Norma - HCAT - Validation of WCCo HVOF Thermal Spray Coatings As A Replacement For Hard Chrome Plating

U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)
Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP)
JOINT TEST REPORT
Validation of WC/Co HVOF

Thermal Spray Coatings as a
Replacement for Hard Chrome Plating
On Aircraft Landing Gear
PART I:
MATERIALS TESTING
Date: November 21, 2002
Prepared By:
U.S. Hard Chrome Alternatives Team (HCAT)
Authors
Bruce Sartwell Keith Legg
Naval Research Laboratory Rowan Technology Group
Phone: (202) 767 - 0722 Phone: (847) 680-9420
Fax: (202) 767-3321 Fax: (847) 680-9682
e-mail: sartwell@nrl.navy.mil e-mail: klegg@rowantechnology.com
John Sauer
Sauer Engineering
Phone: (513) 984-8709
Fax: (513) 984-4156
e-mail: jopsauer@fuse.net
Contributors
Phil Bretz Dennis Dull
Metcut Research Boeing, Seattle
PBretz@metcut-usa.com dennis.l.dull@boeing.com
Jerry Schell Jim Nuse
GE Aircraft Engines Southwest Aeroservice
Jerry.Schell@ae.ge.com jnuse@ix.netcom.net
John Falkowski
Boeing, Seattle
john.falkowski@pss.boeing.com
Points of contact
Bruce Sartwell Keith Legg
e-mail: sartwell@nrl.navy.mil e-mail: klegg@rowantechnology.com
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the materials (coupon) testing performed by the U.S. Hard
Chrome Alternatives Team (HCAT), under the principal sponsorship of the DOD
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program and the Joint Group on Pollution
Prevention, for high-velocity oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal-spray coatings as compared to
standard electrolytic hard chrome (EHC) plating. For most of the tests, the HVOF coatings
were 83 wt% WC particles in a 17 wt% Co matrix (expressed as WC-Co). For some tests,
coatings that consisted of 86 wt% WC particles in a matrix consisting of a CoCr alloy of
composition 10 wt% Co and 4 wt% Cr (expressed as WC-CoCr) were evaluated. The HVOF
and EHC coatings were deposited on coupons fabricated from 4340, 300M and Aermet 100
steels, which are the most common landing gear materials. Each coupon was heat-treated to
the same strength as what is normally used for landing gear applications. All of the testing was
conducted in accordance with the Landing Gear Joint Test Protocol (JTP), Part I: Materials
Testing that was previously issued. The types of testing that were conducted included fatigue,
corrosion, wear, impact and hydrogen embrittlement. The JTP also described materials testing
being conducted by the Canadian Hard Chrome Alternatives Team, which was exclusively on
EHC and WC-CoCr. However, those results are not presented here and will be issued in a
separate report.
Unlike EHC, which is deposited by an electrolytic method and cannot easily be modified,
HVOF is a process for depositing a wide variety of materials, including alloys and
ceramic/metal mixtures (designated cermets). HVOF materials can be chosen to suit the
application, while HVOF deposition conditions can be optimized for corrosion, wear, fatigue,
adhesion, fracture strength, or any other critical property (although tradeoffs in the various
properties with a variance in deposition parameters are often encountered). For application on
military aircraft landing gear, HVOF WC-Co and WC-CoCr were selected because of their
wide and growing usage in the commercial sector for these and similar types of components.
(Note that, although WC-CoCr does contain 4wt% Cr, the process is Cr6+-free.)
Since the purpose of these studies was to demonstrate that the performance of the HVOF
coatings was equivalent or superior to EHC coatings, the latter served as a baseline for
assessing the HVOF coatings. All EHC coatings evaluated were deposited in accordance with
standards currently being used by military repair depots. For most studies, both EHC and
HVOF coating thicknesses were in the range of 0.003 to 0.010 inches, with the former being
representative of thicknesses used by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the latter
being representative of thicknesses used by repair depots, which use EHC for dimensional
restoration as well as for imparting a protective surface layer to components.
The results of the testing can be summarized as follows:
• Fatigue – The performance of the WC-Co coatings was usually superior to, and was
never worse than, EHC coatings under axial fatigue testing in both ambient air and in a
NaCl solution, simulating corrosion fatigue. On high-strength steels, the application of
EHC usually degrades fatigue performance, meaning that at a given stress level, the
iii
substrate will fail at a lower number of cycles than for a substrate that was not coated.
The application of HVOF WC-Co coatings generally resulted in less of a degradation in
fatigue performance than for EHC and, in some instances, the performance was
equivalent to non-coated substrates. Therefore, the HVOF WC-Co coatings passed the
JTP acceptance criteria.
o However, this and subsequent testing, both by the U.S. and Canadian teams, has
identified a coating integrity issue in which spalling of the HVOF WC-Co and
WC-CoCr coatings is sometimes observed under fully reversed loading near the
yield stress of the steel. This effect is more pronounced for thicker coatings.
Evaluations are continuing to determine optimum coating deposition conditions
and operating ranges for loads, stress reversal ratios, and coating thicknesses.
The results of these evaluations will be reported when complete.
• Corrosion – The Materials JTP specified that three types of corrosion testing would be
conducted: ASTM B117 salt fog, ASTM G85 SO2 salt fog, and GM 9540 cyclic. The
B117 and GM testing were conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory whereas the
G85 testing was conducted by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) at Patuxent
River. Unfortunately, the lead engineer at NAWC resigned before an analysis of the
test results could be completed, so this report only includes results from the B117 and
GM testing, which included EHC coatings, HVOF WC-Co coatings and a few WC-
CoCr coatings for direct comparison. In general, GM cyclic testing is less aggressive
than B117 testing and that was the case in these studies. All of the coatings provided
substantial protection against corrosion in the cyclic tests. For the B117 tests, the
performance of the HVOF coatings was inferior to EHC, with WC-CoCr being superior
to WC-Co. Therefore, the HVOF coatings did not pass the acceptance criteria.
o Prior to development and execution of the Landing Gear JTP, the U.S. HCAT
conducted what it called “generic” testing (meaning tests not directed towards
any specific type of aircraft components). This included B117 and three-year
atmospheric “beach” corrosion testing on a variety of HVOF coatings and
substrate materials, including WC-Co on 4340 steel, the same as one of the
combinations in the Landing Gear JTP. These results were to a large extent in
contradiction to those obtained from the Landing Gear JTP, especially the three-
year atmospheric studies, where the WC-Co coatings significantly outperformed
EHC. To illustrate the significant differences, it was decided to include the
atmospheric corrosion test results in this report.
o One of the unexpected results from the Landing Gear JTP studies was the
unusually good performance of EHC in the B117 tests. Other organizations
such as NRC Canada and Hamilton-Sundstrand have conducted similar tests
with the EHC demonstrating significantly poorer performance. To address these
apparent inconsistencies, Boeing St. Louis provided test coupons to two
aerospace-qualified EHC plating vendors, who coated and returned them to
Boeing for B117 testing. Each vendor applied EHC in accordance with
Specification QQ-C-320. The subsequent B117 tests conducted by Boeing
showed significantly different results between the coatings supplied by the two
vendors. All of these results indicate that it is difficult to obtain a “baseline”
performance for EHC to which the HVOF coatings would be compared.
iv
o There were two effects observed with the corrosion of the HVOF WC-Co and
WC-CoCr. The first was general corrosion of the cobalt binder which led to a
slight roughening of the surface. The second was undercutting of the coating
that was initiated at edges. In order to eliminate the second effect in actual
practice, it is essential that the edges of HVOF coatings be sealed to ensure the
corrosive media cannot penetrate to the coating/substrate interface.
• Wear – Two types of wear tests were conducted, neither of which conformed to any
ASTM standard but instead were developed by the U.S. HCAT to simulate actual
service conditions for certain landing gear components. The first was a GE fretting test
involving two flat surfaces sliding against each other in oscillation with a short stroke at
high frequency, simulating conditions encountered by landing gear pins subject to low
amplitude vibration. For these tests, 4340 steel panels coated with EHC, WC-Co, or
WC-CoCr that had been ground were slid against polished 4340 or a nitrile elastomer
incorporated into 4340 steel. The second test involved sliding wear of a coated rod
against a bushing material with a long stroke at low frequency, simulating conditions
encountered by landing gear pistons and actuators. For these tests, 4340 steel rods
coated with EHC, WC-Co, or WC-CoCr that had been ground were slid against 4340,
Al-Ni bronze, or anodized 2024-T3 Al bushings. Some tests also involved
incorporating elastomeric nitrile or Karon B seals into the bushings. Because of the
large number of coating and wear test parameters (e.g., coating surface finish for the
former and amount of lubrication for the latter), a design-of-experiment (DOE)
approach was taken in conducting the wear tests to identify the key parameters that
contributed to differences in wear performance between the different coatings. The
results showed that, in general, the wear of the WC-Co and WC-CoCr was less than that
of the EHC, but the wear of the mating surface materials (except for 4340 steel) was
higher against the WC-Co and WC-CoCr than for EHC. The HVOF coatings passed
the acceptance criteria.
o The Landing Gear JTP was developed prior to the HCAT obtaining information
from independent studies on apparent better performance of mating materials
such as elastomers sliding against WC-Co and WC-CoCr when the coatings
were superfinished as opposed to just ground. From those results, it is believed
that if the Landing Gear JTP wear tests had been conducted against
superfinished HVOF coatings, both the coatings and mating materials would
have performed better than what was observed with EHC.
• Impact – Two types of impact tests were conducted, the first being ASTM D3170
which involved shooting high-velocity specific-sized gravel at 4340 steel rods coated
with EHC, WC-Co or WC-CoCr. This test simulated the impact of debris on
components such as landing gear cylinders during takeoff and landing. The second test
did not conform to any ASTM standard but followed the protocol of similar tests
previously conducted by the Navy that involved dropping 0.97-pound 52100 steel balls
from different heights onto 4340 steel rods coated with EHC, WC-Co, or WC-CoCr.
This simulated impact that might be encountered from dropped tools or during assembly
of components. The results of both tests indicated that the extent of coating damage and
v
cracking as a result of the impact by the gravel or balls was less for both HVOF
coatings than for EHC. Therefore, the HVOF coatings passed the acceptance criteria.
• Hydrogen Embrittlement – A series of embrittlement tests was conducted that

involved the ASTM F519 notched sample method. The HVOF process for application
of WC-Co and WC-CoCr coatings was found not to cause embrittlement (i.e., a
hydrogen bakeout is not necessary after application of the HVOF coatings). In
environmental embrittlement (re-embrittlement) testing that involved exposing the
coatings to a corrosive medium under load, both WC-Co and WC-CoCr performed
much better than EHC, with WC-CoCr somewhat better than WC-Co. Hydrogen
appears to be able to diffuse readily through both HVOF coatings, permitting stripping
and electrolytic plating adjacent to existing HVOF coatings during rework. The HVOF
coatings passed the acceptance criteria.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents...............................................................................................................vii
List of figures.....................................................................................................................xii
List of tables..................................................................................................................... xxi
Table of Documents....................................................................................................... xxvi
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1. Summary of tests conducted ...............................................................................8
2. Coating optimization and characterization ................................................................9
2.1. Rationale/Background History..........................................................................10
2.1.1. HVOF Application.........................................................................................10
2.1.2. HCAT Coating Optimization and deposition Philosophy-Fatigue ................10
2.1.3. Fatigue Cycle Life vs. Fatigue Coating Integrity...........................................11
2.2. Test methodology..............................................................................................12
2.2.1. DOE Methodology.........................................................................................12
2.2.2. HVOF Optimization.......................................................................................12
2.2.2.1. General ....................................................................................................12
2.2.3. General Example CCAD Analysis................................................................13
2.3. Test Results .......................................................................................................14
2.3.1. General Sequence...........................................................................................14
2.3.2. Northwestern/Generic Protocol_Hill AFB JP 5000.....................................15
2.3.2.1. General Test Results................................................................................15
2.3.2.2. General Discussion..................................................................................17
2.3.3. CCAD DOE 1998 .........................................................................................18
2.3.3.1. General Test Results................................................................................18
2.3.4. LG DOE at Hitemco 1998-1999 DJ 2600 System.......................................22
2.3.5. Almen Strip and Temperature Measurement Procedures ..............................26
2.4. Interpretation and Discussion............................................................................28
2.5. Significance.......................................................................................................29
2.6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................29
vii
3. Fatigue data..............................................................................................................30
3.1. Data Summary...................................................................................................30
3.2. Test Rationale....................................................................................................30
3.3. Specimen Fabrication........................................................................................33
3.3.1. Specimen Geometry and Materials:...............................................................33
3.3.2. Specimen preparation.....................................................................................34
3.4. Coating deposition methodology ......................................................................35
3.5. Test methodology..............................................................................................36
3.6. Test results.........................................................................................................40
3.6.1. 4340 Substrate ...............................................................................................40
3.6.2. A100 substrate ...............................................................................................44
3.6.3. 300M substrate...............................................................................................47
3.7. Coating integrity................................................................................................49
3.8. Discussion of trends in fatigue results...............................................................52
3.9. Significance.......................................................................................................53
3.10. Conclusions .......................................................................................................53
4. Corrosion data..........................................................................................................55
4.1. Data summary ...................................................................................................55
4.2. Pre-JTP atmospheric corrosion testing..............................................................55
4.2.1. Specimen preparation.....................................................................................56
4.2.2. Experimental Procedures ...............................................................................56
4.2.3. Results and Discussion ..................................................................................57
4.3. Rationale for JTP testing ...................................................................................60
4.4. Landing gear original JTP testing .....................................................................60
4.4.1. JTP specimen fabrication and deposition methodology ................................60
4.4.2. JTP test methodology.....................................................................................62
4.4.2.1. Test description .......................................................................................62
4.4.3. Test results .....................................................................................................66
4.4.3.1. 4340 Steel in ASTM B-117.....................................................................66
4.4.3.2. 300M Steel in B 117................................................................................68
4.4.3.3. 300M Steel in GM 9540 P.......................................................................69
4.4.3.4. Aermet 100 Steel in B 117 ......................................................................69
4.4.3.5. Aermet 100 Steel in GM 9540P ..............................................................70
viii
4.4.3.6. Comparison of performance of WC-Co and WC-CoCr coatings without
sealer………………………………………………………………………………71
4.5. Additional B117 Corrosion Testing ..................................................................79
4.5.1. Background ....................................................................................................79
4.5.2. Specimen Preparation and Coating Deposition .............................................79
4.5.3. Results and Discussion ..................................................................................83
4.5.3.1. Protection Ratings ...................................................................................83
4.5.3.2. Appearance Ratings.................................................................................85
4.5.4. Conclusions....................................................................................................85
4.6. Discussion of overall corrosion results .............................................................94
4.7. Significance.......................................................................................................95
4.8. Conclusion.........................................................................................................96
5. Wear data .................................................................................................................97
5.1. Data summary ...................................................................................................97
5.2. Rationale............................................................................................................97
5.3. Specimen fabrication.........................................................................................98
5.3.1. Fretting specimens .........................................................................................98
5.3.2. Sliding wear specimens..................................................................................99
5.4. Coating deposition methodology ....................................................................101
5.5. Test methodology............................................................................................101
5.5.1. Fretting.........................................................................................................102
5.5.2. Sliding wear .................................................................................................103
5.5.3. Test matrices ................................................................................................106
5.6. Test results.......................................................................................................109
5.6.1. Pre-DOE.......................................................................................................109
5.6.2. L12 fretting tests ..........................................................................................110
5.6.3. L12 sliding wear tests ..................................................................................111
5.6.4. L8 sliding wear DOE tests ...........................................................................114
5.7. Discussion of wear results...............................................................................124
5.7.1. Fretting.........................................................................................................124
5.7.2. Sliding wear .................................................................................................125
5.8. Significance.....................................................................................................126
5.9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................126
ix
6. Impact data.............................................................................................................127
6.1. Data summary .................................................................................................127
6.2. Rationale..........................................................................................................127
6.3. Specimen fabrication.......................................................................................127
6.5.1. Gravelometry ...............................................................................................128
6.5.2. Dropped ball impact.....................................................................................130
6.6. Test results.......................................................................................................131
6.6.1. Gravelometry ...............................................................................................131
6.7. Discussion of impact results............................................................................136
6.7.1. Gravelometry ...............................................................................................136
6.8. Significance.....................................................................................................136
6.9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................137
7. Hydrogen embrittlement data ................................................................................138
7.1. Data summary .................................................................................................138
7.2. Rationale..........................................................................................................138
7.3. Specimen fabrication.......................................................................................139
7.5. Scribing (exposing the notch to the test environment)....................................141
7.7. Test sample mechanical properties .................................................................143
7.8. Coating structure .............................................................................................144
7.9. Test results.......................................................................................................145
7.9.1. Cracking of coatings ....................................................................................145
7.9.2. Substrate failure mechanisms ......................................................................145
7.9.3. Time to failure data......................................................................................146
7.9.4. Open circuit potential...................................................................................153
7.10. Discussion of hydrogen embrittlement results ................................................154
7.11. Significance.....................................................................................................157
7.12. Conclusion.......................................................................................................157
x
8. Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................159
Appendix 1. Coating optimization and characterization (DOE) data .....................161
Almen Strip Processing....................................................................................................204
Substrate Temperature Measurement ..............................................................................207
General Spraying of Fatigue Test Bars............................................................................209
Appendix 2. Fatigue data ........................................................................................217
Appendix 3. Corrosion data ....................................................................................269
Landing Gear JTP - B117 Corrosion Testing (from “Corrosion data – LG JTP.XLS”) .270
Landing Gear JTP – GM9540P cyclic corrosion testing .................................................280
Supplementary corrosion data – from “Corrosion Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”284
Appendix 4. Wear data ...........................................................................................296
Wear.................................................................................................................................297
Appendix 5. Impact Data ........................................................................................365
Gravelometry data............................................................................................................365
Ball drop impact data .......................................................................................................365
Appendix 6. Hydrogen embrittlement data.............................................................376
Data Tables ......................................................................................................................377
Fracture surfaces ..............................................................................................................381
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Microhardness Response for CCAD DOE ....................................................... 20
Figure 2 Substrate Temperature Response for CCAD DOE .................................................. 20
Figure 3 Almen Strip Response for CCAD DOE ........................................................... 21
Figure 4 Microhardness Response for Hitemco DOE .................................................... 24
Figure 5 Substrate Temperature Response for Hitemco DOE........................................ 24
Figure 6 Almen Strip Response for Hitemco DOE ........................................................ 25
Figure 7. Typical hourglass-shaped fatigue bar............................................................... 32
Figure 8. Typical smooth fatigue bar............................................................................... 32
Figure 9. Hourglass configuration with .500” gage section............................................. 34
Figure 10. Small (1/4" dia.) hourglass bars for corrosion fatigue testing..........................37
Figure 11. Corrosion cell set-up for fatigue testing-large hourglass......................................37
Figure 12. Close-up view of corrosion cell set-up for fatigue testing- – small hourglass
specimen. .................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 13. 4340 material using hourglass configuration in air environment at R = -1.... 41
Figure 14. 4340 material-comparison of hourglass vs. smooth bar configuration in air
environment at R = -1. .............................................................................................. 42
Figure 15. 4340 comparison of air vs. NaCl testing-hourglass configuration for .003”
thickness at R = -1. ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 16 4340 material in air environment using hourglass configuration at R = -1-
comaprison of .003” vs. .010’ thick coating on .250” dia and .500 dia specimens
respectively. .............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 17 4340 material-comparison of R ratio using hourglass configuration and .003”
thickness.................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 18. A100-material- comparison of unpeened vs. peened data at R = -1 using
hourglass configuration for .003” thickness. ............................................................ 45
Figure 19 A100 material-comparison of R ratio values of -1 and .1 respectively on
hourglass configuration at thickness value of .003” ................................................. 45
Figure 20 A100 material-comparison of air vs. NaCl environment at R =-1 with
hourglass configuration and .003 “ thickness ........................................................... 46
Figure 21 A100 material-comparison of .003” vs. .010” thickness values in NaCl
environment with hourglass configuration using .250” diameter and .500” diameter
bars respectively........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 22 300M material-comparison of peened vs. unpeened data at R =-1 using an
hourglass configuration and .003” thickness ............................................................ 47
xii
Figure 23 300M material-comparison of R ratio values of –1 and .1 using hourglass
configuration and thickness value of .003”............................................................... 48
Figure 24 300M material-comparison of .003” and .010” thickness values at R =-1 using
hourglass configurations and .250” diameter and .500 diameter bars respectively.. 48
Figure 25 300M material-comparison of air vs. NaCl environments at R =-1 using
hourglass configuration and thickness value of .003” .............................................. 49
Figure 26. Cracking of HVOF coating in central region of hourglass specimen. ........... 50
Figure 27. Failed 300M specimens showing spalling in small zone near fracture surface.
................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 28. Failed 300M specimens showing total spallation on fracture. ....................... 51
Figure 29. HVOF WC-Co, Tribaloy 400 (T400) and EHC (Cr) on 4340 steel following
three year atmospheric exposure. Samples shown prior to cleaning. ...................... 58
three year atmospheric exposure. Samples shown subsequent to cleaning. ............ 58
Figure 31. Protection ratings for EHC, HVOF Tribaloy 400, and HVOF WC-17Co on
4340 steel after three-year atmospheric exposure..................................................... 59
Figure 32. Corrosion coupon, 1” diameter bar. ............................................................... 60
Figure 33. Illustration of scratched corrosion test specimen. .......................................... 61
Figure 34. 3 mil EHC coating + sealer on 4340 steel after B117 test: a) before and b)
after cleaning............................................................................................................. 72
Figure 35. Protection ratings on 4340 steel after B117 testing........................................ 72
Figure 36. Radar plot of the protection ratings on 4340 steel after ASTM B117 testing.73
Figure 37. HVOF coatings on 4340 steel after the B117 test: a) 0.003” WC-Co, b) 0.010”
WC-Co, c) 0.010” WC-CoCr, and d) 0.003” WC-CoCr. ......................................... 73
Figure 38. 10 mil EHC coatings on 4340 steel with: a) Ni sublayer, b) sealer, and c) EHC
coating only. After B117 testing.............................................................................. 74
Figure 39. HVOF coatings on 4340 steel after the B117 test: a) EHC coating only b)
EHC with sealer, c) EHC with Ni sublayer, and d) 0.010” WC-CoCr. .................... 74
Figure 40. 3 mil HVOF WC-Co coating on 4340 steel with sealer after blister has been
removed..................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 41. Protection ratings on 300M after ASTM B117 testing. ................................. 75
Figure 42. Radar plot of the protection ratings on 300M after ASTM B117 testing....... 75
Figure 43. 3 mil coatings on 300M after GM 9540P testing: a) EHC only, b)WC-Co, c)
WC-Co with sealer, and d) EHC with sealer. ........................................................... 76
Figure 44. Protection ratings on Aermet 100 after ASTM B117 testing. ........................ 76
Figure 45. WC-Co HVOF coating 3 mils in thickness on 4340 steel, 300M, and Aermet
100 after the B117 test. ............................................................................................. 77
xiii
Figure 46. Radar plot of the protection ratings on Aermet 100 after ASTM B177 testing.
................................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 47. 0.010” HVOF coatings: a) WC-Co on 4340, b)WC-CoCr on 4340, c) WC-Co
on 300M, and d) WC-Co on Aermet 100 after the B117 test ................................... 78
Figure 48. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 300M steel from the LGJTP
tests, left, and the Supplemental tests, right.............................................................. 86
Figure 49. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 4340 steel from the LGJTP
tests ........................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 50. EHC coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 4340 steel from the LGJTP tests, left,
and the Supplemental tests, right. ............................................................................. 87
Figure 51. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, on 4340 steel, as-deposited on left and
ground on right.......................................................................................................... 88
Figure 52. Left: WC-Co, 10 mils thick, ground. Center: EHC, 10 mils thick, ground.
Right: WC-CoCr, 10 mils thick, ground. All on 4340 steel substrates................... 88
Right; WC-CoCr, 10 mils thick, ground. All on 300M steel substrates. ................ 89
Figure 54. Comparison of appearance and protection ratings for 4340 plate, NRL. ....... 89
Figure 55. Comparison of appearance ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 4340 rod
tested at NRL and KSC............................................................................................. 90
Figure 56. Comparison of appearance ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 300M rod
Figure 57. Comparison of protection ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 4340 rod
Figure 58. Comparison of protection ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 300M rod
Figure 59. WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, on 300M steel. Left: As-deposited. Right:
Ground. ..................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 60. WC-Co coatings on 4340 steel. Left: 3-mils thick, ground. Right: 10-mils
thick, ground. ............................................................................................................ 92
Figure 61. WC-Co coatings on 300M steel. Left: 3-mils thick, ground. Right: 10-mils
thick, ground. ............................................................................................................ 93
Figure 62. Left: EHC coating, 10 mils thick, ground. Right: WC-Co coating, 10-mils
thick, ground. All on 4340 steel............................................................................... 93
Figure 63. Left: EHC, 10-mils thick, ground. Right: HVOF WC-Co, 10 mils thick,
ground. All on 300M steel. ...................................................................................... 94
Figure 64. a) Fretting block; b) Fretting shoe. ................................................................. 98
Figure 65. Wear test rods and bushings - a) rod, b) straight bushing, c) seal groove
bushing.................................................................................................................... 100
xiv
Figure 66. Cross-sectional schematic of fretting wear test. ........................................... 102
Figure 67. Cross sectional schematic of piston and bushing oscillating wear test. ....... 103
Figure 68. Sliding wear test equipment. ........................................................................ 104
Figure 69. Visual ranking standards for rods, VR 01 to VR 10..................................... 105
Figure 70. Fretting wear ranking - shoe. L12 DOE matrix. (Red against metal bushings;
blue against nitrile seals.)........................................................................................ 110
Figure 71. Fretting wear - L12 DOE matrix. Yellow data wear of coated shoe; red data
wear of uncoated 4340 block; blue data wear of nitrile seal................................... 111
Figure 72. Sliding wear – L12 data. Visual wear ranking – rod. (Red against bushings;
blue against seals.) .................................................................................................. 112
Figure 73. Sliding wear – L12 data. Weight change – bushing/seal. Yellow data wear of
coated rod; red data wear of uncoated bushing; blue data wear of nitrile seal. ...... 113
Figure 74. Sliding wear, L8 DOE – visual rankings for baseline metal bushings......... 118
Figure 75. Sliding wear, L8 DOE – weight loss for baseline metal bushings. .............. 118
Figure 76. Pareto chart and visualization of the major effects in the L8 DOE based on
visual wear rating. Only effects D and A (normal load and number of cyles) are
statistically significant. ........................................................................................... 119
rod wear volume. Only effect C (coating material) is statistically significant. ..... 120
bushing wear volume. Only effects A and C (number of cycles and coating
material) are statistically significant. ...................................................................... 121
Figure 79. L8 DOE data for 3rd half replicate – visual ranking for rod wear. This shows
EHC and WC-Co on metal bushings and nitrile seals. ........................................... 122
Figure 80. L8 DOE data for 3rd half replicate – Weight loss. This shows EHC and WC-
Co on metal bushings and nitrile seals.................................................................... 122
Figure 81. L8 DOE data for 5th half replicate – visual ranking for rod wear. This shows
EHC and WC-Co on AlNiBronze bushings and Karon B liners. ........................... 123
Figure 82. L8 DOE data for 5th half replicate – Weight loss. This shows EHC and WC-
Co on AlNiBronze bushings and Karon B liners.................................................... 123
Figure 83. Average rod wear for L8 matrix - visual rating............................................ 124
Figure 84. Average rod and bushing/seal wear for L8 matrix - weight loss.................. 124
Figure 85. Gravelometry chamber (Boeing).................................................................. 129
Figure 86. Close-up of ball impact equipment, showing ball delivery tube, sample in
vise, and ball. .......................................................................................................... 131
Figure 87. Surfaces of EHC coatings after gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003"
thickness EHC on rods; c) and d) 0.010" thickness on rods; e) and f) 0.010"
xv
thickness on flats..................................................................................................... 132
Figure 88. Surfaces of WC-Co coatings after gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003"
thickness on rods; c) and d) 0.003" thickness on flats. ........................................... 132
Figure 89. Surfaces of WC-CoCr coatings after gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003"
thickness on rods; c) and d) 0.010" thickness on flats. ........................................... 133
Figure 90. Impact area on 0.010" WC-CoCr , 72" drop height – grazing incidence light.
Bar axis ↔. ............................................................................................................ 134
Figure 91. Circumferential cracking around impact point for 0.003" and 0.010" coatings
at different ball drop heights. .................................................................................. 135
Figure 92. Radial cracking along rod axis for 0.003" and 0.010" coatings at different ball
drop heights............................................................................................................. 135
Figure 93. F-519, Type 1a.2 specimen coated with 0.010" WC-Co.............................. 139
Figure 94. Standard F-519 specimen coating. ............................................................... 140
Figure 95. Method for scribing the notch (exposing the substrate) on a CNC milling
machine. Left – schematic of cutting blade in notch; right – actual set-up on CNC
machine. .................................................................................................................. 141
Figure 96. EHC and HVOF WC-Co in notch of F-519 specimens. .............................. 144
Figure 97. Metallographic cross sections of chrome plate (left) and HVOF WC-Co after
stressing to 45% NTS in air. (Note also the original layer formation in the HVOF
coating.) .................................................................................................................. 145
Figure 98. Sequence 1: Average hours to failure (NF = No failure in 200hrs), with and
without hydrogen bake. All failures in notch......................................................... 147
without hydrogen bake. Failures occurred on shank at button. ............................. 148
Figure 100. Sequence 3 average hours to failure with no notch scribing. (Numbers are
average time-to-failure data values – note log scale. Error bars indicate high and
low values.) ............................................................................................................. 149
Figure 101. Sequence 3: Average hours to failure with notch scribed to expose the
substrate. (Numbers are average time-to-failure data values – note log scale. Error
bars indicate high and low values.) Note that these tests were run for 0.003”
coatings only. .......................................................................................................... 150
Figure 102. Sequence 3 time-to-failure data summary.................................................. 151
Figure 103. Sequence 3 – comparison of time to failure for scribed and un-scribed
specimens - DI water. ............................................................................................. 152
Figure 104. Sequence 3 – comparison of time to failure for scribed and un-scribed
specimens - 5% NaCl solution................................................................................ 152
Figure 105. Open circuit potential for coated sheet specimens in 5% NaCl solution. .. 153
Figure 106. Plot of Log Time-to-failure vs. average potential difference between coating
xvi
and 4340 substrate in 5% NaCl solution................................................................. 154
Figure 107 Final L12 DOE Sept26 ............................................................................... 168
Figure 108. Almen vs. substrate temperature at cycle 6. ............................................... 171
Figure 109. Almen vs. maximum substrate temperature. .............................................. 172
Figure 110. Summary data – thickness/pass, substrate temperature at cycle 6, normalized
Almen number. ....................................................................................................... 174
Figure 111. Summary data – thickness/pass, substrate temperature at cycle 6, normalized
Almen number. Standard run order and center points. .......................................... 176
Figure 112. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs.......................................................................... 195
Figure 115. Hitemco L8 Powder Sizes. ......................................................................... 199
Figure 116. Almen Strip in Fixture................................................................................ 205
Figure 117. Spray Set-up ............................................................................................... 210
Figure 118. Typical Temperature Profile....................................................................... 211
Figure 119. Possible Rotating Almen Fixture Design .................................................. 212
Figure 120. Fatigue - 4340 small hourglass, R=0.1, in air, EHC and WC-Co, peened and
unpeened. ................................................................................................................ 243
Figure 121. Fatigue - 4340 small hourglass, R=-1, EHC and WC-Co, 0.003", in air,
peened and unpeened. ............................................................................................. 244
Figure 122. Fatigue 4340, small hourglass, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, R=0.1 vs R=-1.
................................................................................................................................. 245
Figure 123. 300M, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, peened and
unpeened. ................................................................................................................ 246
Figure 124. A100, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, peened and
unpeened. ................................................................................................................ 247
Figure 125. 4340, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl.............. 248
Figure 126. 300M, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl. ........... 249
Figure 127. A100, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl............. 250
Figure 128. 4340, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in air, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small
hourglass)................................................................................................................ 257
Figure 129. 300M, large hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.010", in NaCl . ................ 258
Figure 130. A100, large hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.010", in NaCl . ................. 259
Figure 131. 300M, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in NaCl, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small
hourglass)................................................................................................................ 260
xvii
Figure 132. A100, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in NaCl, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small
hourglass)................................................................................................................ 261
Figure 133. 4340, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air............................... 263
Figure 134. Sooth vs hourglass, 4340, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air. ................. 264
Figure 135. 300M, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air. ............................ 265
Figure 136. Smooth vs hourglass, 300M, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.............. 266
Figure 137. A100, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.............................. 267
Figure 138. Smooth vs hourglass, A100, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air. ............. 268
Figure 139. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion protection ratings. ............................. 277
Figure 140. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion Vertical Creepage.............................. 278
Figure 141. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion Horizontal Creepage. ........................ 279
Figure 142. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540 Protection Ratings. ..................................... 283
Figure 143. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540 Vertical and Horizontal Creepage (both
identical). ................................................................................................................ 283
Figure 144. Supplementary corrosion data - 4340 rod, Summary Data and graphs...... 293
Figure 145. Supplementary corrosion data - 4340 plate, Summary Data and graphs. .. 294
Figure 146. Supplementary corrosion data - 300M rod, Summary Data and graphs. ... 295
Figure 147. Rod and bushing data – rod wear ranking. ................................................. 298
Figure 148. Weight change, bushing/seal. ..................................................................... 299
Figure 149. Weight change, rod..................................................................................... 299
Figure 150. Weight change - rod, bushing, seal. ........................................................... 300
Figure 151. Fretting data - ranking. ............................................................................... 301
Figure 152. Fretting data - weight change. .................................................................... 301
Figure 153. Fretting data - weight change, shoe............................................................ 302
Figure 154. Fretting data - weight change, block/shoe.................................................. 302
Figure 155. L8 average weight loss. .............................................................................. 306
Figure 156. L8 visual rating........................................................................................... 306
Figure 157. L8 baseline DOE rod and bushing wear volumes. ..................................... 313
Figure 158. Data - all metal bushings. ........................................................................... 314
Figure 159. Data all Metal Bushings – Visual Ratings................................................. 315
Figure 160. L8 rod and bushing wear volumes.............................................................. 320
Figure 161. Rod correlation – visual and weight .......................................................... 321
Figure 162. Visual rating - baseline.............................................................................. 322
xviii
Figure 163. Data 1st half replicate Volume.................................................................... 324
Figure 164. 1st Half Replicate with WC-Co-C.............................................................. 325
Figure 165. Visual Ratings, 1st Half Replicate.............................................................. 326
Figure 166. Data 2nd Half Replicate ............................................................................. 329
Figure 167. 2nd Half Replicate with Anodize ............................................................... 330
Figure 168. Visual Ratings, 2nd Half Replicate ............................................................ 331
Figure 169 3rd half rep DOE ......................................................................................... 341
Figure 170 3rd half rep DOE ........................................................................................ 342
Figure 171 3rd half rep DOE ......................................................................................... 343
Figure 172 4th half rep DOE ......................................................................................... 347
Figure 175 Tests 49 and 50............................................................................................ 354
Figure 176 Tests 51 and 52............................................................................................ 355
Figure 177 Tests 53 and 54.......................................................................................... 356
Figure 178 Tests 55 and 56........................................................................................... 357
Figure 179 Various friction, temperature...................................................................... 358
Figure 180 Various friction, temperature..................................................................... 359
Figure 181 Various friction, temperature...................................................................... 360
Figure 182 Various friction, temperature.................................................................... 361
Figure 185. Schematic of ball impact test and notation................................................. 365
Figure 186 Test 1, Cr 0.003", 60" drop........................................................................... 368
Figure 187. Test 3, WC-Co 0.003”, 60” drop................................................................ 368
Figure 188. Test 2, Cr 0.010", 60" drop......................................................................... 368
Figure 189. Test 4, WC-Co 0.010”, 60” drop................................................................ 369
Figure 190. Test 5, WC-CoCr 0.003”, 60” drop............................................................ 369
Figure 191. Test 6, WC-CoCr 0.010”, 60” drop............................................................ 369
Figure 192. Test 13, EHC 0.003”, 102” drop. ............................................................... 370
Figure 193. Test 14, EHC 0.010”, 102” drop. ............................................................... 370
Figure 194. Test 15, WC-Co 0.003”, 102” drop............................................................ 371
Figure 195. Test 16, WC-Co 0.010”, 102” drop............................................................ 371
xix
Figure 196. Test 17, WC-CoCr 0.003”, 102” drop........................................................ 372
Figure 197. Test 18, WC-CoCr 0.010”, 102” drop........................................................ 372
Figure 198. Test 25, EHC 0.010”, 24” drop. ................................................................. 373
Figure 199. Test 26, EHC 0.003”, 24” drop. ................................................................. 373
Figure 200. Test 27, WC-Co 0.003”, 24” drop.............................................................. 373
Figure 203. Test 30, WC-CoCr 0.003”, 24” drop.......................................................... 375
Figure 204. Test 30, WC-CoCr 0.010”, 24” drop.......................................................... 375
Figure 205. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel - uncoated. a)
and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl. ...................................................................... 382
Figure 206. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel - chrome plated.
a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl. .................................................................. 382
Figure 207. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel – WC-Co
coated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl...................................................... 383
Figure 208. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel – WC-CoCr
coated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl...................................................... 383
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Landing gear aircraft applications. ...................................................................... 3
Table 2. Defense System programs potentially affected. .................................................. 3
Table 3. Commercial programs affected and potentially affected by HVOF chrome
replacement. ................................................................................................................ 5
Table 4. Applicable materials processing, coating deposition, and test standards. ........... 7
Table 5. Summary of tests conducted in JTP. (Click on blue items to jump to relevant
section of the report.) .................................................................................................. 8
Table 6 Optimized deposition conditions for WC-17Co - DJ 2600 and JP 5000 HVOF
guns. ............................................................................................................................ 9
Table 7. Inputs and outputs for design of experiment HVOF optimization. ................... 12
Table 8 Optimization Parameters for the CCAD DJ 2600 Analysis .............................. 14
Table 9 Actual Runs for CCAD Experimentation .......................................................... 15
Table 10 DOE Sites and Locations (data in Appendix 1)............................................... 15
Table 11 DOE Matrix for Hill AFB Work 1996............................................................ 16
Table 13 Summary of Results for the Hill JP 5000 DOE. .............................................. 16
Table 12 Run Order for Hill AFB Work........................................................................ 17
Table 14 Final Parameters for Hill AFB JP 5000 .......................................................... 18
Table 15 DOE Matrix for CCAD 1998.......................................................................... 19
Table 16 Random Run Listing for CCAD DOE............................................................. 19
Table 17 Final Summary of Factors in CCAD DOE ....................................................... 22
Table 18 DOE Matrix for Hitemco Analysis.................................................................. 23
Table 19 Random Runs for Hitemco DOE ..................................................................... 23
Table 20 Final Deposition Parameters Hitemco LG JTP................................................ 26
Table 21 Primary and secondary determinants of coating properties............................ 28
Table 22. Quick reference to primary data. Click blue links to jump to data................. 30
Table 23. Fatigue testing variables. ................................................................................. 33
Table 24. Substrate materials in LG JTP ......................................................................... 34
Table 25. Machining procedures for fatigue specimens. ................................................. 35
Table 26. DiamondJet 2600 process parameters for deposition of WC-17Co. ............... 36
Table 27. Fatigue test matrix. .......................................................................................... 38
Table 28. Coating integrity - summary of analysis.......................................................... 52
xxi
Table 29. Quick data locator. (Click on item number to view.) ..................................... 55
Table 30. Protection rating versus area of defect from ASTM B 537. ............................ 56
Table 31. Average value of the protection rating for samples that had undergone a three-
year atmospheric exposure........................................................................................ 59
Table 32. Average value of the protection rating for samples that had undergone 1,000
hours of ASTM B117 testing.................................................................................... 59
Table 33. GM 9540 test protocol. .................................................................................... 63
Table 34. Table of protection ranking/ratings.................................................................. 63
Table 35. Corrosion test matrix. ...................................................................................... 64
Table 36. GM accelerated corrosion tests results for 300M steel. (Coating thickness
0.003”.) ..................................................................................................................... 69
Table 37. GM accelerated corrosion tests results for Aermet 100 steel. (Coating
thickness 0.003”.)...................................................................................................... 70
Table 38. Percentage of specimens with intact coatings and the overall protection ratings
for HVOF coatings without sealer. ........................................................................... 71
Table 39. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion testing – 4340 rods. ..................... 80
Table 40. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion testing – 300M rods..................... 81
Table 41. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion testing – 4340 plates.................... 82
Table 42. Failed coatings on 4340 substrates. ................................................................. 84
Table 43. Failed coatings on 300M substrates................................................................. 84
Table 44. Quick data locator. (Click on item number to view.) ..................................... 97
Table 45. Wear test materials and coatings - fretting. (Fretting blocks uncoated, shoe
4340 coated).............................................................................................................. 99
Table 46. Wear test materials and coatings - sliding. (Piston coated 4340, bushing
uncoated.)................................................................................................................ 101
Table 47. Description of visual wear ranking................................................................ 105
Table 48. Matrix for Pre-DOE – fretting tests run......................................................... 106
Table 49. Matrix for Pre-DOE (Design of Experiment) - sliding.................................. 106
Table 50. L-12 Design of Experiment matrix for fretting. .................................................... 107
Table 51. L-12 Design of Experiment matrix for bushings/liners. ................................ 107
Table 52. L-8 wear test matrix. Note: each test condition was run twice (A and B).... 108
Table 53. L12 matrix data – fretting. ............................................................................. 110
Table 54. L12 test matrix data - sliding wear. ............................................................... 112
Table 55. L8 DOE data - baseline metal bushings......................................................... 114
Table 56. L8 DOE data - 1st and 2nd half replicates..................................................... 115
xxii
Table 57. L8 DOE data - 3rd and 4th half replicates. .................................................... 116
Table 58. L8 DOE data - 5th and 6th half replicates. .................................................... 117
Table 59. Quick data locator. (Click on item number to view.) ................................... 127
Table 60. Hydrogen embrittlement coating thicknesses (ground). ................................ 128
Table 61. Gravelometry and ball impact coating thicknesses (ground)......................... 130
Table 62. Summary of gravelometry test observations. Rankings from 1 (best) to 3
(worst) for different evaluation methods. .............................................................. 131
Table 63. Quick data locator. (Click on item number to view.) ................................... 138
Table 64. Hydrogen embrittlement coating thicknesses (ground). ................................ 139
Table 65. Hydrogen embrittlement test matrix.............................................................. 143
Table 66. F-519 test specimen hardness. ....................................................................... 143
Table 67. F-519 test specimen notch tensile strength. ................................................... 143
Table 68. Summary of crack initiation points................................................................ 146
Table 69. F-519 hydrogen embrittlement testing – average time to failure (NF = No
Failure in 200 hr). (Full data summary in Appendix 6.)........................................ 147
Table 70 Final L12 DOE Sept26 ................................................................................. 163
Table 71 Final L12 DOE Sept26 .................................................................................. 164
Table 76. Graphs worksheet data................................................................................... 170
Table 77. Summary graphical data. ............................................................................... 173
Table 78. Summary graphical data. ............................................................................... 175
Table 79. Thickness/pass, temperature, and Almen vs. flame stoichiometry and heat
input. ....................................................................................................................... 177
Table 80. Almen,Dep,HV,TempAnal 11 Params .......................................................... 178
Table 84. Summary Table 11 Params ............................................................................ 182
Table 85. Summary of DOE responses – Hill JP5000 HVOF gun................................ 185
Table 86. Hill JP5000 DOE design................................................................................ 185
xxiii
Table 87. Hill JP5000 run parameters............................................................................ 186
Table 88 ChPt Runs Params & Data (1). ..................................................................... 188
Table 89. ChPt Runs Params & Data (2). ...................................................................... 189
Table 90. ChPt Runs Params & Data (3). ...................................................................... 190
Table 91 Hitemco DOE L8 Design................................................................................ 192
Table 92. Hiotemco DOE Spray Run design. ................................................................ 193
Table 93. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs............................................................................. 194
Table 94. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs............................................................................. 194
Table 95. Hitemco L8 Powder Sizes.............................................................................. 198
Table 96. L8 DOE analyses and effects......................................................................... 200
Table 99. L8 DOE analyses and effects....................................................................... 202
Table 100. L8 DOE analyses and effects....................................................................... 203
Table 101 Process # 1 Table 102 Process # 2 ............................................... 215
Table 103. Fatigue data - small hourglass, full set. ....................................................... 218
Table 104. Fatigue - large hourglass, full data set. ........................................................ 251
Table 105. Fatigue - smooth bar, full data set................................................................ 262
Table 106. Landing gear JTP corrosion data - B117 full data set (from “Corrosion Data –
LG JTP.XLS”, “ASTM B117” tab) ........................................................................ 270
Table 107. Landing gear JTP data summary - B117 corrosion. .................................... 276
Table 108. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540P full data set (from “Corrosion Data – LG
JTP.XLS”, “GM 9540P” tab).................................................................................. 280
Table 109. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540P cyclic corrosion summary. ........................ 282
Table 110. Supplementary corrosion data – 4340 plate NRL. Full data set (from
"Corrosion Data Supplementary - LG JTP", “4340 plate NRL” tab). .................... 284
Table 111. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 4340 rods NRL (from
“Corrosion Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “4340 rod NRL” tab). ............. 286
Table 112. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 4340 rods KSC (from
“Corrosion Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “4340 rod KSC” tab). ............. 288
Table 113. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 300M rods NRL (from
“Corrosion Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “300M rod NRL” tab). ........... 290
Table 114. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 300M rods KSC (from
“Corrosion Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “300M rod KSC” tab)............. 292
Table 115. L12 Matrix ................................................................................................... 297
xxiv
Table 116. Rod and bushing data................................................................................... 298
Table 117. Fretting Data ................................................................................................ 300
Table 118 L8 Matrix ...................................................................................................... 303
Table 119 L8 Matirx Test Parameters .......................................................................... 304
Table 120 Mean Comparisons ....................................................................................... 305
Table 121. Mean comparisons and unusual data ........................................................... 308
Table 122 Mean comparison and unusual data.............................................................. 309
Table 125 Mean comparisons 3 – 5 repl........................................................................ 312
Table 126. Measurement Accuracy ............................................................................... 316
Table 127. MT Format – baseline volume..................................................................... 317
Table 128. MT Format – baseline volume..................................................................... 319
Table 129 Data 1st half rep volume.............................................................................. 323
Table 130 DATA 2nd Half Replicate ............................................................................ 327
Table 134. Data all......................................................................................................... 332
Table 135. Data all......................................................................................................... 333
Table 136. Data all......................................................................................................... 334
Table 137 Data all.......................................................................................................... 335
Table 138. Data all......................................................................................................... 336
Table 139. 3rd half rep DOE.......................................................................................... 337
Table 140 3rd half rep DOE........................................................................................... 338
Table 141 3rd half rep DOE........................................................................................... 340
Table 142 4th half rep DOE............................................................................................ 344
Table 146 5th half rep DOE........................................................................................... 349
Table 147 5th half rep DOE........................................................................................... 350
Table 148. Ball drop impact testing – full data set. ....................................................... 366
xxv
Table 149. Ball drop test (single impact) – analysis of photographic data set. ............. 367
Table 150. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 1 data. .................................................. 377
Table 151. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 2 data. .................................................. 378
Table 152. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 3 data - DI water embrittlement. ......... 379
Table 153. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 3 data - 3.5% NaCl embrittlement. ..... 380
TABLE OF DOCUMENTS
Document 1 Corpus Christi ........................................................................................... 161
Document 2 Ogden ALC ............................................................................................... 161
Document 3 NADEP Cherry Point ................................................................................ 161
Document 4 Hitemco ..................................................................................................... 161
Document 5 Measurement and control of residual stress and temperature ................... 161
Document 6 Fatigue Data .............................................................................................. 217
Document 7 Corrosion Data – LG JTP.......................................................................... 269
Document 8 Corrosion Data supplementary – LG JTP ................................................. 269
Document 9 L12 data fretting and sliding .................................................................... 296
Document 10 L8 full data - Report .............................................................................. 296
Document 11 Ball drop impact data ............................................................................. 365
Document 12 Embrittlement data ................................................................................. 376
xxvi
1. Introduction
The replacement of hard chrome plating in aircraft manufacturing activities and
maintenance depots is a high priority for the U.S. Department of Defense and the
Canadian Department of National Defence. Hard chrome plating is a technique that has
been in commercial production for over 50 years and is a critical process that is used both
for applying hard coatings to a variety of aircraft components in manufacturing
operations and for general re-build of worn or corroded components that have been
removed from aircraft during overhaul. In particular, chrome plating is used extensively
on landing gear components such as axles, hydraulic cylinders, pins and races.
Chromium plating baths contain chromic acid, in which the chromium is in the
hexavalent state, with hexavalent chromium (hex-Cr) being a known carcinogen having a
level of toxicity greater than arsenic or cadmium. During operation chrome plating tanks
emit a hex-Cr mist into the air, which must be ducted away and removed by scrubbers.
Wastes generated from plating operations must be disposed of as hazardous waste and
plating operations must abide by EPA emissions standards and OSHA permissible
exposure limits (PEL). EPA recently issued new proposed allowable discharge
concentrations of metals and other compounds under the Metal Products & Machinery
(MP&M) regulations. For most metals, the concentrations have been drastically reduced
(e.g., in captive shops, the 30-day average for chromium has been reduced from the
current 1.71 mg/L to 0.55 mg/L for existing sources and 0.07 mg/L for new sources).
Whenever a plating facility makes a major upgrade to its equipment, it is then considered
to be a new source, so it would fall under the lower concentration limit. Meeting the
lower concentration limits in wastewater clearly will increase the cost of hard chrome
plating in Defense Department repair and overhaul depots.
Recent studies have clearly shown that there are a significant number of excess deaths at
the current PEL of 0.1 milligrams-per-cubic-meter (mg/m3) for hex-Cr emissions in
plating facilities. For example, the August 2000 issue of the American Journal of
Industrial Medicine contained a report on a study of 2,357 workers over a 30-year period
which correlated the incidence of cancer with hex-Cr exposure. An analysis of the study
was conducted by the Navy Environmental Health Center and it was their conclusion that
the study appeared to support a lowering of the PEL to less than 0.001 mg/m3. Although
OSHA has not issued a schedule for issuance of a proposed new hex-Cr PEL, it appears
clear that ultimately the PEL will have to be lowered. A Navy/Industry task group under
the coordination of the Naval Sea Systems Command has conducted an assessment of the
technical and economic impact of lowering the PEL to 0.001 mg/m3. It concluded that
the cost of compliance for all Navy operations that utilize hex-Cr (i.e., not just plating)
would be as much as $46 million per year in collection, treatment, and disposal costs,
plus one time facilities costs of $22 million to upgrade exhaust and ventilation
equipment, personal protective gear, and industrial waste treatment facilities. In addition
to the greatly increased cost that would be associated with chrome plating, turnaround
times for processing of components would be significantly increased as well, impacting
mission readiness.
Previous research and development efforts1.1, 1.2 had established that high-velocity
oxygen-fuel (HVOF) thermal spray coatings are the leading candidates for replacement
1
of hard chrome. HVOF thermal spray systems that are widely available commercially
can be used to deposit both metal alloy and ceramic/metal (e.g., WC-Co) coatings
that are dense and highly adherent to the base material. They also can be applied in
thicknesses in the same range as that currently being used for chrome plating. Although
there are a wide number of applications for these coatings, their qualification as an
acceptable replacement for hard chrome plating has not been adequately demonstrated,
particularly for fatigue-sensitive aircraft components.
The Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) was established
as a program of the U. S. Department of Defense (DOD) in December, 1993. The
ESTCP, which is managed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations
and Environment, demonstrates and validates lab-proven technologies that target the
most urgent DOD environmental needs. These technologies provide a return on
investment through reduced environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH)
risks; cost savings; and improved efficiency. The new technologies typically have broad
application both to the DOD sustainment community and industry.
In order to conduct the advanced development work required for qualification of the
HVOF coatings, a project entitled, "Tri-Service Dem/Val of Chromium Electroplating
Replacements,” principally sponsored by ESTCP, was established in March 1996. A
project team, designated the Hard Chrome Alternatives Team (HCAT) was established to
execute the project. From 1996 to early 1998, the HCAT acquired and installed HVOF
thermal spray systems at the Naval Aviation Depot in Cherry Point, North Carolina and
the Corpus Christi Army Depot. It also performed some generic fatigue and corrosion
testing on HVOF WC-17Co (83 wt% WC particles in a 17 wt% Co matrix) and Tribaloy
400 (60% Co, 28% Mo, 9% Cr, 3% Si) coatings compared to electrolytic hard chrome
(EHC) coatings. Substrate materials included 4340 steel, 7075 aluminum alloy, and
PH13-8 stainless steel. From a fatigue standpoint the HVOF coatings generally
performed better than the EHC coatings (i.e., there was a reduced fatigue debit with
respect to the non-coated material for the HVOF coatings compared to the EHC
coatings). In B117 salt fog corrosion studies, the performance of the WC/Co was
comparable to the EHC, with the Tribaloy 400 slightly worse. In atmospheric corrosion
studies, the WC/Co performed substantially better than the EHC, with the Tribaloy 400
comparable to the EHC.
While these studies were valuable, it was realized in early 1998 that because hard chrome
plating was being used on such a wide variety of aircraft components, it would be
impossible to develop one test plan or conduct one series of tests that would address all
materials and component qualification requirements. It was therefore decided to develop
separate projects related to categories of aircraft components onto which hard chrome
was being used. At the same time, the DoD Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP)
decided to partner with the HCAT on development and execution of the various projects.
JG-PP is chartered by the Joint Logistics Commanders (JLC) to coordinate joint service
pollution prevention activities during the acquisition and sustainment of weapons
systems. It was jointly determined by the HCAT and JG-PP that the first projects to be
executed would be on landing gear and propeller hubs, with projects on hydraulic
actuators and helicopter dynamic components to come later. (Note that there is a fifth
project being executed between the HCAT and DoD Propulsion Environmental Working
2
Group on hard chrome replacement on gas turbine engine components.)
Since the technology to be demonstrated and validated as a hard chrome replacement had
already been selected (namely HVOF thermal spray), then the first activity for the
landing gear project was the development of the Joint Test Protocol (JTP) which would
delineate all of the materials and component testing requirements necessary to qualify the
HVOF coatings on landing gear components for all types of DoD aircraft. Table 1 and
Table 2 summarize the target hazardous material, current process, application, current
specifications, and affected defense systems programs (delineated according to the U.S.
DoD aviation depot at which the overhaul of the landing gear from that aircraft takes
place).
Table 1. Landing gear aircraft applications.

