µg desorption(Only 3 panels per chemical agentwere required.)

P

3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion PST/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion P

3.2.15 Fungus Resistance T/ 1 No change, no loss of adhesion PAl 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth of

fungusP

ST/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P

SS/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P

T/ 1 No loss of adhesion, no growth offungus

P







3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion PST/ 1 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion PT/ 1 No loss of adhesion P







JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 No loss of adhesion PST/ 1 No loss of adhesion PSS/ 1 No loss of adhesion PT/ 1 No loss of adhesion P


Al 3/ 9 24 hr: 2 panels 5B, 1 panel 4B96 hr: 2 panels 4B, 1 panel 3B168 hr: 3 panels 4B

PPP

3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 No loss of adhesion P3.2.23 Specialized Fluid

ResistanceHydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no wrinkling, no

sagging, no softeningP

Skydrol Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no wrinkling, nosagging, no softening

P

JP8 Al 3/ 2 No blistering, no staining, nosoftening

P


3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 2 panels: Fail direct and reverse

impact at 60 inch-pounds1 panel: Pass direct and reverseimpact at 60 inch-pounds(possible incomplete cure of panel)

F

Low-Temperature Al 2/ 3 2 panels: Fail 1-inch mandrel1 panel: Pass 1-inch mandrel

F

(possible incomplete cure of panel)3.2.24R Flexibility retest

Impact Al 2/3 3 panels: Pass direct and reverseimpact at 60 inch-pounds

P

Low-temperature Al 2/ 3 2 panels: Pass, no cracking1 panel: Pass, 1/8 inch crack on edge

P



4.5. Devran 122UD (Seafoam Green)

The test results for Devran 122UD (seafoam green) are given in Tables 14 and 15.Based on the recommendation of RTIS and CTC, the test flow procedure shown inFigure 1 and the concurrence of the JPPAB, testing of Devran 122UD wasterminated after completing the tests listed in Tables 14 and 15 because the coatingdid not pass a sufficient number of tests. No attempt was made to determine thereason for the failure of Devran 122UD, but it is possible that the applicationmethod was the cause of failure. The preferred application method for Devran122UD is metered mixing with heated material supply lines to achieve the properviscosity and approximate 2.0 mil coating thickness. Since this method requires aminimum of approximately 15 gallons of coating, and less than one gallon wasrequired for coating of the test coupons, high velocity, low pressure (HVLP)conventional spraying was used as the application method. This latter methodresulted in a coating thickness of between 5.0 and 8.0 mils, which is too thick andbrittle for RTIS applications.

Table 14. Primer Tests: Devran 122UD Seafoam Green

100% Solids with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 4/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 5/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 Trace peeling F3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No substrate show through P3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Panels not available NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Al 5/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.9 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic fluid Al 1/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Deionized water Al 1/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT



Table 15. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD Seafoam Green100% Solids without Primer

Test # Test Name Substrate/# Panels

Result Pass/Fail

3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Fail at 40 inch-pounds F3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Contrast ratios:

81.4, 86.4, 85.7, 85.5 (fails allcriteria)

F

3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 1 panel: 1/16 inch removal2 panels: Trace peeling

F

3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No failure P3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 ∆E =1.194

∆E =1.249∆E =1.491

F

3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 6 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/1 No change P3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.2.10 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic fluid Al 3/ 6 No blisters, staining, no softening FLubricating oil Al 1/ 6 No blisters, staining, softening F

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 9 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT

ST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT


Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT




Table 15. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD Seafoam Green100% Solids without Primer (Continued)

Test # Test Name Substrate/# Panels

Result Pass/Fail




3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT




3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT



3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.23 Specialized Fluid Resistance

Hydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTSkydrol Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP8 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP4 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP6 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP10 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTRJ4 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NTLow-temperature Al 2/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT



4.6. Devran 122UD (Off-White)

The test results for Devran 122UD (off-white) are given in Tables 16 and 17.Based on the recommendation of RTIS and CTC, the test flow procedure shown inFigure 1, and the concurrence of the JPPAB, testing of Devran 122UD wasterminated after completing the tests listed in Tables 16 and 17 because the coatingdid not pass a sufficient number of tests. No attempt was made to determine thereason for the failure of Devran 122UD, but it is possible that the applicationmethod was the cause of failure. The preferred application method for Devran122UD is metered mixing with heated material supply lines to achieve the properviscosity and approximate 2.0 mil coating thickness. Since this method requires aminimum of approximately 15 gallons of coating, and less than one gallon wasrequired for coating of the test coupons, HVLP conventional spraying was used asthe application method. This latter method resulted in a coating thickness ofbetween 5.0 and 8.0 mils, which is too thick and brittle for RTIS applications.