Target Current Current Candidate Parts/
HazMat Process Specifications Substrates
Application
Hexavalent Hard Rebuilding Worn DOD-STD-2182 Landing Gear
Chromium Chromium Components
MIL-C-14538C
Electro- Wear-resistant
plating MIL-C-20218F
Coating
MIL-H-83282
Corrosion-resistant
Coating MIL-STD-1501C
QQ-C-320B
Table 2. Defense System programs potentially affected.

CCAD NADEP NADEP Ogden ALC
Cherry Point JAX:
SH-60 (Navy) AV-8B E-6 A-7 F-16

UH-60 C-130 EA-6B A-10 F-22
E-2/C-2 F-14 B-1B F-104
H-1 F-18 B-2 F-106
H-46 P-3 B-52 F-111
H-53 S-3 C-5 H-3
H-60 T-45 C-17 H-53 (USAF/Navy)
P-3 C-130 KC-135
C-141 T-37
F-5 T-38
F-15
3
A stakeholder meeting was held at the Naval Research Laboratory in July 1998 to discuss
the types of materials testing that would be required and also explore what avenues were
available for component testing. It was subsequently decided that the JTP would be
developed and issued in two parts, with Part I for materials (i.e., coupon-type) testing and
Part II for component testing.
The Canadian Government, through the Department of National Defence (DND) and
Industry Canada (IC), facing environmental restrictions on chrome plating similar to the
U.S., also became interested in qualifying HVOF thermal spray coatings on aircraft
landing gear both for manufacturing and maintenance operations. The Canadian
Government formed their own project team, designated the Canadian Hard Chrome
Alternatives Team (CHCAT), and a partnership was formed between both projects. A
formal Project Arrangement, conducted under the auspices of the U.S.-Canadian
Research and Technology Projects Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), was
negotiated and executed in March 1999. In order to achieve maximum impact, the joint
project concentrated on landing gear systems common to both U.S. and Canadian aircraft
and on landing gear components that are supplied by Canadian companies for use in U.S.
aircraft.
In terms of qualifying specific types of HVOF coatings by the two teams, it was decided
that the U.S. HCAT would evaluate WC/Co (83%/17%) HVOF coatings whereas the
CHCAT would evaluate WC/CoCr (86%/10%4%) HVOF coatings. It was further
decided that all materials testing would be incorporated into one document constituting
Part I of the JTP, but that there would be a clear delineation between the testing being
conducted by the U.S. HCAT and that conducted by the CHCAT.
The following organizations were involved with the development of the U.S. portion of
the Landing Gear JTP:
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
Air Force Materiel Command
Naval Air Systems Command
Air Force Landing Gear Single Item Manager OO-ALC/LIL
Naval Aviation Depot- Jacksonville (NADEP-JAX)
Naval Aviation Depot- Cherry Point (NADEP-CP)
Ogden Air Logistics Center (OO-ALC)
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River
Air Force Research Laboratory
Rowan Technology Group
GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE)
National Technical Systems (NTS)
4
Boeing Defense (St. Louis)
The following are the principal organizations that constitute the CHCAT and which
participated in the development of the Canadian portion of the Landing Gear JTP:
Department of National Defence
Industry Canada
Technology Partnerships Canada
Messier-Dowty
Goodrich
Heroux, Inc.
Orenda Aerospace Corporation
National Research Council of Canada
It should be pointed out that the commercial aircraft industry has independently moved
toward qualifying HVOF thermal spray coatings (especially WC/Co and WC/CoCr) on
landing gear components. For OEM applications, Boeing has specified WC/CoCr on the
landing gear for the 767-400, and the current design for the new Airbus A380 has
established WC/CoCr as the preferred coating on its landing gear. For commercial
maintenance and repair operations (MRO) at airlines, Boeing has approved HVOF
WC/Co and WC/CoCr coatings up to 0.010” thick subject to the coating facility
obtaining a Boeing qualification certification. Delta Airlines is one of several U.S.
airlines that have aggressively moved toward inserting HVOF into its production MRO
operations. Table 3 is a summary of the various applications of HVOF coatings in the
commercial aircraft industry.
Table 3. Commercial programs affected and potentially affected by HVOF chrome
replacement.
Approved Potentially affected
Boeing - Steering collars, flap and slat tracks, Bombardier Dash 8 (OEM and MRO)
pins, sleeves, fittings (>100 items)
Boeing 767-400 landing gear (HVOF WC- Airbus 380
CoCr)
Commercial airliner landing gear MRO –
HVOF approved by Boeing up to 0.010” thick.
HVOF WC-CoCr approved by Delta for MRO
on landing gear
Bombardier Q400 Global Express flap tracks
5
Part I of the Landing Gear JTP was organized in sections, with each section devoted to
the type of test being conducted. Most sections were divided into two subsections, the
first for the U.S. portion of the testing and the second for the Canadian portion of the
testing. The testing by the two teams on the two different HVOF coatings was meant to
be very similar, but there were some differences. The following were the different
sections in the Materials JTP:
1. Introduction
2. Fatigue
3. Corrosion
4. Wear
5. Impact Testing
6. Hydrogen Embrittlement
This Joint Test Report (JTR) provides the results of all of the testing conducted in
accordance with Part I of the JTP. It only includes the U.S. portion of the testing and
thus in general only includes results for WC-Co (83%/17%) coatings compared to EHC
coatings. A separate JTR will be issued by the CHCAT on the WC-CoCr coatings in the
near future.
This JTR is organized in the same manner as the JTP so that a direct correlation can be
made. In order to make this a complete, stand-alone document, the parameters related to
substrate preparation, coating deposition and processing, plus the details of how the
testing was conducted are all provided herein. In the JTR there are a number of
references to specific standards related to materials processing, coating deposition, and
testing. These are summarized in Table 4.
6
Table 4. Applicable materials processing, coating deposition, and test standards.
ASTM Standards:
ASTM E466: Standard Practice for Fatigue testing
ASTM B117: Standard Practice for Salt Spray (fog) Apparatus, Operating
ASTM G85: Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (FOG)
ASTM B537: Standard Practice for Ranking Electroplated Panels Subject to Atmospheric
Exposure
ASTM D3170: Standard Practice for Coatings, Chipping Resistance
ASTM F519: Mechanical Hydrogen Embrittlement Testing of Plating Processes and Aircraft
Maintenance Chemicals, Method for
Boeing Aircraft Corporation (BAC) Standards:

P.S. 15169: Heat treatment specifications for Aermet 100 steel
P.S. 11501: Application of polystyrene resin impregnation sealer on EHC coatings
BAC 5851: Deposition of HVOF thermal spray coatings
BAC 5855: Low-stress grinding of coatings
Military Specifications:
DOD-STD-2182: Engineering Chromium Plating (Electrodeposit for Repair of Shafting)
MIL-C-14538: Chromium Plating, Black (Electrodeposited)
MIL-C-20218: Chromium Plating, Electrodeposited, Porous
MIL-H-83282: Hydraulic Fluid, Fire Resistant, Synthetic Hydrocarbon Base
MIL-STD-1501: Chromium Plating Low Embrittlement, Electrodeposition
MIL-STD-866: Grinding of Chrome Plated Steel and Steel Parts Heat Treated to 180,000 psi
or over
MIL-STD-867: Temper Etch Inspection
MIL-STD-1504: Abrasive Blasting
QQ-C-320: Chromium Plating (Electrodeposited)
QQ-N-290: Nickel Plating (Electrodeposited)
MIL-A-8625: Anodic Coatings for Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys
SAE Standards:
AMS-81934: Bearings, Sleeves, Plain and Flanged, Self-lubricating, General Spec for
AMS-4640: Aluminum Bronze, Bars, Rods, Shapes, Tubes, and Forgings 81.5Cu-10.0 Al-
4.8 Ni-3.0 Fe, Drawn and Stress Relieve (HR50) or Temper Anneals
AMS-2432: Shot Peening, Computer Controlled
AMS-6875: Heat treating of high strength Steels
SAE J400: Gravelometer Testing
Other specifications:
GM9540P/B: GM corrosion test
7
1.1. Summary of tests conducted
Table 5 summarizes the tests conducted under the JTP for the three coatings tested on the
three substrates of major interest for landing gear. 4340 and 4340M are primarily used
on older landing gear and hydraulic actuators, 300M is commonly used on most modern
landing gear, while Aermet 100 is used on some modern Navy gear.
Table 5. Summary of tests conducted in JTP.

Substrates/coatings
4340 300M A100
WC-Co WC- T400 WC-Co WC- WC-Co WC-
Tests CoCr CoCr CoCr
Deposition X X O X X X X
Fatigue X X O X X X X
Corrosion X X O X X X X
Wear X X O
Impact X X
Embrittlement X X
X LG JTP
O Generic
References
1.1
“High Velocity Oxy Fuel Final Results Report,” Final Report issued by Science Applications International
Corporation under Government Contract F09603-90-D2215, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker
Air Force Base, May 25, 1994.
1.2
“Hard Chrome Coatings: Advanced Technology for Waste Elimination,” Final Report issued by
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, under DARPA Contract MDA972-93-1-0006, 1996.
8
2. Coating optimization and characterization
The optimized deposition conditions for the hydrogen-fueled Sulzer Metco Diamond Jet
DJ 2600 HVOF gun used at most of the depots and the Praxair kerosene-fueled JP 5000
gun used at Ogden ALC are shown in Table 6. These guns were optimized for WC-17Co
by design of experiment methods as described below.
Table 6 Optimized deposition conditions for WC-17Co - DJ 2600 and JP 5000 HVOF guns.
Equipment Gun Model 2600 hybrid gun Model 5220 gun with 8” nozzle
Console Model DJC Model 5120
Powder feeder Model DJP powder feeder Model 5500 powder feeder
Injector #8
Shell #8
Insert #8
Siphon plug #8
Aircap DJ2603
Powder feed Powder Diamalloy 2005 Stark Amperit 526.062

Powder Feed Rate: 8.5 lb/hr 80 gm/min (325 rpm, 6 pitch feeder screw)
Vibrator setting 30
Tube DJP 116
Pick-up shaft “E”
Air Vibrator setting 20 psi
Powder Carrier Gas Nitrogen Argon
Carrier gas pressure 148 psi 50 psi
FMR 55
Flow rate 28 scfh 15 scfh
Combustion Gases Fuel Hydrogen Kerosene, Type 1-K

Console supply pressure 162-168 psi
Gun supply pressure 135 psi 121-123 psi
Combustion Chamber Pressure 100-102 psi
FMR 53.4
Flow rate 1229 scfh 5.0 gph
Oxidizer Oxygen Oxygen
Pressure 148 psi 190-235 psi console supply reading
138-140 psi gun supply pressure
FMR 28.7
Mass flow 412 scfh 2000 scfh (corrected flow at 210 psi: 1940 to 2075 actual flow tube
reading, depending on console supply pressure reading)
Gun Compressed Air Pressure 105 psi
FMR FMR – 50.5
Mass flow 920 scfh
Gun Cooling Water Flow Flow rate 5.3-5.7 gph (factory set) 8.3-8.7 gph
Water Temperature to Gun:
In 65-80oF typical (ground water, 64-72oF
temp varies)
Out 77-100 oF typical 117-125 oF
Delta 12-20 oF (~ 14 oF typical) 51-54 oF
Specimen Rotation 2,336 rpm for round bars (0.25 inch 600 rpm for round bars (0.25 inch diam.); 144 rpm for rectangular
dia.) – 1835 in/min surface speed bars (at 6.63 inch fixture diam.)
Gun Traverse Speed 400 linear in/min for round bars 70 in/min for round bars; 17 in/min for rectangular bars
Spray Distance 11.5 inches 18 inches
Cooling Air Pressure 90-110 psi 90-110 psi

Location 2 stationary nozzle tips at 6 inches 2 gun-mounted air jets at 14 inches; 1 stationary air jet at 4-6 inches
pointed at coating area pointed at coating area
9
2.1. Rationale/Background History
2.1.1. HVOF Application
As in all coating methods, the properties and performance of the coating depends on both
the coating material and the deposition conditions. Optimal coating properties can
therefore only be obtained when the critical deposition parameters are in the proper
range. In chrome plating the coating properties are primarily governed by solution
chemistry, temperature, and current density. HVOF spraying is more complex to
optimize since there are many more variables in the deposition process. For this reason,
HVOF coatings were optimized in the HCAT program by a Design of Experiment (DOE)
approach, which permits optimum conditions to be identified from a limited set of test
runs, obviating the need for a full test matrix that would entail many hundreds of
deposition tests.
2.1.2. HCAT Coating Optimization and Deposition Philosophy-

Fatigue
In order to optimize a coating, it is important to decide at the outset what property, or set
of properties, is to be optimized. This is especially true for thermal spray coatings, where
it has been found, for example, that a coating optimized for minimum wear can behave
poorly in fatigue. Within the Hard Chrome Alternative Team (HCAT), the fatigue
critical nature of applications such as landing gear, actuators, propeller hub components
and gas turbine engine parts was quickly identified as the major life limiting
characteristic. This does not eliminate the need to evaluate other characteristics such as
corrosion, wear, hydrogen embrittlement, etc. but coating optimization initially
concentrated on fatigue performance, with modifications for other properties as
necessary. This approach was adopted as the philosophy of the HCAT from the onset of
the program, as evidenced by the heavy concentration on fatigue in the test protocols.
Coating deposition for the various team members was optimized by Jerry Schell of GE
Aircraft Engines, an expert in thermal spray optimization. The coating optimization
process began with the initial “Northwestern or generic” protocol in 1996 and has been
evolving to the present time. A design of experiment (DOE) test methodology (which
will be discussed in a later section) was chosen as the mechanism to provide an optimized
coating deposit. The variables in the process were identified and experiments conducted
to determine the best parameter set for optimum results. Work was required for the
varied commercial systems to demonstrate capability across the available equipment sets.
Thus, data summarized in this section covers both the JP-5000 (Praxair/TAFA) and the
DJ 2600 (Sulzer Metco) systems, and represents work conducted at varied locations (Hill
AFB, CCAD, Cherry Point, and Hitemco)in the 1996-1999 time frame. This resulted in
the final coating parameters for the majority of the Landing Gear Joint Test Protocol (LG
JTP).
Optimization of the process is carried out for three important reasons:
1. To define a thermal spray process that will achieve the desired performance and
property goals.
2. To establish manufacturing robustness and the process window for a reliable
10
process.
3. To understand the process and trends that give an indication of (and can later be
used as) a trouble shooting guide. When parameters are identified as significant,
these variables will be the first areas of investigation in problem solving.
In optimizing the HVOF process, it is important to understand the difference between the
general output of the process and the characteristics/properties of the final coating
deposit. As stated earlier, the final goal of the coating optimization was maximized
fatigue performance with close emphasis on other properties such as corrosion, wear, etc.
However, when the coating is initially sprayed, only a set of simple measurements can be
used for quality control of the process, as follows:
! Microstructure (primarily measurement of porosity, unmelted particles, and
oxides)
! Hardness (both macro and micro)
! Almen Strip (residual stress)
! Substrate Temperature (during coating)
! Deposition Rate
Between them, these measurements have proved to be adequate to define the coating for
the purpose of quality control. It makes technical sense that characteristics such as
microstructure and hardness will ultimately determine coating performance in areas such
as wear or corrosion resistance, while residual stress and substrate temperature are known
to strongly influence fatigue. Thus, even though the ultimate goal is enhanced fatigue
performance, that performance can be ensured indirectly by measuring other coating
properties for quality control.
Since the deposition process is known to be uniform and stable, these measurements can
be made on test samples set up to see the same deposition conditions as the components
to be coated. These test samples may be fabricated prior to deposition (for daily spray
booth qualification), or sprayed during coating deposition on components (for quality
control).
2.1.3. Fatigue Cycle Life vs. Fatigue Coating Integrity

As with any optimization procedure, there is a learning phase to the process and issues
are sometimes identified that are unexpected from previous experience and planning.
This was the situation in developing precise testing documentation for measurement of
the Almen Strip and Temperature during spraying (procedures detailed later in this
section).
Another major property issue identified during optimization was differentiation between
fatigue coating integrity and fatigue cycle life (further detailed in the fatigue section).
The initial Northwestern-generic protocol addressed fatigue performance with primary
emphasis on fatigue cycle life, the typical S-N curves which are generated to illustrate
load vs. cycle performance. This followed the initial work performed by Boeing where
3-4 coating suppliers were qualified based upon the Q.C. tests listed earlier and
satisfactory fatigue life cycle life performance. Both sets of data were focused upon a
11
non-aggressive R ratio of .1 and stress levels to a maximum of 180 ksi.
The LG JTP also addressed fatigue performance with emphasis on cycle life. However,
the R ratio was increased to a more aggressive level of –1, while cyclic stress was
increased, in some cases to the yield point. This resulted in concerns with coating
spalling or delamination and a category or classification for fatigue coating integrity. It
must be emphasized that the LG JTP coatings were optimized for fatigue cycle life, NOT
fatigue coating integrity. Details of the optimization process and some subsequent plans
to address the fatigue coating integrity issue will be discussed and summarized in this
section.
2.2. Test methodology

2.2.1. DOE Methodology
For this optimization study, the design of experiment (DOE) methodology was chosen as
the vehicle to deliver the best spray parameter set. This method is used in many
manufacturing environments when numerous variables exist and there is insufficient time
and financial resources to analyze each individual process input (i.e. to carry out a full
matrix test). Pre-DOE experiments are usually run on a iterative basis to determine the
limits of the various parameters and which have the most significant effect on the output
of the process. A DOE matrix is then designed using standard experimental design
protocols in which the variables selected are usually assigned high and low values for the
numerous DOE test runs. Statistical analysis is applied and each variable assigned a rank
as to the effect on the final process output. In subsequent experimentation, insignificant
variables are eliminated from the analysis and the final outcome is a full parameter set for
the process in question. For the HCAT program the experimental design was done using
commercial software made by Minitab, Inc.
2.2.2. HVOF Optimization

2.2.2.1. General
The DOE method revolves around process inputs and outputs as illustrated below with a
limited list for the HVOF spray technology:
Table 7. Inputs and outputs for design of experiment

HVOF optimization.
Input Output
Powder size Hardness
Gas flow Microstructure
Gas ratio-fuel to oxygen Almen strip
Spray distance Tensile
Carrier gas flow Coating deposition rate
Air flow
Traverse speed
12
As stated earlier, even with the DOE methodology, there must be a general starting or
reference point. This was provided by the earlier HVOF work conducted by Boeing and
some general experience from Jerry Schell of GE Aircraft Engines. With this knowledge
and the ultimate goal of fatigue performance, three QC outputs were identified as the
major drivers to achieve the end goal:
Hardness – tends to be a general gage of wear resistance, but more
importantly an indicator of carbide solutioning and phase
change
Almen Strip – indication of coating residual stress
Substrate Temperature – should be below 350°F to avoid degrading substrate fatigue in
high strength steels
This information shaped the methodology involved for this optimization, which included:
Pre-DOE – A series of general experimental runs to achieve a common-sense
understanding of the process. For example, it would not make sense
to pick a parameter range for the HVOF system setting that would
not allow the gun to spray in an efficient manner or provides no
Almen Strip response. This initial set identifies some reasonable
responses for the actual DOE experimentation.
Actual DOE – When a reasonable set of process inputs and ranges have been
identified, a number of runs/experiments are conducted according to a
test matrix defined by the DOE software. Outputs are analyzed and
trends determined. Dependent upon time and funding, further more
refined studies can be run or the process fine-tuned at this point.
Validation Runs – Using the optimum determined from the DOE, a small set of runs is
made to verify the parameter set, and repeat spray cycles are
conducted to establish consistency.
2.2.3. General Example CCAD Analysis

A typical example of this process is represented by the work conducted at CCAD in the
initial optimization of the DJ 2600 system.
13
Table 8 Optimization Parameters for the CCAD DJ 2600 Analysis
Levels
FACTORS: -1 +1 C Pt FIXED:
A Traverse speeds 20 ipm 40 ipm 30 ipm Metco VF gritblastsurface prep procedure*
B Spray distance 8 inch 12 inch 10 inch Substrate is 4340 steel,260-280 ksi
C Stoic Ratio 0.38 0.6 0.44 Powdertype is W C-17Co,agglomerated and sintered
D Combustion Gas 1550 scfh 2000 scfh 1775 scfh Spray angle is 90 degrees
E Airflow 735 scfh 965 scfh 850 scfh 100 psiair,5 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over8-12 inch coupon area
F Carriergas flow 42.6 scfh 71 scfh 56.8 scfh Carriergas equiv N2 mass flow forN2 orArgon
G Turntable RPM 90 RPM 250 RPM 170 scfh N2 x 1.42 = Ar
H PowderFeed Rate** 5.4 lbs/hr 10.7 lbs/hr15.8 lbs/hr RESPONSES: RELATED CTG FUNCTION:
I Powdersize Amp526.062005NS 2005NS 1)Parttemperature Fatigue
Lot10362 Lot53792 Lot53558 2)Almen strip Fatigue,ctg residualstress
J Partdiameter 2 inch 6.63 inch 4.31 inch 3)Hardness,HV300 W ear
K Spray pattern length 11 inch 19 inch 15 inch 4)Coating dep/pass Cost
5)Porosity Ctg quality,corrosion
*Gritblast 24 grit,35 psi 6)Oxides Ctg quality
**ActualPFR needs TBD in lightofTW IN 10 uncertainities; 7)Carbides Ctg quality,wear
(theorheticalvalues are given above) 8)Tensile bond Adhesion/cohesion
Table 8 represents the variables which were analyzed in the CCAD study. As illustrated
by the data, a high/low range was selected for parameters such as gas flow, powder feed
rate, part stand-off distance (distance from end of gun to part), etc. The inputs are then
placed into a matrix as typified in Table 9 and the runs made in the random order
specified to eliminate any bias which might exist.
Trends and relationships are determined by statistical analysis as will be summarized in
the subsequent test results section.
2.3. Test Results

2.3.1. General Sequence
The evolving optimization process for LG coatings involved the systems, locations, and
time frames as listed in Table 10. In discussing each location, the general matrix design
and effect on the three major outputs of Almen, Temperature and Microhardness will be
presented. No pre DOE or final optimization fine tuning will be summarized but the final
spray parameter set is listed.
14
Table 9 Actual Runs for CCAD Experimentation
C D E F A G J B K H I
A ctual 3 4 5 6 1 7 10 2 11 8 9
R un O rder S td O rder R andom S TO IC CO M B G A ir scfh C G scfh TrvS p ipm TT S p rpm P artdiam S D inches S pP attL,in P FR lb/hr P w dr size
1 16 1 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
2 14 2 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
3 12 11 0.38 1550 735 30 20 90 2.00 8 11 5.5 D iam 53792
4 8 13 0.60 2000 965 30 20 250 6.63 8 11 15.8 D iam 53792
5 10 5 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 19 5.5 S tark 10362
6 7 10 0.60 2000 735 50 20 250 2.00 12 11 5.5 S tark 10362
7 6 15 0.60 1550 965 50 40 90 2.00 12 11 15.8 D iam 53792
8 15 12 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
9 13 14 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
10 1 6 0.60 1550 735 50 40 250 2.00 8 19 15.8 S tark 10362
11 9 16 0.38 2000 965 50 20 90 2.00 8 19 15.8 S tark 10362
12 2 3 0.38 2000 785 30 40 90 6.63 12 11 15.8 S tark 10362
13 3 8 0.60 1550 965 30 20 90 6.63 12 19 5.5 S tark 10362
14 11 9 0.38 1550 735 50 20 250 6.63 12 19 15.8 D iam 53792
15 4 7 0.60 2000 735 50 40 90 6.63 8 19 5.5 D iam 53792
16 5 4 0.38 2000 965 30 40 250 2.00 12 19 5.5 D iam 53792
17 17 17 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
18 18 18 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
19 10 repeat 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 19 5.5 S tark 10362
Table 10 DOE Sites and Locations (data in

Appendix 1).
Location System Time Frame
Hill AFB JP 5000 1996
CCAD DJ 2600 1997-8
Hitemco DJ 2600 1998-9
NADEP-CP DJ 2600 1998-9
Jerry Schell, an HCAT team member from GEAE, was selected to manage the
optimization procedure based upon his previous experience with HVOF and his extensive
knowledge of the DOE methodology with special emphasis on thermal spray processes
2.3.2. Northwestern/Generic Protocol_Hill AFB JP 5000

2.3.2.1. General Test Results
The initial Northwestern Protocol was run to optimize fatigue for HVOF process
optimization and not for any specific aircraft application. The R ratio of .1 was therefore
selected as the test condition. This work was conducted at Hill AFB in the 1996 time frame.
Table 11 summarizes the DOE for the Hill work.
15
Table 11 DOE Matrix for Hill AFB Work 1996
Design 1: Use L8 design 8 runs total FIXED:

Levels 54 grit alumina grit blast at 40 psi, 6 inches
FACTORS: -1 +1 Substrate is 4340 steel, 260-280 ksi
A Fuel (gph) 4 5.5
B PFR (gm/min) 5 8
C Nozzle (inches) 4 8 Spray angle is 90 degrees
D Oxygen (scfh) 1900 2100 100 psi cooling air, 4 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over coupon area
E Overlap (RPM) 90 144
Spray
Distance
F (inches) 15 18 Spray pattern length Approximately 13 inch
Powder
G Size (µm) 31 39 Fixture diameter 6 inch
RESPON SES: RELATED CTG FUN CTIO N :

1) Part temperature Fatigue
2) Almen strip Fatigue, ctg residual stress
3) Hardness, HV300 Wear
4) Coating dep/pass Cost
5) Porosity Ctg quality, corrosion
6) Oxides Ctg quality
7) Carbides Ctg quality, wear
8) Tensile bond Adhesion/cohesion
Table 12 Summary of Results for the Hill JP 5000 DOE.

H ill AFB JP 5000
% RESPO N SES
Param eters Thk/Pass CY6 Tem p Alm en H V300 A VG Rank
A Fuel 6.8 43.4 25.5 42.8 29.6 1st
B P FR 47.8 2.5 9.4 12.8 18.1 2nd
C N ozzle 13.4 27.0 22.7 0.2 15.8 4th
D O xygen 4.5 0.9 6.1 20.6 8.0 5th
E O verlap 22.8 0.3 1.8 1.9 6.7 5th
F Spary D istance 2.1 23.2 27.6 14.0 16.7 3rd
G P ow der Size 2.6 2.7 7.0 7.7 5.0 6th
Effects Range Thk/Pass CY6 Tem p Alm en H V300

verage 0.644 409 12.6 1054
Low er 0.357 301 6.5 855
U pper 0.917 530 18 1220
M ean +/- X % 42.4 29.6 42.9 15.7
16
Table 12 summarizes the data from the Hill DOE. Table 13 lists the random run
order for the varied parameter sets. Table 14 lists the final coating parameters for the JP
5000 system.
Table 13 Run Order for Hill AFB Work

FACTOR
Powder
Fuel PFR Nozle Oxygen Overlap Sp Dist
Size
Run No. Std Order gph gm/min inches scfh RPM inches µm
1 3 4 5 4 1900 90 15 31
2 5 4 5 4 2100 144 18 39
3 8 4 8 8 1900 90 18 39
4 2 4 8 8 2100 144 15 31
5 7 5.5 5 8 1900 144 15 39
6 1 5.5 5 8 2100 90 18 31
7 4 5.5 8 4 1900 144 18 31
8 6 5.5 8 4 2100 90 15 39
2.3.2.2.General Discussion
As expected, combustion gas and stand-off distance are the major factors in the spray
process. The data for microhardness, almen strip values, and substrate temperature
identifies these variables as the critical parameters for control and the obvious areas to
investigate in future problem troubleshooting. There is also a degree of process
robustness with the analysis indicating that a fairly wide range of values can be used to
achieve a consistent end result.
Three other areas should also be noted:
Deposition rate of the coating is obviously controlled not only by powder feed
rate but traverse speed of the part being sprayed. This traverse rate dependency is
evident in data from all systems and guns. This will have a substantial effect on
almen and substrate temperature because of the heat being transferred to the part
as the gun sweeps across it. It is therefore critical to keep deposition rate constant
in spraying test bars, almen strips, or parts to best approximate a consistent and
repeatable process
For the JP 5000 analysis, the nozzle length was a significant factor for all three
critical outputs. Only the 4 and 8 inch lengths were tested, with the 8 inch
dimension providing the optimum coating deposit.
17
! Stoichiometry (i.e. hydrogen/oxygen ratio in the flame) was also identified as a
major factor in microhardness results. This affects the melting of the cobalt
binder and dissolution of the carbides. Non-optimal ratios can drive the carbides
into solution, resulting in poor hardness or toughness.
Table 14 Final Parameters for Hill AFB JP 5000

JP5000 Process Parameters for WC-17%Co Fatigue Specimens
Equipment Model 5220 gun with 8” nozzle
Model 5120
Model 5500 powder feeder
Powder feed Stark Amperit 526.062
80 gm/min (325 rpm, 6 pitch feeder screw)
30
Argon
50 psi
15 scfh
Combustion Gases Kerosene, Type 1-K

162-168 psi
121-123 psi
100-102 psi
5.0 gph
Oxygen
190-235 psi console supply reading
138-140 psi gun supply pressure
2000 scfh (corrected flow at 210 psi: 1940 to 2075 actual flow tube
reading, depending on console supply pressure reading)
Gun Compressed Air
Gun Cooling Water Flow 8.3-8.7 gph
64-72oF
117-125 oF
51-54 oF
Specimen Rotation 600 rpm for round bars (0.25 inch diam.); 144 rpm for rectangular
bars (at 6.63 inch fixture diam.)
Gun Traverse Speed 70 in/min for round bars; 17 in/min for rectangular bars
Spray Distance 18 inches
Cooling Air 90-110 psi

2 gun-mounted air jets at 14 inches; 1 stationary air jet at 4-6 inches
pointed at coating area
2.3.3. CCAD DOE 1998

2.3.3.1. General Test Results
In preparation for the LG JTP and to assist in assimilating HVOF technology into the
depots, an interim optimization was run at the CCAD facility to optimize spray
parameters on the DJ 2600 system. Although the JP 5000 and DJ2600 are both HVOF
18
systems, there is enough difference in the design to require optimization of both systems.
Table 15 summarizes the DOE matrix for the CCAD work.
Table 15 DOE Matrix for CCAD 1998

Levels
A Traverse speeds 20 ipm 40 ipm 30 ipm M etco VF gritblastsurface prep procedure*
B Spray distance 8 inch 12 inch 10 inch Substrate is 4340 steel,260-280 ksi
C Stoic Ratio 0.38 0.6 0.44 Powdertype is W C-17Co,agglom erated and sintered
D Com bustion Gas 1550 scfh 2000 scfh 1775 scfh Spray angle is 90 degrees
E Airflow 735 scfh 965 scfh 850 scfh 100 psiair,5 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over8-12 inch coupon area
F Carriergas flow 42.6 scfh 71 scfh 56.8 scfh Carriergas equiv N2 m ass flow forN2 orArgon
G Turntable RPM 90 RPM 250 RPM 170 scfh N2 x 1.42 = Ar
H PowderFeed Rate** 5.4 lbs/hr 10.7 lbs/hr15.8 lbs/hr RESPONSES: RELATED CTG FUNCTION:
I Powdersize Am p526.062005NS 2005NS 1)Parttem perature Fatigue
Lot10362 Lot53792 Lot53558 2)Alm en strip Fatigue,ctg residualstress
J Partdiam eter 2 inch 6.63 inch 4.31 inch 3)Hardness,HV300 W ear
K Spray pattern length 11 inch 19 inch 15 inch 4)Coating dep/pass Cost
5)Porosity Ctg quality,corrosion
*Gritblast 24 grit,35 psi 6)Oxides Ctg quality
**ActualPFR needs TBD in lightofTW IN 10 uncertainities; 7)Carbides Ctg quality,wear
(theorheticalvalues are given above) 8)Tensile bond Adhesion/cohesion
Table 16 summarizes random run order for the DOE matrix of the CCAD work.
Table 16 Random Run Listing for CCAD DOE

A ctual 3 4 5 6 1 7 10 2 11 8 9
R un O rder S td O rder R andom S TO IC CO M B G A ir scfh C G scfh TrvS p ipm TT S p rpm P artdiam S D inches S pP attL,in P FR lb/hr P w dr size
1 16 1 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
2 14 2 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
3 12 11 0.38 1550 735 30 20 90 2.00 8 11 5.5 D iam 53792
4 8 13 0.60 2000 965 30 20 250 6.63 8 11 15.8 D iam 53792
5 10 5 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 19 5.5 S tark 10362
6 7 10 0.60 2000 735 50 20 250 2.00 12 11 5.5 S tark 10362
7 6 15 0.60 1550 965 50 40 90 2.00 12 11 15.8 D iam 53792
8 15 12 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
9 13 14 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
10 1 6 0.60 1550 735 50 40 250 2.00 8 19 15.8 S tark 10362
11 9 16 0.38 2000 965 50 20 90 2.00 8 19 15.8 S tark 10362
12 2 3 0.38 2000 785 30 40 90 6.63 12 11 15.8 S tark 10362
13 3 8 0.60 1550 965 30 20 90 6.63 12 19 5.5 S tark 10362
14 11 9 0.38 1550 735 50 20 250 6.63 12 19 15.8 D iam 53792
15 4 7 0.60 2000 735 50 40 90 6.63 8 19 5.5 D iam 53792
16 5 4 0.38 2000 965 30 40 250 2.00 12 19 5.5 D iam 53792
17 17 17 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
18 18 18 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 10.7 D iam 53558
19 10 repeat 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 19 5.5 S tark 10362
The responses for the DOE are summarized in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3.
19
Pareto Chart of the Effects
(response is HV300, Alpha = .10)
Comb G
Stoic
Powd Sz
CG
T rSp
Part Dia
SD
PFR
Air
SpPattL
TT Sp
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure 1 Microhardness Response for CCAD DOE

(response is Cy6 Temp, Alpha = .10)
SD
Part Dia
TrSp
Stoic
Comb G
TT Sp
Air
PFR
CG
Powd Sz
SpPattL
0 50 100 150
Figure 2 Substrate Temperature Response for

CCAD DOE
20
(response is Norm.Alm, Alpha = .10)
Powd Sz
Comb G
SD
TT Sp
PFR
Air
CG
SpPattL
Stoic
TrSp
Part Dia
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 3 Almen Strip Response for CCAD DOE
2.3.3.2. General Discussion

process. The data for microhardness, almen strip values, and substrate temperature
investigate in future problem troubleshooting. The analysis shows a robust process with
a fairly wide range of values that can be used to achieve a consistent end result.
Three other areas should also be noted:
! Deposition rate of the coating is obviously controlled not only by powder feed
rate but traverse speed of the part being sprayed. This traverse rate/deposition
rate dependency is evident in data from all systems and guns. This will have a
substantial effect on Almen and substrate temperature because of the heat being
transferred to the part. It is therefore critical to keep deposition rate constant in
spraying test bars, Almen strips, or parts to best approximate a consistent and
repeatable process.
! For the CCAD analysis, the powder size/distribution was a significant factor for
the Almen strip output indicating a variation in the residual stress state of the
coating. This variable can be controlled by use of material form one powder
manufacturer which is common in the thermal spray industry. However, this
indicates that a change to another manufacturer will require some process
revalidation and is also an indicator that this parameter should also be added to
the problem trouble shooting guide.
! Stoichiometry was also identified as a major factor in microhardness results.
21
Stoichiometry is the ratio of fuel gas to oxygen in the gun, and because it controls
flame temperature, it affects melting of the matrix Co and dissolution of the
carbides. High flame temperatures tend to solution the carbides, resulting in
hardness changes and alloying of the binder, both of which affect mechanical
properties of the coating. Stoichiometry must therefore be included in the process
control.
Table 17 Final Summary of Factors in CCAD DOE

% R ESPO N SES
Pa ra m e te rs T h k/P ass C Y6 T em p A lm en H V300 AVG Ra n k
A T rvS p ip m 9.3 11.3 2.3 9.3 8.0 4 th
B S D in ch e s 6.4 1 8 .1 1 7 .0 5 .9 11.9 3 rd
C S T O IC 3.7 1 1 .2 2 .3 1 4 .6 8.0 4 th
D COM B G 5.3 9 .5 1 7 .5 2 4 .3 14.2 1 st
E A ir scfh 6.0 6 .6 6 .2 4 .2 5.8 5 th
F C G scfh 10.3 4 .7 6 .2 1 1 .4 8.2 4 th
G T T S p rp m 7.4 9 .1 9 .9 2 .6 7.2 4 th
H P F R lb / h r 14.4 6 .5 6 .4 4 .6 8.0 4 th
J P w d r size 11.3 4 .6 2 5 .7 1 2 .4 13.5 2nd
K P art d iam 19.0 1 5 .6 2 .2 7 .9 11.2 3 rd
L S p P attL,in 6.8 2 .6 4 .4 2 .8 4.2 5 th
1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 100.0
SU M Sh a d e d Effe c ts 5 5 .1 5 6 .3 7 0 .1 6 2 .8 51
E ffe cts R an ge T h k/P ass C Y6 T em p A lm en H V300
Low er 0 .1 6 8 325 7 .2 1024
U p p er 0 .7 4 6 496 2 1 .5 1203
M e an + /- X % 6 3 .2 2 0 .8 4 9 .8 8 .0
The factors are summarized in Table 17. The CCAD work is summarized in Appendix 1.
2.3.4. LG DOE at Hitemco 1998-1999 DJ 2600 System

The DOE work at Hitemco was the final coating analysis prior to coating of the fatigue,
corrosion and wear specimens. The investigation was performed to verify the outcome of
the DOE at CCAD and to finalize the process prior to test bar coating deposition.
22
Table 18 DOE Matrix for Hitemco Analysis
Design 1: Use L8 design plusCenterPoints, 11 runstotal FIXED:
FACTORS: -1 +1 C Pt Substrate is 4340 steel, 260-280 ksi
A Surf Speed,Feed Rate 1335, 5.1 1835, 3.5 1585 ipm, 4.3 Powder size/type is WC-17Co, Diamalloy 2005, Lot 54480
B Combustion Gas 1525 scfh 1825 scfh 1675 scfh Powder Feed Rate** 8.5 lbs/hr
C Stoic Ratio 0.405 0.485 0.445 Spray angle is 90 degrees
D Spray Distance 10 inch 13 inch 11.5 inch 100 psi cooling air, 4 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over coupon area
Carrier gas N2 at 148 psi, 55 flow, air vib @ 20 psi
Turntable Robot Spd Robot % @ Spray pattern length Approximately 13 inch
A Factor: RPM ipm mm/sec 750 mm/sec Spots/Rev Fixture diameter 2 inch
(-1) 212 25 10.6 1.41% 5.1
C Pt 252 35 14.8 1.98% 4.3
(+1) 292 50 21.2 2.82% 3.5
RESPONSES: RELATED CTG FUNCTION:
(B,C) Factor Combinations: 1) Part temperature Fatigue
Comb Gas Stoic Ratio Hyd SCFH Oxy SCFH Air SCFH Point (CG,SR) 2) Almen strip Fatigue, ctg residual stress
1675 0.445 1159 332 920 ( 0, 0) 3) Hardness, HV300 Wear
1525 0.405 1085 258 920 (-1,-1) 4) Coating dep/pass Cost
1525 0.485 1027 314 920 (-1,+1) 5) Porosity Ctg quality, corrosion
1825 0.405 1299 342 920 (+1,-1) 6) Oxides Ctg quality
1825 0.485 1229 412 920 (+1,+1) 7) Carbides Ctg quality, wear
Table 19 represents the random run sequence for the Hiemco DOE
Table 19 Random Runs for Hitemco DOE

A factor (B,C) Combined Factors D factor
Std.Ord Turn Table Robot Trav Hydrogen Oxygen Air Sp Dist
Run No. RPM Sp mm/s psi/FMR psi/FMR psi, FMR inches
1 9 252 14.8 135 psi, 50.4 148 psi, 23.1 105 psi, 50.5 11.5
2 1 212 10.6 135 psi, 47.2 148 psi, 17.8 105 psi, 50.5 10
3 2 292 21.2 135 psi, 47.2 148 psi, 17.8 105 psi, 50.5 13
4 3 212 10.6 135 psi, 56.5 148 psi, 23.8 105 psi, 50.5 13
5 4 292 21.2 135 psi, 56.5 148 psi, 23.8 105 psi, 50.5 10
6 10 252 14.8 135 psi, 50.4 148 psi, 23.1 105 psi, 50.5 11.5
7 5 212 10.6 135 psi, 44.6 148 psi, 21.8 105 psi, 50.5 13
8 6 292 21.2 135 psi, 44.6 148 psi, 21.8 105 psi, 50.5 10
9 7 212 10.6 135 psi, 53.4 148 psi, 28.7 105 psi, 50.5 10
10 8 292 21.2 135 psi, 53.4 148 psi, 28.7 105 psi, 50.5 13
11 11 252 14.8 135 psi, 50.4 148 psi, 23.1 105 psi, 50.5 11.5
Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the general trends for substrate temperature, almen
strip and microhardness responses.
23
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is DPH 300, Alpha = .10)
A: RPMxIPM
B: CombGas
D
C: Stoic
D: SpDist
AC
AB
AD
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Figure 4 Microhardness Response for Hitemco DOE

(response is T 6cycle, Alpha = .10)
A: RPMxIPM
B: CombGas
D C: Stoic
D: SpDist
A
AD
AC
AB
0 1 2 3
Figure 5 Substrate Temperature Response for Hitemco DOE
24
(response is Norm.Alm, Alpha = .10)
A: RPMxIPM
B: CombGas
B C: Stoic
D: SpDist
D
AD
AC
AB
0 5 10 15
Figure 6 Almen Strip Response for Hitemco DOE
Table 20 is the final spray parameter set for the test bar spraying for the LG JTP.
2.3.4.1. General Discussion

process. The data for microhardness, Almen strip values, and substrate temperature
investigate in future problem troubleshooting. There is also a degree of process
robustness with the analysis indicating that a fairly wide range of values can be used to
achieve a consistent end result.
Two other areas should also be noted:
! The deposition rate of the coating is obviously controlled not only by powder feed
rate but traverse speed of the part being sprayed. This traverse rate/deposition
rate dependency is evident in data from all systems and guns. This will have a
substantial effect on Almen and substrate temperature because of the heat being
transferred to the part. It is therefore critical to keep the deposition rate constant
in spraying test bars, Almen strips, or parts to best approximate a consistent and
repeatable process.
! Stoichiometry was also identified as a major factor in microhardness results.
25
Table 20 Final Deposition Parameters Hitemco LG JTP
Equipment Gun Model 2600 hybrid gun
Console Model DJC
Powder feeder Model DJP powder feeder
Injector #8
Shell #8
Insert #8
Siphon plug #8
Aircap DJ2603
Powder feed Powder Diamalloy 2005

Powder Feed Rate: 8.5 lb/hr
Tube DJP 116
Pick-up shaft “E”
Air Vibrator setting 20 psi
Powder Carrier Gas Nitrogen
Carrier gas pressure 148 psi
FMR 55
Flow rate 28 scfh
Combustion Gases Fuel Hydrogen

Gun supply pressure 135 psi
FMR 53.4
Flow rate 1229 scfh
Oxidizer Oxygen
Pressure 148 psi
FMR 28.7
Mass flow 412 scfh
Gun Compressed Air Pressure 105 psi
FMR FMR – 50.5
Mass flow 920 scfh
Gun Cooling Water Flow Flow rate 5.3-5.7 gph (factory set)
Water Temperature to Gun:
In 65-80oF typical (ground water, temp varies)
Out 77-100 oF typical

Delta 12-20 oF (~ 14 oF typical)
Specimen Rotation 2,336 rpm for round bars (0.25 inch dia.) –
1835 in/min surface speed
Gun Traverse Speed 400 linear in/min for round bars

Spray Distance 11.5 inches
Cooling Air Pressure 90-110 psi

Location 2 stationary nozzle tips at 6 inches pointed
at coating area
A summary of the Hitemco work can be found in the Appendix 1.
2.3.5. Almen Strip and Temperature Measurement Procedures

Almen strip and substrate temperature control are two of the more critical areas for
process control. In the initial HVOF trials, it was assumed that these measurements were
26
well defined and would not create any inconsistencies. Subsequent experience has shown
that this is not the case.
Almen strip results were found to be strongly influenced by preparation and spraying
methods, leading to large systematic differences between spray sites. Factors to consider
are:
! Grit blasting of one side vs. both sides of the strip This can result in a 3-4 mil
difference in Almen results when spraying.
! Orientation of the strip (i.e. torch traverse along or across the strip This can
result in a 1-2 mil difference in Almen results when spraying.
! Cleaning of Almen block If not performed properly and frequently, coating will
build up on the block, preventing proper thermal contact and leading to improper
readings
! Reduction in Almen Response with Increasing Thickness As thickness increases,
the Almen response appears to level off. Another almen strip type may be
required for more substantial deflections
! Normalized Almen Values Based upon the issue of thickness, many initial values
have been reported for the .003-.005” thickness range due to interest in those
areas. However, values for Almen response can vary even over a .002” range.
HCAT has therefore defined Almen stress as the value measured on a 0.005”
thick coating.
It is common practice in many spray shops to measure substrate temperature with a
contact probe at the end of the spray run. This approach provides no information on the
true temperature excursions that occur during spraying. The HCAT team therefore
adopted the approach of continuous infrared temperature measurement during spraying.
For substrate temperature measurement, the following issues have been identified:
! Use of Real time measurement vs. Touch Probe Temperatures can be as much as
100 degrees hotter with instantaneous measurement (IR pyrometer) vs. touch
probe after all spraying is complete.
! Spot size of IR System When spraying small test bars (as was required for this
project), the spot size is normally bigger than the specimen diameter. This
requires a compensation factor when spraying test bars. If the actual reading is
used, it will give a false indication which is lower than the actual bar value and
substrate overheating may result.
! Co-ordination of Touch Probes and IR System Via Emissivity Corrections As
stated earlier, temperatures can be as much as 100 degrees hotter with
instantaneous measurement (IR pyrometer) vs. touch probe after all spraying is
complete. The IR unit must therefore be calibrated to define an emissivity setting
that can be used as a default value. Although the IR system may not be an exact
value, it can be used as a conservative guideline to control the process.
A complete guideline for Almen Strip/Substrate Temperature measurement can be found
in Appendix 1.
27
2.4. Interpretation and Discussion
The optimization process for both the JP 5000 and DJ 2600 produced the trends found in
Table 21. The primary results are not unexpected for the substrate temperature and
Almen as the amount of combustion gas will drive the achievable flame temperature,
while spray distance (end of nozzle to part) will have a substantial effect on how much of
that heat input is transferred to the part. It is very important to note that these trends were
observed for both types of gun at three different locations.
Table 21 Primary and secondary determinants of coating

properties.
Property Primary Secondary
Almen Combustion Gas Nozzle
Spray Distance Powder size
Microhardness Combustion Gas Powder size
Spray Distance
Substrate temperature Combustion Gas Nozzle
Spray Distance
The secondary effects of nozzle and powder size will be controlled by a standard choice
for each of these parameters. When selected, these variables will be fixed but powder
size must still be a part of the troubleshooting guide if size/particle distribution issues are
identified at the powder vendor.
Fatigue was used as the most important factor in coating optimization. Initial focus was
on fatigue cycle life which was achieved during the LG JTP evaluation. Additional work
performed as part of HCAT by the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) in the same time
fame provided an example of problems that can be experienced during spraying. When
coating parameters were chosen that were optimized for wear performance rather than
fatigue, HVOF cyclic fatigue lives were lower than chrome. Temperature control was
also suspect. Respraying of bars at the same location with HCAT-optimized parameters
and better temperature control resulted in satisfactory fatigue performance. This
highlights not only the importance of process optimization, but also the importance of
optimizing for the most critical performance parameters.
However, the question that still remains is coating integrity (which will be further
discussed in the fatigue section of this report, and will be the subject of a subsequent
report), and the need for process optimization for optimal integrity. Current industrial
research indicates that areas such as phase content in the as-sprayed coating and the
actual residual stress values in the test bar or part will be critical to coating integrity or
cracking/delamination/spalling tendencies. These characteristics will be important in
conjunction with particle velocity/temperature measurements that can be obtained with
systems like the DPV 2000. It will be critical to investigate and understand these issues
to produce an optimized coating which meets coating integrity criteria. This work, in
conjunction with the present information, will provide a defined and robust set of
parameters that can consistently produce reliable coatings on military hardware at the
depot.
28
2.5. Significance
For implementation at military depots on flight critical hardware, a manufacturing
process must be well defined and process variables highlighted for control. The coating
optimization procedure has identified parameters that are critical and evaluated those
variables with relation to manufacturing robustness and the future need for process
troubleshooting. Further process understanding is in progress and will be required to
fully comprehend and optimize the spray technology for fatigue coating integrity
performance.
2.6. Conclusions
The HVOF process for WC-Co has been successfully optimized for both the JP 5000 and
DJ 2600 systems with regard to many of the properties such as fatigue cycle life to
achieve a repeatable process at varied locations.
More work is required concerning the issue of coating integrity (spalling and
delamination) and process understanding concerning such variables as phase content,
actual residual stress in the coating deposit, and velocity/temperature relationships (as
measured by instruments such as the DPV 2000).
29
3. Fatigue data
3.1. Data Summary
Table 22. Quick reference to primary data. Click blue links to jump to data.
Item Item Number
Materials evaluated for fatigue testing Table 24
Specimen types for fatigue testing Figure 7, Figure 8,
Fatigue test matrix Table 27
Representative data – 4340 steel Figure 13 to Figure 17
Representative data – Aermet 100 steel Figure 18 to Figure 21
Representative data – 300M steel Figure 22 to Figure 25
Summary of coating integrity analysis Table 28
3.2. Test Rationale

Fatigue is a very critical property in the aerospace industry, because of the repeated
cyclic loading for landing gear, actuators, airframe parts, and gas turbine engine
components. Since fatigue performance is driven by material strength and is especially
related to near-surface effects, fatigue-critical applications require careful definition and
control of the thermal spray process to
1. minimize surface heating so as to prevent loss of mechanical properties due to
overheating, and
2. deposit thermal spray coatings with compressive stress to minimize or eliminate
any fatigue debit.
Although plasma spray processes have been widespread in the aerospace industry for
many years, they have tended to be limited to non-fatigue critical applications, largely
due to the heat input of the process and tensile coating stresses. The commercial
development of the HVOF process, which relies more on kinetic than thermal energy for
final coating properties and permits compressive coating stress, has started to move the
design community towards thermal spray in fatigue-driven components. As a result
HVOF coatings are now specified in numerous commercial aircraft and some military
aircraft. The fatigue test matrix was defined to assess the impact of HVOF coatings on
the fatigue life of the substrate.
The evaluation of fatigue in a coated part is really the analysis of how the coating affects
the known values of an uncoated component. Baseline data for the alloys used in most
applications already have been established. There are established methods and
specifications for determining fatigue properties. However, with coatings now applied,
some of the guidelines used for bulk materials are somewhat different.
30
For most chrome-replacement testing, axial fatigue testing (ASTM E466-96) provides the
most useful data for evaluation (rather than bend testing). In designing a fatigue testing
protocol, some areas requiring definition are:
1. What is the load carrying capability of the coating and should this value be used
in determining the applied stress? How will thickness of the coating affect this
situation? The cross sectional area of the coating should be much less than that of
the sample.
2. What is the best bar design for fatigue evaluation of coatings?
! Hourglass (smoothly varying cross section, thinnest at the center)
! Smooth section (constant cross section from some distance in center)
3. Will the testing mode be load (stress) or strain control?
4. Can grinding of the coating be repeatable on the fatigue bars to produce a
consistent thickness and surface for testing?
As with all fatigue evaluations, considerations must be given to the following:
Frequency or speed of testing –will determine time for testing, but too high a
frequency can cause overheating or a shift in results for strain rate sensitive
materials
Type of control (load or strain) – will application of force to the bar be
controlled purely by load or by the deformation induced in the part?
R ratio or A ratio – R ratio is defined as the ratio of minimum cyclic load to
maximum cyclic load. For example, an R ratio of –1.0 means the maximum
and minimum loads are the same but the loading is fully reversed from
positive to negative. A ratio is defined as
(maximum stress - minimum stress)/(maximum stress + minimum stress)
Typical fatigue bar shapes are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The most common
designs are the hourglass (which can only be used for load-control fatigue), and the
smooth bar. The hourglass bar was used for the bulk of the testing for consistency with
existing data in the landing gear community. The hourglass shape is more sensitive to
coatings and tends to give a wider separation of curves between coating conditions.
Some tests with smooth bars were included to permit correlation with earlier HCAT
generic testing. While for 0.003” coatings a small ¼” diameter bar was used, for 0.010”
coatings a ½” diameter bar was used to ensure that the bar cross section was much greater
than that of the coating. Most testing was done at R=-1 (fully reversed), since that best
corresponds with field conditions for military landing gear components. Some testing
was done at R=0.1 (tension-tension) for comparison with earlier generic HCAT data and
with Boeing test data.
31
Figure 7. Typical hourglass-shaped fatigue bar.
Figure 8. Typical smooth fatigue bar.
32
Fatigue testing for coating comparison must be defined by the important parameters of
the spray process and the critical controls for consistent property evaluation as shown in
Table 23.
Table 23. Fatigue testing variables.

Coating/Substrate Information Testing Information
Peening of substrate Frequency of testing
machine
Thickness of coating Bar geometry
Surface finish (ground, unground, Load vs. strain control
or superfinished)
Location of coating (patch/full R ratio, or A ratio
length)
Almen (intrinsic stress) intensity
Corrosion fatigue must also be a consideration, given the corrosive environments for
many of the hard chrome applications. This usually involves the same considerations as
testing in air but the test area in question is exposed to the corrosive media for the entire
test or for specific periods of time. There may also be pre-exposures for the purpose of
initiating corrosion followed by constant exposure to the environment in question. When
defining the protocol for testing, the frequency of exposure, and the degree of
replenishment must be stipulated to best approximate the actual service conditions.
3.3. Specimen Fabrication

3.3.1. . Specimen Geometry and Materials:
In the case of the Landing Gear Joint Test Protocol (LG JTP), both configurations were
selected for the fatigue evaluation.
! Hourglass: 0.25-inch gage diameter for specimens receiving 3-mil-thick
coatings and 0.50-inch gage diameter for specimens receiving 10-mil-thick
coatings (See Figure 7 and Figure 9).
! Smooth bar: 0.25-inch gage diameter over a gage length of 0.75 inches (See
Figure 8)
33
Figure 9. Hourglass configuration with .500” gage section.
The two smaller specimens (Figure 7 and Figure 8) were not threaded on the ends; rather,
the smooth shank end was clamped in hydraulic grips. A threaded end was used for the
larger hourglass specimen (Figure 9). The materials selected for the protocol are listed in
Table 24.
Table 24. Substrate materials in LG JTP

Material Heat Treat (tens. Strength) Shot Peen
4340 260-280 ksi 8-10A, S230, wrought steel
300M 280-300 ksi 8-10A, S230, wrought steel
Aermet 100 280-290 ksi 8-10A, S230, wrought steel
3.3.2. Specimen preparation

Specimen preparation involved four major steps: rough grinding, vacuum heat treatment,
finish grinding/polishing, and shot peening.
The heat treat for the 4340 and 300M was in accordance with MIL-H-6875 and the heat
treat for the Aermet 100 in accordance with P.S. 15169. When possible, all specimens
were heat treated at the same time. Grinding was performed to MIL-STD-866 and
Metcut internal specifications (Table 25) as listed below. The fatigue specimen surface
34
preparation involved low stress grinding followed by 600 grit alumina polishing which
removed 0.001” minimum on all gage section surfaces in the polishing step of the
specimens. Nital etching to MIL-STD-867 was conducted on all specimens to
examine for grinding burns. All specimens were baked subsequent to Nital etching to
remove residual hydrogen. All specimens to be tested (both coated and uncoated) were
prepared in the same fashion to ensure a common starting condition prior to any surface
preparation techniques used for the coatings. This approach was used to reduce fatigue
test data scatter due to variations in the condition of the machined surfaces.
Where specified in the test matrix, shot peening was conducted to IAW AMS-2432 under
computer control using the conditions specified in Table 24. The entire surface was shot
peened to 100% surface coverage.
Table 25. Machining procedures for fatigue specimens.

Machining Procedures
200.1.1 Specimen Preparation Procedure Low Stress Grind
Axial Polishing Procedures for Test Specimens
200.4 Metcut Round Specimen Polish Procedures for All Materials
3.4. Coating deposition methodology

Fatigue specimens were coated with electroplated hard chrome and HVOF WC-17Co.
The HVOF coatings were applied at Hitemco in Bethpage, NY. The hard chrome was
applied at Ogden ALC (Hill AFB). All of the fatigue specimens were shot peened and
solvent wiped with reagent grade acetone and or isopropyl alcohol prior to coating. All
coatings were applied in a patch 0.5” long (3/4” long for ½” diameter bars) centered on
the middle of the bar and feathered at the patch ends to limit stress concentrations. The
coatings were deposited around the entire circumference to a thickness of 0.002 – 0.003”
over the final diameter to allow for grinding after coating.
The fatigue specimens for hard chrome were prepared for plating by lightly hand
abrading the areas to be coated with a Scotchbrite pad. Chrome plating was done at
about 130 0F following MIL-STD-1501C, Class 1, Type 1. The resultant hard chrome
was about 0.002” thicker than the final grind dimension and nominally 0.5” long,
centered in the gage section of the fatigue specimen, and had feathered edges.
The fatigue specimens with HVOF WC-17Co were coated at Hitemco with a DJ 2600
system and Diamalloy 2205 agglomerated/sintered powder (nominal size, -270 mesh/+10
micron). They were prepared for coating by grit blasting with 24 grit aluminum oxide at
18-20 psi and then coated using the parameters given in Table 26. The smooth round bar
and hourglass bar specimens were coated individually while rotating on axis and being
traversed parallel to the length. A pair of shadow masks restricted coating deposition to
the desired 0.5 inch region centered in the gage section and ensured proper feathering of
the patch ends. Tape masking restricted grit blasting and the coating overspray area to a
slightly wider area (0.6 inch max). Complete deposition conditions are summarized in
Table 26.
35
Table 26. DiamondJet 2600 process parameters for deposition of WC-17Co.
Equipment: Model 2700 hybrid gun
Powder: Diamalloy 2005
Powder Feed Rate: 8.5 lb/hr (325 rpm, 6 pitch
feeder screw)
Vibrator setting, 30
Powder Carrier Gas: Nitrogen pressure 148 psi
Nitrogen flow 28 scfh
Combustion Gas: Oxygen pressure 148 psi
Combustion fuel: Hydrogen
Fuel pressure – 135 psi console supply pressure
Fuel flow rate – 1229 scfh
Combustion chamber 100-102 psi
Pressure:
Gun Cooling Water Flow: 8.3-8.7 gph
Water Temperature to In, 64- 72oF
Gun: Out, 117-125 oF
Delta, 51- 54 oF
Specimen Rotation: 2,636 rpm for round bars (0.25 inch dia.) – 16,560
in/min surface speed
Gun Traverse Speed: 400 linear in/min for round bars
Spray Distance 11.5 inches
Cooling Air: 2 gun mounted AJs at 14 inches, 90-110 psi
1 stationary AJ at 4-6 inches pointed at coating area,
90-110 psi

Stress Levels : All fatigue tests were conducted in constant amplitude axial load-
control in accordance with ASTM E466-96 to generate standard S-N
curves.
Maximum stress: approximately 180 ksi, in accord with Boeing fatigue
test procedures
Stress direction: fully reversed (tensile/compressive, R=-1) for most
tests, some tests under tension-tension at R=0.1
36
Number of stress levels: 4
Number of specimens at each stress level: 5
Stress calculations: Calculated on as-machined diameters
Environments: The environments were: (1) Laboratory air at ambient temperature
(2) 3.5% NaCl solution at ambient temperature. The procedure for
conducting the corrosion fatigue tests was to immerse the entire
fatigue specimen in a 3.5% NaCl solution for 24 hours. Then the
specimen was removed, dried, stored in a desiccator for approximately
24-48 hours and then placed into the fatigue-testing machine in a cell
(See Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12 below) containing a 3.5%
NaCl solution. The gage section of the fatigue specimen was
immersed in the NaCl solution during the entire fatigue test. This cell
was replenished with a constant flow of 3.5% NaCl solution during the
test. The excess solution was not returned to the system.
The matrix for fatigue testing is indicated in Table 27.
Acceptance : After testing, the data were plotted in the standard manner with stress
on the vertical axis and cycles-to-failure on the horizontal axis. A
least squares regression was used to produce each S-N curve. The
σ) space,
regression involved a linear fit to the data in ln (N) vs. ln (σ
then calculating a best fit curve in the traditional S-N space. If the
curves for the HVOF coatings fell on or above the curves for the EHC,
then the HVOF coatings were considered to have met the acceptance
criteria.
The testing set-up is shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12. These figures
illustrate corrosion-fatigue testing, but the same arrangement was used for in-air testing
(minus the stop-off paint and liquid receptacle).
Figure 11. Corrosion cell set-up for

Figure 10. Small (1/4" dia) hourglass bars for fatigue testing-large hourglass.
corrosion fatigue testing.
37
Figure 12. Close-up view of corrosion cell set-up for fatigue testing-
– small hourglass specimen.
Table 27. Fatigue test matrix.

Material Geometry Peen Coating Thickness R Environment # of specimens
(mil)
4340 Hourglass No WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass No WC-Co 3 0.1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass No EHC 3 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass No EHC 3 0.1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes EHC 3 0.1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 0.1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 10 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes EHC 10 -1 Air 20
4340 Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 NaCl 20
4340 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 NaCl 20
4340 Smooth bar Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
38
4340 Smooth bar Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
Total 280
300M Hourglass No Uncoated 3 -1 Air 20

300M Hourglass No EHC 3 -1 Air 20
300M Hourglass No WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
300M Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
300M Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
300M Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 NaCl 20
300M Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 NaCl 20
300M Hourglass Yes EHC 10 -1 NaCl 20
300M Hourglass Yes WC-Co 10 -1 NaCl 20
300M Smooth bar Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
300M Smooth bar Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
Total 220
Aermet 100 Hourglass No Uncoated 3 -1 Air 20

Aermet 100 Hourglass No EHC 3 -1 Air 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass No WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes EHC 3 -1 NaCl 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 3 -1 NaCl 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes EHC 10 -1 NaCl 20
Aermet 100 Hourglass Yes WC-Co 10 -1 NaCl 20
Aermet 100 Smooth bar Yes EHC 3 -1 Air 20
Aermet 100 Smooth bar Yes WC-Co 3 -1 Air 20
Total 220
Grand Total 720
39
3.6. Test results
The US Landing Gear JTP concentrated on fatigue of WC-Co coatings at both a .003”
and .010” thickness. Substrate materials were 4340, 300M and Aeromet 100.
The JTP made primary comparisons between the following variables:
Coating: EHC vs WC-Co
Peening: Peened vs. unpeened
Configuration: Hourglass vs. smooth
Environment: Air vs. NaCl
Thickness: .003” vs. .010”
The primary goal of this program was to generate comparative S-N curves to assess
fatigue performance. The issues of coating integrity (cracking/spalling) were not
anticipated by the JTP, and the issue did not arise until the US JTP fatigue testing was
almost complete. Consequently, no provision was made in the test plan to carefully
monitor coating behavior during each test. For this reason, observations regarding
coating integrity reported herein were limited to post-test assessments only.
3.6.1. 4340 Substrate

The comparisons as outlined above were made for the 4340 substrate material. The bar
configuration comparison was included in the protocol to provide a link to earlier work
performed on the smooth configuration. An additional comparison of R ratios was also
made for this same reason.
General comments on the comparisons are:
! Figure 13 shows the comparison of unpened vs. peened data. While, as expected,
peening significantly raised the EHC curves, it made little difference to the HVOF
data. The hourglass configuration is quite sensitive in differentiating chrome vs.
HVOF in the unpeened condition.
! Figure 14 shows the comparison of bar configurations. As experienced in other
protocols, the smooth bar configuration moves the curve to the left or shorter
fatigue lives. However, in contrast to previous observations, the spread between
chrome and HVOF is not substantially different.
! Figure 15 shows the comparison of environments, namely air vs. NaCl. The NaCl
curves show roughly equal degradation in fatigue performance between chrome
and HVOF.
! Figure 16 shows the comparison between the .003” and .010” coatings. Due to
the .010” coating thickness, this data not only represents a thicker deposit but also
a larger diameter bar. Since the bar diameters are different, the comparison can
be somewhat skewed since larger diameter bars sometimes show reduced fatigue
performance. It is therefore uncertain if the fatigue reduction is due primarily to
40
the thicker coating or to the sample diameter.
Figure 17 shows the comparison of R ratio, namely -1 and 0.1 values. As

As expected, the R = -1 curve (solid) is shifted down and to the left (i.e. R=-1 is a
a more severe fatigue condition) of the R=0.1 (dotted). However, surprisingly, the
R=0.1 data show a much larger spread between chrome and HVOF than the R=-1
data.
4340, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN

(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/UNPeened
190 EHC/UNPeened/FIT
EHC/Peened
EHC/Peened/FIT
180 WCCo/UNPeened
ENGINEERING STRESS MAX, KSI
WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
WCCo/Peened
170
WCCo/Peened/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
CYCLES TO FAILURE, Nf
Figure 13. 4340 fatigue – hourglass configuration, air environment, R=-1.
41
4340, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190 WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
180 WCCo/HG
WCCo/HG/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 14. 4340 – hourglass vs. smooth bar comparison, air environment, R=-1.
4340, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN

AIR VS. NaCl ENVIRONMENT
200
EHC/Air
EHC/Air/FIT
190
EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
180 WCCo/Air
WCCo/Air/FIT
170 WCCo/NaCl
WCCo/NaCl/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 15. 4340 –air vs. NaCl environment comparison, hourglass configuration,
0.003" thickness, R=-1.
42
4340, R = -1, AIR
LARGE (0.010"CTNG) VS. SMALL (0.003"CTNG) HOURGLASS
200.0
LgHG/EHC/Peened
190.0 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo/Peened
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
180.0
SmHG/EHC/Peened
SmHG/EHC/FIT
170.0 SmHG/WCCo/Peened
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 16. 4340 – 0.003" vs. .010" thickness comparison, air environment,
hourglass configuration, R=-1, on .250" and .500" dia specimens respectively.

(0.003" COATING), PEENED, AIR
240.0
EHC/-1
R = -1 vs 0.1
EHC/-1/FIT
WCCo/-1
220.0
WCCo/-1/FIT
EHC/0.1
EHC/0.1/FIT
200.0 WCCo/0.1
WCCo/0.1/FIT
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 17. 4340 – R ratio comparison, hourglass configuration, 0.003" thickness.
43
3.6.2. A100 substrate
Similar comparisons were made for the A100 substrate material.

General comments on the comparisons are:
! Figure 18 shows the comparison of unpeened vs. peened data. As compared to
4340, there appears to be a stronger differentiation between chrome and HVOF.
Again, the hourglass configuration appears to show more sensitivity in
differentiating chrome vs. HVOF in the unpeened condition, but there is in this
case a wider spread between the unpeened and peened material.
! Figure 19 shows the comparison of bar configurations. As with the other
materials, the HVOF hourglass performance is better than the smooth
configuration. Again, as with previous protocol observations, the spread between
chrome and HVOF is bigger for the hourglass configuration.
! Figure 20 shows the comparison of environments, namely air vs. NaCl. As
expected, the NaCl curves show a degradation in fatigue performance, and the
difference between chrome and HVOF is essentially equal to that in air.
! Figure 21 shows the comparison between the .003” and .010” coatings in an NaCl
environment. Due to the .010” coating thickness, these data not only represent a
thicker deposit but also a larger diameter bar. Since the bar diameters are
different, the comparison can be somewhat skewed since larger diameter bars
sometimes show reduced fatigue performance., as noted above. We cannot
therefore separate the effects of bar diameter and coating thickness. However, the
general trends for either thickness value are similar in comparing chrome with
HVOF. We can conclude that a thicker coating does not provide significantly
better corrosion protection than the thinner one under fatigue conditions.
44
A100, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
190
Bare/UNPeened
Bare/UNPeened/FIT
180 EHC/UNPeened
EHC/UNPeened/FIT
EHC/Peened
170 EHC/Peened/FIT
WCCo/UNPeened
WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
160
WCCo/Peened
WCCo/Peened/FIT
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 18. A100 – unpeened vs. peened substrate comparison, hourglass

configuration, R=-1, 0.003" thickness.
A100, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS

(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190
WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
180 EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
170 WCCo/HG
WCCo/HG/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 19. A100 – R=-1 vs. R=0.1 comparison, hourglass configuration, 0.003”
thickness.
45
A100, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
EHC/Air
EHC/Air/FIT
190 EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
WCCo/Air
ENGINEERING STRESS MAX, KSI WCCo/Air/FIT
180
WCCo/NaCl
WCCo/NaCl/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 20. A100 – air vs. NaCl environment comparison, hourglass

configuration, R=-1.
A100, R = -1, NaCl

LARGE (0.010") VS. SMALL (0.003") HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
SmHG/EHC
SmHG/EHC/FIT
190 SmHG/WCCo
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
LgHG/EHC
180 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 21. A100 – 0.003” vs. 0.010” thickness comparison, hourglass

configuration, NaCl environment, R=-1, 0.250” and 0.500” diameter bars
respectively.
46
300M, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
200
Bare/UNPeened
EHC/UNPeened
EHC/Peened
EHC/Peened/FIT
180 WCCo/UNPeened
ENGINEERING STRESS MAX, KSI WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
WCCo/Peened
170 WCCO/Peened/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 22. 300M – peened vs. unpeened subtrate comparison, hourglass

configuration, 0.003" thickness, R=-1.
3.6.3. 300M substrate
General comments on the comparisons for 300M are:

Figure 22 shows the comparison of unpeened vs. peened data. As with 4340,
there is little differentiation between chrome and HVOF in the peened condition
and the unpeened HVOF is identical to the two peened conditions. Unpeened
EHC is substantially lower, as expected, and is little different from the unpeened,
uncoated baseline. Again, the hourglass configuration appears to show more
sensitivity in differentiating chrome vs. HVOF in the unpeened condition.
Figure 23 shows the comparison of bar configurations. In contrast to 4340, the
hourglass and smooth performance is almost identical.
Figure 24 shows the comparison between the .003” and .010” coatings in an NaCl
environment. As before, we cannot separate the effects of coating thickness and
bar diameter.
Figure 25 shows the comparison of environments, namely air vs. NaCl. As
expected, the NaCl curves show a degradation in fatigue performance but the
differences between chrome and HVOF are essentially equal to those in air.
There is no measurable difference between EHC and WC-Co.
47
300M, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200.0
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190.0
WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
180.0 EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
WCCo/HG
170.0
WCCo/HG/FIT
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 23. 300M – smooth bar vs. hourglass bar comparison, 0.003" thickness,
R=-1.
300M, R = -1, NaCl

200
SmHG/EHC
190 SmHG/EHC/FIT
SmHG/WCCo
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
180 LgHG/EHC
LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo
170 LgHG/WCCo/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 24. 300M – 0.010” thick coating on 0.500” dia hourglass vs. 0.003”
thickness, 0.250” dia hourglass, R=-1.
48
300M, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
EHC/Air
190 EHC/Air/FIT
EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
180
WCCo/Air
WCCo/Air/FIT
170 WCCo/NaCl
WCCo/NaCl/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 25. 300M – air vs. NaCl environment, hourglass, 0.003” thickness, R=-1.
3.7. Coating integrity

As noted above, the coating integrity analysis (cracking and spalling) performed in this testing
was primarily post-test since this issue was highlighted as a major concern only as the final bars
were being finished in the protocol.
Cracking of the coating as shown in Figure 26 was observed on all bars essentially at or above
the 150 ksi stress level. Spalling behavior is summarized in Table 28. For the small hourglass
configuration and the .003” thickness, the majority of the bars showed spalling of the HVOF
coating only near the fracture plane, and only after fracture, as depicted in Figure 27. However,
in some cases there was total spalling on fracture, as shown for 300M in Figure 28. This was
especaillly evident for 0.003” WC-Co on the A100 substrate material.
For the large hourglass specimens with the .010" coating, spalling was not observed prior to
failure, but total spalling occurred on all specimens at failure regardless of the substrate type or
test environment.
49
Figure 26. Cracking of HVOF coating in central region of hourglass specimen.
Figure 27. Failed 300M specimens showing spalling in small zone

near fracture surface.
50
Figure 28. Failed 300M specimens showing total spallation on fracture.
51
Table 28. Coating integrity - summary of analysis.
R Enviro Coating Appearance at fracture Appearance at runout
nment
0.1 Air EHC No spalling. No apparent difference No spalling. No
between peened and unpeened bars. apparent difference
(4340 only)
between peened and
unpeened bars.
WC-Co Spalling near fracture plane on all Little/no evidence of
specimens. No completely spalled cracking or spalling.
(4340 only).
bars.
-1 Air EHC No spalling. No apparent difference No spalling. No
between peened and unpeened bars. apparent difference
between peened and
unpeened bars.
WC-Co Spalling near fracture plane. Cracking/multicracking
Total spalling: present. Occasional
spalling evident.
4340 – 0/20 peened & unpeened
(4340)
300M – 4/20 peened, 2/20 unpeened
No run-outs for 300M
A100 – 13/20 peened, 0/20 unpeened or A100
-1 NaCl EHC No spalling N/A
WC-Co 4340: Spalling near fracture plane on N/A
all bars
300M: 14/20 bars not spalled
A100: Spalling on all bars, 1/20
completely spalled
3.8. Discussion of trends in fatigue results

The following are general trends:
! In all cases HVOF fatigue performance was equal to (and in many cases better
than) chrome.
! The fatigue performance of smaller specimens with 0.003” coatings was better
than that for the larger specimens with the 0.010” coatings in both air and NaCl
test environments. However, since different bar diameters can also affect fatigue
life, we cannot confidently ascribe this effect to coating thickness.
! Fatigue life was significantly lower for R=-1 than for R=0.1, as would be
52
expected for full stress reversal.
! Surprisingly, there was little difference in hourglass vs. smooth configurations, in
contrast to earlier protocols where the hourglass showed a more substantial
degradation with chrome as compared to HVOF. The differences between
smooth and hourglass configurations appear to be accentuated at R=0.1, and are
less evident at R=-1, where most of the JTP testing was done.
! While many HVOF coatings spalled on fracture, only limited cases of spalling
were observed on runout specimens (i.e. specimens that had not failed). This was
true for both hourglass and smooth bars. Macroscopic cracking of the HVOF
coating was evident in some of the runout bars at R=-1, but only microcracking
was observed at R=0.1.
! If cracking of the HVOF coating did occur during testing in NaCl, it did not
degrade fatigue performance as compared to chrome.
Shot peening: Because of the known fatigue debit for hard chrome, high strength steels
are always required to be peened prior to coating. This causes a very large improvement
in fatigue performance. Note, however, that the improvement in performance for
unpeened HVOF over unpeened chrome is generally quite large, whereas for peened
steels the difference is much less pronounced (see, Figure 13 for example). The reason
for this is believed to be that the hard WC particles in the HVOF spray have the effect of
shot peening the surface of the steel at the beginning of coating deposition and then shot
peening the surface of the coating as it becomes thicker. This results in improved fatigue
performance of the substrate and higher compressive stress in the coatings. It is
important to remember that this peening effect is expected to be much less important
when depositing alloys such as T400, where the spray does not include hard, unmelted
particles.
3.9. Significance
Military landing gear components obviously are subjected to both static and cyclic
loading. As the aircraft move from land-based to carrier-based situations, environmental
factors can influence performance. The fatigue testing is significant in establishing that
HVOF coatings do not degrade substrate fatigue, with or without corrosion.
However, the data established in this protocol and subsequent evaluations have identified
the need for coating integrity (cracking and spalling) measurements to optimize coating
performance and establish the load-limiting factors. From initial additional testing,
coating integrity appears to be a concern primarily for thick coatings (i.e. for repair), and
of much less concern for thin (OEM) coatings. Further evaluations are in progress and
are planned to accurately establish this performance characteristic, and the results will be
presented in a subsequent report.
3.10. Conclusions
The WC-Co coatings meet the JTP acceptance criterion of fatigue performance
equal to or better than chrome plating in both air and NaCl environments. This
conclusion is true for both .003’ and .010 thickness levels.
53
The issue of coating integrity (cracking and spalling) has been identified and is being
addressed in parallel programs to establish application and load ranges for HVOF
coatings.
54
4. Corrosion data
4.1. Data summary
Table 29. Quick data locator. (Click on item number to view.)
Item Item number
Test matrix Table 35
JTP data – protection ratings on 4340 Figure 35,
Figure 36
JTP data – protection ratings on 300M Figure 41,
Figure 42
JTP data – protection ratings on Aermet 100 Figure 44,
Figure 46
Supplementary data – Comparison of appearance and protection ratings Figure 54
on 4340 plate
Supplementary data – Appearance ratings for 4340 rod Figure 55
Supplementary data – Protection ratings for 4340 rod Figure 57
Supplementary data – Appearance ratings for 300M rod Figure 56
Supplementary data – Protection ratings for 300M rod Figure 58
4.2. Pre-JTP atmospheric corrosion testing