Table 16. Primer Tests: Devran 122UD White 100% Solids with Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.1 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 4/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 5/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.1.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 1/16 inch removal F3.1.3 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.4 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No substrate show through P3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Panels not available NT3.1.6 SO2 Salt Spray (scribed) Al 3/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Al 5/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 5 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.1.7 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.8 Filiform Corrosion Al 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.1.9 Fluid Immersion

Hydraulic Al 1/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Lubricating oil Al 1/ 2 Not required – alt0ernative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT

Deionized water Al 1/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTAl 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT



Table 17. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD White 100% Solids without Primer

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.1.5 GE Impact Al 1/ 3 Fail at 40 inch-pounds F3.2.1 Gloss Al 3/ 4 Contrast Ratios:

63.1, 61.1, 62.8, 73.9 (fails allcriteria)

F

3.2.2 Wet Tape Adhesion Al 3/ 3 2 panels: 1/8 inch removal1 panel: 1/16 inch removal

F

3.2.3 Solvent (MEK) Rub Al 3/ 2 No failure P3.2.4 Hiding Power Charts/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.5 Humidity Resistance Al 3/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.6 Heat Resistance Al 1/ 3 ∆E = 3.306

∆E = 3.684∆E = 3.703

F

3.2.7 Accelerated Weathering Al 1/ 6 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.8 Tape Resistance Al 3/1 No change P3.2.9 Color Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.2.10 Fluid ImmersionHydraulic Fluid Al 3/ 6 No blisters, no stains, no softening FLubricating Oil Al 1/ 6 No blisters, pink stains, no softening F

3.2.11 Infrared Reflectance Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.12 DS2 Resistance ST/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.13 Chemical Agent Resistance Al 5/ 9 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.14 Temperature Shock Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT


3.2.15 Fungus Resistance Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT









Table 17. Topcoat Tests: Devran 122UD White 100% Solids without Primer (Continued)

JTPTest #


Result Pass/Fail

3.2.18 Rain Resistance Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT




3.2.20 Humidity (water soak) Al 3/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTST/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTSS/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NTT/ 1 Not required - alternative dropped NT



3.2.22 Recoatability Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT3.2.23 Specialized Fluid Resistance

Hydrocarbon Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTSkydrol Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP8 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP4 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP6 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTJP10 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NTRJ4 Al 3/ 2 Not required - alternative dropped NT

3.2.24 FlexibilityImpact Al 1/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NTLow-temperature Al 2/ 3 Not required - alternative dropped NT


4.7. Summary of Results

The MIL-C-22750 and MIL-C-85285 control coatings performed well asexpected, even though the coatings did not pass all the JTP tests. The coatingsmet the requirements of the appropriate MIL SPECs. For those tests that thecoatings failed, the failures were expected because the acceptance criteria weremore severe than the MIL SPECs, or could be explained by possible variations inthe preparation and coating of the test panels.


Both black and white MetalMate performed well in the tests, including resistanceto Chemical Agent HD and resistance to accelerated weathering. Test resultsindicated that care must be exercised in matching MetalMate to the intendedoperational environment. MetalMate is assessed to be a hard, marr- and scratch-resistant coating in many of the environments typically encountered by defensesystems.

Devran 122UD in seafoam green and off-white was rejected as an alternative to ahigh VOC topcoat because it failed the Wet Tape Adhesion, GE Impact, Gloss,Heat Resistance, and Fluid Immersion tests (for hydraulic fluid and lubricating oil).It is possible that this coating could be reformulated to improve its performance,but no such reformulation was attempted for the RTIS project.


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the RTIS JG-APP project was to identify alternatives to high VOCcoatings currently in use. This project was conducted using the JG-APP methodologydescribed in the introduction. Based on the results of the JTP TI-P-1-1 tests, MetalMate can be an acceptable alternativeto high VOC coatings in many applications. MetalMate is resistant to Chemical AgentHD. It can also provide a fuel, decontaminant (DS2), oil, lubricant, scratch- and marr-resistant surface in many of the environments typically encountered by defense systems. MetalMate eliminates the need for MIL-P-23377F and MIL-P-85582 in certainapplications because it can be used without a primer. The decision to use MetalMate as aprimerless coating should be based on the intended operating environment of the defensesystem. For instance, when MetalMate is intended for use in marine (salt spray)environments, the use of a primer should be considered.

MIL-C-22750 is still being used at RTIS because it has good resistance to DS2. It isassessed that MetalMate can replace MIL-C-22750 in most current applications. MetalMate can replace MIL-C-46168 Type II, MIL-C-46168 Type IV, MIL-C-85285,and MIL-C-83286 in applications where chalking from UV radiation exposure is not aconcern and very low gloss (≤1.0) is not required. Because of substrate material limitations (and the associated cure temperature limitations)and expected UV radiation exposure, the extent to which MetalMate can replace existingcoatings has not been determined. Replacement of an existing coating on an existing partor subassembly must be determined on a case-by-case basis. MetalMate has the properties of low gloss, low-temperature cure, chemical agentresistance, and resistance to accelerated weathering (black only), making it a suitablecoating for use in many defense systems applications.

Documents

Joint Test Report TI-R-1-2 - For Alternatives to High