As discussed in the Introduction to this report, some generic fatigue and corrosion testing
were conducted prior to the initiation of the landing gear project. ASTM B117 salt fog
testing and atmospheric corrosion testing were conducted on flat panels of 4340 steel,
7075 aluminum alloy, and PH13-8 stainless steel coated with HVOF WC-Co (83%/17%),
HVOF Tribaloy 400 (composition 60%Co, 28%Mo, 9%Cr, and 3%Si), and EHC.
Coating thickness was nominally 0.004 inches. The results of the B117 testing after 1000
hours of exposure indicated that the WC-Co and EHC demonstrated equivalent
performance, with the Tribaloy 400 demonstrating slightly inferior performance4.1.
Although it was intended that this JTR would report results only for those tests delineated
in the Landing Gear JTP, because the corrosion results were inconsistent between the
earlier generic testing and that conducted under the JTP, it was decided that the results of
the atmospheric corrosion tests just for the same substrate material as used in the JTP
would also be presented in this report. The deposition parameters used for the coatings in
the earlier atmospheric corrosion studies were very similar to those used in the tests for
the JTP.
55
4.2.1. Specimen preparation
Samples of 4340 steel (dimensions 4 x 6 x 0.2 inches thick) were obtained from
commercial sources. Prior to deposition of the coatings, the samples were degreased and
then grit blasted with 180 - 220 grit aluminum oxide for those to receive EHC and with
54 grit aluminum oxide for those to receive the HVOF coatings. The angle of
impingement was 90 degrees.
! EHC was applied to samples in accordance with United States military standard
MIL-STD-1501.
! The 83WC/17Co coatings were deposited at the Naval Aviation Depot in
Jacksonville, Florida using a Sulzer Metco Diamondjet hybrid HVOF system with
hydrogen as the fuel gas. The 83WC/17Co powder material was Sulzer-Metco
Diamalloy 2005 with a composition of 83% WC and 17% Co.
! The Tribaloy 400 coatings were deposited at Southwest Aeroservice, Inc. in
Tulsa, Oklahoma using a Stellite Jet Kote II HVOF system with hydrogen as the
fuel gas. The Tribaloy 400 powder material was designated as T400 and was
manufactured by Stellite with a composition of 60% Co, 28% Mo, 9% Cr, 3% Si.
All of the HVOF coatings were deposited such that they retained residual compressive
stress as indicated on an Almen N strip, with deflections ranging from 0.005 inches to
0.010 inches. The porosity was less than 1.5% and the oxide content was less than 2.5%.
The average Vickers microhardness for the coatings (100 gram load) was 950 for the
EHC, 1150 for the WC-17Co, and 700 for the T400. The nominal thickness for all of the
coatings was 0.004 inches.
All of the coatings were tested in the as-deposited
condition, with no surface finishing or grinding Table 30. Protection rating
conducted subsequent to deposition. At least five versus area of defect from
ASTM B 537.
samples were produced for each coating/substrate
combination. The T400 coatings covered the entire Area of defect (%) Rating
sample including the edges. For the EHC, the
0 10
coatings were applied to an area of 4 x 4 inches, with
both faces and edges within that area being coated. 0 to 0.1 9
For the WC-17Co on the 4340 substrates, the coatings
0.1 to 0.25 8
were applied to one face and the edges but not the
reverse face. For all samples, any uncoated areas were 0.25 to 0.5 7
sealed using epoxy. 0.5 to 1.0 6
The samples were placed in the atmospheric exposure
1.0 to 2.5 5
rack at the Naval Research Laboratory facility in Key
West, FL. The exposure racks were located 2.5 to 5.0 4
approximately 50 yards from the ocean, with the
5 to 10 3
samples facing the ocean at an angle of 45 degrees
from the horizontal. The test duration was three years. 10 to 25 2
25 to 50 1
4.2.2. Experimental Procedures
After exposure, the samples were cleaned in greater than 50 0
56
accordance with ASTM B537. After the corrosion products were removed, blisters and
undercutting of the coating were noted. The blisters and undercut coating were
mechanically removed to better assess the extent of the corrosion, i.e., determine the area
of the substrate that was no longer protected by the coating. Then each sample was
assigned a protection rating based on the ASTM B537 standard, which is summarized in
Table 30. This standard only considers the face of the samples for rating, but in this work
the sample edges were also assigned a protection rating. The protection rating is an
indication of how well the coating protected the substrate.
4.2.3. Results and Discussion

Figure 29 and Figure 30 show a series of photos taken before and after cleaning,
respectively, of the coatings on 4340 steel after the three-year atmospheric exposure.
Once the samples were cleaned, it was possible to identify surface defects such as blisters
or pits. Removing the blisters and portions of the coating that were undercut by corrosion
provided a better representation of the affected areas as shown in Figure 30. This surface
condition was used to determine the protection ratings for the front face and edges.
Table 31 and Figure 31 present the protection ratings for the coatings on 4340 steel. The
front face of all samples coated with T400 showed significant undercutting, with the
percentage of the surface affected ranging from 10 to 50. The protection ratings for the
face of individual samples ranged from 1 to 3, with an average of 1.9. For the edges,
greater than 50% were corroded with a significant amount of undercutting of the coating.
The average protection rating for the edges was 0. The T400 samples were very heavily
corroded near the edges and it appeared that the undercutting started at the edges and
moved toward the center of the face.
The front face of all EHC samples showed that the coating was severely undercut similar
to the T400. The protection ratings for individual samples ranged from 0 to 2, with an
average of 0.5. The edges were also heavily corroded with significant undercutting. The
average protection rating was 0.2 for the edges with the individual values ranging from 0
to 1.
The face and edges of the WC-17Co samples showed no sign of corrosion. The
protection rating for the individual samples, both the front face and edges, was 10. In
general, the surface of the WC-17Co coatings became darker in color during exposure.
Upon cleaning the dark layer was removed and it was apparent that the coating itself had
undergone some general corrosion. This was probably due to dissolution of the cobalt
binder. The HVOF WC-17Co coating clearly outperformed the EHC and HVOF T400
coatings in terms of providing protection to both the face and edges.
As mentioned above, the results of ASTM B117 testing of samples identical to those that
were subjected to the atmospheric exposure were previously reported4.1. Table 32
provides a summary of the B117 results which were significantly different from the
atmospheric corrosion results. In the B117 tests, both the WC-Co and EHC performed
equivalently, with fairly extensive corrosion evident. Both had an average protection
rating for the faces of about 3 after 1,000 hours exposure. The T400 had an average
protection rating of 1.6. However, as discussed above, in the atmospheric corrosion tests,
the HVOF WC-Co coating protected the steel significantly better than the other two
57
coatings.
Figure 29. HVOF WC-Co, Tribaloy 400 (T400) and EHC (Cr) on 4340 steel following three
year atmospheric exposure. Samples shown prior to cleaning.
three year atmospheric exposure. Samples shown subsequent to cleaning.
58
Edge
Hard Chrome
Face
Triballoy 400 **
WC/Co *
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Protection Ratings (10 = Best)
Figure 31. Protection ratings for EHC, HVOF Tribaloy 400, and HVOF WC-
17Co on 4340 steel after three-year atmospheric exposure.
Table 31. Average value of the protection rating for samples that had
undergone a three-year atmospheric exposure.
Coating Substrate Protection - Face Protection - Edge
T400 4340 steel 1.9 0
83WC/17Co 4340 steel 10.0 10.0
EHC 4340 steel 0.5 0.2
Table 32. Average value of the protection rating for samples that had
undergone 1,000 hours of ASTM B117 testing..
Coating Substrate Protection - Face Protection - Edge
T400 4340 steel 1.6 1.0
83WC/17Co 4340 steel 3.4 3.2
EHC 4340 steel 3.2 2.0
59
4.3. Rationale for JTP testing
With concurrence of the stakeholders, a non-standard corrosion specimen shape was
used in an attempt to better represent the typical rod-shaped components on which HVOF
would most likely be employed. The specimen shape was a 1” diameter round rod 6”
long, scribed when necessary. Both DoD standard ASTM B117 and GM 9540 cyclic
tests were done to simulate service conditions. Because Boeing usually specifies a Ni
sublayer beneath the EHC and a sealant applied to the coating surface, while most depots
deposit EHC directly on the substrate and do not apply a sealer, the test matrix
incorporated combinations of these various conditions.
4.4. Landing gear original JTP testing

4.4.1. JTP specimen fabrication and deposition methodology
A. Electrolytic hard chrome
(EHC) was deposited in Not shot peened
accordance with MIL-STD-1501, Mask approx 3/4”
supported by QQ-C-320. The 1.25” +
thicknesses was 0.003” and top”
0.010” +/- 0.0005” subsequent to
grinding (i.e., coatings were
deposited approximately 0.002 to
0.003” thicker than specified and Grit blast
Coat 5” 1/4” + bottom
then ground to final dimension). 4.75”
The coatings was applied to the 5”
curved surfaces of the rods over a length+
length of 4.75” (see Figure 32). bottom
It was not necessary to apply the
coatings to the ends. A sulfamate
Ni underlayer was applied to a
minimum thickness of 0.0015” in Figure 32. Corrosion coupon, 1” diameter bar.
accordance with specification
QQ-N-290 on some of the rods that received the EHC coating (see test matrix,
Table 35). Subsequent to deposition, each EHC coating was ground to a surface
finish of 16 microinches (+0/-4 microinches) using low-stress grinding techniques
in accordance with specification MIL-STD-866. Subsequent to grinding, on
some of the EHC coatings (see test matrix, Table 35), a polystyrene resin
impregnation sealer was applied in accordance with P.S. 11501.
B. WC-17Co HVOF coatings were deposited in accordance with Boeing

specification BAC 5851, Class 2, Type I, while WC-10Co4Cr HVOF coatings
were deposited in accordance with Boeing specification BAC 5851, Class 2, Type
XVII with the following additions or clarifications. The HVOF coatings were
deposited using a Sulzer Metco Diamondjet hybrid gun with hydrogen as the fuel
gas. The WC-Co powder material was Sulzer-Metco Diamalloy 2005 and the
WC-CoCr powder material was Sulzer-Metco 5847. Uniform deposition
60
conditions were utilized for all specimens. Air cooling was utilized to ensure the
specimen surface temperature did not exceed 350o F. The thicknesses was 0.003”
and 0.010” (+/- 0.0005”) subsequent to grinding (i.e., coatings were deposited
approximately 0.002” to 0.003” thicker than specified and then ground to final
dimension). All HVOF coatings were deposited to an Almen number of 3-12N.
Subsequent to deposition, each coating was ground to a surface finish of 8
microinches (+0/-2 microinches) in accordance with specification BAC 5855 with
the following modifications:
! Spec. paragraph 8.3.b.(1): If the excess coating thickness was less than
0.004”, then rough grinding was not required. A minimum of 0.002”
stock removal (per side, or 0.004” on diameter) was required for finish
grinding. The finishing in-feeds did not exceed a maximum of 0.0005” for
100 or 120 grit, 0.0004” for 150 grit, 0.0003“for 180 grit, 0.0002” for 220
grit, or 0.0001” for 320 or 400 grit.
! Spec. paragraph 8.3.b.(3): A finishing cross feed or traverse rate of 1/8 to
1/12 wheel width per workpiece revolution was used.
! Spec. paragraph 8.3.c.(4): Hardness – L, M, N, P. or R
! Spec. paragraph 8.3.d: When grinding ID or OD surfaces, the workpiece
had a speed of 50 to 100 surface feet per minute.
! Subsequent to grinding, on some of the HVOF coatings a Metco URS
sealer was applied (see test matrix, Table 35).
Subsequent to coating and grinding,
an inert epoxy (Mil-P-24441 formula
150 and 152) was placed on the ends
of the specimens to ensure no
galvanic couple existed between the
coated and uncoated sections. An
arrow was scribed on the upper end
of each specimen indicating the “up”
direction during the corrosion tests.
For those specimens with the
scratches, the “up” position
corresponded to the linear scratch
being uppermost during the corrosion
test.
One specimen in each group of five Figure 33. Illustration of scratched corrosion test
had multiple scratches made in the specimen.
coating. These scratches were made
using a diamond indenter (such as a Rockwell C indenter) and the scratches were such
that they penetrated through the coating into the substrate. Two scratches were made
around the circumference of the specimen 3-inches apart and a linear scratch was made 3-
1/2 inches in length, crossing both circumferential scratches as shown in Figure 33.
61
4.4.2. JTP test methodology
Specification: ASTM B117, “Standard Practice for Salt Spray (fog) Apparatus,
Operating”; GM 9540 P/B, “GM Corrosion Test”
Modifications: Round bar specimens in place of standard flat plate.
Significance: Landing gear are subject to corrosion environments. (Note,
however, that because of its microcracked surface, EHC is not
generally used by itself for corrosion resistance.)
Sample types: 1” dia rods, 6” long, Circumference ground to a surface finish of
32-64 microinches prior to coating.
Sample materials: 4340, 300M, Aermet 100. 1-inch diameter round bar. All bar
stock for each material came from the same lot.
Sample heat treat: Vacuum heat treated specimens to the same tensile strength as for
fatigue specimens (260-280 ksi for 4340; 280-300 ksi for 300M;
280-290 ksi for A100).
Pre-coating prep: Shot Peen: The circumference was shot peened in accordance with
AMS-2432 under computer control using wrought steel, S230,
Almen 8-10A. All curved surfaces were shot peened to 100%
coverage, with the exception of a ¾-inch length at the end of each
rod.
Grit blast prior to coating: For the EHC-coated specimens, a 5”
length was grit blasted with 180-220 grit aluminum oxide or glass
beads in accordance with standard procedure for hard chrome
plating (see Figure 32). For HVOF coated specimens a 5” length
was grit blasted with 54 grit aluminum oxide at 60 psi at 90° angle
of impingement in accordance with MIL-STD-1504.
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr, ground
Coating thicknesses: 0.003” and 0.010”
Test equipment: Q-Fog Model CCT600 or equivalent salt spray chamber at ambient
temperature. Specimen holders (made from an inert material such
as teflon) were made to place the rods with at least 4 inches of the
specimen extending out from the holder, at 45 degrees to the
vertical. The scribed arrows on the ends always pointed vertically
to keep the scribe uppermost.
4.4.2.1. Test description

Three types of corrosion tests were conducted.
1. Salt Fog Corrosion Test. This test was conducted in accordance with
ASTM B117-94. In this test, the samples were exposed to a salt fog made
from a 5% NaCl solution maintained within a pH range of 6.5 and 7.2.
The temperature in the salt fog chamber was held at 35oC. The specimens
were visually inspected for surface corrosion after 125 hours, and every
62
125 hours thereafter. The samples were removed at 500 and 1,000 hours
for photographing.
2. GM Cyclic Corrosion Test. This test was conducted in accordance with
GM9540P/B protocol, which is indicated in Table 33. At each 500 hour
interval, the specimens were removed from the test chamber, inspected,
and photographed.
3. SO2 Salt Fog Test. This test was conducted in accordance with ASTM
G85-85. The samples were visually inspected at 48 hours, 96 hours, and
every 100 hours between 200 and 1,000 hours. After 500 and 1,000 hours
exposure the specimens were removed and photographed.
Table 33. GM 9540 test protocol.

Solution: 0.9% NaCl, 0.1% CaCl2 and
0.25% NaHCO3 Table 34. Table of protection
ranking/ratings.
pH: 6.0 – 8.0
Defect area (%) Rank #
Test protocol: Atmosphere Temp. Time
0 10
Step 1 Sub-cycle step 2-3 repeat 4 times
>0 – 0.1 9
Step 2 Salt mist 25C 15 min
>0.1 – 0.25 8
Step 3 Dry-off 25C 75 min
>0.25 - 0.5 7
Step 4 Dry-off 25C 120 min
>0.5 – 1 6
Step 5 RH 95-100% 49C 8 hours
>1 - 2.5 5
Step 6 Dry-off 60C 7 hours
>2.5 – 5 4
Step 7 Dry-off 25C 1 hour
>5 – 10 3
Step 8 Final step, go to step 1
>10 – 25 2
Note: RH = relative humidity
>25 – 50 1
Test duration: 2000 hrs
>50 0
Examined every 125 hrs
Based on visual inspection, a ranking was applied to each specimen at each interval of
inspection and these rankings were tabulated and displayed graphically. The rankings
were assigned in accordance with ASTM B537-70 as in Table 34. In general, when the
ranking of a specimen reached a value of 1, it was considered to have failed the corrosion
test and was removed from the test cabinet.
The corrosion test matrix is given in Table 35.
63
Table 35. Corrosion test matrix.
Test Material Coating Thickness Ni sublayer Sealed # specimens
B117 4340 Uncoated N/A N/A N/A 5
B117 4340 EHC 3 No No 5
B117 4340 EHC 3 Yes No 5
B117 4340 EHC 3 No Yes 5
B117 4340 EHC 10 No No 5
B117 4340 EHC 10 No Yes 5
B117 4340 EHC 10 Yes No 5
B117 4340 WC/Co 3 no No 5
B117 4340 WC/Co 3 no Yes 5
B117 4340 WC/Co 10 no No 5
B117 4340 WC/Co 10 no Yes 5
B117 4340 WC/Co-Cr 3 no No 5
B117 4340 WC/Co-Cr 10 no No 5
B117 300M EHC 3 no No 5

B117 300M EHC 3 no Yes 5
B117 300M EHC 3 yes No 5
B117 300M EHC 10 no no 5
B117 300M WC/Co 3 no no 5
B117 300M WC/Co 3 no yes 5
B117 300M WC/Co 10 no no 5
B117 Aermet 100 EHC 3 no no 5

B117 Aermet 100 EHC 3 no yes 5
B117 Aermet 100 EHC 3 yes no 5
B117 Aermet 100 EHC 10 no no 5
B117 Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no no 5
B117 Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no yes 5
B117 Aermet 100 WC/Co 10 no no 5
64
Table 35. Corrosion test matrix. (continued).
Test Material Coating Thickness Ni Sublayer Sealed # specimens
GM 300M EHC 3 no no 5
GM 300M EHC 3 no yes 5
GM 300M WC/Co 3 no no 5
GM 300M WC/Co 3 no yes 5
GM Aermet 100 EHC 3 no no 5
GM Aermet 100 EHC 3 no yes 5
GM Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no no 5
GM Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no yes 5
SO2 4340 Uncoated N/A N/A N/A 5

SO2 4340 EHC 3 no no 5
SO2 4340 EHC 3 no yes 5
SO2 4340 EHC 3 yes no 5
SO2 4340 EHC 10 no no 5
SO2 4340 WC/Co 3 no no 5
SO2 4340 WC/Co 3 no yes 5
SO2 4340 WC/Co 10 no no 5
SO2 4340 WC/Co-Cr 3 no no 5
SO2 4340 WC/Co-Cr 10 no no 5
SO2 300M EHC 3 no no 5

SO2 300M EHC 3 no yes 5
SO2 300M EHC 3 yes no 5
SO2 300M WC/Co 3 no no 5
SO2 300M WC/Co 3 no yes 5
SO2 Aermet 100 EHC 3 no no 5

SO2 Aermet 100 EHC 3 no yes 5
SO2 Aermet 100 EHC 3 yes no 5
SO2 Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no no 5
SO2 Aermet 100 WC/Co 3 no yes 5
Total 275
65
4.4.3. Test results
As of the date of writing this report, the SO2 corrosion testing had been completed but
analysis of the samples was still in progress. Therefore, the results presented herein will
be only for the B117 salt fog and GM9540 cyclic corrosion testing.
Appearance ratings for the samples were determined at 125 hour intervals during the
B117 test. After exposure to the accelerated tests, all specimens were removed from the
salt fog cabinet and were cleaned with a Scotch 3M abrasive pad to remove loosely
adherent corrosion products then dried with cotton cloth. The corrosion product was
removed using the abrasive pad because in many instances it was so voluminous that it
masked the surface. After cleaning, it was possible to identify surface defects such as
blisters or pits (see Figure 34 as an example). Removing the blisters and portions of the
coating that were undercut by corrosion provided a better representation of the area that
was affected by corrosion. A protection rating for the coating, i.e. how well it protected
the substrate, was then determined. The appearance ratings are not reported here as they
are not as good a metric for the degree of corrosion as the protection rating. The ability
of the coating to protect the substrate and the corrosion of the coating were considered
when assigning a protection rating for the HVOF coatings. Protection ratings for the
EHC coatings only considered defects in the coating as the coating did not show any
visual signs of corrosion. The four replicate samples were examined and given a
protection rating (0-10) in accordance with ASTM B 537 as indicated above. The
arithmetic average of these four samples was computed and used for all data analysis.
The scribed samples were handled differently; the maximum creep in millimeters from
the center of the scribe line was recorded for the vertical and separately for the horizontal
scribes. This information was tabulated and used in the subsequent data analysis. The
scribe creepage between the horizontal and vertical scribes were seen to be comparable in
all but two sample groups and only the vertical scribe creep was used for the comparison
of the various coatings’ performance (with the exceptions noted). In several specimens,
corrosion had severely damaged the sample and it was uncertain whether any of the
applied coating was intact near the scribe. To confirm the nature of the corrosion
damage, both optical and scanning electron microscopy were performed on these
samples.
The examination of the samples following the 1,000-hour exposure clearly showed that
the base alloy influenced the corrosion behavior. As a result, the discussion of the results
is divided into sections according to the base alloy. Appendix 3 contains the individual
protection ratings and scribe creep values for all samples.
4.4.3.1. 4340 Steel in ASTM B-117

The experimental results for these samples are presented on the following pages in both
bar chart (Figure 35) and radar plot form (Figure 36). In general, the EHC coating
outperformed the WC-Co coating in every direct comparison. Figure 38 shows the 4340
steel with the various 10 mil hard chrome coatings. The overall best performance for a
coating to protect this base metal was the EHC with a nickel sublayer. This combination
achieved the highest protection ratings of any coating. The use of an organic sealer
66
generally enhanced the performance of a given coating system but the overall
performance levels of any coating combination with sealer did not match the performance
of EHC with the nickel sublayer. Some modest enhancement in corrosion performance
was seen by increasing the coating thickness; 10 mil coatings generally performed better
than the same coating composition at 3 mils.
The 3 mil WC-Co coatings without sealer performed poorly, receiving a rating of 1. The
coating was cracked and severely undercut. The 10 mil coating without sealer received a
rating of 2. In this case, there were no cracks in the coating or any signs that the coating
had been breached. However, corrosion of the coating had occurred. The samples had a
mottled appearance with portions of the coating corroding but the rest of the coating not
affected. Under a light microscope, the attack in the corroded regions appeared to be a
generalized dissolution. This type of attack on the coatings was also seen with the other
unsealed HVOF coating/substrate combinations. A possible opportunity for
improvement of the WC-Co was seen by the addition of chromium to the composition
(see Figure 35, Figure 36, and Figure 37). The 3 mil WC-CoCr had portions of the
coating that were removed and some undercutting. Corrosion of the coating also
occurred and the average protection rating was 3.75. The 10 mil WC-CoCr without
sealer had a protection rating of 7.75. In this series, three of the samples showed
cracking of the coating in isolated areas and some undercutting of the coating in these
areas. In two of the latter cases, the epoxy mask at the top of the rod appeared to be
compromised and this was the site that appeared to be the origin of the undercutting and
cracking. The corrosion of the 10 mil WC-CoCr coatings was light. The B117 results
clearly demonstrate the performance enhancement of the chromium-containing alloy
without relying on an organic sealer or on a Ni underlay. Protection ratings of the WC-
CoCr coating equaled or exceeded those of EHC with no sealer or Ni sublayer. Figure 39
shows the 10 mil EHC coatings and the 10 mil WC-CoCr coating. While the 10 mil EHC
with the nickel sublayer was the best overall performer with a rating of 9.7, the 10 mil
WC-CoCr test specimens certainly showed this modification to be promising, receiving
an average rating of 7.75 – as good as EHC without the Ni underlayer.
The WC-Co at 3 mils with the organic sealer coating provided a protection rating which
equaled the general performance of the EHC without nickel. This result needs
confirmation however because the WC-Co coating at 10 mils with organic sealer showed
poor performance. Certainly this is counterintuitive; a 10 mil coating of the equivalent
composition ought to outperform a 3 mil thick coating in the same corrosion test. The
explanation most likely lies in the mechanical integrity of the sealer. Both organic
sealers evidenced some blistering, which was much more severe in the sample with the
10 mil thick coating. The damage to the organic coating appeared much worse in the 10
mil coating case, which allowed the salt solution to penetrate and undercut this sealer.
Once the adhesion between the sealer and the HVOF coating is compromised, corrosion can
take place leading to similar results for this tungsten carbide coating as with the unsealed
versions. Figure 40 shows the corrosion that has occurred beneath a removed blister.
The coating adjacent to the blister is easily peeled away from the substrate indicating
poor adhesion.
The samples with 3 and the 10 mil thick WC-Co coatings and sealer had a scribe
creepage of 12 mm. Without sealer, scribe creepage was 19 mm for the 3 mil coating and
67
15 mm for the 10 mil coating.
The scribe creepage results for the WC-CoCr coating were distinct from other results.
Both scribed samples showed large scribe creepage from the horizontal scribes, running
practically the entire length of the sample. The vertical scribe creepage values were 11
mm and 18 mm while the maximum creepage from the horizontal scribe was 58 mm and
47 mm respectively. Severe undercutting of the metal coating was observed and
disbonding of the coating was evident in both samples. Corrosion products had separated
the metal coating from the base metal. This occurred at only one location on each sample
but only at a horizontal scribe line. At present, there is no explanation for this result but it
seems anomalous in light of the performance of the other WC-Co samples.
Five uncoated 4340 rods were placed in the B117 test chamber as controls. These rods
experienced severe corrosion and were removed at 250 hours of exposure. The rating for
each of these samples was 0.
4.4.3.2. 300M Steel in B 117

Figure 41 and Figure 42 present the experimental results in bar chart and radar plot
formats for the base metal 300M with the EHC and WC-Co coating after the salt fog test.
The same general trends observed with the 4340 steel results in salt fog testing were seen
for this substrate as well. Overall, there were fewer coating variations tested on this
substrate but the results for those specimens are clear. The general performance of the
EHC coating exceeds that of the WC-Co. All EHC coatings achieved protection ratings
of 8 or above, with the EHC with a nickel sublayer achieving an almost perfect protection
rating. By contrast, the 3 mil WC-Co coating without sealer showed a 0 protection
rating. These samples had severe undercutting and the substrate was heavily corroded.
Simply increasing the coating thickness to 10 mils did improve the performance but the
rating, 3.25, was still low. Two of the samples in the latter group had cracks in the
coating and undercutting occurred. In these latter areas the coating was easily removed.
The other two samples in this group had coatings that were intact. All of the unsealed
WC-Co coatings showed a degree of corrosion and the corrosion product was removed
from the samples during the cleaning process.
The use of an organic sealer with the WC-Co coating did show significant improvement
in the protection rating. The 3 mil coatings which had such poor performance without the
sealer, improved to an average protection rating of 8 with sealer application. These
results should be viewed with some caution however. The organic sealer layer was
generally intact when the specimens were cleaned but blistering was noted on all these
samples. The blisters were easily removed. In order to check the adhesion of the organic
sealer to the underlying tungsten carbide, a water soak tape adhesion test was performed.
Using 3M brand tape over a 2 cm x 2 cm area, 50% or more of the sealer was removed by
tape pull normal to the surface, evidencing adhesion problems between the sealer and
underlying WC-Co. If additional accelerated corrosion testing were performed, it is
suspected that this organic layer would have failed leading to results similar to those
above. There is no doubt the presence of an intact sealer layer acts as a barrier but
adhesion issues should be addressed to ensure this barrier remains effective if WC-Co
coatings are to be used with this substrate.
68
The scribe creep for the EHC coatings at 3 mils thickness was between 5 and 9
mm whereas it was 10mm for the 3 mil unsealed WC-Co coating. The scribe creep was 4
mm for WC-Co coating with sealer and 3 mm for the 10 mil WC-Co coating.
4.4.3.3. 300M Steel in GM 9540 P

The experimental results are tabulated in Table 36 for these samples. All metal coating
thicknesses were 0.003”.
Table 36. GM accelerated corrosion tests results for

300M steel. (Coating thickness 0.003”.)
Coating Sealer Protection Vertical scribe
applied rating creep, max (mm)
Cr No 10 1.5
Cr Yes 10 2.0
WC-Co No 8.5 2.0
WC-Co Yes 8 1.0
The accelerated cyclic corrosion test results indicate the EHC coatings have enhanced
corrosion protection performance over the WC-Co coatings, although the WC-Co
coatings did perform well in this test. On average the WC-Co coatings merited an 8
protection rating but the EHC coatings showed a rating of 10. Figure 43 is a photo of
representative samples from each group. All of the unsealed WC-Co coatings were intact,
i.e. no cracks or defects exposing the substrate were noted. However, all of the unsealed
WC-Co samples showed a degree of corrosion and a light corrosion product was removed
from the samples during the cleaning process. Vertical scribe creep results did not
differentiate one coating from another, with all samples having a maximum creep of 2
mm or less.
4.4.3.4. Aermet 100 Steel in B 117

Figure 44 and Figure 46 present bar and radar charts that summarize the results for this
base metal test series. The corrosion testing showed this base metal to be the best of the
three for corrosion performance. Within the results from salt fog testing for just this base
metal, EHC was again seen as superior. Results consistent with the previous base metal
were seen in that thicker coatings protect more than thinner coatings of the same chemical
composition. A nickel metal underlayer with EHC offers superb resistance to corrosion
with all other test samples performing worse. WC-Co at 3 mils performed poorly
compared to EHC. All of the unsealed WC-Co coatings showed a degree of general
corrosion and the corrosion product was removed from the samples during the cleaning
process. The application of an organic sealer to the WC-Co did enhance its protection
rating, as seen in the previous corrosion results.
Two of the samples with 3 mil WC-Co HVOF coatings without sealer on Aermet 100 had
one region where the coating had a crack. The cracked region was easily removed and
69
showed that some undercutting had occurred. The coating was not compromised in the
other two samples in this group. All of the unsealed WC-Co coatings showed a degree of
corrosion and the corrosion product was removed from the samples during the cleaning
process. The 10 mil WC-Co coatings showed no signs of cracks or defects that exposed
the substrate. However, all of coatings showed a degree of corrosion and the corrosion
product was removed from the samples during the cleaning process. The corrosion
performance of the Aermet-WC-Co coatings without sealer combination was better than
on the other substrates with the same coating (see, for example, Figure 45 which is a
photo of representative samples of the 3 mil WC-Co HVOF coatings without sealer on
4340 steel, 300M, and Aermet 100 after the B117 test).
The superior performance of Aermet 100/coating combinations over the other
substrate/coating combinations was evidenced by the scribe creepage results. Overall,
there was almost no scribe creepage for the Aermet 100/coating combinations. The only
significant deviation was the WC-Co coating with the sealer. Even though the overall
appearance of the sealer coated WC-Co was better, the scribe creepage increased to 3 mm
maximum versus less than 1 mm for the other samples in this series. This supports the
theory that intact organic sealers act as a barrier but once damaged, they may enhance the
corrosion at localized points. As with the 300M metal samples, once the organic sealer is
damaged, adhesion between sealer and metal coating is compromised.
4.4.3.5. Aermet 100 Steel in GM 9540P

Results from this test set are reported in Table 37. All coatings were applied at 0.003”.
Table 37. GM accelerated corrosion tests results for

Aermet 100 steel. (Coating thickness 0.003”.)
Coating Sealer Protection Vertical scribe
applied rating creep, max (mm)
Cr No 10 0
Cr Yes 10 0
WC-Co No 8 0
WC-Co Yes 9 0
Both sets of EHC specimens were rated at 10 while the WC-Co sets were rated at 8 and 9
for unsealed and sealed, respectively. All of the unsealed WC-Co coatings were intact,
i.e. no cracks or defects exposing the substrate were noted. However, all of the unsealed
WC-Co samples showed a degree of corrosion and a light corrosion product was removed
from the samples during the cleaning process. Scribe creepage results were exceptional
for this base metal. All test samples showed zero creep on both the horizontal and
vertical scribes, the best results of the entire set of samples.
70
4.4.3.6. Comparison of performance of WC-Co and WC-CoCr
coatings without sealer
Table 38 shows that the unsealed 10 mil HVOF coatings were more effective in
protecting the underlying substrate from corrosion compared to the 3 mil HVOF coatings.
The unsealed coatings on the 4340 steel and Aermet 100 were completely intact, i.e, there
were no cracks and/or defects exposing the substrate. However, the overall rating of
these samples was lower because the coating had undergone corrosion. The WC-CoCr
had the least amount of coating corrosion of the unsealed samples exposed to the B117
test protocol. Figure 47 shows samples with the various 10 mil HVOF coatings on 4340,
300M and Aermet 100 that are intact.
Table 38. Percentage of specimens with intact coatings and the overall protection ratings
for HVOF coatings without sealer.
Coating/substrate 0.003” coating 0.010” coating
% of Overall % of specimens Overall
specimens rating with intact rating
with intact coating
coating
WC-Co on 4340 0 1 100 2
WC-CoCr on 4340 0 3 25 7
WC-Co on 300M 0 0 50 2
WC-CoCr on A100 50 2 100 3
71
Figure 34. 3 mil EHC coating + sealer on 4340 steel after B117 test: a) before and
b) after cleaning.
PROTECTION RATINGS ON 4340 STEEL IN ASTM B 117
10mil WC/Co/Cr, No Sealer
3mil W C/Co/Cr, No Sealer
10mil WC/Co, Sealer
10mil WC/Co, No Sealer
3mil W C/Co, Sealer
3mil W C/Co, No Sealer
10mil Cr, No Ni, Sealer
10mil Cr,Nickel, No Sealer
10mil Cr, No Ni, No Sealer
3mil Cr, Nickel,No Sealer
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Protection Rating
Figure 35. Protection ratings on 4340 steel after B117 testing.
72
PROTECTION RATINGS ON 4340 STEEL IN ASTM B 117

10
10mil WC/Co/Cr, No Sealer 9 3mil Cr, Nickel,No Sealer
8
7
6
3mil WC/Co/Cr, No Sealer 5 3mil Cr, No Ni, Sealer
4
3
2
1
10mil WC/Co, Sealer 0 10mil Cr, No Ni, No Sealer
10mil WC/Co, No Sealer 10mil Cr,Nickel, No Sealer
3mil WC/Co, Sealer 10mil Cr, No Ni, Sealer
Figure 36. Radar plot of the protection ratings on 4340 steel after ASTM B117 testing.
Figure 37. HVOF coatings on 4340 steel after the B117 test: a) 0.003” WC-Co, b) 0.010”
WC-Co, c) 0.010” WC-CoCr, and d) 0.003” WC-CoCr.
73
Figure 39. Coatings on 4340 steel after the
Figure 38. 10 mil EHC coatings on 4340 steel B117 test: a) EHC coating only b) EHC with
with: a) Ni sublayer, b) sealer, and c) EHC sealer, c) EHC with Ni sublayer, and d) 0.010”
coating only. After B117 testing. WC-CoCr.
Figure 40. 3 mil HVOF WC-Co coating on 4340 steel with sealer after blister has been removed.
74
PROTECTION RATINGS ON 300M STEEL IN ASTM B117
3m il WC/Co, Sealer
3m il Cr, No Ni, Sealer
3m il Cr , Nic kel, No Sealer
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Protec tion Ra ting
Figure 41. Protection ratings on 300M after ASTM B117 testing.
PROTECTION RATINGS FOR 300M STEEL IN ASTM B 117
3m il Cr, No Ni, No S ealer

10
9
8
7
10m il WC/Co , No Sealer 3m il Cr, Nickel, No Se ale r
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3mil WC/Co , Sea ler 3mil Cr, No Ni, Sealer
3m il WC/Co , No Sealer 10m il Cr, No Ni, No Sealer
Figure 42. Radar plot of the protection ratings on 300M after ASTM B117 testing.
75
Figure 43. 3 mil coatings on 300M after GM 9540P testing: a) EHC only,
b)WC-Co, c) WC-Co with sealer, and d) EHC with sealer.
PROTECTION RATING FOR AERMET 100 STEEL IN ASTM B 117
10mil WC/Co, no Sealer
3mil WC/CO, Sealer
3mil Cr,Nickel, No Sealer
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PROTECTION RATING
Figure 44. Protection ratings on Aermet 100 after ASTM B117 testing.
76
Figure 45. WC-Co HVOF coating 3 mils in thickness on 4340 steel, 300M, and Aermet 100
after the B117 test.
PROTECTION RATING FOR AE RME T 100 STEEL IN ASTM B 117
3m il Cr, No Ni, No S ealer

10
9
8
7
10mil W C/Co, no S ealer 3m il Cr,Nickel, N o Se aler
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3 mil WC /CO , Sea ler 3mil Cr, No Ni, Sealer
3m il WC/Co , No S ealer 10m il Cr, No Ni, No Sealer
Figure 46. Radar plot of the protection ratings on Aermet 100 after ASTM B177 testing.
77
Figure 47. 0.010” HVOF coatings: a) WC-Co on 4340, b)WC-CoCr on 4340, c) WC-Co
on 300M, and d) WC-Co on Aermet 100 after the B117 test
78
4.5. Additional B117 Corrosion Testing
4.5.1. Background
It was apparent that there were significant differences between the results that had
previously been obtained for B117 testing (discussed in Section 4.2) in which the HVOF
WC-Co coatings performed comparably to the EHC and the results obtained for B117
testing conducted under the Landing Gear JTP where the performance of the WC-Co
coatings was inferior to the EHC. In addition, there were the results for the atmospheric
corrosion testing discussed in Section 4.2 in which the WC-Co coatings performed
substantially better than the EHC coatings after exposure for three years.
In order to attempt to determine the reason for the relatively poor performance of the
WC-Co coatings in the Landing Gear JTP tests, additional corrosion testing was
conducted. It should first be pointed out that the B117 protocol calls for only flat
samples to be tested; our use of one-inch-diameter rods was a deviation from the
protocol. Another difference between the earlier B117 and atmospheric tests and those
conducted for the Landing Gear JTP was that the former coatings were tested as-sprayed
and the latter were ground to a surface finish Ra of 8 microinches. Finally, it was
observed on many of the rod samples tested under the Landing Gear JTP that the epoxy
sealer that was used to seal the uncoated ends had been breached, which allowed the
corrosive media to attack the base material, leading to corrosion proceeding underneath
the WC-Co and subsequent fracturing and spallation of the coatings.
4.5.2. Specimen Preparation and Coating Deposition

To attempt to address these issues, additional corrosion testing was performed. This
involved specimens that consisted of one-inch-diameter 4340 and 300M rods, and three-
inch by four-inch 4340 plates. To ensure there were no differences between WC-Co
coatings deposited at different facilities using supposedly the same parameters, two
different vendors were used, Hitemco and Southwest Aeroservice. Southwest
Aeroservice also deposited the EHC coatings.
The sample preparation (e.g., shot peening, grit blasting) and coating deposition
parameters were identical to those used for the Landing Gear JTP samples. For the six-
inch-long rods, the area on each sample that was coated was slightly different than for the
JTP samples. As before, the flat ends were not coated. On the curved surface, at one end
of the rod, the coating terminated one-inch from the end. At the other end, the coating
terminated one-quarter-inch from the end. Thus, the actual length of the coated surface
was 4-3/4 inches. On the plates, only one face was coated. On that face, the three-inch-
wide dimension was coated edge-to-edge and on the four-inch-wide dimension the
coating terminated one-half-inch from each edge. Thus, the actual area that was coated
was three by three inches. Application of the coatings followed Boeing specification
sheet 160T1000 which required that the HVOF coatings not terminate with a square edge,
but that they were tapered from full to zero thickness over a minimum length of 0.006
inches. Following deposition, some of the coatings were ground the same as for the
previous samples and some were tested as-deposited.
One major difference was the material used to seal the non-coated areas on the samples.
79
Cadmium plating followed by a post chromate treatment per Mil-Spec QQ-P-416F was
applied to the noncoated areas and the coating/substrate termination areas, with the
cadmium/chromate overlapping approximately 0.1 inches onto the HVOF and EHC
coatings.
Table 39 to Table 41 summarize all of the coatings that were deposited onto the 4340 and
300M rods and the 4340 plates. The testing required a total of 84 samples.
Table 39. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion testing – 4340

rods.
Coating Thickness Ground Spray Co. # of
samples
WC-Co 0.003” Y H 2
WC-Co 0.003” Y S 2
WC-Co 0.003” N H 2
WC-Co 0.003” N S 2
WC-Co 0.010” Y H 2
WC-Co 0.010” Y S 2
WC-CoCr 0.003” Y H 2
WC-CoCr 0.003” Y S 2
WC-CoCr 0.003” N H 2
WC-CoCr 0.003” N S 2
WC-CoCr 0.010” Y H 2
WC-CoCr 0.010” Y S 2
EHC 0.003” Y S 2
EHC 0.010” Y S 2
Notes: Y = Yes H = Hitemco
N = No S = Southwest
Aeroservice
80
Table 40. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion
testing – 300M rods.
samples
WC-Co 0.003" Y H 2
WC-Co 0.003" Y S 2
WC-Co 0.003" N H 2
WC-Co 0.003" N S 2
WC-Co 0.010" Y H 2
WC-Co 0.010" Y S 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" Y H 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" Y S 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" N H 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" N S 2
EHC 0.003" Y S 2
EHC 0.010" Y S 2
81
Table 41. Sample matrix for supplemental corrosion
testing – 4340 plates.
samples
WC-Co 0.003" Y H 2
WC-Co 0.003" Y S 2
WC-Co 0.003" N H 2
WC-Co 0.003" N S 2
WC-Co 0.010" Y H 2
WC-Co 0.010" Y S 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" N H 2
WC-CoCr 0.003" N S 2
EHC 0.003" Y S 2
EHC 0.010" Y S 2
As can be seen from Table 39 to Table 41, there were two samples for each condition.
One complete set of samples was inserted into the Q-Fog model corrosion test cabinet at
the Naval Research Laboratory Key West (NRLKW) and the other complete set was
inserted into the Q-Fog model corrosion test cabinet at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
The samples were exposed for 1000 hours under the exact same conditions as for the
previous Landing Gear JTP samples.
After the salt fog tests were complete, the samples were cleaned at NRL using water and
Scotch Brite abrasive pads to remove loosely adherent corrosion products, then dried
with laboratory cotton wipes. The corrosion products were removed using the abrasive
pads to allow a better view of the coating surface, which was often obscured by the large
volume of corrosion product and salt residue on the samples. After cleaning, it was
possible to identify surface defects such as blisters or pits that could be more closely
examined to determine if the coating was undercut and the base metal exposed. All
examinations were conducted under a 10X stereomicroscope and protection and
appearance ratings assigned per ASTM Standard B537.
82
4.5.3. Results and Discussion
In the following discussion, those samples previously tested under the Landing Gear JTP
will be referred to as the “LGJTP” samples and those samples tested under this
supplemental corrosion study will be referred to as the “Supplemental” samples. A
general observation regarding the previous and current results was that the extent of
corrosion was less for the Supplemental than for the LGJTP samples. Overall, fewer
surface coating breaches were observed.
Figure 48 compares the WC-Co 3 mil coatings on 300M steel from each data set.
Figure 49 is the same coating comparison on 4340 steel. The degree of cracking of the
tungsten carbide coating in the LGJTP sample set is obvious relative to the Supplemental
set. Even the EHC coating samples from the LGJTP set had some pitting damage but all
EHC samples from the Supplemental set were judged to demonstrate excellent
performance after the 1,000 hours salt fog exposure. Figure 50 shows the results from
the LGJTP 3 mil EHC coating versus the Supplemental equivalent sample. The pitting
and coating breach in the upper right of the LGJTP sample set is evident.
The analysis of the LGJTP samples consisted of only recording a protection rating for
each sample following cleaning to remove loose corrosion products. For these
Supplemental samples, the recording of both an appearance and a protection rating
provided a better understanding of the test results. The protection rating details how well
the coating protected the base metal from corrosive attack by the salt fog. Protection
ratings of 10 show the underlying metal was completely protected from corrosion while
ratings of 4 and below show significant corrosion of the base metal. However, the
appearance rating gives a relative scale to the level of corrosive attack on the coating
itself. A specimen might have a protection rating of 10 but an appearance rating of 2,
which indicates a substantial surface attack of the coating material. This may be of
importance in that a coating’s ability to resist corrosion does impact its service life.
Coatings which undergo significant surface corrosion in salt fog are more likely to allow
substrate corrosion in time compared to those coatings more impervious to attack.
Appendix 3 provides the protection and appearance ratings for all of the tested samples.
4.5.3.1. Protection Ratings

As mentioned previously, the corrosion levels observed on the Supplemental samples
were not as severe as those on the LGJTP samples. One likely explanation is that Cd was
used to protect the top and bottom of each sample. The LGJTP samples used an epoxy
resin formulation to protect the top and bottom of the samples although, as noted in the
previous section, there were instances where the epoxy was breached allowing for
undercutting of the coatings. Cadmium is the least noble (most active) of any of the
metals used in the coatings or substrate materials. Further, the Cd was in direct contact
with both the coating and the underlying substrate metal while the samples were in a
condensing, electrolytic salt atmosphere. It is believed that the Cd metal served to protect
the coating and substrate by acting as a sacrificial anode, i.e. providing cathodic
protection, which led to the improved corrosion performance in the ASTM B117 test.
During the rating of the samples, the comment section in Appendix 3 notes the condition
of the Cd coating on the top (T) and bottom (B or BOT) of each specimen.
83
All flat panel specimens demonstrated good protection ratings and similar surface
corrosion properties to the identical coatings in the rod geometry specimens (see Figure
54). As such, the flat panels added little clarity to this study and the remaining analysis
will concentrate on the rod geometry samples.
For the 4340 metal rods, two of the NRL exposed samples had breached coatings as well
as three of the KSC exposed samples. Those samples with failed coatings are indicated
in Table 42, while the full data are shown in Figure 57.
Table 42. Failed coatings on 4340 substrates.

NRLKW Exposed Samples KSC Exposed Samples
WC-Co 3 mil Ground Hitemco WC-Co 3 mil Ground Hitemco
WC-CoCr 3 mil Ground SWAero WC-Co-Cr 3 mil Ground SWAero
WC-CoCr 3 mil Unground SWAero
For the 300M series substrates, three samples from each of the NRL and KSC exposed
subsets failed, as listed in Table 43, while the full data are shown in Figure 58.
Table 43. Failed coatings on 300M substrates.

NRLKW Exposed Samples KSC Exposed Samples
WC-Co 3 mil Ground Hitemco WC-Co 3 mil Ground Hitemco
WC-Co-Cr 3 mil Ground SW Aero WC-CoCr 3 mil Ground SW Aero
WC-CoCr 3 mil Unground SW Aero WC-CoCr 10 mil Ground SW Aero
The tables presented above show roughly equivalent performance in terms of protection
results from the corrosion cabinets at NRL Key West and Kennedy Space Center.
Further, the 3 mil HVOF coated samples accounted for almost all of the failures for each
metal substrate, indicating a likely problem with the coating as opposed to a problem
with the underlying metal. Also, 3 of the 5 coatings on the 4340 steel and 4 of the 6
coatings that failed on the 300M were EHC.
It is difficult to draw other conclusions that may be statistically significant regarding
coating protection from this data set. Inferentially, 10 mil coatings generally perform
better than 3 mil coatings, though one 10 mil WC-CoCr coating did fail. There is
insufficient data to really tell if grinding the coating affects corrosion performance. The
preponderance of the samples that failed to protect the substrate where ground but, as will
be discussed below, general corrosion of the coating was worse with unpolished surface
samples. Figure 51 shows the comparison of 3 mil WC-Co coatings on 4340 steel with
those on the left as-deposited and those on the right having been ground. The overall
surface corrosion attack on the as-deposited samples is evident compared to the ground
samples. Note that one of these ground samples has had a coating failure.
While a few more Southwest-Aeroservice-applied coatings failed relative to those applied
84
by Hitemco, there was no definitive difference between the coatings deposited by the two
vendors.
A final note on substrate protection is the repeat finding that the EHC samples
outperformed all others. No EHC coating was breached and there was complete
protection of the substrate. Figure 52 and Figure 53 compare the 10 mil thick coating
types on 4340 and 300M base metals, respectively. The EHC coating integrity and
surface finish are significantly better than either of the HVOF coatings.
4.5.3.2. Appearance Ratings

The appearance rating is an important attribute in gauging the extent of corrosion on the
coating. In most of the samples exposed in this series, the underlying metal substrate was
protected but the coating itself was degraded to varying degrees. For instance, the EHC
coatings outperformed all other alloys and received the highest appearance rating (10) for
seven of the eight EHC samples. The eighth sample received a 9 rating owing to small
staining of the surface probably derived from Cd corrosion products running onto the
surface. The HVOF-coated samples received varying appearance ratings, generally lower
than the EHC samples. Refer to Figure 52 and Figure 53 for a comparison of surface
appearance for the 10 mil coating compositions. Figure 55 and Figure 56 show the
relative appearance rankings for the coatings on 4340 and 300M steels, respectively.
Those samples from the KSC cabinet appear to be generally worse with respect to
appearance, which would indicate a more aggressive corrosion environment. Overall, the
relative rankings are similar for either sample set with the WC-Co indicating somewhat
more corrosion than the WC-CoCr.
The as-deposited samples fared the poorest in surface corrosion as noted by both series of
data for either the WC-Co or WC-CoCr, and received the lowest appearance ratings.
Figure 59 depicts the 3mil WC-Co coating on 300M steel and indicates the overall
surface appearance of the as-deposited coatings to be worse. However, as before with the
4340 samples, one of the two ground samples has already failed. There is more general
surface attack on samples with an as-deposited coating (at least for samples with a 3 mil
coating thickness) but more of the 3-mil-thick ground samples indicated a breach of the
coating. The thicker coatings fared better in substrate protection, as expected, but since
no 10-mil-thick as-deposited coatings were tested, no definitive conclusion is able to be
drawn from this data set when accounting for general coating surface attack AND
substrate protection.
4.5.4. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this supplemental study.
1. 10 mil thick coatings perform better than 3 mil coatings of any composition in
terms of protecting the substrate. See Figure 60 and Figure 61 for a comparison
of the WC-Co coatings.
2. There was no definitive difference between the coatings applied by the two
vendors.
3. EHC coatings outperformed either the HVOF WC-Co or WC-CoCr, regardless of
thickness in this corrosion test. See Figure 62 and Figure 63 for comparisons of
85
10-mil-thick coatings.
4. For 10-mil-thick coatings, the data implies WC-CoCr coatings show improved
performance over WC-Co coatings. Additional studies would be necessary to
confirm this conclusion since there was one 10 mil WC-CoCr coating that was
breached.
5. The 3-mil-thick coatings are suspect in their ability to protect the substrate steel.
While 3 mil EHC in this data set did protect the substrate (one sample only was
tested in each location), the LGJTP results with multiple samples being tested
showed some 3-mil-thick EHC coatings being breached.
Figure 48. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 300M steel from the
LGJTP tests, left, and the Supplemental tests, right.
86
Figure 49. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 4340 steel from the
LGJTP tests
Figure 50. EHC coatings, 3 mils thick, ground, on 4340 steel from the LGJTP tests, left,
and the Supplemental tests, right.
87
Figure 51. HVOF WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, on 4340 steel, as-deposited on left and
ground on right.
Right: WC-CoCr, 10 mils thick, ground. All on 4340 steel substrates.
88
Right; WC-CoCr, 10 mils thick, ground. All on 300M steel substrates.
Appearance and protection rating - 4340 plate
EHC 10 mil Ground SW Aero
WC/CoCr 10 mil Ground SW Aero
WC/CoCr 10 mil Ground Hitemco
WC/CoCr 3 mil Unground SW Aero
WC/CoCr 3 mil Unground Hitemco
WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground SW Aero Protection

WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground Hitemco Appearance
WC/Co 10 mil Ground SW Aero
WC/Co 10 mil Ground Hitemco
WC/Co 3 mil Unground SW Aero
WC/Co 3 mil Unground Hitemco
0 2 4 6 8 10
Figure 54. Comparison of appearance and protection ratings for 4340 plate, NRL.
89
Appearance rating - 4340 rod

KSC
NRL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 55. Comparison of appearance ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 4340 rod
tested at NRL and KSC.
Appearance rating - 300M rod
WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground SW Aero KSC

WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground Hitemco NRL
WC/Co 3mil Ground Hitemco
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 56. Comparison of appearance ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 300M rod
90
Protection rating - 4340 rod

KSC
NRL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 57. Comparison of protection ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 4340 rod
Protection rating - 300M rod
WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground SW Aero KSC

WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground Hitemco NRL
WC/Co 3mil Ground Hitemco
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 58. Comparison of protection ratings for HVOF and EHC coatings on 300M rod
91
Figure 59. WC-Co coatings, 3 mils thick, on 300M steel. Left: As-deposited.
Right: Ground.
Figure 60. WC-Co coatings on 4340 steel. Left: 3-mils thick, ground. Right: 10-mils
thick, ground.
92
Figure 61. WC-Co coatings on 300M steel. Left: 3-mils thick, ground. Right: 10-mils thick,
ground.
Figure 62. Left: EHC coating, 10 mils thick, ground. Right: WC-Co
coating, 10-mils thick, ground. All on 4340 steel.
93
Figure 63. Left: EHC, 10-mils thick, ground. Right: HVOF WC-Co, 10 mils thick,
ground. All on 300M steel.
4.6. Discussion of overall corrosion results

The data show that the overall corrosion performance of EHC was better than WC-CoCr,
which in turn was better than WC-Co. Based on both the Landing Gear JTP and
Supplemental testing, it can be concluded that the acceptance criteria from the JTP,
namely that the corrosion performance of the HVOF WC-Co and WC-CoCr coatings
must equal or exceed that of EHC, was not met. Putting this work into perspective
regarding the previous corrosion studies of the HCAT and the studies conducted by
others, there are several observations that can be made and issues that should still be
addressed.
1. The performance of the EHC coatings in the LGJTP and Supplemental testing
was somewhat unexpected in that B117 testing conducted by others on EHC of
equivalent thicknesses (see, for example, testing conducted by the Canadian
HCAT for their portion of the Landing Gear JTP and testing conducted by
Hamilton Sundstrand for the Propeller Hub JTP) showed substantial corrosion
after a few hundred hours of exposure. Also note the extremely poor performance
of EHC in the three-year atmospheric corrosion tests described in Section 4.2.
The HCAT plans on conducting analyses of the EHC coatings from these studies
and will compare them to coatings from other studies to determine if there are any
94
clear differences that would explain the different performance.
2. The HVOF WC-Co and WC-CoCr coatings do still provide substantial corrosion
protection to the steel substrates evaluated in this study as evidenced by the fact
that uncoated steel subjected to B117 is almost completely corroded after several
tens of hours exposure. The fact that there was severe undercutting and breaching
of many of the HVOF coatings indicates that when these coatings are to be used
in service, extreme care should be taken to ensure that the corrosive medium
cannot have access to the area where the coating terminates on the base material,
such as at an edge. This was proven out by the significantly better performance of
the HVOF coatings when the cadmium/chromate coating was used as a sealer for
the sample edges instead of the epoxy.
3. Further evidence of the protective nature of the HVOF coatings was illustrated in
the results of the cyclic GM9540B testing in which both the EHC and the WC-Co
coatings showed virtually no corrosion after 1,000 hours. Although no uncoated
steel samples were evaluated in this series of tests, corrosion engineers at NRL
indicated that steel such as 4340 would be substantially corroded after only 100
hours in the GM test.
4. In terms of corrosion of the coatings themselves, the WC-CoCr coatings do
perform somewhat better than the WC-Co coatings. However, in terms of
undercutting and breaching, there was essentially no difference between the
coatings, again indicating the importance of ensuring the corrosive medium
cannot have access to the coating termination areas on the base material.
4.7. Significance
It is difficult to determine the true significance of these data since cabinet corrosion
testing is notoriously variable, as is the hard chrome baseline itself. Based on the
experience of most aerospace industry team members (e.g. Boeing, Goodrich, Hill AFB)
the performance of the Southwest Aeroservice hard chrome appeared to be exceptionally
good. However, some significant findings should be noted:
! Clearly, HVOF coatings provide corrosion resistance compared with uncoated
steel. However, given the wide disparity in results between the various tests
reported here it is not possible to be sure how they compare with hard chrome
coatings typical of those deposited in depots.
! Since WC-CoCr appears to provide better corrosion resistance that WC-Co,
corrosion considerations would suggest that the former be chosen over the latter if
both are otherwise acceptable.
! The data provide evidence that the HVOF coating itself corrodes (especially in the
case of WC-Co), whereas for EHC coatings the coating itself is untouched while
the substrate corrodes through coating cracks and breaches. This points to a
different corrosion mechanism, which is likely to lead to surface roughening or
release of micron-sized WC particles over sufficient time. This should be borne
in mind when choosing a coating for use in corrosive environments.
95
4.8. Conclusion
HVOF WC-Co and WC-CoCr both fail the JTP acceptance criteria. Note that
corrosion comparisons were made against what appeared to be an exceptionally high
quality hard chrome. HVOF coatings may or may not fail tests against hard chrome
coatings commonly used in depot or airline repair.
References
4.1
P. M. Natishan, S. H. Lawrence, R. L. Foster, J. Lewis, and B. D. Sartwell, “Salt Fog Corrosion Behavior
of High-Velocity Oxygen-Fuel Thermal Spray Coatings Compared to Electrodeposited Hard Chromium,”
Surface and Coatings Technology, v. 130, pp. 218-223 (2000).
96
5. Wear data
5.1. Data summary
Item Item number
L12 matrix data – fretting. Table 53
L12 test matrix data - sliding wear. Table 54
L8 DOE Data Table 55 -
Table 58
Fretting wear data Figure 70,
Figure 71
Sliding wear data – L12 matrix Figure 72,
Figure 73
Sliding wear data – final L8 matrix, including average data and data for Figure 74,
the metal bushing baseline and all half-replicates Figure 75,
Figure 79 -
Figure 84
Statistical analysis of L8 data Figure 76 -
Figure 78
The full data set is provided in Appendix 4.
5.2. Rationale
Prior experience in the aircraft industry (and in other industries) has been that the wear
performance of components coated with WC-Co or WC-CoCr exceeds that of hard
chrome. It is primarily for this reason that companies such as Boeing have substituted
these HVOF coatings in place of hard chrome for specific spot applications on
components where hard chrome performance in the field was found to be inadequate.
(These problem-area applications now total more than a hundred.)
Wear is a very complex phenomenon and depends on a great many factors that are
specific to each engineering system. Recognizing this, true measurements of
performance were designed to be made in Part 2 of the Landing Gear Joint Test Protocol,
using full-scale rig and flight testing. The purpose of the measurements made in Part 1
was to determine which factors (coating material, surface finish, test conditions, etc.)
have the most impact on wear performance and therefore must be most carefully
controlled.
Landing gear applications of hard chrome include both long-stroke sliding wear
experienced by landing gear utility actuators and inner cylinders, and short stroke,
97
oscillating wear (dithering and fretting) experienced by pins and hydraulic cylinders
during ground operations. Testing was designed to evaluate both of these conditions.
5.3. Specimen fabrication

5.3.1. Fretting specimens
Fretting blocks and shoes were made of 4340 plate stock according to the design shown
in Figure 64. In this design, the fretting shoe (Figure 64a) is the same 1 inch width as the
fretting block (Figure 64b). Only the shoe was coated.
The block and shoe materials are summarized in Table 45.
a.
b.
Figure 64. a) Fretting shoe; b) Fretting block.

98
Table 45. Wear test materials and coatings - fretting.
(Fretting blocks uncoated, shoe 4340 coated)
Fretting Shoe Coating Thickness Fretting
(inch) Block
Hard chrome plate 0.003, 4340 steel
0.010
HVOF WC-17Co 0.003, Nitrile seals
(Diamalloy 2005 powder) 0.010 in 4340
HVOF WC-10Co-4Cr 0.003,
(SM5847 powder) 0.010
5.3.2. Sliding wear specimens

The design of the sliding wear specimens is shown in Figure 65. Bushings were made of
various materials. All wear rod specimens were fabricated from 4340 round bar, as
follows:
! 1” diameter, 9” long
! Tensile strength and heat treat – 260-280 ksi per MIL-H-6875
! Shot peen – 8-10A, S230, wrought steel shot, per AMS 2432, computer
controlled, 100% coverage, except a 0.75” section at one end of the rod
! Grit blast prior to coating – Specimens were gripped on the non-peened area and a
5” section grit blasted:
o For EHC with 180-220 grit alumina or glass beads
o For HVOF coating with 54 grit alumina at 60 psi at 90° angle of
impingement, per MIL-STD-1504.
! Coating – per methodology in Section 6.4 below
o Thickness – final thickness 0.003” and 0.010” (see Table 46). Coatings
were deposited 0.002-0.003” thicker to allow for final grinding.
! Embrittlement relief heat treat - 375°F for EHC plated samples only.
! Grind after coating
o For EHC low stress grind to 16µ” finish per MIL-STD-866
o For HVOF low stress grind to 8µ” finish per BAC 5855
99
a)
b)
c)
Figure 65. Wear test rods and bushings - a) rod, b) straight bushing, c) seal groove bushing.
100
Table 46. Wear test materials and coatings - sliding. (Piston coated 4340, bushing
uncoated.)
Piston/coating material Thickness Coating vendor and Bushing
(inch) specification material
Hard chrome plate 0.003, Southwest Aeroservice, Tulsa, 4340 steel
0.010 OK; QQ-C-320B, Boeing-
approved specification
HVOF WC-17Co 0.003, NADEP Cherry Point; HCAT Al-Ni bronze
(Diamalloy 2005) 0.010 specs.
HVOF WC-10Co-4Cr 0.003, NADEP Cherry Point; HCAT Anodized 2024-
(SM5847) 0.010 specs. T3 aluminum
Nitrile seal
Karon B seal
Coating materials and thicknesses tested are summarized in Table 46.

Samples were coated as follows:
Hard chrome – standard Boeing specifications
WC-Co – DiamondJet gun, per HCAT specifications (see Section 3.4)
o Powder – Diamalloy 2005
o Fuel – Hydrogen
WC-CoCr – DiamondJet gun, per HCAT specifications
o Powder – Sulzer Metco 5847
o Fuel – Hydrogen
Aluminum anodize – by Southwest Aeroservice per MIL-P-25732 B.

In consonance with the aim of determining performance factors rather than measuring
performance itself, the wear evaluation tests were made in the form of Design of
Experiment (DoE) protocols, with most of the testing being done for sliding wear, which
has the broadest application. Test conditions were designed to obtain measurable results
in a short time rather than to duplicate service conditions. This experimental design
incorporated the following:
A pre-DoE matrix to establish the test conditions. The test conditions in this
matrix were to be modified by results in order to determine the range of test
conditions necessary to provide reasonable, measurable ranges of wear rates for
101
the material combinations in tests typically averaging no more than 48 hours.
This information was used to confirm or reassign specific values to the conditions
for the design factors in the first L12 DoE test matrix.
! An L12 matrix to evaluate the major potential wear factors for both fretting and
sliding wear, and establish which factors were the most significant and should be
evaluated in more detail in the subsequent L8 DoE matrix.
! An L8 matrix to quantify the relative contributions to sliding wear performance of
the major wear factors identified in the L12 matrix. Fretting wear was not
incorporated in the L8 matrix.
5.5.1. Fretting
Specification: No existing public standard. These tests followed the GE Aircraft
Engines fretting test method used for engine components.
Modifications: For some tests the fretting block was modified to incorporate a
section of seal material.
Significance: Short-stroke, unlubricated wear is typical of the conditions
experienced by pins and hydraulics during ground operations.
Sample types: Blocks and shoes.
Sample materials: 4340
Sample heat treat: 260-280 ksi UTS
Oscillating LOAD
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr, Motion
0.003” and 0.010” thick.
Lubrication: MIL-H-83262 hydraulic Shoe
fluid (Royco 782)
Test equipment: Test equipment is Block
illustrated schematically in
Figure 66. Testing was Figure 66. Cross-sectional schematic of
done in a standard vertical fretting wear test.
fatigue machine adapted to
provide a side load via the shoe, as illustrated in the figure.
Test description:
Tests were run with the block set in a specially-designed holder on a standard closed-loop
MTS machine. The shoe was pressed against the block with a normal load, PN, applied
by a dead weight system. Lubrication, where needed, was supplied by dripping from
above the fretting region Test conditions (loads, speeds, lubrication, etc.) are given in the
test matrices. Wear of the coated shoe and uncoated block was measured by weight
change.
102
5.5.2. Sliding wear
Specification: No existing standard.
Modifications: None
Significance: Long-stroke actuation typical of hydraulic cylinder rods in landing,
takeoff, and ground operations.
Sample types: Rods: 1” round rod, 9” long; 1.5” OD, 1” ID bushings.
Sample materials: Rods: 4340 steel heat treated to 260 – 280 ksi UTS.
Bushings: 4340 steel heat treated to 160-180 ksi; AMS 4640 Al-
Ni-bronze rod in the TQ50 or equivalent HR50 condition (hardness
HB 201-248); anodized 2024 Al (MIL-A-8625, Type 3, Class I).
Seals: Nitrile T seals
type 7214-FT-160-T Test
from Green Tweed Guide bushing Guide
(MIL-HDBK-695C)
inserted into bushings. Oscillating piston
Liners: Karon B from
Kamatics Corp. (filled
phenolic 0.015” thick)
inserted into bushings.
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-
CoCr, 0.003” and Load
0.010”, ground to 16µ”
for EHC and to 8µ” Ra Figure 67. Cross sectional schematic of piston
for HVOF. and bushing oscillating wear test.
Lubrication: MIL-H-83262 hydraulic
fluid (Royco 782)
Test equipment: Test equipment is illustrated schematically in Figure 67 and shown
photographically in Figure 68. The test rod was oscillated on four bearings, driven by a
hydraulic actuator via a load cell to measure the drive load, Pdrive. Normal load was
applied to the bushing via a spring assembly and load cell so as to create a wear couple
between the rod and the bushing. The lubricant was supplied at the bushing from a
suspended bag through a small tube and a constricting valve that controlled the drip rate.
Test description:
For both sliding wear and fretting the coefficient of friction was measured as
µ = [Pdrive(max) - Pdrive(min)]/2 PN
Test conditions were as defined in the test matrices. Hydraulic fluid was added to permit
fully-lubricated, starved-lubricated, or unlubricated testing. Under “Full” lubrication
fluid was added throughout the test, while under “partial” lubrication lubricant was added
only for the first hour of the test, then turned off for the remainder of the test.
103
Bushing
Load cell
Test rod
Side load
Figure 68. Sliding wear test equipment.
For the nitrile seal rod/bushing tests, a pair of standard T-seals was assembled into a
grooved bushing. These seals were pre-soaked in hydraulic fluid for 24 hours prior to
assembly to permit any absorption to fluid to occur. After assembly with the rod, the
seals were energized by filling the inter-seal region with hydraulic fluid from a reservoir
and pressurizing to 3000 psi with a nitrogen bottle through a small orifice in the bushing.
For the partial lubrication tests in the L12 and L8 phases, the test was stopped and
depressurized after 1 hour and disassembled to drain the lubricant. The rod and bushing
cavity were wiped with a clean, dry rag to remove any excess lubricant, reassembled, and
repressurized with dry nitrogen to re-energize the seals, and the test was then restarted.
Wear was judged in two ways:
! Weight loss – this was found to be an unreliable method since small amounts of
lubricant trapped in the center hole or thread of the rod caused large errors – up to
0.010 gm.
o Measurement accuracy was tested by making a series of measurements:
# 0.00006 gm for WC-Co
# 0.00011 gm for metals and hard chrome
# 0.00063 for seals and anodized Al
! Visual appearance against standards – this method was used to overcome the
problems caused by weight measurement errors due to trapped fluids. The
standards are shown in Figure 69 and described in Table 47. A visual ranking
was assigned by the closest match to the standards.
104
VR 01 VR 02 VR 03 VR 06
Calibration
VR 07 VR 08 VR 10 scale M
Figure 69. Visual ranking standards for rods.
Table 47. Description of visual wear ranking.

Rank Description
1 No visible wear scar
2 Slight burnishing of circumferential grinding marks on rod
3 Small, isolated longitudinal wear patches; circumferential marks still partially visible
4 Larger, more extensive longitudinal marks
5 General longitudinal marking; circumferential grind lines obliterated
6 Extensive wear regions, some metal transfer may have occurred
7 Some deep longitudinal grooving within large general wear scars
8 Wear scars cover entire stroke length from approximately 10:00 to 2:00 on the rod
9 Rating 8 plus some longitudinal grooving
10 Rating 8 plus extensive, deep longitudinal grooving, metal transfer.
105
5.5.3. Test matrices
Tables 48 – 52 show the matrices for the pre-DOE, L-12 and L-8 wear tests.
Table 48. Matrix for Pre-DOE – fretting tests run.

Test DoE Wear Block or Coating
No. Expt. No. Test Bushing Coating Load, lbs Finish Lube
1 pre-trial Fretting 4340 WC-10Co-4Cr 72 16 no
2 pre-trial Fretting 4340 Chrome 72 16 no
3 pre-trial Fretting 4340 WC-17Co 72 16 no
4 pre-trial Fretting 4340 Chrome 288 16 no
5 pre-trial Fretting 4340 WC-17Co 288 16 no
6 pre-trial Fretting 4340 WC-17Co 288 16 yes
7 pre-trial Fretting Nitrile WC-17Co 40 16 yes
Table 49. Matrix for Pre-DOE (Design of Experiment) - sliding.

Test DoE Wear Block or Coating
No. Expt. No. Test Bushing Coating Load, lbs Finish Lube
13 pre-trial Bushing 4340 WC-10Co-4Cr 72 16 no
14 pre-trial Bushing 4340 Chrome 72 16 no
15 pre-trial Bushing 4340 WC-17Co 72 16 no
17 pre-trial Bushing 4340 Chrome 36 or 288 16 no
19 pre-trial Bushing 4340 Chrome 288 or144 16 yes
20 pre-trial Bushing 4340 WC-17Co 288 or144 16 yes
21 pre-trial Bushing Nitrile Chrome 40 16 no
22 pre-trial Bushing Nitrile Chrome 40 16 yes
23 pre-trial Bushing Nitrile WC-17Co 40 16 yes
24 pre-trial Bushing Nitrile WC-17Co 40 16 no
106
Table 50. L-12 Design of Experiment matrix for fretting.
Design
Factors 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hydraulic
DoE Std. Block or Rod/Shoe Load Coating Fluid Stroke Frequency Cycles Temp
Order Bushing Coating (lbs) Finish Lubric’n (inches) (cpm) (n) (Deg F)
1 4340 Chrome 72 4 partial 0.01 600 720,000 70
2 4340 Chrome 72 4 full 0.05 240 360,000 200
3 4340 WC-17Co 288 8 partial 0.01 600 360,000 200
4 Nitrile Chrome 72* 8 partial 0.05 240 720,000 70
5 Nitrile WC-17Co 72 8 full 0.05 240 720,000 200
6 Nitrile WC-17Co 72* 4 full 0.01 600 360,000 70

*Originally assigned at 288 lb PN.
Table 51. L-12 Design of Experiment matrix for sliding wear.

Design
Factors 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hydraulic
DoE Std. Block or Rod/Shoe Coating Fluid Stroke Frequency Temp
Order Bushing Coating Load, lbs Finish Lubric’n (inches) (cpm) Cycles (n) (Deg F)
7 4340 WC-17Co 288 4 partial 1.0 30 108,000 200
8 4340 WC-17Co 72 8 full 1.0 90 108,000 70
9 4340 Chrome 288 8 full 0.1 30 54,000 70
10 Nitrile WC-17Co 72 4 partial 0.1 30 54,000 70
11 Nitrile Chrome 288 4 full 0.1 90 108,000 200
12 Nitrile Chrome 72 8 partial 1.0 90 54,000 200
107
Table 52. L-8 sliding wear test matrix. Note: each test condition was run twice (A and B).
Design factors
C B A D
Test No. DOE Expt. No. Coating Bushing Cycles Normal Load, lb.
49 A&B L8-01 Chrome 4340 80K 72
50 A&B L8-02 Chrome 4340 240K 288
51 A&B L8-03 Chrome AMS 4640* 80K 288
52 A&B L8-04 Chrome AMS 4640 240K 72
53 A&B L8-05 WC-17Co 4340 80K 288
54 A&B L8-06 WC-17Co 4340 240K 72
55 A&B L8-07 WC-17Co AMS 4640 80K 72
56 A&B L8-08 WC-17Co AMS 4640 240K 288
1st L8 Half Replicate (a)
57 A&B L8-5a WC-10Co-4Cr 4340 80K 288
58 A&B L8-6a WC-10Co-4Cr 4340 240K 72
59 A&B L8-7a WC-10Co-4Cr AMS 4640 80K 72
60 A&B L8-8a WC-10Co-4Cr AMS 4640 240K 288
2nd L8 Half Replicate (b)
61 A&B L8-3b Chrome Anodized Al 80K 288
63 A&B L8-7b WC-17Co Anodized Al 80K 72
3rd L8 Half Replicate (c)
65 A&B L8-3b Chrome Nitrile seal 80K 288
67 A&B L8-7b WC-17Co Nitrile seal 80K 72
4th L8 Half Replicate (d)
69 A&B L8-3d Chrome Karon B liner 80K 288
70 A&B L8-4d Chrome Karon B liner 240K 72
71 A&B L8-5d WC-17Co Karon B liner 80K 72
72 A&B L8-6d WC-17Co Karon B liner 240K 288
5th L8 Half Replicate (e)
73 A&B L8-1e Chrome Karon B liner 80K 72
74 A&B L8-2e Chrome Karon B liner 240K 288
75 A&B L8-3e WC-10Co-4Cr Karon B liner 80K 288
76 A&B L8-4e WC-10Co-4Cr Karon B liner 240K 72
77 A&B L8-5e Chrome AMS 4640 80K 288
78 A&B L8-6e Chrome AMS 4640 240K 72
6th L8 Half Replicate (f)
79 A&B L8-1f Chrome Nitrile seal 80K 72
81 A&B L8-3f WC-10Co-4Cr Nitrile seal 80K 288
X2 for each
TOTAL = 68 * Al-Ni Bronze
108
5.6. Test results
5.6.1. Pre-DOE
The pre-DOE matrix was not a design-of-experiment matrix , but was a screening test
designed simply to determine general behavior and to decide on the test conditions for
subsequent testing. It led to the following conclusions:
Fretting tests:
No meaningful conclusions on relative coating behavior could be drawn from the pre-
DOE data. However, test conditions were determined:
! For seal tests it was found that a load of 40 lb compressed the seal, leaving only
about 0.001” between the rod (or in fretting tests the shoe) surface and the
bushing (or block in fretting tests). Above this load the rod (or shoe) touched the
bushing (or block). Therefore 40 lb was the maximum test load used in all
pre-DOE seal tests (see Tables 48 and 49).
! The 288 lb. load resulted in greater wear than did the 72 lb. load.
! Unlike the rod/bushing tests, it was possible to run fretting tests in the dry,
unlubricated condition at either load without experiencing unstable tests.
Sliding wear tests:
! The dry, unlubricated test was much more severe than the lubricated test, even at
low load. This test did not appear to distinguish between the three coatings, and
was unsuitable for the L12 DoE.
! On the other hand, a continuous flooded lubricant test did not adequately
distinguish among the coatings; nor did a test protocol in which the rod was
flooded for 1 hr. (5,400 cycles) and then the lubricant shut off.
! A qualitative discrimination between the EHC and WC-17Co coatings was
obtained using a slow drip/shutoff test protocol.
! A 288 lb. normal load provided more significant discrimination of coating
performance than did a 72 lb. normal load.
! In general, initial friction values for HVOF coatings were higher than for EHC
plating.
! Weight loss had to be measured to 4 decimal places to detect any post-test
differences. This was a problem, since it was very easy for lubricant to become
trapped in centering holes and threads.
Note that the test conditions chosen for subsequent testing do not represent true service
conditions, but rather conditions for obtaining a measurable difference in wear behavior
between hard chrome and HVOF coatings.
109
5.6.2. L12 fretting tests
Fretting was measured only in the L-12 DOE matrix.
The results are shown in Table 53 and in Figure 70 and Figure 71. Note that, since this
was a DOE matrix, each point corresponds to a different set of conditions, as shown in
the matrix of Table 50.
Table 53. L12 matrix data – fretting.

TEST TEST BLOCK SEAL SHOE WEAR Wear couple
NUMBER SERIES WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT RANKING block/shoe
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE (SHOE)
1-04 1A 0.0001 0.0003 2 4340/EHC

3-04 1B 0.0012 0.0008 2 4340/EHC
12-04 2A 0.0006 0.0016 2 4340/EHC
13-04 2B -0.0052 -0.0050 2 4340/EHC
15-04 3A 0.0034 0.0049 2 4340/WC-Co
20-04 3B -0.0022 0.0011 2 4340/WC-Co
4-04 4A 0.0102 0.0078 2 Nitrile/EHC
8-04 4B -0.0759 0.0038 2 Nitrile/EHC
22-04 5A -0.0171 0.0114 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
30-04 5B 0.0462 0.0133 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
6-04 6A -0.0665 0.0057 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
10-04 6B -0.0991 0.0128 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
RA 10
NK 8
IN 6
G 4
2
0
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
Figure 70. Fretting wear ranking - shoe. L12 DOE matrix. (Red against metal bushings;
blue against nitrile seals.)
110
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
WEIGHT CHANGE (GRAMS)
0.0000
-0.0200
-0.0400
-0.0600
-0.0800
-0.1000
Avg. block wt. = 60 gm Avg. seal wt. = 0.84 gm
-0.1200
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
Figure 71. Fretting wear - L12 DOE matrix. Yellow data wear of coated shoe; red data wear of
uncoated 4340 block; blue data wear of nitrile seal.
The L-12 fretting data showed very little differentiation between materials. This is
especially clear from the visual ranking data (Figure 70), which showed almost no wear
under any conditions.
5.6.3. L12 sliding wear tests

The data for sliding wear are shown in Table 54, Figure 72 and Figure 73. Note that,
since this was a DOE matrix, each point corresponds to a different set of conditions, as
shown in the matrix of Table 51.
111
Table 54. L12 test matrix data - sliding wear.
TEST TEST BUSHING SEAL ROD WEAR
NUMBER SERIES WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT RANKING
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE (ROD)
14-04 7A -0.1271 -0.0200 10

23-04 7B -0.0633 -0.0003 6
7-04 8A -0.0218 0.0018 1
17-04 8B 0.0014 0.0049 1
9-04 9A 0.0043 -0.0003 3
19-04 9B 0.0021 0.0069 3
24-04 10A-L -0.0223
24-04 10A-R -0.0383 0.0035 2
29-04 10B-L -0.0046
29-04 10B-R -0.0057 0.0000 2
25-04 11A-L -0.0049
25-04 11A-R -0.0100 0.0107 3
27-04 11B-L 0.0509
27-04 11B-R 0.0560 0.0102 4
26-04 12A-L -0.4432
26-04 12A-R -0.1761 -0.0040 7
28-04 12B-L -0.2973
28-04 12B-R -0.1348 -0.0184 8
10
8
RANKING
6
4
2
0
10A-R
10B-R
11A-R
11B-R
12A-R
12B-R
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
Figure 72. Sliding wear – L12 data. Visual wear ranking – rod. (Red against bushings; blue
against seals.)
112
0.1000
0.0000
-0.1000
GRAMS
BUSHING WEIGHT CHANGE

-0.2000 SEAL WEIGHT CHANGE
ROD WEIGHT CHANGE
-0.3000
-0.4000 Avg. bushing wt. = 219 gm

Avg. seal wt. = 2.9 gm
-0.5000
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
7A
8A
9A
Figure 73. Sliding wear – L12 data. Weight change – bushing/seal. Yellow data wear of
coated rod; red data wear of uncoated bushing; blue data wear of nitrile seal.
The L12 matrix allowed us to draw the following conclusions for design of the final
L8 DOE matrix:
1. Rod coating and bushing type were statistically significant design factors, as
expected.
2. Normal load, PN, was a significant variable using the 72 and 288 lb. values.
3. Test duration (cycles) was a significant variable. For better differentiation, it was
decided to use 80,000 and 240,000 cycles as the design values for the L8 matrix.
4. The remaining design factors evaluated in this phase did not provide statistically
differentiable performance over the ranges examined. Therefore, each of these
became a constant in the L8 matrix, using the following values:
! Coating finish – 8 microinches Ra
113
st
! Lubrication – partial (1 hour only, 1 drip/4 min.)
! Stroke – 1” (total range; i.e., +/-0.5”)
! Frequency – 1.5 Hz (90 cpm)
! Temperature – 75°F.
5.6.4. L8 sliding wear DOE tests

The L8 test matrix is given in Table 52. The wear results are given in Table 55 to Table
58. The table includes the visual ranking of rod wear as well as weight change for rod,
bushing, seal, and liner. Negative weight changes, i.e. weight losses, are in brackets –
numbers not in brackets are weight gains.
Figure 74 and Figure 75 show the wear data for the metal (4340 and AlNiBronze)
bushings. Figure 76 to Figure 78 shows the statistical analysis for this metal bushing
wear data. Figure 79 to Figure 82 show the wear data for bushings, Karon B liners, and
nitrile seals from the 3rd and 5th half replicates. Average values are given in Figure 83
and Figure 84.
Table 55. L8 DOE data - baseline metal bushings.

TEST WEIGHT CHANGE VISUAL
NO. ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING SEAL A SEAL B RATING
BASELINE
49A 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 3
49B 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) 4
50A 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) 9

50B 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) 9
51A 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0032) (0.0334) 3

51B 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0094) (0.0107) 3
52A 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0035 (0.0181) 3

52B 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0149) (0.0104) 4
53A 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) 2

53B 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) 5
54A 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) 3

54B 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) 2
55A 55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.0029 (0.0018) 1

55B 55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0052) (0.0074) 1
56A 56A-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0019 (0.0675) 8

56B 56B-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 (0.0090) (0.1493) 9
114
Table 56. L8 DOE data - 1st and 2nd half replicates.
NO. ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHIN SEAL A SEAL B RATING
G
1ST L8 HALF-REPLICATE
57A 57A-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.0294) (0.3301) 6
57B 57B-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.0159) (0.0068) 2
58A 58A-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.0196) 0.0018 1

58B 58B-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.0001) 0.0018 1
59A 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0470) (0.0059) 2

59B 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0021) (0.0409) 3

60B 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0033 (0.0370) 4
2ND L8 HALF-REPLICATE
61A 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0033) 0.0055 9
61B 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0095) (0.0040) 7
62A 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.0003 0.0101 7

62B 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 (0.0113) (0.0048) 4
63A 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.0077) 0.0078 1

63B 63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.0017) (0.0016) 1
64A 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.0021) 0.0016 2

64B 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.0001) 0.0003 1
115
Table 57. L8 DOE data - 3rd and 4th half replicates.
G
3RD L8 HALF-REPLICATE
65A 65A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 0.2933 (0.0131) (0.0751) (0.0423) 5
65B 65B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 (0.0013) (0.0063) (0.0366) (0.0520) 8
66A 66A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 (0.0073) (0.0073) (0.4355) (0.2570) 6

66B 66B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 (0.0071) (0.0044) (0.2583) (0.2772) 9
67A 67A-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0009) (0.0124) (0.0779) (0.1863) 1

67B 67B-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0035) (0.0042) (0.0058) (0.0078) 2
68A 68A-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.0026 (0.0101) (0.0288) (0.0373) 1

68B 68B-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.0013 (0.0016) (0.0226) (0.0335) 2
4TH L8 HALF-REPLICATE
69A 69A-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0005 (0.0008) 1
69B 69B-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0003 0.0622 1
70A 70A-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0006) (0.0010) 3

70B 70B-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0016) 0.0776 2
71A 71A-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 0.0002 0.0003 1

71B 71B-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 (0.0008) 0.0055 1
72A 72A-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 (0.0071) (0.0098) 1

72B 72B-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 0.0021 0.0541 1
116
Table 58. L8 DOE data - 5th and 6th half replicates.
G
73A 73A-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0103 0.0035 2
73B 73B-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0004 0.0091 2
74A 74A-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0017) 0.0034 1

74B 74B-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0008) 0.0102 1
75A 75A-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0335) 0.0022 1

75B 75B-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0011) 0.0077 1
76A 76A-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0056 1

76B 76B-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0101 1
77A 77A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0016) (0.0328) 9

77B 77B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 0.0022 (0.0235) 6
78A 78A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0065) (0.0463) 8

78B 78B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0005 (0.0590) 7
79A 79A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0016) (0.0018) (0.0604) (0.0783) 8
79B 79B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0007) 0.0030 (0.0072) (0.0012) 7
80A 80A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/288 (0.0021) (0.0040) (0.1539) (0.1256) 8

80B 80B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/288 (0.0166) (0.0229) (0.0373) (0.0394) 8
81A 81A-WCCoCr/NITRILE/80K/288 (0.0049) (0.0391) (0.1289) (0.2392) 2

81B 81B-WCCoCr/NITRILE/80K/288 (0.0212) (0.0407) (0.0316) (0.0308) 2
82A 82A-WCCoCr/NITRILE/240K/72 0.0023 0.0006 (0.0926) (0.2962) 2

117
49
A-
E
49 HC
B- /4
49 EH 340
A /8
-E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C/
10
H
C 43 0 K
49 /4 50 40 /72
0.0000
0.0150
B- 34
/8
(0.0750)
(0.0600)
(0.0450)
(0.0300)
(0.0150)
EH 0/ A-
C/
80
K E 0K
43 /7 /7
40 2 50 HC
/ 2
/ 8
B- 4
50
A 0K EH 340
-E /7 /2
H 2 C/
C 43 4 0
50 /4
B- 34 40 K/2
EH 0 /2 51 /2
40 4 0 88
C/
43 K A-
40 /2 EH K/
88 28
/2 51 C/ 8
51 40
A K B- Al
-E / 2 EH N i
H 88 B
ROD
C C/ r
51 /A Al /80
B- lN N K/
EH iB
r/8 52 iB
C/ r/8 288
A 0K
lN A- 0K
BUSHING
iB /2 E
88 /2
r/8 52 HC 88
52 0K
A /2 B- /A
-E
H 88 EH l N
C iB
52 /A C/ r
B- lN Al /24
EH iB N 0
C/ r/2 53 iBr K/7
A 40
K /2 2
lN /7
A-
iB
r/2 2 W 40
K/
53
A 40K
53 CC 72
o
EHC
-W /7 B-
CC 2 W /4 3
EHC
53 o/ CC 40
B- 43 /8
W 40 o/
C /8 4 3 0K
Co 0K 54 40 /28
/4 /2 /8 8
34 88 A- 0K
54
0/
80 W /2
A K 54 CC
-W /2 88
CC
88 B- o
54 W /4 3
B- o/ CC 40
43
W 40 /2
C /2 o/
4 3 40
Co 40
/4 K
WC-Co
34 /7 55 40 K/7
2 /2 2
WC-Co
0/ A-
55 24 W 40
A 0K C K/
-W /7 55 C
CC 2 B- o
72
55 o/
B- A W /Al
VISUAL
W lN CC Ni
C iB o/
Br
Co r/8
/A 0K 56 Al /80
lN /7 N iB
K/
56 iB 2 A-
W
A r / r/8 72
-W 80
K 56 CC 0K
56
CC / 72 B- o /7
o/ 2
B- A W /AlN
W lN
Figure 75. Sliding wear, L8 DOE – weight change for baseline metal bushings.
C iB
Figure 74. Sliding wear, L8 DOE – visual rankings for baseline metal bushings.
CC iB
Co r/2 o/ r/2
/A 40
K
Al
lN
iB /2 Ni 40 K
r /2 88 Br /
40 /2 288
K 40
/2 K/
88 28
8
118
(response is Visual R, Alpha = .10)
A: # cycles
B: bushing material
D
C: coating material
D: load
A
AD
AB
AC
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Baseline Visual
-1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
5.7
Vis 4.9
ual
Ra
tin 4.1
3.3
2.5
A B C D
Figure 76. Pareto chart and visualization of the major effects in the L8 DOE
based on visual wear rating. Only effects D and A (normal load and number
of cyles) are statistically significant.
119
(response is Rod Wear Volume,
Alpha = .10)
A: # cycles
B: bushing material
AD
C: coating material
D: load
C
AC
AB
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
LG L8 Baseline Wear Volume Main Effects
Rods
-1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
-0.00040 WC-CoCr
Ro
-0.00045
d
We
ar
Vol -0.00050
um
e,
cc -0.00055
-0.00060 EHC
A B C D
Coatings
Figure 77. Pareto chart and visualization of the major effects in the L8 DOE based
on rod wear volume. Only effect C (coating material) is statistically significant.
120
(response is Bushing Wear Volume,
Alpha = .10)
A: # cycles
B: bushing material
A
C: coating material
D: load
AC
AD
AB
0 1 2
LG L8 Baseline Wear Volume Main Effects Plots

Bushings
-1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
-0.001
Bu EHC
shi
ng -0.003
We
ar
Vol
-0.005
um
e,
cc
-0.007
-0.009
WC-Co
A B C D
Cycles Coatings
bushing wear volume. Only effects A and C (number of cycles and coating material) are
statistically significant.
121
66
66 A-
A- EH
EH C
C /N
/N 66 IT
66 IT B- R
B- R EH IL
IL E/
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
EH E/ C 24
C /N
-0.00600
-0.00500
-0.00400
-0.00300
-0.00200
-0.00100
0.00000
0.00100
0.00200
24 IT 0K
/N 0K 65
R /7
65 IT
R /7
A- IL 2
A- I 2 EH E/
EH LE C 24
C /2 /N 0
/N 40 65 IT K
65 IT K B- R /7
2
R /7 IL
B- IL 2 EH E/
EH 68 C 8 0
C
E/
80 /N K/
68 A- IT
EHC
/N K W R 28
A-
W IT /2 C IL 8
R 88
C IL Co
/N
E/
80
Co 68
EHC
E/
68 /N 8 0 B- IT K/
IT K W RI 28
B-
W RI /2 C LE 8
88 /2
C LE Co
/N 40
Co /2 IT K
/N 40 67 /2
67 IT K/ A- RI 88
RI 28 W LE
A-
W LE 8 C /2
40
metal bushings and nitrile seals.

Co
C /2
67 /N K/
Co 40
/N K B- IT 28
67
IT /2 W RI 8
B-
W RI 88 C LE
Nitrile Seals
C
Co /8
Nitrile Seals
LE
Co /8 /N 0K
/N 0K IT /7
IT /7 RI 2
RI 2 LE
/8
LE 0K
WC-Co
/8 /7
0K 50 2
/7
50 2 A-
WC-Co
A- EH
EH C
/4
C 50 34
/4 B- 0/
50 34 EH 24
B- 0/
EH 24 C 0K
/4 /2
EHC and WC-Co on metal bushings and nitrile seals.

C 0K 34 88
/4 /2 49 0/
34 88
A- 240
49 0/
A- 240
EH K/
EH C 28
C
K/
28 49
/4
34 8
/4 8
EHC
49 34 B- 0/
EH 80
EHC
B- 0/
C K
EH 80 53
/4 /7
C K A- 2
53 /7 W 34
/4 2 C 0/
A-
W 34 8
C 0 /8
Co 0K
53 /4 /7
Co 0K B- 34 2
53 /4 /7 W 0/
B- 34 2 C 80
W 0/ Co K/
C 80 54 /4 28
Co K/ A- 34 8
54 /4 28 W 0/
34 8 C 8
A- 0
W 0/
ROD
Co K/
8
Visual
C 0 54 /4 28
Co K/ 34 8
Metal Bushing
/4 28 B-
54 W 0/
BUSHING
8
Metal Bushing
B- 34 C 24
W 0/ Co 0K
C 24 /4 /7
Co 0K 34 2
/4 /7 0/
WC-Co
34 2 24
WC-Co
0/ 0K
24 /7
0K 2
/7
2
Figure 79. L8 DOE data for 3rd half replicate – visual ranking for rod wear. This shows
122
Figure 80. L8 DOE data for 3rd half replicate – weight change. This shows EHC and WC-Co on
73
A
W eight change -E
H
C
/K
73 A
73
A B RO
-E N
-E H
0 .0 0 0 0
2 .0 0 0 0
4 .0 0 0 0
6 .0 0 0 0
8 .0 0 0 0
1 0 .0 0 0 0
H C /8
C 74 /K 0K
/K A A /7
73 A -E RO 2
B R H
-E O C N/
H N /K 8
0.0000
0.0010
0.0020
-0.0060
-0.0050
-0.0040
-0.0030
-0.0020
-0.0010
74 C /8 74 A 0K
A
/K 0K B RO /7
A /7 -E N 2
-E R 2 H /2
H O 75 C
C N/ A /K 40
/K 8 -W A K/
74 A 0K
C 2
B R /7 C
RO 88
O 2 o
-E
H N 75 C
N/
2
75 C /2 B r/ 40
A /K 40 -W K K/
-W A K/ C A 2
R 2 R
E HC
C O C O 88
C
88 o N
RO D
o N/ 76 C /8
75 C 2 A r/
EHC
B 40 -W KA 0K
r/
-W K K C /2
C A /2 C
RO 88
B US HING
C R 88 o
O 76 C
N/
76 oC N B 8
A r/ /8 -W r/
K
0K
-W 0K
C A /2
KA
/2 C R 88
C R o O
C O 88
C N
o N /2
Karon B Seals
76 C /8 r/ 40
B r/ 0K KA
-W K K/
7
C A /2 RO
2
C R 88
O N/
Karo n B S eals
N 2
AlNiBronze bushings and Karon B liners.

oC
/2 40
r/ 40 77 K/
KA K A 7 2
R /7
W C -C o,C r
O 2 -E
N H
/2 C
40 /A
K
77 lN
B iB
W C-Co,Cr
77 /7
A 2 -E r/
H
-E
H C 80
C /A K/
/A 78 lN 2
77 lN A iB 88
-E
B iB H r/
-E r/ C 80
K
H 80 /A
C K 78 lN /2
and WC-Co on AlNiBronze bushings and Karon B liners.
/A /2 B iB 88
78 lN 88 -E
A iB H r/
-E 59 C 24
E HC
H r/ A /A 0K
C 80 -W lN /7
/A K/ 2
78 lN 2 C iB
B 88 C r/
iB o 24
-E r/ 59 C
H B
EHC
r/ 0K
59 C 24 -W A /7
A /A 0K
C lN 2
-W lN /7 60 C iB
C iB 2 A o r/
C r/ -W C 80
o 24 r/
A
59 C C K/
7
B r/ 0K C lN 2
-W A /7 o iB
C lN 2
60 C r/
C iB B r/
60 -W A 80
A oC r/
C lN K/
-W 80
C iB 7 2
C
r/
A K o r/
/7 C
C lN 2 24
o iB r/
A 0K
60 C r/
B r/ lN /2
-W A 80 iB 88
C lN K r/
iB /7
C 2 24
AlNiBronze Bushing
oC r/ 0K
24 /2
r/
A 0K 88
W C -C o,C r
lN /2
iB 88
r/
24
0K
/2
88 AlNiBro nze Bushing
123
W C-Co,Cr
Figure 81. L8 DOE data for 5th half replicate – visual ranking for rod wear. This shows EHC
Figure 82. L8 DOE data for 5th half replicate – weight change. This shows EHC and WC-Co on
10.000000
8.000000
Chrome rod
Visual rating
6.000000 HVOF rod
4.000000
2.000000
0.000000
Baseline 1st half replicate 2nd half replicate 3rd half replicate 4th half replicate 5th half replicate 6th half replicate
Figure 83. Average rod wear for L8 matrix - visual rating.
0.000000
-0.010000
-0.020000
Weight change
-0.030000
-0.040000
-0.050000
-0.060000
Chrome rod
-0.070000
Chrome bushing/seal
-0.080000 HVOF rod
-0.090000
HVOF bushing/seal
-0.100000
Figure 84. Average rod and bushing/seal wear for L8 matrix - weight change.
5.7. Discussion of wear results

5.7.1. Fretting
Fretting tests showed very little wear. The HVOF coatings showed almost no wear
against the nitrile seals, but seal wear was very unstable. We conclude that fretting is not
a good test of wear, making fretting tests poor discriminators between the performance of
EHC and HVOF coatings.
124
5.7.2. Sliding wear
At this point only the baseline wear against metal bushings has been statistically
analyzed. The analysis leads to the following conclusions:
! As we would expect, wear is strongly influenced by load and number of cycles
(Figure 76).
! As we have found in most rig and flight tests, WC-CoCr shows significantly less
wear than EHC. This is most clearly seen in visual rankings (Figure 83).
! Also as we have found in rig and flight tests, WC-Co tends to wear the bushings
more that EHC does (Figure 80).
! Most factors were not statistically significant in discriminating between EHC and
HVOF coatings in wear testing. Statistically insignificant factors were surface
finish, lubrication, stroke, frequency, and temperature. This does not mean that
these factors were not significant in wear, but that they did not discriminate
between the performance of the different coatings. The only real surprise here is
that surface finish did not discriminate, whereas in flight testing and rig testing,
surface finish has been found to strongly affect seal wear and seal life, with
smooth HVOF coatings giving much better performance than rough coatings5.1, 5.2.
Once the detailed statistical analysis is complete it will be possible to analyze the data
more thoroughly. However, some observations can be made at this time:
! In general, the two tests at each condition were reasonably consistent, especially
in visual ranking. Weight change was usually large for both measurements or
small for both (although small changes were often of opposite sign). This is not
unexpected since the typical weight change was less than 0.01 grams in 880
grams, or 0.001%, and small amounts of trapped oil and debris easily exceeded
the true weight change.
! Overall, rod wear tended to be less for HVOF coatings than for EHC, but bushing
or seal wear tended to be higher. This is consistent with the detailed analysis
above for bushings. The difference between EHC and HVOF coatings was
especially clear for nitrile seals (Figure 83). There was no evident difference
between WC-Co and WC-CoCr.
! The visual ratings for rods run against Al-Ni bronze bushings tended to be higher
(worse) because of metal transfer from the bushing to the rod surface.
! Visual wear rankings were the lowest (best) for the Karon B liners. In most cases,
the rod surfaces were nearly pristine after being tested against these liners.
Weight loss measurements were not nearly as clear.
125
5.8. Significance
These wear tests generally bear out the findings of rig and flight tests. HVOF WC-Co
and WC-CoCr both experience less wear than EHC. However, they tend to cause more
wear in adjacent seals and bushings. In order to counteract this tendency users have
successfully used two approaches – superfinishing the HVOF coating, and wear-coating
the adjacent parts.5.3
5.9. Conclusion
Fretting tests are not useful for these types of wear situations, but sliding wear tests can
discriminate between the different coatings and seal materials. Overall, HVOF coatings
show less wear than EHC, but tend to cause more wear on adjacent components. Passes
acceptance criteria
References
5.1
Tony DeGennaro, Green, Tweed and Co., “Evaluation of Chrome Rod Alternative Coatings”, Report #
GTE0644, September (1999).
5.2
Jay Randolph, Delta Airlines, “Service Evaluation Status and Impact of HVOF Coatings on Landing Gear
at Delta Air Lines, Inc.”, Gorham Advanced Materials Conference on Advanced Coating Systems for Gas
Turbine Engines and Aircraft Components, San Antonio, March 2000.
5.3
Jay Randolph, Delta Airlines, HCAT Program Review Meeting, Ottawa, August (2000).
126
6. Impact data
6.1. Data summary
Item Item number
Gravelometer test matrix and rankings (visual, touch, Ra) Table 62
Gravelometer surface condition after testing Figure 87,
Figure 88,
Figure 89
Circumferential cracking around the ball impact zone Figure 91
Radial cracking around the ball impact zone Figure 92
6.2. Rationale
Areas coated with HVOF in place of chrome will often be exposed to potential damage
from runway debris and larger items such as dropped tools. Impact testing was therefore
divided into
! high-velocity small particle impact simulating runway debris (evaluated by
Gravelometry), and
! low velocity large item impact simulating dropped tools, etc. (evaluated by
Dropped Ball Impact testing).

All specimens were fabricated from 4340 round bar
! 1” diameter, 6” long
! Tensile strength and heat treat – 260-280 ksi per MIL-H-6875
! Shot peen – 8-10A, S230, wrought steel shot, per AMS 2432, computer
controlled, 100% coverage, except a 0.75” section at one end of the rod
! Grit blast prior to coating – Specimens were gripped on the non-peened area and a
5” section grit blasted:
o For EHC with 180-220 grit alumina or glass beads
o For HVOF coating with 54 grit alumina at 60 psi at 90° angle of
impingement, per MIL-STD-1504.
! Coating – per methodology in Section 6.4 below
127
o Thickness – final thickness 0.003” and 0.010” (see Table 60). Coatings
were deposited 0.002-0.003” thicker to allow for final grinding.
Embrittlement relief heat treat - 375°F for EHC plated samples only.
Grind after coating
o For EHC low stress grind to 16µ” finish per MIL-STD-866
o For HVOF low stress grind to 8µ” finish per BAC 5855

Specimens were coated, and where necessary embrittlement heat treated, by Southwest
Aeroservice. Coatings were deposited under the SWA Boeing-approved specifications
for EHC, WC-Co, and WC-CoCr. Coating materials and thicknesses tested are
summarized in Table 60.
Samples were coated at Southwest Aeroservice (Tulsa, OK). Coating conditions were
Southwest Aeroservice proprietary specifications, as follows:
Hard chrome – QQ-C-320B
WC-Co – DiamondJet gun.
o SWA Control Specification UHP Table 60. Gravelometry testing coating
520.1, technique SWATS 141 thicknesses (ground).
o Powder – Amperit 526.062/895 Coating Low High

thickness thickness
o Fuel – Hydrogen
EHC 0.003”- 0.010”-
WC-CoCr – DiamondJet gun
0.004” 0.011”
o SWA Control Specification UHP
WC-Co 0.003”- 0.010”-
545, technique SWATS 140
0.004” 0.011”
WC-CoCr 0.003”- 0.010”-
o Fuel – Hydrogen 0.004” 0.011”

6.5.1. Gravelometry
Specification: ASTM D 3170, “Standard Test Method for Chipping Resistance of
Coatings”
Modifications: The standard test calls for flat panels and gravel sized between 9.5
and 16 mm. 1” dia round rods were used to more closely
approximate landing gear parts, and a non-standard gravel size was
used.
128
Significance: For use on landing gear, coatings must be able to withstand debris
impact on landing and takeoff, when the coated sections may be
fully exposed.
Sample types: 1” round rod (traditional flat samples were coated by Boeing and
used for comparison.)
Sample materials: 4340
Sample heat treat: 260-280 ksi UTS
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr, 0.003” and 0.010”, ground to 16µ” for
EHC and to 8µ” Ra for HVOF.
Test equipment: Gravelometer Vibrating
gravel hopper
(see Figure 85). This equipment Plexiglass door Door
feeds a stream of gravel into an
Air valve
air jet, striking the sample at a Control
Rubber Test
lining panel
defined angle. Impact on a panel
round rod is normal incidence to Air

pressure
13 3/8”
grazing incidence since the regulator
gravel stream covers the entire

diameter. Access
Dust
filter
door Air vent
Test description: Sizing
screen
Tests were carried out at Boeing
Seattle, using non-standard pea
gravel of size of up to about 0.5”,
with standard air pressure of 70
psi (approximately 200 mph air- Figure 85. Gravelometry chamber (Boeing).
jet speed).
Coatings and thicknesses tested are summarized in Table 61.
After testing the surfaces were examined for damage and roughening as follows:
microscopically (visual ranking)
touch (finger nail)
Ra measurement by profilometry
The JTP required only visual ranking of coated round rods. However, the additional
ranking methods were added by Boeing for better comparison with prior experience.
129
6.5.2. Dropped ball impact
Specification: No existing standard. Followed method similar to that used by
NAWCAD3 for similar evaluations.
Modifications: NAWCAD method modified to evaluate impact within coated area
(rather than on edge).
Significance: For use on landing gear, coatings must be able to withstand FOD
by impact from large pieces of debris, dropped tools, etc.
Sample types: 1” round rod
Sample materials: 4340 Table 61. Dropped ball impact coating
Sample heat treat: 260-280 ksi UTS thicknesses (ground).
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr, Coating Low High

0.003” and 0.010”, ground thickness thickness
to 16µ” for EHC and to 8µ” EHC 0.003- 0.010-
Ra for HVOF. 0.004” 0.011”
Test equipment: Impact system comprising WC-Co 0.003- 0.010-
guidance tube and 52100 steel ball, diameter 1 0.004” 0.011”
7/8”, weight 0.97 lb (see Figure 86).
WC-CoCr 0.003- 0.010-
0.004” 0.011”
3 Report No. NAWCADLKE-DDR-481400-0001
130
Test description:
Tests were carried out at Dayton T.
Brown using the apparatus of
Figure 86. A 0.97 lb ball bearing
was dropped down a plastic tube
(to ensure correct aim) to strike the
rod radially. When the ball
rebounded a stop was quickly
inserted between the sample and
the tube to limit each drop to a
single impact. The ball was
checked after each drop to ensure
that it had not suffered any obvious
damage or flattening.
The damage zone was observed as
a function of impact height.
Single-impact tests were evaluated
microscopically to determine the
extent of cracking. Multiple
impact tests (up to 50 impacts at a
single point) were also made.
Drop heights were 24", 60", 72",
93" and 102".
Figure 86. Close-up of ball impact equipment,

showing ball delivery tube, sample in vise, and ball.
6.6. Test results

6.6.1. Gravelometry
Table 62 summarizes the evaluations made by Boeing.
Table 62. Summary of gravelometry test observations. Rankings from 1 (best) to 3 (worst)
for different evaluation methods.
Evaluation 0.003-0.004” 0.010-0.011”
method
EHC WC-Co WC-CoCr EHC WC-Co WC-CoCr
Visual 3 1 2 3 1 2
Touch 1 2 3 3 2 3
Ra* 1 1 2 1 1 2
* Note: Boeing regards the profilometer readings as very questionable
131
To supplement the observations in Table 62, micrographs were taken of selected sample
surfaces. These are shown in Figure 87 to Figure 89.
100µm
a c e
0.003” b 0.010” d f
0.010”
Figure 87. Surfaces of EHC coatings after gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003"
thickness EHC on rods; c) and d) 0.010" thickness on rods; e) and f) 0.010" thickness on
flats.
100µm a c
b d
Figure 88. Surfaces of WC-Co coatings after
gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003" thickness on rods;
c) and d) 0.003" thickness on flats.
132
100µm a c
b d
Figure 89. Surfaces of WC-CoCr coatings after
gravelometry testing. a) and b) 0.003" thickness on rods;
c) and d) 0.010" thickness on flats.

See Appendix 5 for raw impact data and micrographs.
For all impacts, including up to 50 drops from 72” onto a single point, there was no
visible sign of cracking or coating damage on any sample. The only observable
damage was an approximately 5mm x 2.5mm flattened area. Microscopic observation
showed this area to be bounded by circumferential cracks of varying visibility, indicated
with arrows in Figure 90, and often some radial cracking along the bar axis (3 o’clock
and 9 o’clock locations in the figure).
133
Figure 90. Impact area on 0.010" WC-CoCr , 72" drop height – grazing incidence light.
Bar axis ↔.
In order to make a comparative assessment, 100X micrographs were made of the 24”,
60”, and 102” drop impact zones. The micrographs were taken at the 12 or 6 o’clock
position on Figure 90 (whichever gave the clearest photograph) and similarly at the 3 or 9
o’clock position. The number of large and fine circumferential cracks visible in the
micrographs around the impact were counted separately, as well as the number of radial
cracks at the 3 and 9 o’clock positions (i.e. parallel to the rod axis). (There were no
radial cracks at the 12 and 6 o’clock positions on any sample.)
Figure 91 shows the total number of circumferential cracks, and Figure 92 the total
number of radial cracks.
134
7
6
5
# 4
circumferential
cracks 3
2
1
0
Cr 24 0.010"
WC-Co 24
WC-CoCr 24
Cr 60
0.003"
WC-Co 60
WC-CoCr 60
Cr 102
WC-Co 102
WC-CoCr 102
Figure 91. Circumferential cracking around impact point for 0.003" and
0.010" coatings at different ball drop heights.
2
# radial
2
cracks
1
0
Cr 24
WC-Co 24
0.010"
WC-CoCr 24
Cr 60
WC-Co 60
0.003"
WC-CoCr 60
Cr 102
WC-Co 102
WC-CoCr 102
Figure 92. Radial cracking along rod axis for 0.003" and 0.010" coatings at
different ball drop heights.
135
6.7. Discussion of impact results
In both types of impact tests, results are determined by visual inspection. Consequently
they are primarily qualitative and can only show quite significant differences.
6.7.1. Gravelometry
The results of Table 62 are based on the full tested area of the rods and flats, while the
micrographs of Figure 87 to Figure 89 represent selected areas, chosen to illustrate
different types of surface damage. Clearly, both coating materials can be damaged by
gravel impact, but there is no obvious major difference between the types or extent of
damage. Boeing’s overall conclusion, as shown in Table 62, is that HVOF coatings are a
little better than chrome using the visual comparison specified in the JTP, and about
equal using the touch and Ra rankings.

Note: Because the reflectivity of the chrome was higher than that of the HVOF coatings,
cracking was easier to see in the chrome, which could slant the data to some degree, since
it is easier to see thin cracks in chrome than in HVOF coatings. However, the difference
is not substantive enough to prevent observation of most cracks and invalidate the results.
From Figure 91 and Figure 92 we conclude the following:
! Cracking is clearly more extensive in hard chrome than in the HVOF coatings.
! The number of cracks increases with drop height (i.e. with impact velocity or
energy). The increase was more significant in chrome than in HVOF.
! Chrome shows some radial cracking along the rod axis and the amount of
cracking increases somewhat with drop height. HVOF coatings show no radial
cracking,.
! There is no evident dependence of damage on coating thickness.
! WC-CoCr may show somewhat less cracking than WC-Co, but if so the
difference is marginal.
6.8. Significance
While gravel impact performance is very similar, HVOF coatings are likely to be less
sensitive than chrome to FOD by dropped tools or debris thrown up from the runway.
This is likely to lessen the frequency of I-level repair due this type of problem. However,
the need for repair is largely dictated by post-damage performance (such as corrosion,
spalling, etc.) rather than by the initial damage itself. These tests provide no information
on this issue, and because of the variability of field conditions this aspect of performance
is likely only to be learned in the field.
136
6.9. Conclusion
Ball impact performance of both WC-Co and WC-CroCr is better than chrome, while
gravel impact is equal to or better than chrome. Passes acceptance criteria.
6.1
Report No. NAWCADLKE-DDR-481400-0001
137
7. Hydrogen embrittlement data
7.1. Data summary
Item Item number
Test matrix Table 65
Average time to failure – data summary Table 69
Sequence 1 average time to failure (process embrittlement) Figure 98
Sequence 2 average time to failure (diffusion of H through HVOF) Figure 99
Sequence 3 average time to failure (environmental embrittlement, Figure 100
unscribed)
Sequence 3 average time to failure (environmental embrittlement, Figure 101
scribed)
Sequence 3 – comparison notched and un-notched, DI water Figure 103
Sequence 3 – comparison notched and un-notched, 5% NaCl Figure 104
7.2. Rationale
In common with most other aqueous plating methods, the chrome plating process
generates hydrogen at the surface being plated. This hydrogen can be absorbed into high
strength steels, where it concentrates in high-stress regions and causes hydrogen
embrittlement (HE). Under static stress cracks can initiate and grow rapidly in this
embrittled steel, causing catastrophic failure. For this reason most electroplating
specifications for high strength steels require a hydrogen bakeout (typically 375°F for up
to 23 hours, depending on the type and strength of the steel) to remove the absorbed
hydrogen.
Corrosive liquids can breach chrome plate and HVOF coatings by penetrating through
cracks and defects, causing substrate corrosion. This can happen during processing steps
subsequent to chrome plating or HVOF coating, during service, or even during later
overhaul cycles. The hydrogen produced during the corrosion process can also cause
hydrogen embrittlement and failure under static load. In high strength steels, this is
termed “environmental hydrogen embrittlement” and is commonly associated with the
more general term “stress corrosion cracking”.
The purpose of embrittlement testing in the JTP was to determine the relative effects of
HVOF and EHC coatings on the susceptibility of 4340 steel to HE, in three test
sequences:
Sequence 1. To determine if the HVOF process causes hydrogen embrittlement.
138
(Mechanical tests run at Metcut.)
Sequence 2. To dermine if hydrogen can permeate through HVOF coatings,
permitting areas adjacent to the HVOF coating to be electroplated and baked out by
hydrogen diffusion through the HVOF. Since this Sequence was designed only to test
hydrogen diffusion through HVOF coatings, there was no chrome baseline.
(Mechanical tests run at Metcut.)
Sequence 3. To determine whether HVOF-coated steel is more or less sensitive to
environmental hydrogen embrittlement than chrome plated steel. (Tests run at
Boeing.)
As with all other JTP testing, the baseline was EHC.

Specimens were standard ASTM F519, Type 1a.2 notched bars fabricated from 4340
steel by Smith-Williston of Seattle. The notch tensile strength of the bars was measured
at 373 ksi. A typical specimen is shown in Figure 93.
Figure 93. F-519, Type 1a.2 specimen coated with 0.010" WC-Co.
In accordance with ASTM F-519, the uncoated specimen had a diameter of 0.333”, with
a notch 0.049” deep and a notch tip radius of 0.010”.

Specimens were coated, and ground or
given a hydrogen bakeout where necessary Table 64. Hydrogen embrittlement
(see Table 65), by Southwest Aeroservice. coating thicknesses (ground).
Coatings were processed in accordance with Coating Low High
Boeing-approved specifications for EHC, thickness thickness
WC-Co, and WC-CoCr. Coating materials
EHC 0.003” 0.010”
and thicknesses tested are summarized in
Table 64. WC-Co 0.003” 0.010”
Samples were coated at Southwest WC-CoCr 0.003” 0.010”
Aeroservice (Tulsa, OK). Coating
conditions were as follows:
Hard chrome – QQ-C-320B
WC-Co – DiamondJet gun.
o SWA Control Specification UHP 520.1, technique SWATS 141
o Powder – Amperit 526.062/895
o Fuel – Hydrogen
139
o SWA Control Specification UHP 545, technique SWATS 140
o Fuel – Hydrogen
Testing was done in three test Sequences as shown in Table 65, with the coating varying
for each Sequence.
Sequence 1 coating:
Specimens were coated over most of the gauge length, as
0.50”±0.05” dia
shown in Figure 94. Specimens were not ground, so as to
represent a typical post-plating hydrogen bake prior to
grinding. The EHC-coated specimens in the second column 0.37”
of Table 65 Sequence 1 were hydrogen baked (within 4
hours of plating), while column 1 specimens were not. ~0.5”
Sequence 2 coating:
This Sequence required charging the specimen with
Coating
hydrogen, which was accomplished by bright Cd plating and R=0.010”
stripping without baking. Coating was as follows: 6”
0.235”
! The entire specimen was bright Cd plated to a
thickness of 0.0002-0.0005” in accordance with BAC 0.333”
5701.
! Within 4 hours of plating the Cd was chemically ~0.5”
stripped in the gauge section to a distance of
approximately 0.7” from the end cap. 0.6”
! The exposed surface was grit blasted for HVOF
coating.
Figure 94. Standard F-519
! Within 6 hours of Cd plating, HVOF was coated over specimen coating.
the gauge section, overlapping the Cd on the ends,
per Figure 94. The specimen was completely coated – with HVOF in the gauge
section, and bright Cd on the ends.
! For specimens in Sequence 2, column 2 (Table 65), a hydrogen bakeout (24 hrs at
375°F) was done within 4 hours of coating.
Specimens were not ground.
Sequence 3 coating:
Specimens were coated as in Figure 94, and the coating ground to a 16µ” (Ra) finish.
The coating in the notch was not ground.
During HVOF spraying, the overspray material, which would normally bounce back off
the surface, tended to become trapped in the notch, producing a thicker and more porous
coating. This entrapment was minimized by directing a strong air stream into the notch
and by spraying with the gun at an angle of 30° to the normal. During HVOF coating the
specimen was rotated while the gun was traversed, angling the gun at +30° from the
140
normal when traveling in one direction and -30° when traveling in the other.
7.5. Scribing (exposing the notch to the test

environment)
F 519 sample
Blade
Notch
Sample holder
Figure 95. Method for scribing the notch (exposing the substrate) on a CNC milling machine.
Left – schematic of cutting blade in notch; right – actual set-up on CNC machine.
The standard method used for scribing the notch is to cut through the coating with a
diamond file. This works well for soft coatings but was not possible with hard HVOF
coatings or hard chrome plating. Therefore a new method was developed using a
commercially available shaped circular blade with a 45° angle and a 0.010” radius OD,
which was coated with diamond. The method is illustrated in Figure 95. The blade was
driven into the notch to cut just into the underlying steel. It was then rotated around the
sample and withdrawn 45° away from the starting point, exposing a 45° segment of the
substrate metal in a reliable and reproducible manner. Each scribed substrate was
visually examined at 10x to ensure complete coating removal in the scribed area before
the specimen was removed from the machining holder.

Specification: ASTM F-519, “Mechanical hydrogen embrittlement evaluation of
plating processes and service environments”
Modifications: Various modifications of sample preparation as described in text.
Significance: Embrittlement is a primary failure mechanism for landing gear.
Sample types: F-519 Type 1a.2 notched bar:
Length: 6”
Gage OD: 0.333”
141
Notch angle: 60°
Notch depth: 0.049”
Notch radius: 0.010”
Sample materials: 4340 per MIL-S-5000
Sample heat treat: 52 Rc
Coatings: EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr, as-sprayed, and ground
Coating thicknesses: 0.003” and 0.010”
Test equipment: Static load creep rupture frame – one specimen per frame.
Test description: All tests were run under static load in air or in solution, depending
on the experimental Sequence, as described in Table 65. Test were
stopped at 200 hours unless the specimen failed (broke) before this.
For Sequences 1 and 2, samples were tested as-coated at 75% NTS. For Sequence 3,
samples were tested at 45% NTS. During Sequence 3 tests, the test solution covered only
the central portion of the gauge section, excluding any areas outside the coating.
In all cases, because coating and testing were done in different locations, several weeks
passed between coating and testing.
142
Table 65. Hydrogen embrittlement test matrix.
Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3
Baseline Hydrogen Environmental embrittlement
pre-test (re-embrittlement) in standard
loading solutions
Pretest H load No No Yes Yes No No No No
Test environment Air Air Air Air DI DI 5% 5%
H2O H2O NaCl NaCl
Hydrogen bake No Yes No Yes No* No* No* No*
Grind coating No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notch partly exposed Yes Yes
Load (% of NTS**) 75% 75% 75% 75% 45% 45% 45% 45%
Coatings:
None 3 3 3 6 6
Hard chrome, 0.003” 3 3 3 6 3 6
WC-Co, 0.003” 3 3 3 3 6 3 6
WC-Co-Cr, 0.003” 3 3 3 3 6 3 6
Hard chrome, 0.010” 3 3 3 3
WC-Co, 0.010” 3 3 3 3 3
WC-Co-Cr, 0.010” 3 3 3 3 3
Total samples 21 6 15 15 18 24 18 24
* Chrome plated specimens hydrogen baked, HVOF specimens not baked

** Loads determined by testing (see Table 67).
7.7. Test sample mechanical properties

Prior to embrittlement testing, the specimens were tested to verify Rockwell hardness and
to determine their notch tensile strength (by loading to failure). Table 66 and Table 67
show the hardness and notch tensile strength results.
Table 66. F-519 test specimen Table 67. F-519 test specimen
hardness. notch tensile strength.
Sample # Rc hardness Sample # NTS, ksi
H 2015 52 H2494 362
51.9 H2015 372
51.9 H2567 383
H 2494 52.1 H2281 370
51.6 H2537 380
52.2 NTS 373
H 2567 51.8 75% NTS 280
51.7 45% NTS 168
51.9 143
Average 51.9
7.8. Coating structure
Chrome plating into the notch produced a coating whose 0.005”
thickness in the groove bottom was 20%-50% that on the
outer surface (see Figure 96, top picture). The HVOF 0.001”
coating in the base of the notch (Figure 96, bottom picture)
was 2.5 - 7 x thicker than on the outer surface and had a C hrom e
layered structure with high porosity. This structure appears
to comprise relatively dense layers sprayed directly into the
notch, interleaved with porous overspray material. µm
93.5µ µm
93.5µ
0.0037” 0.0037”
The cross-sectional details of HVOF WC-Co and of EHC in
µm
243.1µ
the notch are shown in Figure 97. The HVOF layering was 0.0096”
only present in the notch, while the coating structure on the
OD was that of a typical dense HVOF coating. H VO F W C -C o
Both EHC and HVOF coatings in the notch were left as- 31°
deposited because of concern that any machining or grinding
in the notch would have been likely to lead to uncontrolled Figure 96. EHC and
HVOF WC-Co in notch of
cracking or other specimen damage.
F-519 specimens.
144
7.9. Test results
7.9.1. Cracking of coatings
cracks
Figure 97. Metallographic cross sections of chrome plate (left) and HVOF WC-Co after
stressing to 45% NTS in air. (Note also the original layer formation in the HVOF
coating.)
On stressing to 45% NTS both the chrome and HVOF coatings cracked (Figure 97). The
chrome plate exhibited many fine cracks around the notch radius, but the WC-Co showed
only a few cracks penetrating to the substrate. After stressing, liquid penetration to the
substrate would be expected through cracks in the chrome plate and through both cracks
and porosity in the HVOF coating.
7.9.2. Substrate failure mechanisms

In Sequences 1 and 3 all failures were in the notch. All Sequence 2 failures were shank
failures at the button (cracks emanating from the transition between the button end and
the gauge section), with the exception of a notch failure in specimen H1216 (a specimen
coated with 0.010” WC-CoCr), which failed because of overloading.
Sequence 3 failure surfaces were examined metallographically. Specimens that failed on
loading showed no sign of embrittlement (i.e. they failed by overload instead of
145
embrittlement), while the rest of the Sequence 3 specimens showed the following results
(micrographs are shown in Appendix 6):
Bare specimens:
Single site nucleation; thumbnail-like appearance in test environment
Crack length (depth) about 1/4 notch diameter deep by 1/2 notch diameter wide
Classic intergranular fracture surface
Chrome plated specimens:
Multiple through (surface to substrate) cracks occurred in the Cr plating at the
notch when loaded to 45% of NTS in air
Multiple nucleation sites around notch in test environment
Shallow multiple-cracks approximately 1/8 notch diameter deep around most of
circumference
HVOF coated surfaces:
Some cracking of coatings at notch when loaded to 45% NTS
Single site nucleation; thumbnail-like appearance in test environment
Crack length (depth) about 1/4 notch diameter deep by 1/2 notch diameter wide
In contrast to expectations, Sequence 3 crack initiation sites were most frequently not
associated with the exposed substrate produced by scribing the notch. This is
summarized in Table 68.
Table 68. Summary of crack initiation points.

Coating Unscribed area of notch Scribed area of notch
Crack assoc. Crack not
with scribe assoc. w/scribe
Bare 6 specimens – thumbnail shaped crack N/A
Cr plating 12 specimens – shallow none 6 specimens
circumferential crack
WC-Co 24 specimens – thumbnail shaped 1 specimen 5 specimens
crack
WC-Co-Cr 3 specimens 3 specimens
7.9.3. Time to failure data

The test results are summarized in Table 69 and Figure 98 to Figure 104. The full data
146
set summary is provided in Appendix 6. The graph bars show the average Time-to-
failure values. Because there were only three data points per condition, where error bars
are given in these charts, they indicate the data range (high and low values), rather than
the standard deviation.
Table 69. F-519 hydrogen embrittlement testing – average time to failure (NF = No Failure in
200 hr). (Full data summary in Appendix 6.)
Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3
Distilled water 5% NaCl solution
Not Baked Not Baked Unscribed Scribed Unscribed Scribed
baked baked
None NF NF NF 33.8 15.3
EHC, 0.003” 0 NF 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.1
WC-Co, 0.003” NF 6 139 4.7 9.8 3.4 6.8
WC-Co-Cr, 0.003” NF 6 NF 15.6 36.8 8.3 14.3
EHC, 0.010” 0 214 0.1 0.1
WC-Co, 0.010” NF 6 NF 5.0 3.6
WC-Co-Cr, 0.010” NF 27 NF 19.4 4.8
250
NF
NF
NF NF NF
200
NF
NF
150
Avg hours to
failure
100
50
0 0
None
EHC,0.003"
0
WC-Co,0.003"
Baked
WC-Co-Cr,0.003"
EHC,0.010"
Not baked
WC-Co,0.010"
WC-Co-Cr,0.010"
Figure 98. Sequence 1: Average hours to failure (NF = No failure in 200hrs), with
and without hydrogen bake. All failures in notch.
147
250
NF
NF
200 NF NF NF
150 139
Avg hours to
failure 100
50
0 6 6
None
EHC,0.003" 6 27
WC-Co,0.003"
Baked
WC-Co-Cr,0.003"
EHC,0.010"
Not baked
WC-Co,0.010"
WC-Co-Cr,0.010"
without hydrogen bake. Failures occurred on shank at button.
148
100.0
33.8
23.3 5% NaCl
DI H2O 15.6 19.4
8.3 4.8
5.0
10.0 4.7 3.6
3.4
1.0
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1
0.0
None EHC, EHC, WC-Co, WC-Co, WC-Co- WC-Co-
0.003” 0.010” 0.003” 0.010” Cr, 0.003” Cr, 0.010”
Figure 100. Sequence 3 average hours to failure with no notch scribing. (Numbers are average
time-to-failure data values – note log scale. Error bars indicate high and low values.)
149
100.0
33.8 36.8
23.3 5% NaCl
DI H2O 14.3
9.8
10.0 6.8
Time to failure (hr)
2.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
None EHC, 0.003” WC-Co, 0.003” WC-Co-Cr,
0.003”
Figure 101. Sequence 3: Average hours to failure with notch scribed to expose the
substrate. (Numbers are average time-to-failure data values – note log scale. Error bars
indicate high and low values.) Note that these tests were run for 0.003” coatings only.
150
40.0
30.0
Avg hours to
20.0
failure
10.0
DI H2O scribed
0.0 DI H2O not scribed
NaCl scribed
None
EHC,0.003"
WC-Co,0.003"
WC-Co-Cr,0.003"
NaCl not scribed
EHC,0.010"
WC-Co,0.010"
Figure 102. Sequence 3 time-to-failure data summary. WC-Co-Cr,0.010"
151
100.0
33.8 36.8
Unscribed
Scribed 15.6
9.8
4.7
10.0 2.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
None EHC, 0.003” WC-Co, WC-Co-Cr,
0.003” 0.003”
Figure 103. Sequence 3 – comparison of time to failure for scribed and un-
scribed specimens - DI water.
100.0
23.3 Unscribed
14.3
Scribed 8.3
6.8
10.0
3.4
1.0
0.1 0.1
0.1
0.0
None EHC, 0.003” WC-Co, WC-Co-Cr,
0.003” 0.003”
Figure 104. Sequence 3 – comparison of time to failure for scribed and un-
scribed specimens - 5% NaCl solution.
152
7.9.4. Open circuit potential
Open circuit potentials were also measured as a function of time for rods and unscribed
coated sheets in 5% NaCl solution. Figure 105 shows the results for 100 hr exposure.
Plotting time-to-failure against this long term average potential difference gave the graph
of Figure 106.
Sheet Specimens
0.000
Open Circuit Potential (V vs SCE)
4130 steel
-0.100 Cr plating
-0.200 WC-Co coating
WC-Co-Cr coating
-0.300
-0.400
-0.500
-0.600
-0.700
-0.800
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (hr)
Figure 105. Open circuit potential for coated sheet specimens in 5% NaCl solution.
153
1 0 0 .0 0
3 m il
1 0 m il
B ar e W C -C o - C r
1 0 .0 0
T im e t o F a il u r e ( h
W C-Co
1 .0 0
0 .1 0
Cr P l a t i n g
0 .0 1
0 100 200 300 400 500
A v e r a g e P o t e n t ia l D i f f e r e n c e ( m V )
Figure 106. Plot of Log Time-to-failure vs. average potential difference between coating
and 4340 substrate in 5% NaCl solution.
7.10. Discussion of hydrogen embrittlement results

Sequence 1: Figure 98 shows that chrome plated specimens fail very rapidly due to
hydrogen embrittlement if they are not baked, but pass when baked. HVOF coated
specimens pass with or without baking. Therefore the HVOF coating process does not
cause hydrogen embrittlement.
Sequence 2 is more complex. Figure 99 shows that hydrogen-charged specimens failed

within a few hours without baking, but mostly passed when baked. (Note that this
Sequence did not include chrome plated specimens since it is already known that
hydrogen baking after chrome plating is required to remove the hydrogen and prevent
embrittlement.)
(Note that specimens that were Cd-plated, stripped in the gauge section, but not recoated
or baked did not fail when tested several weeks later, whereas the traditional expectation
is that they would fail very quickly. On the other hand Sequence 1 samples that were
chrome plated but not baked, and also tested after several weeks failed very rapidly. This
suggests that the hydrogen diffuses slowly out of an uncoated surface over time, but
154
remains trapped if the surface is coated.)
Without baking the HVOF-coated specimens exhibited shank/end failures (i.e. failure on
the shank at the button, not at the notch). This means either
1. that the notch Kt was reduced because the coating blunted the notch and carried
some of the load, moving the highest stress point to the shank/end, or
2. most of the hydrogen was driven out from the notch by the local surface heating
during the HVOF process, but this did not remove the hydrogen beneath the
bright Cd at the ends of the specimen, because those areas were not heated by the
HVOF flame. Failure therefore occurred at the shank/end.
Metallography shows that the HVOF coating in the notch cracks at 45% NTS, preventing
its supporting the load and reducing the Kt. Furthermore, the material was very porous
and would have had poor mechanical properties, also reducing its ability to carry load.
Based on this together with the data for Sequence 3 (discussed below) we believe the lack
of notch failures to be entirely due to factor 2 above.
With baking most of the specimens passed the test. Those that did not pass failed at the
button. We interpret this to mean that the hydrogen at the high stress transition between
button and shank diffused out through the adjacent HVOF coating, since hydrogen cannot
readily diffuse through bright Cd. Those samples that still failed did not have the
hydrogen fully removed, probably because of insufficient bakeout time (i.e. the long time
required to diffuse hydrogen either along the long path between the button and the
HVOF-coated region or to diffuse it through the bright Cd). Note that the loss of
hydrogen from the button/shank transition on baking suggests that if most of the hydrogen
diffused through the HVOF coating, it would have done so primarily through the high-
quality coating on the gauge section adjacent to the Cd-plated end, not through the poor
quality coating in the notch, which was much further away. Therefore, hydrogen appears
able to diffuse through high-quality HVOF coatings.
Sequence 3 clearly shows that hard chrome performs very poorly in this type of test.
HVOF coatings perform much better than chrome, with WC-CoCr outperforming WC-
Co, as expected. Figure 100 shows time to failure for samples with the notch not exposed
(i.e. unscribed), while Figure 101 shows time to failure with the notch partially exposed
(i.e. scribed). All of the data are summarized in Figure 102 for comparison.
Figure 100 (unscribed coatings) shows the following:
! While the specimens failed sooner in NaCl there was little difference between
time to failure in 5% NaCl solution or distilled water.
! Coating thickness had no significant effect on time to failure.
! Failure occurred in EHC specimens within minutes – very much sooner than
HVOF-coated specimens.
! WC-CoCr had slightly increased time-to-failure than WC-Co.
The relative time-to-failure performance of the HVOF coatings and chrome plating can
be understood in terms of the open circuit potential difference between the substrate and
155
the coating. Figure 105 shows that EHC has a much larger potential difference from the
4340 substrate than either HVOF coating, and over the long term the potential difference
of EHC>WC-Co>WC-CoCr. When log time-to-failure is plotted versus this potential
difference (Figure 106) the result is roughly linear, with the shortest time-to-failure being
given by the largest galvanic potential difference.
The data for scribed specimens (Figure 101) show results that are similar to the unscribed
specimens, with HVOF coatings far outperforming EHC (note that a single EHC sample
lasted 6 hours, while all others lasted less than 10 minutes). Again, WC-CoCr slightly
outperformed WC-Co. However, the data show that the scribed specimens in general
outperformed the un-scribed specimens (see Figure 102 to Figure 104), but the time-
to-failure of the uncoated specimens was longer than both.
The data from scribed coatings, in which coating was removed around a quarter of the
notch to expose the substrate, are more difficult to understand. One would have expected
a priori that clear exposure of the surface would enhance substrate corrosion in the
exposed area, and hence hydrogen generation (and with it embrittlement). One would
therefore have expected that specimen failure cracks would be associated with scribes.
However, in general this is not the case (Table 68).
We believe that cracks in the substrate occurred in unscribed areas because corrodant
could easily penetrate through cracks and porosity in the chrome and HVOF coatings.
With corrodant easily reaching the metal substrate, the galvanic coupling effect is greater
in coated (un-scribed) areas because the ratio of the cathodic coating area to the anodic
substrate area is higher, and the anode and cathode are in very close proximity. This
creates higher potential gradients with higher corrosion current densities and hence more
local hydrogen. In contrast the scribed areas have lower current densities and hence a
lower local hydrogen concentration.
A question arises as to the effect of the poor quality of the HVOF coatings (thick,
layered, high porosity) in the notch. It has been suggested that the combination of the
thick coating in the notch that will lower the Kt, and the high elastic modulus of the
coating will lead to much longer time-to-failure. On the other hand we might well expect
that a porous coating in the notch will make corrosive attack easier and reduce time-to-
failure. We can draw some inferences from our data:
! As noted above, the thickness of the HVOF coatings in the notch could have
reduced the Kt by increasing the notch radius. The fact that failures occurred at
all (and especially occurred in a few tens of hours) implies that any diminution of
Kt was fairly small.
! When the coating was scribed, the true Kt was re-established in the scribed area
because the notch was recut to the correct (smaller) radius. Rather than being
reduced, which is what we would expect on sharpening the notch, the time-to-
failure of notched specimens actually increased, again showing that the thick
HVOF coating in the notch did not lower Kt. Furthermore, cutting through the
coating would have eliminated any effect due to elastic modulus, because the
coating was no longer continuous and therefore no longer able to carry load. If
the elastic modulus of the coating had contributed to increased time-to-failure
then failure time should have dropped on scribing, not risen.
156
! We would expect a similar electrochemical potential between the substrate and
either good quality or poor quality HVOF coatings, since the coating chemistry is
the same. Therefore we would not expect any effect due to electrochemical
potential, as seen between HVOF and hard chrome in Figure 105 and Figure 106.
! With low quality, porous HVOF coatings, liquid should penetrate to the substrate
through the pores, as well as through the cracks that form on loading (which can
be seen in Figure 97). With high quality, low porosity HVOF coatings, liquid will
penetrate to the substrate primarily through the cracks that form on loading. We
cannot tell a priori which type of coating will have higher time-to-failure,
although it would be reasonable to expect that the more porous, lower quality
coating would show shorter time-to-failure.
! Therefore, although we cannot make a firm conclusion on the overall effect of the
poor HVOF quality in the notch, we can say that it did not increase time-to-
failure by decreasing the Kt or by providing a high-modulus surface layer.
Therefore, although the quality and thickness of the HVOF coatings in the notch reduced
the reliability of the results, it does not appear to have invalidated the overall trend.
7.11. Significance
These results imply the following
! Since the HVOF process does not cause hydrogen embrittlement, it avoids any
technical need for stress relief baking prior to coating (which is done to prevent
HE during plating) as well as for hydrogen baking after (to prevent subsequent
HE failure).
! Since hydrogen can diffuse through HVOF coatings during a hydrogen bakeout,
we would expect it to be possible to strip and electroplate areas adjacent to
HVOF coatings without trapping the hydrogen and creating an embrittlement
problem. This makes it a little easier to conduct depot maintenance, although in
practice only Cr and LE Cd are generally used on high strength steels, both of
which permit diffusion of hydrogen during baking.
! The reduction in galvanic coupling on HVOF coated parts should reduce the
incidence of environmental hydrogen embrittlement and stress corrosion
cracking. Use of HVOF WC-Co in place of hard chrome should therefore reduce
both post-maintenance HE failure and subsequent stress corrosion failure in
service. According to OO-ALC and the Aging Landing Gear Life Extension
program (ALGLE), these are two common failure mechanisms for military
landing gear.
7.12. Conclusion
Sequence 1 – The HVOF coating process does not cause hydrogen embrittlement.
Passes acceptance criteria.
Sequence 2 – Hydrogen diffuses through HVOF coatings at 375°F, making it easier to
strip and plate areas adjacent to them without trapping hydrogen and causing
157
embrittlement. However, diffusion through HVOF coatings may occur at a slower rate
than diffusion through EHC, and may therefore require a longer hydrogen bakout of any
non-porous coating electroplated contiguous with an existing HVOF coating. Since the
data on this point are not definitive, additional testing may be needed to verify this. No
pass/fail criterion.
Sequence 3 – HVOF coatings perform much better than chrome under galvanic coupling
conditions likely to cause environmental hydrogen embrittlement. Passes acceptance
criteria.
158
8. Summary and Conclusions
! Fatigue
o The fatigue lives of landing gear steels coated with HVOF WC-17Co are
in all cases equal to or better than those coated with EHC.
o The HVOF coatings develop a circumferential crack pattern, and in some
cases spall at high loads.
# This coating integrity issue of cracking, delamination, and spalling
is presently under detailed investigation, and the results will be
reported when they are completed. Early data indicates that this
behavior is a strong function of deposition conditions and coating
thickness. Under axial stress, 0.003” WC-17Co have retained their
integrity to yield (220ksi) at R=-1, while 0.012” coatings have
spalled. Under very limited R=-0.33 bending load testing, 0.010”
WC-Co coatings have survived to stresses above yield. Thus the
problem appears not to be an OEM issue, but to be an issue
primarily for thick repair coatings, and will require the definition
of reliable repair schemes involving monolithic or duplex coating
structures.
! Corrosion
o Corrosion results are highly variable. HVOF coatings clearly provide
significant protection against corrosion. However, while pre-JTP work
showed significantly better performance for HVOF, the JTP work and
supplementary evaluations showed WC-Co and WC-CoCr performance as
being inferior to EHC.
# Since EHC is highly variable in corrosion performance, and since
the chrome baseline material appeared to be exceptionally
corrosion-resistant, we cannot draw conclusions on how HVOF
coatings compare with EHC commonly used in the DoD repair
community.
# Combining data from our corrosion and embrittlement testing we
conclude the following: EHC coatings do not corrode, but permit
substrate corrosion through cracks and other imperfections. The
Co binder in WC-Co coatings can itself corrode. The corrosion
mechanism is therefore different between the two materials. In
WC-CoCr the corrosion of the CoCr binder appears to proceed at a
rate intermediate between that of Co and that of Cr.
! Wear
o Fretting tests were found not to be useful discriminants between coatings,
but sliding rod/bushing wear tests could discriminate.
o Although detailed statistical analysis has not been done, the overall
conclusion is that HVOF WC-Co and WC-CoCr coatings show less wear
159
than EHC, but that they tend to cause more wear on bushings. This is
consistent with various rig and flight tests, and the industry has generally
reduced bushing and seal wear (usually below that caused by chrome) by
superfinishing the HVOF coatings.
o There was no significant difference between the performance of WC-Co
and WC-CoCr.
! Impact
o The performance of both WC-Co and WC-CoCr was better than EHC in
both gravelometry and dropped ball impact.
# These measurements relate only to damage sustained on impact
and do no address the subsequent performance of the material.
! Hydrogen embrittlement
o HVOF does not cause embrittlement during deposition
o Hydrogen can diffuse through HVOF coatings to permit embrittlement-
relief heat treatment of electroplating or stripping operations subsequent to
HVOF coating, although the diffusion rate may be slower than through
EHC.
o In environmental embrittlement testing WC-Co performed very
significantly better than EHC, while WC-CoCr was slightly better than
WC-Co.
# These data are understandable in terms of the electrochemical
potentials of the coating materials.
160
Appendix 1. COATING OPTIMIZATION
AND CHARACTERIZATION (DOE) DATA
Double-click on yellow boxes to see original data files. All data files are provided as part
of this report in the pages following.
Corpus Christi
Document 1 Corpus Christi
"CCAD WC L12
Anal.xls"
Ogden ALC
Document 2 Ogden ALC
Hill.xls
NADEP Cherry Point

Document 3 NADEP Cherry Point
ChPtRuns.xls
temco
Document 4 Hitemco
HitmcWCdoe.xls
Document 5 Measurement and control of residual stress and temperature
Almen-Temp.doc
161
Corpus Christi DOE
162
Table 70 Final L12 DOE Sept26
Design 3: Keep L12 design, change factors to Stoic & Comb
Gas Flow from H2 & O2
Levels
A Traverse 20 ipm 40 ipm 30 ipm Metco VF grit blast surface prep
speeds procedure*
B Spray 8 inch 12 inch 10 inch Substrate is 4340 steel,
distance 260-280 ksi
C Stoic Ratio 0.38 0.6 0.44 Powder type is WC-17Co, agglomerated
and sintered
D Combustion 1550 scfh 2000 scfh 1775 scfh Spray angle is 90 degrees
Gas
E Air flow 735 scfh 965 scfh 850 scfh 100 psi air, 5 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over 8-12 inch
coupon area
F Carrier gas 42.6 scfh 71 scfh 56.8 scfh Carrier gas equiv N2 mass flow for N2 or
flow Argon
G Turntable 90 RPM 250 RPM 170 scfh N2 x 1.42 = Ar
RPM
H Powder Feed Rate** 5 lbs/hr 10 lbs/hr 7.5 lbs/hr RESPONSES: RELATED CTG
FUNCTION:
I Powder size Amp526.06 2005NS 2005NS 1) Part temperature Fatigue
2
Lot 10362 Lot 53792 Lot 53558 2) Almen strip Fatigue, ctg residual
stress
J Part 2 inch 6.63 inch 4.31 inch 3) Hardness, HV300 Wear
diameter
K Spray pattern length 11 inch 19 inch 15 inch 4) Coating dep/pass Cost
NOTE: Powder Size center point is 7) Carbides Ctg quality,
current wear
CCAD Diamalloy 2005 8) Tensile bond Adhesion/cohesion
Lot 53558
*Grit blast 24 grit, 35 psi

** Actual PFR needs TBD in light of TWIN 10 uncertainities; see theorhetical values in area to right.
NOTES: 1) 1 preheat cycle at 271 O2, 1071 H2, 784 air, and 54.9 CG N2 equiv gas flows
2) Runs 4 and 5 may have been done at 10 and 20 inch sprqy patern length instead of 11 and 19 inch.
3) Nozzle damage at preheat pass at start of run 6. Aborted run, replace nozzle parts.
4) Console problems after run 9 and before run 10. Adj N2 CG pressure switch. Blew fuse and replaced during diagnostics.
Runs 1-9 at 170 psi CG. Remainder at 135 psi CG.
5) Considerable powder pulsing first half of each set of passes for run 12.
6) Considerable powder pulsing run 14 163
Actual 3 4 5 6 1 7 10 2 11 8 9
Run Order Std Random STOIC COMB G Air scfh CG TrvSp ipm TT Sp rpm Part diam SD inches SpPattL,in PFR Pwdr size
Order scfh lb/hr
10 1 6 0.60 1550 735 30 40 250 2.00 8 19 10 Stark 10362
12 2 3 0.38 2000 785 30 40 90 6.63 12 11 10 Stark 10362
13 3 8 0.60 1550 965 30 20 90 6.63 12 19 5 Stark 10362
15 4 7 0.60 2000 735 50 40 90 6.63 8 19 5 Diam 53792
16 5 4 0.38 2000 965 30 40 250 2.00 12 19 5 Diam 53792
7 6 15 0.60 1550 965 50 40 90 2.00 12 11 10 Diam 53792
6 7 10 0.60 2000 735 50 20 250 2.00 12 11 5 Stark 10362
4 8 13 0.60 2000 965 30 20 250 6.63 8 11 10 Diam 53792
11 9 16 0.38 2000 965 50 20 90 2.00 8 19 10 Stark 10362
5 10 5 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 11 5 Stark 10362
14 11 9 0.38 1550 735 50 20 250 6.63 12 19 10 Diam 53792
3 12 11 0.38 1550 735 30 20 90 2.00 8 11 5 Diam 53792
9 13 14 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
2 14 2 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
8 15 12 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
1 16 1 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
17 17 17 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
18 18 18 0.49 1775 850 40 30 170 4.31 10 15 7.5 Diam 53558
19 SO10 0.38 1550 965 50 40 250 6.63 8 11 5 Stark 10362
repeat
*** Note: Metco advised Ar CG 30 42.6 N2 equiv CP 27 7.5
should push air up to 785 on
Run 12. Kept same stoic & 40 56.8 -1 14 5
Comb gas total flow
50 71.0 1 40 10
164
Calculated Gas Factors

SCFH SCFH SCFH SCFH Total Total Gas Mix Ratio Available H2O H2O H2O H2O Cool H2O Actual
N2 Total O2 Oxygen H2 Gas Flow % H2 % O2 % N2 Heat, in out Delta GPM BTU/hr Heat, BTU/hr
BTU/hr
618 581 434 969 2168 44.7% 26.8% 28.5% 259,625 75.7 86.2 10.5 5.26 27,505 232120
658 551 394 1449 2658 54.5% 20.7% 24.8% 388,406 75.7 87.3 11.6 5.47 31,599 356807
802 581 388 969 2352 41.2% 24.7% 34.1% 259,625 74.3 83.3 9.0 5.26 23,575 236050
638 750 603 1250 2638 47.4% 28.4% 24.2% 335,000 74.5 87.4 12.9 5.26 33,791 301209
802 551 358 1449 2802 51.7% 19.7% 28.6% 388,406 72.5 83.3 10.8 5.44 29,258 359147
822 581 388 969 2372 40.8% 24.5% 34.7% 259,625 74.8 84.1 9.3 5.29 24,500 235125
638 750 603 1250 2638 47.4% 28.4% 24.2% 335,000 76.1 88.8 12.7 5.38 34,026 300974
802 750 557 1250 2802 44.6% 26.8% 28.6% 335,000 75.9 88.7 12.8 5.29 33,721 301279
822 551 358 1449 2822 51.4% 19.5% 29.1% 388,406 75.6 86.2 10.6 5.26 27,766 360639
822 427 234 1123 2372 47.4% 18.0% 34.7% 301,014 73.0 82.5 9.5 5.26 24,885 276129
638 427 280 1123 2188 51.3% 19.5% 29.2% 301,014 72.5 81.9 9.4 5.45 25,513 275502
618 427 280 1123 2168 51.8% 19.7% 28.5% 301,014 70.7 80.6 9.9 5.26 25,933 275082
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 75.6 86.4 10.8 5.29 28,452 290810
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 73.9 86.0 12.1 5.29 31,876 287385
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 73.9 84.9 11.0 5.50 30,129 289133
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 72.1 84.0 11.9 5.47 32,416 286845
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 75.0 85.6 10.6 5.24 27,661 291601
720 584 414 1191 2495 47.7% 23.4% 28.9% 319,262 74.8 85.6 10.8 5.24 28,183 291079
822 427 234 1123 2372 47.4% 18.0% 34.7% 301,014 75.0 83.7 8.7 5.24 22,703 278312
165
Speed Calcs
Surface Seconds Seconds/ Overlaps
Speed ipm per rev Spot Dia. per spot
1571 0.2400 0.9 3.8
1875 0.6667 0.9 1.4
1875 0.6667 1.8 2.7
1875 0.6667 0.9 1.4
1571 0.2400 0.9 3.8
565 0.6667 0.9 1.4
1571 0.2400 1.8 7.5
5207 0.2400 1.8 7.5
565 0.6667 1.8 2.7
5207 0.2400 0.9 3.8
5207 0.2400 1.8 7.5
565 0.6667 1.8 2.7
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
2302 0.3529 1.2 3.4
5207 0.2400 0.9 3.8
166
Response Data
Cycles Ctg Ctg Cy6 Temp Max Temp Almen Almen Almen Norm'ed Tensile Hardness Hardness Actual
Cycles Total Thk Thk/Pass Deg F *! Deg F Before After Delta Almen Bond, psi HV300 R15N Run Order
8 8 11.2 0.700 362 369 2.5 1.6 -0.9 -0.4 12,269 1107 92.6 10
6+6 12 5.2 0.217 350 350 1.8 5.0 3.2 3.1 12,861 1291 93.1 12
6+8 14 5.0 0.179 236 236 2.1 4.8 2.7 2.7 13,152 1029 91.3 13
6+10+16 32 2.5 0.039 329 339 1.4 18.9 17.5 35.0 12,951 1039 Thin ctg 15
6+10 16 5.7 0.178 344 362 3.6 29.3 25.7 22.5 12,895 1195 93.4 16
4 4 5.4 0.675 365 335 0.9 16.5 15.6 14.4 12,042 856 89.7 7
10 10 12.3 0.615 396 404 1.4 15.5 14.1 5.7 12,844 1173 93.8 6
6+6 12 4.7 0.196 455 455 0.6 23.9 23.3 24.8 11,510 1154 93.7 4
2 2 7.9 1.975 860 700 1.0 39.5 38.5 24.4 12,599 1367 94.7 11
10+16+16 42 7.2 0.086 391 425 2.2 13.3 11.1 7.7 12,831 988 92.6 5
6+3 9 5.2 0.289 257 257 5.5 15.1 9.6 9.2 12,861 1007 91.9 14
6+2 8 5.3 0.331 581 582 1.1 25.6 24.5 23.1 12,376 1157 93.8 3
9+9 18 5.2 0.144 338 343 1.8 27.0 25.2 24.2 12,809 1181 94.1 9
9+9 18 5.4 0.150 333 335 0.0 23.5 23.5 21.8 13,174 1165 94.1 2
6+10 16 4.5 0.141 336 344 2.8 25.8 23.0 25.6 12,642 1030 93.6 8
6+6+6 18 5.5 0.153 328 328 0.1 24.3 24.2 22.0 12,724 1193 93.5 1
6+6+6 18 5.5 0.153 332 332 2.4 27.4 25.0 22.7 12,856 1198 94.8 17
9+9 18 5.7 0.158 336 339 1.1 27.7 26.6 23.3 12,766 1200 94.4 18
6+14+20 40 5.6 0.070 288 296 0.5 11.2 10.7 9.6 12,265 1114 92.6 19
*! Extrapolated runs 7
and 11
5 AJs, 6-8 NOTE: Minus is
in tensile
max air psi 90-110
167
Hardness Correlation
97.0
95.0
93.0
R15N
91.0
89.0
87.0
85.0
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
HV300
Figure 107 Final L12 DOE Sept26
168
Theorhetical Powder Feed Rates

for Twin 10
WC-17Co
App
density
gm/cc lb/cu.in.
526.072 3.89 0.1404
2005NS 526.062 4.24 0.1530
convert 27.7048 1
radius area
outer 2.26 16.0481
inner 1.68 8.86798
Delta area 7.1801
trak depth 0.06
Vol/rev cu.in./rev 0.43081
wgt/rev lbs/rev 0.06593
rev/min 1.4 2.7 4
lbs/min 0.0923 0.1780 0.2637
Theo PFR lbs/hr 5.5 10.7 15.8
169
Table 76. Graphs worksheet data
Actual 3 4 1 7 2 8 9 SCFH Actual Overlaps Cy6 Temp Max Temp Norm'ed
Run Std STOIC COMB TrvSp TT Sp SD PFR lb/hr Pwdr size H2 Heat, per spot Thk/Pass Deg F Deg F Almen
Order Order G ipm rpm inches BTU/hr
1 16 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 286,845 3.4 0.153 328 328 22.0
2 14 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 287,385 3.4 0.150 333 335 21.8
3 12 0.38 1550 20 90 8 5 Diam 53792 1123 275,082 2.7 0.331 581 582 23.1
4 8 0.60 2000 20 250 8 10 Diam 53792 1250 301,279 7.5 0.196 455 455 24.8
5 10 0.38 1550 40 250 8 5 Stark 10362 1123 276,129 3.8 0.086 391 425 7.7
6 7 0.60 2000 20 250 12 5 Stark 10362 1250 300,974 7.5 0.615 396 404 5.7
7 6 0.60 1550 40 90 12 10 Diam 53792 969 235,125 1.4 0.675 365 335 14.4
8 15 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 289,133 3.4 0.141 336 344 25.6
9 13 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 290,810 3.4 0.144 338 343 24.2
10 1 0.60 1550 40 250 8 10 Stark 10362 969 232,120 3.8 0.700 362 369 -0.4
11 9 0.38 2000 20 90 8 10 Stark 10362 1449 360,639 2.7 1.975 860 700 24.4
12 2 0.38 2000 40 90 12 10 Stark 10362 1449 356,807 1.4 0.217 350 350 3.1
13 3 0.60 1550 20 90 12 5 Stark 10362 969 236,050 2.7 0.179 236 236 2.7
14 11 0.38 1550 20 250 12 10 Diam 53792 1123 275,502 7.5 0.289 257 257 9.2
15 4 0.60 2000 40 90 8 5 Diam 53792 1250 1.4 0.039 329 339 35.0
16 5 0.38 2000 40 250 12 5 Diam 53792 1449 3.8 0.178 344 362 22.5
17 17 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 3.4 0.153 332 332 22.7
18 18 0.49 1775 30 170 10 7.5 Diam 53558 1191 3.4 0.158 336 339 23.3
170
30.0
25.0
20.0
Almen Normalized
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-5.0
Tem p @ Cycle 6
Figure 108. Almen vs. substrate temperature at cycle 6.
171
30.0
25.0
20.0
Almen Nomalized
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
-5.0
Max Tem p
Figure 109. Almen vs. maximum substrate temperature.
172
Table 77. Summary graphical data.
Run Order Thk/Pass cy6Deg F Almen Run Order 100xThk/Pass cy6Deg F 10xAlmenNormd
1 0.153 328 22.0 1 15.3 328.0 220.0
2 0.150 333 21.8 2 15.0 333.0 217.6
3 0.331 581 23.1 3 33.1 581.0 231.1
4 0.196 455 24.8 4 19.6 455.0 247.9
5 0.086 391 7.7 5 8.6 391.0 77.1
6 0.615 396 5.7 6 61.5 396.0 57.3
7 0.675 365 14.4 7 67.5 365.0 144.4
8 0.141 336 25.6 8 14.1 336.0 255.6
9 0.144 338 24.2 9 14.4 338.0 242.3
10 0.700 362 -0.4 10 70.0 362.0 -4.0
11 1.975 860 24.4 11 197.5 860.0 243.7
12 0.217 350 3.1 12 21.7 350.0 30.8
13 0.179 236 2.7 13 17.9 236.0 27.0
14 0.289 257 9.2 14 28.9 257.0 92.3
15 0.039 329 35 15 3.9 329.0 350.0
16 0.178 344 22.5 16 17.8 344.0 225.0
17 0.153 332 22.7 17 15.3 332.0 227.0
18 0.158 336 23.3 18 15.8 336.0 233.0
173
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0 100xThk/Pass
400.0 cy6Deg F
cp cp cp cp cp cp
10xAlmenNormd
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-100.0
Figure 110. Summary data – thickness/pass, substrate temperature at cycle 6, normalized Almen number.
174
Table 78. Summary graphical data.
Std Order Thk/Pass cy6Deg F Almen Std Order 100xThk/Pass cy6Deg F 10xAlmenNormd
1 0.700 362 -0.4 1 70.0 362.0 -4.0
2 0.217 350 3.1 2 21.7 350.0 30.8
3 0.179 236 2.7 3 17.9 236.0 27.0
4 0.039 329 35 4 3.9 329.0 350.0
5 0.178 344 22.5 5 17.8 344.0 225.0
6 0.675 365 14.4 6 67.5 365.0 144.4
7 0.615 396 5.7 7 61.5 396.0 57.3
8 0.196 455 24.8 8 19.6 455.0 247.9
9 1.975 860 24.4 9 197.5 860.0 243.7
10 0.086 391 7.7 10 8.6 391.0 77.1
11 0.289 257 9.2 11 28.9 257.0 92.3
12 0.331 581 23.1 12 33.1 581.0 231.1
13 0.144 338 24.2 13 14.4 338.0 242.3
14 0.150 333 21.8 14 15.0 333.0 217.6
15 0.141 336 25.6 15 14.1 336.0 255.6
16 0.153 328 22.0 16 15.3 328.0 220.0
17 0.153 332 22.7 17 15.3 332.0 227.0
18 0.158 336 23.3 18 15.8 336.0 233.0
175
1000.0
900.0
800.0
700.0
600.0
500.0 100xThk/Pass
cy6Deg F
400.0
10xAlmenNormd
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-100.0
L12 Standard Run Order Center Points
Figure 111. Summary data – thickness/pass, substrate temperature at cycle 6, normalized Almen
number. Standard run order and center points.
176
Table 79. Thickness/pass, temperature, and Almen vs. flame
stoichiometry and heat input.
STOIC Heat, BTU/hr 100xThk/Pass cy6Deg F 10xAlmenNormd
0.60 232,120 15.3 328 220.0
0.60 235,125 15.0 333 217.6
0.60 236,050 33.1 581 231.1
0.38 275,082 19.6 455 247.9
0.38 275,502 8.6 391 77.1
0.38 276,129 61.5 396 57.3
0.49 286,845 67.5 365 144.4
0.49 287,385 14.1 336 255.6
0.49 289,133 14.4 338 242.3
0.49 290,810 70.0 362 -4.0
0.60 300,974 197.5 860 243.7
0.60 301,279 21.7 350 30.8

0.38 356,807 17.9 236 27.0
0.38 360,639 28.9 257 92.3
0.38
0.49
0.49
0.60
177
Table 80. Almen,Dep,HV,TempAnal 11 Params
C STOIC D COMB E Air F CG A TrvSp G TT Sp J Part B SD K SpPatt H PFR I Pwdr
G scfh scfh ipm rpm diam inches L,in lb/hr size
Actual Response 3 4 5 6 1 7 10 2 11 8 9 Sum of
Run Std Thk/Pass 0.38 0.6 1550 2000 735 965 30 50 20 40 90 250 2.00 6.63 8 12 11 19 5 10 Stark Diam EFFECTS
Order Order
10 1 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.700
12 2 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217
13 3 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179
15 4 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039
16 5 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178
7 6 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675 0.675
6 7 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615 0.615
4 8 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196
11 9 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975 1.975
5 10 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086
14 11 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289 0.289
3 12 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331
Grand 0.4566 0.5126 0.4006 0.3766 0.5366 0.3651 0.5480 0.3001 0.6131 0.5974 0.3158 0.5693 0.3439 0.7457 0.1675 0.5545 0.3587 0.3532 0.5599 0.2380 0.6752 0.6285 0.2847
AVG =
EFFECT= 0.1120 -0.1600 -0.1829 -0.3130 0.2817 0.2253 0.5783 0.1958 -0.2067 -0.4373 0.3438
Absolute 0.1120 0.1600 0.1829 0.3130 0.2817 0.2253 0.5783 0.1958 0.2067 0.4373 0.3438 3.0368
Values of
Effects
% Effects 3.7 5.3 6.0 10.3 9.3 7.4 19.0 6.4 6.8 14.4 11.3
178
Run Std Deg F *! 0.38 0.6 1550 2000 735 965 30 50 20 40 90 250 2.00 6.63 8 12 11 19 5 10 Stark Diam EFFECTS
Order Order
10 1 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
12 2 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
13 3 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 236
15 4 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 329 329
16 5 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344
7 6 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365
6 7 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 396
4 8 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
11 9 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860
5 10 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391 391
14 11 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257 257
3 12 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581
Grand 410.50 463.83 357.17 365.33 455.67 379.17 441.83 388.00 433.00 464.17 356.83 453.50 367.50 484.67 336.33 496.33 324.67 423.00 398.00 379.50 441.50 432.50 388.50
AVG =
EFFECT= 106.67 -90.33 -62.67 -45.00 107.33 86.00 148.33 171.67 25.00 -62.00 44.00
Absolute 106.67 90.33 62.67 45.00 107.33 86.00 148.33 171.67 25.00 62.00 44.00 949.00
Values of
Effects
% Effects 11.2 9.5 6.6 4.7 11.3 9.1 15.6 18.1 2.6 6.5 4.6
179
Run Std Almen 0.38 0.6 1550 2000 735 965 30 50 20 40 90 250 2.00 6.63 8 12 11 19 5 10 Stark Diam EFFECTS
Order Order
10 1 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
12 2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
13 3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
15 4 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
16 5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
7 6 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.4
6 7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
4 8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8
11 9 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4
5 10 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
14 11 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2
3 12 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1
Grand 14.36 15.01 13.71 9.47 19.25 12.63 16.09 12.64 16.08 14.99 13.73 17.12 11.60 14.97 13.75 19.10 9.62 13.14 15.57 16.13 12.58 7.20 21.52
AVG =
EFFECT= 1.30 -9.79 -3.47 -3.44 1.26 5.52 1.22 9.47 -2.43 3.55 -14.32
Absolute 1.30 9.79 3.47 3.44 1.26 5.52 1.22 9.47 2.43 3.55 14.32 55.76
Values of
Effects
% Effects 2.3 17.5 6.2 6.2 2.3 9.9 2.2 17.0 4.4 6.4 25.7
180
Run Std HV300 0.38 0.6 1550 2000 735 965 30 50 20 40 90 250 2.00 6.63 8 12 11 19 5 10 Stark Diam EFFECTS
Order Order
10 1 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107
12 2 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291 1291
13 3 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029 1029
15 4 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039
16 5 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195 1195
7 6 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856 856
6 7 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173 1173
4 8 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154 1154
11 9 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367 1367
5 10 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988 988
14 11 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007 1007
3 12 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157 1157
Grand 1113.6 1167.5 1059.7 1024.0 1203.2 1129.0 1098.2 1155.5 1071.7 1147.8 1079.3 1123.2 1104.0 1142.5 1084.7 1135.3 1091.8 1103.2 1124.0 1096.8 1130.3 1159.2 1068.0
AVG =
EFFECT= 107.8 -179.2 30.8 83.8 68.5 19.2 57.8 43.5 -20.8 -33.5 91.2
Absolute 107.8 179.2 30.8 83.8 68.5 19.2 57.8 43.5 20.8 33.5 91.2 736.2
Values of
Effects
% Effects 14.6 24.3 4.2 11.4 9.3 2.6 7.9 5.9 2.8 4.6 12.4
181
Table 84. Summary Table 11 Params
% RESPONSES
Parameters Thk/Pass CY6 Temp Almen HV300 AVG Rank
A TrvSp ipm 9.3 11.3 2.3 9.3 8.0 4th
B SD inches 6.4 18.1 17.0 5.9 11.9 3rd
C STOIC 3.7 11.2 2.3 14.6 8.0 4th
D COMB G 5.3 9.5 17.5 24.3 14.2 1st
E Air scfh 6.0 6.6 6.2 4.2 5.8 5th
F CG scfh 10.3 4.7 6.2 11.4 8.2 4th
G TT Sp rpm 7.4 9.1 9.9 2.6 7.2 4th
H PFR lb/hr 14.4 6.5 6.4 4.6 8.0 4th
J Pwdr size 11.3 4.6 25.7 12.4 13.5 2nd
K Part diam 19.0 15.6 2.2 7.9 11.2 3rd
L SpPattL,in 6.8 2.6 4.4 2.8 4.2 5th
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ###
SUM Shaded Effects 55.1 56.3 70.1 62.8 51
Effects Thk/Pass CY6 Temp Almen HV300
Range
Lower 0.168 325 7.2 1024
Upper 0.746 496 21.5 1203
Mean +/- X 63.2 20.8 49.8 8.0
%
182
This page intentionally left blank
183
Ogden ALC DOE
184
Table 85. Summary of DOE responses – Hill JP5000 HVOF gun.
Hill AFB JP 5000
% RESPONSES
Parameters Thk/Pass CY6 Almen HV300 AVG Rank
Temp
A Fuel 6.8 43.4 25.5 42.8 29.6 1st
B PFR 47.8 2.5 9.4 12.8 18.1 2nd
C Nozzle 13.4 27.0 22.7 0.2 15.8 4th
D Oxygen 4.5 0.9 6.1 20.6 8.0 5th
E Overlap 22.8 0.3 1.8 1.9 6.7 5th
F Spary Distance 2.1 23.2 27.6 14.0 16.7 3rd
G Powder Size 2.6 2.7 7.0 7.7 5.0 6th
Effects Thk/Pass CY6 Almen HV300

Range Temp
Average 0.644 409 12.6 1054
Lower 0.357 301 6.5 855
Upper 0.917 530 18 1220
Mean +/- 42.4 29.6 42.9 15.7
X%
Table 86. Hill JP5000 DOE design.
Design 1: Use L8 design 8 runs total FIXED:

FACTORS: -1 +1 Substrate is 4340 steel, 260-280 ksi
A Fuel (gph) 4 5.5
B PFR (gm/min) 5 8
C Nozzle (inches) 4 8 Spray angle is 90 degrees
D Oxygen (scfh) 1900 2100 100 psi cooling air, 4 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over coupon area
E Overlap (RPM) 90 144
F Spray Distance 15 18 Spray pattern length Approximately 13 inch
(inches)
G Powder Size (µm) 31 39 Fixture diameter 6 inch
RESPONSES:
1) Part temperature Fatigue
2) Almen strip Fatigue, ctg residual stress
3) Hardness, HV300 Wear
4) Coating dep/pass Cost
7) Carbides Ctg quality, wear
185
Table 87. Hill JP5000 run parameters.
FACTOR
Fuel PFR Nozle Oxygen Overlap Sp Dist Powder
Size
Run No. Std Order gph gm/min inches scfh RPM inches µm
1 3 4 5 4 1900 90 15 31
2 5 4 5 4 2100 144 18 39
3 8 4 8 8 1900 90 18 39
4 2 4 8 8 2100 144 15 31
5 7 5.5 5 8 1900 144 15 39
6 1 5.5 5 8 2100 90 18 31
7 4 5.5 8 4 1900 144 18 31
8 6 5.5 8 4 2100 90 15 39
186
NADEP Cherry Point DOE
187
Table 88 ChPt Runs Params & Data (1).
Powder DATE RUN # TRAV Y Part Inch/min Overlaps CYCLES Tot Cy SPRAY PFR Feed RPM Stoic
SP,ipm RPM DIST lbs/hr Ratio
1998 RUNS 1998 RUNS 1998 RUNS
WC-17Co 7/14/1998 98.01 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 6+10+12 28 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.446
WC-17Co 7/15/1998 98.02 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 20+15 35 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.400
WC-17Co 7/16/1998 98.03 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 20+10 30 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.446
WC-17Co 7/16/1998 98.04 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 20+10 30 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.400
WC-17Co 7/16/1998 98.05 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 16+14 30 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.500
WC-17Co 7/16/1998 98.06 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 16+14 30 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.500
WC-17Co skip now 98.07 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 Skipped Skipped 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.555
WC-17Co 7/17/1998 98.08 13% 20 90 1874 2.7 5+20 25 9 5.9 1.8 (=18%) 0.555
WC-17Co 7/17/1998 98.09 26% 40 180 3747 2.7 20+10 30 11 11.8 3.6 (36 %) 0.446
WC-17Co 7/17/1998 98.10 26% 40 180 3747 2.7 16+14 30 11 11.8 3.6 (36 %) 0.364
WC-17Co 7/17/1998 98.11 26% 40 180 3747 2.7 20+20 40 11 11.8 3.6 (36 %) 0.446
#DIV/0!
WC-17Co 10/20/1998 98.12 18% 28 206 1294 4.4 6+8+6 20 10 5.0 1.7 (17%) 0.490
WC-17Co 10/21/1998 98.13 23% 34 206 1358 3.6 6+8+6 20 10 5.0 1.7 (17%) 0.490
WC-17Co 10/21,22/98 98.14 38% 58 206 647 2.1 6+8+6 40 10 5.0 1.7 (17%) 0.490
WC-10Co-4Cr 10/23/1998 98.15 16.5% 24 200 1256 5.0 6 6 10 9.0 3.3 (33%) 0.477
WC-10Co-4Cr 10/23/1998 98.16 23% 34 200 1256 3.5 1+10+14 25 11 6.5 2.3 (23%) 0.477
WC-10Co-4Cr 10/24/1998 98.17 23% 34 200 1256 3.5 8+8 16 9 6.5 2.3 (23%) 0.477
WC-10Co-4Cr 10/24/1998 98.18 23% 34 200 1319 3.5 8+8+10+10 36 10 6.5 2.3 (23%) 0.477
WC-10Co-4Cr 10/24/1998 98.19 40% 68 360 1130 3.2 20+20 40 10 6.5 2.3 (23%) 0.477
1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS

WC-17Co 2/9/1999 99.01 13% 20 250 1570 7.5 7 7 12 4.6 14% 0.6
WC-17Co 2/9/1999 99.02 13% 20 250 1570 7.5 6 6 12 4.6 14% 0.6
WC-17Co 2/9/1999 99.03 13% 20 250 1570 7.5 6+12+6 24 12 4.6 14% 0.38
WC-17Co 2/9/1999 99.04 13% 20 250 5205 7.5 12 12 12 13.1 40% 0.38
WC-17Co 2/10/1999 99.05 13% 20 250 5205 7.5 10+4+6 20 8 13.1 40% 0.600
WC-17Co 2/10/1999 99.06 13% 20 111 2311 3.3 12+8 20 10 8.9 27% 0.49
WC-17Co 2/10/1999 99.07 26% 39 222 4622 3.4 10+16 26 10 17.7 54% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/10/1999 99.08 8.50% 12.8 73 1520 3.4 10+10 20 10 5.8 17.8% 0.445
T400 (Diam3002) 2/11/1999 99.09 19% 30 170 3539 3.4 8+16 24 10 4.2 8% 0.409
T400 (Diam3002) 2/11/1999 99.10 38% 68 340 7078 3.0 12+18 30 10 6.3 12% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.01 100% 200 1200 942 3.6 10+10 20 10 8.9 27% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.02 50% 100 1200 942 7.2 10 10 10 17.7 54% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.03 50% 100 2000 1570 12.0 10 10 10 17.7 54% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.04 50% 100 2000 1570 12.0 20 20 10 8.9 27% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.05 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 16 16 10 13.1 40% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.06 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 30 30 10 6.6 20% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.07 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 30 30 10 9.9 30% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.08 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 30 30 10 9.9 30% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.09 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 30 30 10 9.9 30% 0.445
WC-17Co 2/12/1999 99.11.10 100% 200 2000 1570 6.0 30 30 10 9.9 30% 0.445
NOTE: Due to rush to finish 99.11.07-10, my notes were not very good so there may NOTE: Runs before 99.12 are estimated Diam 2005 PFR
be errors relating to RPM, Trav Speed, or PFR. values for the given RPM. Runs 99.12 and later are based on
the March 1st calibration.
WC-17Co 2005 3/1/1999 99.12.01 Powder feed rate calibration runs for Diamalloy 2005
WC-17Co 2005 3/3/1999 99.12.02 100% 200 1700 1335 5.1 30 30 10 8.85 30% 0.445
WC-17Co 2005 3/4/1999 99.12.03 100% 200 1700 1335 5.1 30 30 10 8.85 30% 0.445
T400 3/5/1999 99.13 B

T400 3/5/1999 99.14 A (SEE T400 DOE WORKSHEET & PLANNER NOTES OF 3-5-99)
T400 3/5/1999 99.15 C
T400 3/5/1999 99.16 E
T400 3/5/1999 99.17 D
T400 3/5/1999 99.18 F (SEE T400 DOE WORKSHEET & PLANNER NOTES OF 3-5-99)
T400 3/5/1999 99.19 G
188
Table 89. ChPt Runs Params & Data (2).
Combus O2 H2 Air N2 CG Total H2 O2 N2 Available Heat/SCF Thickness Thk/pass Max
Gas scfh Gases Fraction Fraction Fraction Heat Tot gas Temp
2097 490 1450 785 42.4 2767 0.524 0.234 0.242 388600 140.4 3.2 0.114 430
2095.8 402 1497 984 42.4 2925 0.512 0.205 0.284 401196 137.1 4.5 0.129 440
1899.8 389 1314 984 42.4 2729 0.481 0.215 0.304 352152 129.0 5.5 0.183 390
1899.8 346 1357 984 42.4 2729 0.497 0.199 0.304 363676 133.2 5.5 0.183 455
1900 494 1267 695 42.4 2498 0.507 0.253 0.240 339556 135.9 4.5 0.150 420
1900.8 437 1267 984 42.4 2730 0.464 0.232 0.304 339556 124.4 4.3 0.143 425
2096 591 1348 785 42.4 2766 0.487 0.270 0.242 316264 130.6 ------------Skipped now-------------
1899.8 481 1222 984 42.4 2729 0.448 0.248 0.304 327496 120.0 4.1 0.164 405
1899.8 389 1314 984 60.0 2747 0.478 0.213 0.308 352152 128.2 5.5 0.183 350
1900 315 1393 960 60.0 2728 0.511 0.186 0.304 373324 136.8 5.3 0.177 360
1700 353 1176 855 60.0 2444 0.481 0.215 0.304 315168 129.0 7.5 0.188 310
1900 455 1275 850 78 2658 0.480 0.235 0.285 341700 128.6 4.7 0.235 368
1900 455 1275 850 78 2658 0.480 0.235 0.285 341700 128.6 7.5 0.375 406
1900 455 1275 850 78 2658 0.480 0.235 0.285 341700 128.6 8.9 0.223 400
1732 388 1173 857 55 2473 0.474 0.226 0.299 314364 127.1 7.2 1.200 425
1732 388 1173 857 55 2473 0.474 0.226 0.299 314364 127.1 5.4 0.216 340
1732 388 1173 857 55 2473 0.474 0.226 0.299 314364 127.1 5.0 0.313 387
1732 388 1173 857 55 2473 0.474 0.226 0.299 314364 127.1 7.0 0.194 368
1732 388 1173 857 55 2473 0.474 0.226 0.299 314364 127.1 8.0 0.200 385
1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS 1999 RUNS
2000 602 1251 735 50 2638 0.474 0.284 0.242 335268 127.1 --- #VALUE! ---
2000 602 1251 735 50 2638 0.474 0.284 0.242 335268 127.1 5.1 0.850 384
2000 358 1449 965 50 2822 0.513 0.195 0.291 388332 137.6 4.7 0.196 348
1550 280 1123 735 71 2209 0.508 0.193 0.298 300964 136.2 5.3 0.442 265
2000 557 1250 965 42.6 2815 0.444 0.266 0.289 335000 119.0 5.2 0.260 390
1775 414 1191 850 56.8 2512 0.474 0.233 0.293 319188 127.1 4.5 0.225 320
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 5.8 0.223 303
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 5.2 0.260 355
2240 489 1590 803 56.8 2939 0.541 0.221 0.238 426120 145.0 4.8 0.200 497
2000 423 1384 965 56.8 2829 0.489 0.218 0.293 370912 131.1 5.0 0.167 295
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 6.00 0.300 120
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 5.15 0.515 150
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 5.85 0.585 157
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.20 0.210 168
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.15 0.259 145
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 2.50 0.083 158
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.30 0.143 160
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.35 0.145 163
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.20 0.140 163
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 4.15 0.138 164
Thk on Diam
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 8.20 0.137 155
1775 357 1228 950 56.8 2592 0.474 0.211 0.315 329104 127.0 8.20 0.137 155
189
Table 90. ChPt Runs Params & Data (3).
Diam Part Almen N, Almen Amen (A-B) Almen Avg Norm. % Porosity % Tensile avg DPH avg R15N
A N, B Almen Oxides avg
1998 RUNS 1998 RUNS 1998
RUNS
6.63 Coupon Fixture 19.2 15.5 3.7 17.35 27.1 < 1.0 < 0.5 11918 1239 93.6
6.63 Coupon Fixture 22.9 18.8 4.1 20.85 23.2 < 1.0 < 0.5 11510 1226 95.2
6.63 Coupon Fixture 24.2 20.9 3.3 22.55 20.5 0.5 < 0.5 10914 1218 94.6
6.63 Coupon Fixture 20.8 17.7 3.1 19.25 17.5 0.5 < 0.5 11395 1254 94.6
6.63 Coupon Fixture 15.9 14.0 1.9 14.95 16.6 0.75 < 0.5 10816 1207 94.3
6.63 Coupon Fixture 24.4 18.9 5.5 21.65 25.2 0.5 < 0.5 11300 1168 93.5
6.63 Coupon Fixture ----------------------------------Skipped now-------------------------------------
6.63 Coupon Fixture 19.3 16.6 2.7 17.95 21.9 0.5 < 0.5 10417 1144 92.4
6.63 Coupon Fixture 16.5 9.4 7.1 12.95 11.8 0.5 < 0.5 10750 1063 93.5
6.63 Coupon Fixture 14.1 14.3 -0.2 14.2 13.4 0.5 < 0.5 11013 1154 93.9
6.63 Coupon Fixture 9.8 9.0 0.8 9.4 6.3 0.5 < 0.5 12136 1033 92.7
↓
Almen Almen Almen Norm.
Before After Delta Almen
2.00 Coupon Fixture 6.1 12.9 6.8 7.2 12,788 1168 94.3
2.10 Fretting shoes Diam 2005 --- --- ---
1.00 Wear Rods Diam 2005 --- --- ---
2.00 6.1 10.0 3.9 2.7 12,552 1198 94.5
2.00 Coupon Fixture 6.5 9.0 2.5 2.3 12,968 1232 93.9
2.00 Coupon Fixture 3.3 23.0 19.7 19.7 13,161 1342 95.4
2.10 Fretting shoes SM 5847 --- --- ---
1.00 Wear Rods SM 5847 --- --- ---

2.00 Yogi's 2" bar --- ---
2.00 2"coupon fxtr 7.6 18.1 10.5 10.3 .25-.50 --- 1107 ---
2.00 2"coupon fxtr 6.8 22.5 15.7 16.7 .1-.25 --- 1105 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 3.4 5.7 2.3 2.2 0.75 12,946 970 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 4.3 24.7 20.4 19.6 .1-.25 12,942 1130 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 3.7 17.0 13.3 14.8 .25-.50 12,655 1090 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 4.1 18.3 14.2 12.2 .25-.50 12,895 1093 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 2.4 22.0 19.6 18.8 .25-.50 13,268 1244 ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 3.0 6.9 3.9 4.1 .1-.25 7391 ND, thin ctg ---
6.63 6.63' fixture 1.9 3.8 1.9 1.9 .1-.25 4780 ND, thin ctg ---
0.25 0.25" fatig samp
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25" fatig samp
0.25" fatig samp
0.25" fatig samp NOTE: Fatigue specimens only
fill about 1/3 the pyrometer field of
↑
0.25 0.25" fatig samp Dummy fatigue specimens; no data
view so gives artificially low
0.25 0.25" fatig samp temperature reading
↓
100 gm load
0.25 0.25" fatig samp PH13-8 Mo fatigue samples (smooth) 0.1 <0.5 1051
0.25 0.25" fatig samp PH13-8 Mo fatigue samples 0.1-0.25 <0.5 1156
(hourglass)
190
Hitemco DOE
191
Table 91 Hitemco DOE L8 Design.
Design 1: Use L8 design plus Center FIXED:
Points, 11 runs total
FACTORS: -1 +1 C Pt Substrate is 4340 steel, 260-280 ksi
A Surf Speed,Feed 1335, 5.1 1835, 3.5 1585 ipm, Powder size/type is WC-17Co, Diamalloy 2005, Lot
Rate 4.3 54480
B Combusti 1525 scfh 1825 scfh 1675 scfh Powder Feed Rate** 8.5 lbs/hr
on Gas
C Stoic 0.405 0.485 0.445 Spray angle is 90
Ratio degrees
D Spray 10 inch 13 inch 11.5 inch 100 psi cooling air, 4 AJs @ 6 inch spaced over
Distance coupon area
Carrier gas N2 at 148 psi, 55 flow, air vib @ 20 psi
Turntable Robot Robot % Spray pattern length Approximately 13 inch
Spd @
A Factor: RPM ipm mm/sec 750 Spots/Rev Fixture diameter 2 inch
mm/sec
(-1) 212 25 10.6 1.41% 5.1
C Pt 252 35 14.8 1.98% 4.3
(+1) 292 50 21.2 2.82% 3.5
RESPONSES: RELATED CTG
FUNCTION:
(B,C) Factor 1) Part temperature Fatigue
Combinations:
Comb Gas Stoic Hyd Oxy SCFH Air SCFH Point 2) Almen strip Fatigue, ctg residual stress
Ratio SCFH (CG,SR)
1675 0.445 1159 332 920 ( 0, 0) 3) Hardness, HV300 Wear
1525 0.405 1085 258 920 (-1,-1) 4) Coating dep/pass Cost
1525 0.485 1027 314 920 (-1,+1) 5) Porosity Ctg quality, corrosion
1825 0.405 1299 342 920 (+1,-1) 6) Oxides Ctg quality
1825 0.485 1229 412 920 (+1,+1) 7) Carbides Ctg quality, wear
192
Table 92. Hiotemco DOE Spray Run design.
A factor (B,C) Combined Factors D factor
Std.Ord Turn Robot Hydrogen Oxygen Air Sp Dist
Table Trav
Run No. RPM Sp psi/FMR psi/FMR psi, FMR inches
mm/s
1 252 14.8 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 11.5
9 50.4 23.1 50.5
2 212 10.6 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 10
1 47.2 17.8 50.5
3 292 21.2 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 13
2 47.2 17.8 50.5
4 212 10.6 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 13
3 56.5 23.8 50.5
5 292 21.2 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 10
4 56.5 23.8 50.5
6 252 14.8 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 11.5
10 50.4 23.1 50.5
7 212 10.6 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 13
5 44.6 21.8 50.5
8 292 21.2 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 10
6 44.6 21.8 50.5
9 212 10.6 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 10
7 53.4 28.7 50.5
10 292 21.2 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 13
8 53.4 28.7 50.5
11 252 14.8 135 psi, 148 psi, 105 psi, 11.5
11 50.4 23.1 50.5
193
Table 93. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs
StdOrder Mils/pass T 6 cy Norm Alm Porosity DPH 300
1 0.790 349 4.6 0.67 1166
2 0.408 236 4.1 0.50 984
3 0.830 347 6.5 0.50 1121
4 0.386 350 11.1 0.25 1163
5 0.870 264 2.9 0.75 925
6 0.407 281 6.1 0.25 1106
7 0.670 359 15.3 0.10 1177
8 0.420 261 10.7 0.37 1011
9 0.583 330 6.4 0.37 1127
CPs 10 0.558 295 7.5 0.37 1110
11 0.600 290 6.6 0.25 1131
Table 94. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs

DOE MATRIX DOE RESULTS Analyses (All broke
Actual % used as % in epoxy) DPH
300
Run Std Run A B C D Cycles Thk, mils Mils/pass Tmax T6 Almen gb Almen sp Delta Alm Norm Alm Porosity Porosity Tensile,psi hardnes
Order Order No. s
99.06 9 6 0 0 0 0 6 7.0 0.583 320 330 1.75 10.75 9.0 6.4 .25-.5 0.37 12560 1127
99.02 1 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 5 7.9 0.790 344 349 0.25 7.5 7.25 4.6 .5-.75 0.67 12513 1166
99.11 2 3 1 -1 -1 1 6 4.9 0.408 236 236 1.0 5.0 4.0 4.1 0.5 0.50 12475 984
99.05 3 4 -1 1 -1 1 5 8.3 0.830 341 347 1.0 11.8 10.8 6.5 0.5 0.50 13371 1121
3 4 5 1 1 -1 -1 7 5.4 0.386 344 350 3.0 15.0 12.0 11.1 0.25 0.25 11999 1163
7 10 6R 0 0 0 0 6 6.7 0.558 295 295 1.0 11.0 10.0 7.5 .25-.5 0.37 11986 1110
8 5 7 -1 -1 1 1 5 8.7 0.870 264 264 1.5 6.5 5.0 2.9 0.75 0.75 11143 925
4 6 8 1 -1 1 -1 7 5.7 0.407 273 281 1.0 8.0 7.0 6.1 0.25 0.25 11099 1106
99.12 7 9 -1 1 1 -1 5 6.7 0.670 353 359 1.5 22.0 20.5 15.3 0.1 0.10 12269 1177
99.09 8 10 1 1 1 1 5 4.2 0.420 253 261 0.0 9.0 9.0 10.7 .25-.5 0.37 11112 1011
99.13 11 11 0 0 0 0 6 7.2 0.600 290 290 1.5 11.0 9.5 6.6 0.25 0.25 11716 1131
99.01 not 1 Differs 6 7.2 0.600 278 278 0 4.8 4.8 3.3 0.5 12316 1073
used from
6,7,13
99.10 not 10R Equals 10 6 4.4 0.367 248 248 1.1 10.6 9.5 10.8 .1-.25 12964 1083
used Repeat
99.14 not 7R Equals 7 5 8.8 0.880 258 264 1.0 6.5 5.5 3.1 .5-.75 11849 974
used Repeat
CR # 1 99.15 1 1 1 -1 8 5.2 0.325 322 322 1.5 16 14.5 13.9
CR # 2 99.16 1 1 1 -1 6 4.2 0.350 333 333 0 12 12 14.3
#DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!
194
Almen vs Temp (CY 6)
#7
18.0
16.0
14.0 #8 #4
12.0
Norm. N Almen
10.0
# 10
8.0 #9 #3
6.0 #2 # 11
#6
4.0
#1
2.0
#5
0.0
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Tem p, Deg F
Figure 112. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs
195
Temp vs mils/pass
#4 #7
380
#1 #3
360
#9
340
320 # 10
Temp cy6
300 # 11
# 6
280
#8
260
#5
240
#2
220
200
0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900
m ils/pas
Figure 113. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs.
196
Hardness DPH 300 vs % Porosity
1200
#1
1150
1100
DPH 300, kg/mm2
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
% Porosity 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Figure 114. Hitemco DOE Spray Runs.
197
Table 95. Hitemco L8 Powder Sizes
microns Diamalloy 2005 Stark 526.062/526.895
Channel, Diamalloy Diamalloy Diamalloy Diamalloy Diamalloy Diamalloy Stark 526.062 Lot 10362 CCAD L12
microns 2005 Lot 2005 Lot 2005 Lot 2005 Lot 2005 Lot 2005 Lot lots
53792 54327 53791 54627 54480 53558
125
88 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 Hitemco
DOE lot
62 93.0 93.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 94.0 90.8
44 72.2 72.1 72.9 72.6 73.8 73.1 68.9
31 44.3 40.7 44.8 41.1 42.9 41.6 37.5
22 25.1 19.9 25.3 18.2 19.4 18.6 14.3
16 14.4 10.7 14.4 9.3 9.9 9.5 4.7
11 5.4 3.0 5.4 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.0
5.5 0.7 0.1 0.6 0 0 0 0
198
Hitemco Powder Lots vs CCAD L12 Lots
120
100
80
Cumulative %
Diamalloy 2005 Lot 53792

60 Diamalloy 2005 Lot 54327
40
20 Stark 526.062 Lot 10362
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pow der Size, m icrons
Figure 115. Hitemco L8 Powder Sizes.
199
Table 96. L8 DOE analyses and effects.
HITEMCO L8 DOE OF WC-17Co:

DESIGN: A B C D DATA: Note: Tensile
effects not real
Std Run Center Blocks RPMxIPM CombGas Stoic SpDist Mils/pass T6 Norm % DPH 300 Tensile
Order Order Pt cycles Almen Porosity
1 2 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.79 349 4.6 0.67 1166 12513
2 11 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 0.408 236 4.1 0.5 984 12475
3 5 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 0.83 347 6.5 0.5 1121 13371
4 3 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 0.386 350 11.1 0.25 1163 11999
5 8 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 0.87 264 2.9 0.75 925 11143
6 4 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 0.407 281 6.1 0.25 1106 11099
7 12 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0.67 359 15.3 0.1 1177 12269
8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.42 261 10.7 0.37 1011 11112
9 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.583 330 6.4 0.37 1127 12560
10 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.558 295 7.5 0.37 1110 11986
11 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.6 290 6.6 0.25 1131 11716
1 1 -1 1 0.404 283 9.9 0.435 1026
1 1 1 -1 ### 328 12 0.2 ###

ANALYSES:
mils/pass T cy6 Almen Porosity DPH 300 Tensile
Term EFFE1 COEF1 EFFE2 COEF2 EFFE3 COEF3 EFFE4 COEF4 EFFE6 COEF6 EFFE5 COEF5
Constant 0.597625 305.875 7.6625 0.42375 1081.63 11997.6

A -0.38475 -0.19238 -47.75 -23.875 0.675 0.3375 -0.1625 -0.08125 -31.25 -15.62 -652.75 -326.4
B -0.04225 -0.02113 46.75 23.375 6.475 3.2375 -0.2375 -0.11875 72.75 36.37 380.25 190.1
C -0.01175 -0.00588 -29.25 -14.625 2.175 1.0875 -0.1125 -0.05625 -53.75 -26.87 -1183.75 -591.9
D 0.06875 0.034375 -57.75 -28.875 -3.225 -1.6125 0.2125 0.10625 -142.75 -71.37 55.25 27.6
AB 0.03775 0.018875 0.25 0.125 -0.675 -0.3375 0.1725 0.08625 -30.75 -15.38 -611.75 -305.9
AC 0.02825 0.014125 7.25 3.625 -1.375 -0.6875 0.0475 0.02375 38.75 19.37 52.25 26.1
AD -0.05125 -0.02563 -9.25 -4.625 2.025 1.0125 -0.0275 -0.01375 5.75 2.88 189.25 94.6
Ct Pt -0.01729 -0.875 -0.82917 -0.09375 41.04 89.7
(NOTE: Runs 1,10,14 not used in analyses. Run 1 was a CPt that differed significantly from other three CPts. Runs 10,14 were good reps of runs 9,7.)
200
1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63
-1 -15.62 15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62
-1 36.37 -36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37 1 36.37 36.37 1 36.37 36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37 1 36.37 36.37 1 36.37 36.37
-1 -26.87 26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87
-1 -71.37 71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37
1 -15.38 -15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 1 -15.38 -15.38 1 -15.38 -15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 1 -15.38 -15.38
1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 1 19.37 19.37
1 2.88 2.88 1 2.88 2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88 1 2.88 2.88 1 2.88 2.88
1165.99 984.03 1120.99 1162.99 925.01 1106.01 1177.01 1011.01
0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375
-1 -0.0813 0.08125 1 -0.0813 -0.0813 -1 -0.0813 0.08125 1 -0.0813 -0.0813 -1 -0.0813 0.08125 1 -0.0813 -0.0813 -1 -0.0813 0.08125 1 -0.0813 -0.0813
-1 -0.1188 0.11875 -1 -0.1188 0.11875 1 -0.1188 -0.1188 1 -0.1188 -0.1188 -1 -0.1188 0.11875 -1 -0.1188 0.11875 1 -0.1188 -0.1188 1 -0.1188 -0.1188
-1 -0.0563 0.05625 -1 -0.0563 0.05625 -1 -0.0563 0.05625 -1 -0.0563 0.05625 1 -0.0563 -0.0563 1 -0.0563 -0.0563 1 -0.0563 -0.0563 1 -0.0563 -0.0563
-1 0.10625 -0.1063 1 0.10625 0.10625 1 0.10625 0.10625 -1 0.10625 -0.1063 1 0.10625 0.10625 -1 0.10625 -0.1063 -1 0.10625 -0.1063 1 0.10625 0.10625
1 0.08625 0.08625 -1 0.08625 -0.0863 -1 0.08625 -0.0863 1 0.08625 0.08625 1 0.08625 0.08625 -1 0.08625 -0.0863 -1 0.08625 -0.0863 1 0.08625 0.08625
1 0.02375 0.02375 -1 0.02375 -0.0238 1 0.02375 0.02375 -1 0.02375 -0.0238 -1 0.02375 -0.0238 1 0.02375 0.02375 -1 0.02375 -0.0238 1 0.02375 0.02375
1 -0.0138 -0.0138 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 -1 -0.0138 0.01375 -1 -0.0138 0.01375 -1 -0.0138 0.01375 -1 -0.0138 0.01375 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 1 -0.0138 -0.0138
0.67 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.1 0.37
7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625
-1 0.3375 -0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375
-1 3.2375 -3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375
-1 1.0875 -1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875
-1 -1.6125 1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125
1 -0.3375 -0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 1 -0.3375 -0.3375 1 -0.3375 -0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 1 -0.3375 -0.3375
1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 1 -0.6875 -0.6875
1 1.0125 1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125
4.6 4.1 6.5 11.1 2.9 6.1 15.3 10.7
305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875
-1 -23.875 23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875
-1 23.375 -23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375 1 23.375 23.375 1 23.375 23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375 1 23.375 23.375 1 23.375 23.375
-1 -14.625 14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625
-1 -28.875 28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875
1 0.125 0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 1 0.125 0.125 1 0.125 0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 1 0.125 0.125
1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 1 3.625 3.625
1 -4.625 -4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625
349 236 347 350 264 281 359 261
0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763
-1 -0.1924 0.19238 1 -0.1924 -0.1924 -1 -0.1924 0.19238 1 -0.1924 -0.1924 -1 -0.1924 0.19238 1 -0.1924 -0.1924 -1 -0.1924 0.19238 1 -0.1924 -0.1924
-1 -0.0211 0.02113 -1 -0.0211 0.02113 1 -0.0211 -0.0211 1 -0.0211 -0.0211 -1 -0.0211 0.02113 -1 -0.0211 0.02113 1 -0.0211 -0.0211 1 -0.0211 -0.0211
-1 -0.0059 0.00588 -1 -0.0059 0.00588 -1 -0.0059 0.00588 -1 -0.0059 0.00588 1 -0.0059 -0.0059 1 -0.0059 -0.0059 1 -0.0059 -0.0059 1 -0.0059 -0.0059
-1 0.03438 -0.0344 1 0.03438 0.03438 1 0.03438 0.03438 -1 0.03438 -0.0344 1 0.03438 0.03438 -1 0.03438 -0.0344 -1 0.03438 -0.0344 1 0.03438 0.03438
1 0.01888 0.01888 -1 0.01888 -0.0189 -1 0.01888 -0.0189 1 0.01888 0.01888 1 0.01888 0.01888 -1 0.01888 -0.0189 -1 0.01888 -0.0189 1 0.01888 0.01888
1 0.01413 0.01413 -1 0.01413 -0.0141 1 0.01413 0.01413 -1 0.01413 -0.0141 -1 0.01413 -0.0141 1 0.01413 0.01413 -1 0.01413 -0.0141 1 0.01413 0.01413
1 -0.0256 -0.0256 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 -1 -0.0256 0.02563 -1 -0.0256 0.02563 -1 -0.0256 0.02563 -1 -0.0256 0.02563 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 1 -0.0256 -0.0256
0.79 0.408 0.83 0.386 0.87 0.407 0.67 0.42
201
-1 -1 1 -1
-1 1 -1 -1
1 -1 -1 -1
Almen -.65 mils/pass Temp 396 Amen 5.3

X X .75 X
1081.6 1081.6 1081.6 1081.6 1081.6 1081.6 1081.6 1081.6
-1 -15.62 15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62
-1 36.37 -36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37 1 36.37 36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37
-1 -26.87 26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87
1 -71.37 -71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37 -1 -71.37 71.37
1 -15.38 -15.38 1 -15.38 -15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38
1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37
-1 2.88 -2.88 1 2.88 2.88 1 2.88 2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88
1017.5 1073.5 1269.5 1121
0.4238 0.4238 0.4238 0.4238 0.4238 0.4238 0.4238 0.4238

-1 -0.0813 0.0813 -1 -0.0813 0.0813 -1 -0.0813 0.0813 1 -0.0813 -0.0813
-1 -0.1188 0.1188 -1 -0.1188 0.1188 1 -0.1188 -0.1188 -1 -0.1188 0.1188
-1 -0.0563 0.0563 1 -0.0563 -0.0563 -1 -0.0563 0.0563 -1 -0.0563 0.0563
1 0.1063 0.1063 -1 0.1063 -0.1063 -1 0.1063 -0.1063 -1 0.1063 -0.1063
1 0.0863 0.0863 1 0.0863 0.0863 -1 0.0863 -0.0863 -1 0.0863 -0.0863
1 0.0238 0.0238 -1 0.0238 -0.0238 1 0.0238 0.0238 -1 0.0238 -0.0238
-1 -0.0138 0.0138 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 -1 -0.0138 0.0138
0.91 0.51 0.26 0.315
7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625

-1 0.3375 -0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375
-1 3.2375 -3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375
-1 1.0875 -1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875
1 -1.6125 -1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125 -1 -1.6125 1.6125
1 -0.3375 -0.3375 1 -0.3375 -0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375
1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875
-1 1.0125 -1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125
-0.65 8.15 11.75 5.3
305.88 305.88 305.88 305.88 305.88 305.88 305.88 305.88

-1 -23.875 23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875
-1 23.375 -23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375 1 23.375 23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375
-1 -14.625 14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625
1 -28.875 -28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875 -1 -28.875 28.875
1 0.125 0.125 1 0.125 0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125
1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625
-1 -4.625 4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625
300.5 312.5 395.5 303
0.5976 0.5976 0.5976 0.5976 0.5976 0.5976 0.5976 0.5976

-1 -0.1924 0.1924 -1 -0.1924 0.1924 -1 -0.1924 0.1924 1 -0.1924 -0.1924
-1 -0.0211 0.0211 -1 -0.0211 0.0211 1 -0.0211 -0.0211 -1 -0.0211 0.0211
-1 -0.0059 0.0059 1 -0.0059 -0.0059 -1 -0.0059 0.0059 -1 -0.0059 0.0059
1 0.0344 0.0344 -1 0.0344 -0.0344 -1 0.0344 -0.0344 -1 0.0344 -0.0344
1 0.0189 0.0189 1 0.0189 0.0189 -1 0.0189 -0.0189 -1 0.0189 -0.0189
1 0.0141 0.0141 -1 0.0141 -0.0141 1 0.0141 0.0141 -1 0.0141 -0.0141
-1 -0.0256 0.0256 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 -1 -0.0256 0.0256
0.91 0.75 0.71 0.3905
202
One final change for fatigue specimens
Modified set from 1,1,1,-1 to 1,1,1,0
Used this for fatigue trial A2-41, Sp Dist 11.5 inch
1 1 1 -1
1 1 -1 1
1 -1 1 1
-1 1 1 1
Nice Set Almen Very Nice Porosity .4 Almen 4.9 VVnice but mil/pass .79
11.5 X
DPH 969
1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63 1081.63
1 -15.62 -15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62 1 -15.62 -15.62 -1 -15.62 15.62
1 36.37 36.37 1 36.37 36.37 -1 36.37 -36.37 1 36.37 36.37
1 -26.87 -26.87 -1 -26.87 26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87 1 -26.87 -26.87
0 -71.37 0 1 -71.37 -71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37 1 -71.37 -71.37
1 -15.38 -15.38 1 -15.38 -15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38 -1 -15.38 15.38
1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37 1 19.37 19.37 -1 19.37 -19.37
0 2.88 0 1 2.88 2.88 1 2.88 2.88 -1 2.88 -2.88
1079.5 1026.01 969.03 1028.51
0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375 0.42375

1 -0.0813 -0.0813 1 -0.0813 -0.0813 1 -0.0813 -0.0813 -1 -0.08125 0.08125
1 -0.1188 -0.1188 1 -0.1188 -0.1188 -1 -0.1188 0.11875 1 -0.11875 -0.1188
1 -0.0563 -0.0563 -1 -0.0563 0.05625 1 -0.0563 -0.0563 1 -0.05625 -0.0563
0 0.10625 0 1 0.10625 0.10625 1 0.10625 0.10625 1 0.10625 0.10625
1 0.08625 0.08625 1 0.08625 0.08625 -1 0.08625 -0.0863 -1 0.08625 -0.0863
1 0.02375 0.02375 -1 0.02375 -0.0238 1 0.02375 0.02375 -1 0.02375 -0.0238
0 -0.0138 0 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 1 -0.0138 -0.0138 -1 -0.01375 0.01375
0.2775 0.435 0.435 0.34
7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625 7.6625

1 0.3375 0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375 1 0.3375 0.3375 -1 0.3375 -0.3375
1 3.2375 3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375 -1 3.2375 -3.2375 1 3.2375 3.2375
1 1.0875 1.0875 -1 1.0875 -1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875 1 1.0875 1.0875
-0.33 -1.6125 0.53213 1 -1.6125 -1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125 1 -1.6125 -1.6125
1 -0.3375 -0.3375 1 -0.3375 -0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375 -1 -0.3375 0.3375
1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875 1 -0.6875 -0.6875 -1 -0.6875 0.6875
-0.33 1.0125 -0.3341 1 1.0125 1.0125 1 1.0125 1.0125 -1 1.0125 -1.0125
11.498 9.9 4.9 10.05
305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875 305.875

1 -23.875 -23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875 1 -23.875 -23.875 -1 -23.875 23.875
1 23.375 23.375 1 23.375 23.375 -1 23.375 -23.375 1 23.375 23.375
1 -14.625 -14.625 -1 -14.625 14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625 1 -14.625 -14.625
0 -28.875 0 1 -28.875 -28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875 1 -28.875 -28.875
1 0.125 0.125 1 0.125 0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125 -1 0.125 -0.125
1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625 1 3.625 3.625 -1 3.625 -3.625
0 -4.625 0 1 -4.625 -4.625 1 -4.625 -4.625 -1 -4.625 4.625
294.5 283 214 310.5
0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.59763 0.597625 0.59763

1 -0.1924 -0.1924 1 -0.1924 -0.1924 1 -0.1924 -0.1924 -1 -0.19238 0.19238
1 -0.0211 -0.0211 1 -0.0211 -0.0211 -1 -0.0211 0.02113 1 -0.02113 -0.0211
1 -0.0059 -0.0059 -1 -0.0059 0.00588 1 -0.0059 -0.0059 1 -0.00588 -0.0059
0 0.03438 0 1 0.03438 0.03438 1 0.03438 0.03438 1 0.034375 0.03438
1 0.01888 0.01888 1 0.01888 0.01888 -1 0.01888 -0.0189 -1 0.018875 -0.0189
1 0.01413 0.01413 -1 0.01413 -0.0141 1 0.01413 0.01413 -1 0.014125 -0.0141
0 -0.0256 0 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 1 -0.0256 -0.0256 -1 -0.02563 0.02563
0.41125 0.4035 0.4245 0.79
203
ALMEN STRIP PROCESSING
Measurement and control of Almen residual stress and temperature
1/7/02
To: Memorandum
From: John P. Sauer
RE: Summary of Discussion on Almen Strips and Substrate Temperature

Measurement During HVOF Processing and Test Bar Spraying
For control of the HVOF process concerning fatigue critical applications, the referenced
tests must be fully understood, documented, and implemented on a consistent basis.
Many in the thermal spray community were of the initial opinion that these test methods
should be easy to implement with little variability. Over the past 5 yrs. in HCAT
spraying, this has not been the case. Appendix A and B summarize suggested procedures
for these methods which have been used on the majority of HCAT specimens sprayed to
date. Appendix C provides some tips of actual spraying of the bars. These guidelines do
not represent the only method but a repeatable approach which has consistently produced
passing fatigue cycle life results. Whichever methodology is chosen for Temperature
and Almen, the following are suggested steps which should be followed:
! There should be a separate written procedure for how to perform both tests with
sufficient detail to list items such as position of temperature probe, orientation of
Almen, number of cycles for Almen holder before clean-up is required, etc.
! Photographs are suggested especially for temperature measurement to get
repeatable positioning of all set-up elements. Otherwise, especially with spot size
issues, the readings may vary from set-up to set-up.
! With HCAT, we are trying to set-up standard procedures that the depots can
follow. If the methods used are different than HCAT, some correlation work
must be performed on the vendor’s method vs. HCAT so the data can be
compared to the current database.
! When comparing Almen/Substrate Temperature data from location to location,
the written procedures will make it is easier to transfer the information. It is
absolutely critical that deposition rate information along with traverse, RPM, and
increment steps be available so the process can be reproduced at varied locations.
It is not the intent of this document to ask everyone spraying for HCAT or fatigue critical
204
applications to change their current procedures. The purpose is to make everyone aware
of issues that can arise with these methods and provide consistent/repeatable data.
However, for valid comparison of data within HCAT, it is suggested that a universal
method be recognized and available for ease of comparing data.
a) The initial Almen N strip should be flat within a tolerance .0015”.
b) A suggested practice is to grit blast both sides of the strip to provide an uniform
stress distribution in advance of making the “before” measurement. Studies show
a variation in deflection with different methods and HCAT/CHCAT must
standardize on a method for ease of comparison.
(This is normally a hand held operation and variability will be inherent for this
technique. The Almen Strip is small and hard to handle. It is suggested that a
fixture be used for grit blasting to provide adequate/uniform coverage; this will
also help to maintain a constant stand-off distance for blasting. Jim Nuse
(Southwest) has suggested magnetic holders ($17.50) as an easy and time efficient
methodology for this purpose.
c) Due to reported variations in magnetic vs. screw type Almen strip holders, the
current inclination is to use the SAE J442 or AMS S13165 Screw Type Holder
for HCAT evaluations. However, some industry HCAT suppliers have developed
repeatable and consistent practices using magnetic holders. At this point, it is
suggested, as we did with the initial spraying of three fatigue bar configurations,
that some cross pollination using both methods be performed as we study this
variable.
d) An arc height of .001-.003” should be the goal for the “before measurement.
Any larger number indicates a variation in
grit blasting from side to side.
e) When the grit blasted Almen strip is

placed in the fixture for coating, the
convex side shall be “up’ and the surface
that will be coated with HVOF coating.
Figure 116. Almen Strip in Fixture

convex
205
f) The strip shall be coated traversing across the width or .745” dimension and
indexing the gun down the 3.0” length dimension. (Sometimes referred to as
“crosswise”.)
g) Insure the fixture surface for mounting is free of overspray from previous runs
and the strip is laying flat on the fixture surface.
h) A digital readout gage is preferred but not required for reading the deflection
values.
i) A positive difference between the “after” and “before” Almen readings will be
indicative of a “compressive’ or desired residual stress. The uncoated side of the
strip should be placed against the face of the fixture. When measuring, the strip
should be removed from the fixture a number of times and re-inserted to insure
the maximum deflection is recorded.
j) All readings should be “normalized to a .005” coating thickness. This means that
if a .004” coating is sprayed, the reported Almen value should be multiplied by
.005/.004 or 1.25 for a valid comparison. Conversely, a .006 coating should me
multiplied by .005/.006 or .83 for comparison.
k) It is also suggested that a standard format be used to report Almen results.
As Grit Blasted As Sprayed Difference Coating Thickness Normalized

.001” .011” .010” .006” .0083”
This will allow for analysis of the variables in the Almen Strip Process such as
magnitude of grit blasting, coating thickness, etc.
l) If a coating thickness over .015” is required, consideration may be given to usage

of an Almen “A’ strip which is recommended for greater deflections in the .015 to
.020 range.
m) With constant spraying of the Almen fixture, a build-up of coating will occur and
this may interfere with subsequent placement of the strip and “bridging” of the
deposit. It is suggested that after a specified number of cycles, cleaning be
required before additional spraying is allowed.
206
SUBSTRATE TEMPERATURE
MEASUREMENT
The purpose of Substrate Temperature Measurement is to monitor heat input below
350 oF to prevent thermal surface effects and subsequent fatigue degradation. The key
for a measurement technique consistency and correlation to actual surface temperature as
what might be measured by a touch probe. It is not necessary for the technique to
provide an absolute totally accurate reflection of the actual value. If a method such as IR
that shows a 200 oF reading (when the actual touch probe says 340 oF) is used, the critical
issue will be correlation of that difference to passing fatigue results. Once established ,
this correlation will be used as a QC tool to validate a repeatable process providing an
indication that the set-up is consistent
a) Infared pyrometry equipment is suggested as the best practice method for
measuring substrate temperature.
b) A unit such as a Raynger MX4PCRU is one reference that will perform a
satisfactory job. Units from Ircon and Quantam Logic are also suitable as are
many other manufacturers.
1) Wavelength of 2-14 µm
2) Target beam less than .25”dia
3) Laser targeting feature
4) Peak temp hold
c) Positioning of the unit is critical to be isolated from background radiation and
other significant heat sources like the HVOF gun. You should try to put the
infared “spot” in an area to monitor the “back side” of the test specimen and not
an area of direct flame impingement as shown in Error! Reference source not
found.. However, if the set-up requires you to read the flame, a compensation for
the max. temperature will be necessary.
d) The region for measuring temperature should be the area where temperature will
reach the maximum value. This may not necessarily be the center of the patch if
the coating cycle passes more frequently over an area near the top or bottom of
the specimen. Review of the actual cycle will determine the best location for each
spray unit.
e) Care must be taken to provide a free path to the area being measured and have no
obstructions or atmospheric contaminants such as water vapor in the path in front
of the parts being coated.
f) In transferring the spray parameters from a larger area to that of a test bar, spot
size and area measured becomes a critical issue. The pyrometer must be centered
to read as much of the specimen diameter as possible and not the background.
g) If spot size is a limitation* ( the size of the spot is bigger than the test bar
diameter), a suggestion from a manufacturer is to use a block of wood and paint
207
it with flat black paint to serve as a neutral background. In contrast to sheet
metal, wood will provide a steady temperature vary similar to atmosphere in lieu
of sheet metal that can change in temperature very quickly. Experimentation
should be performed with and without the neutral background to determine need
for and the best material for this purpose
h) Although the background temperature hopefully should not contribute a
substantial amount to the overall reading, it is critical to keep the background that
the gun reads as a constant environment. No changes should be made in the path
that the pyrometer sees behind the specimen such as masking, shielding, cooling
jets, etc.
i) Emissivity for measurement will be a combination of factors affected by coating
/material type, surface condition, etc. The calibration dial on the unit can
basically adjust the emissivity to give you the “proper reading”. There are a
number of methods for changing emissivity as summarized in Addendum 1. The
method chosen is a personal preference. Again, consistency is the key.
If at all possible, temperature profiles should be monitored and recorded on a continuous
basis. A data example is shown in
g) Figure 118. As can be seen the temperature effect can accumulate quickly and
the spikes are significant.
If a rotating Almen fixture is used for validation, the sampling increments
for temperature measurement can be critical. Note the following example:
Rotating Fixture
Size 7” dia. x 3.14 = 22” inches/revolution (ipr)
Speed 150 rpm x 1 min/60 sec = 2.5 revolutions/second (rps)
Surface Speed 22 ipr x 2.5 rps = 55 inches /second (ips)
Reading Length .015 seconds/reading1 x 55 ips = .75” distance traveled/reading
(Almen Strip is .75” wide)
1
Any value can be programmed into the infared computer software.
Although the reading on a rotating fixture will only measure the full
Almen width at certain times, a peak value will be established as the
Almen temperature increase.
208
GENERAL SPRAYING OF FATIGUE TEST
BARS
a) The critical step is scaling of the parameters used in the validation set-up to the
actual spraying of test bars such as deposition rate, surface speed, bar rotation etc.
A typical set-up could be as pictured in Error! Reference source not found..
b) If possible, it is suggested the initial work should be performed in an set-up to

approximate the spraying of an actual part. Fabricating a tube like specimen with
flats and screws similar to the SAE fixture for the Almen strips or just machining
a place to hold the fixture on the rotating tube is a good idea. Figure 119.
Possible Rotating Almen Fixture Design is a drawing of a possible Almen device
for process validation. However, this is not an absolute requirement. Many
approvals have been performed with x-y traverse set-up.
c) An item for consideration for spraying the test bars is the size of the specimen vs.
the size of the flame. There will be substantial loss of powder since the flame size
can nominally be 1” vs. the 1/4'” diameter of the bar. You may waste 70% of
what is being sprayed. It is critical for the deposition rate on the test bars to
be the same as sprayed in the Almen set-up. There has been a common
mistake of depositing at a faster rate on the test bars due to the geoemetry
difference. This may warrant slowing down the traverse speed to achieve the
desired thickness in a reasonable spray time or reducing the feed rate to some
degree.
d) Experience has shown that multiple spray runs with 3-10 passes per run will most
probably be required to maintain a substrate temp reading below the max
allowable value of 350 degrees F.
e) It is also suggested that the temperature range in a spraying profile be in the range
of 250-350 degrees. The lower end of the range can also affect residual stress if
the value is to low. The part can cool to room temperature between coating
cycles. The range applies to the values obtained during a spray run say of 8
passes if that has been determined for one group of passes-don’t place abnormally
long pause periods in the 8 pass routine that would allow introduction of
unwanted residual stress in the low temperature regime.
f) Bars will be sprayed with traversing in the axial direction.
209
g) Cooling air placement and stand off distance must be maintained constant
between the part and test bar set-up.
Figure 117. Spray Set-up
210
350
300
250
Temperature [F]
200
150
100
50
0
11:5 11:5 11:5 11:5 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:0 12:1 12:1
6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
Time
Figure 118. Typical Temperature Profile
211
Figure 119. Possible Rotating Almen Fixture Design
Addendum 1 Emissivity
212
In the HCAT/CHCAT situation with small specimens, this has a little different twist and
background radiation has been described as the contribution to the temperature reading
from the area not covered by the spot size. With a .250” dia. Fatigue specimen, the spot
size of many infared units will cover more than the bar area and read the background
radiation from any object behind the specimen. Discussions with the infared
manufacturers indicate that you actually measure an area bigger than the designated spot
size. This area can vary dependent upon the temperature and material being measured.
This means that even a unit with a .250 “ spot size is still reading some of the background
from the area behind the bar being coated.
This information indicates that a consistent background is the key to repeatable infared
temperature measurement. The procedure steps listed earlier suggest that a block of
wood covered with flat black paint be placed behind the fatigue specimens to provide a
consistent background. This may not be practical in some set-ups. It is therefore critical
to insure that nothing changes in the background behind the specimens after the initial
calibration is performed between the infared unit and a contact pyrometer. For many set-
ups, this area may encompass parts of the spray booth or holding fixtures. It can be easy
to overlook changes to the set-up as shown in Error! Reference source not found.
concerning a change in shielding or repositioning of air jets. Something can be
inadvertently moved to another position when the bars are changed out for another spray
run. A consistent background must be maintained for repeatable temperature data.
There are typically two mechanisms to adjust temperature on infared units:
Offset or emissivity
Many of the older units do not have a temperature offset or compensation capability. The
majority of temperature correction is performed by adjusting the emissivity. The normal
setting from the factory for emissivity ( ∈ ) is .95. The real purpose of an emissivity dial
is to correct for how different materials emit infared radiation ( i.e. shiny vs. dull
materials).
If a preset (.95) infared unit is used to measure temperature for both shiny/dull materials
which are actually at the same value, a shiny material like stainless steel will indicate a
lower infared value than the “true’ or contact temperature value. The emissivity value
(which is actually changed by a gain setting on the instrument) would therefore be
lowered (gain/sensitivity increased) to raise the infared reading to the “true” value.
However, in the real world, the emissivity dials are used to correct for any errors in
measurements. This can really be a combination of true differences in emissivity,
background issues from other sources, or spot size issues as described earlier. This
213
correction will vary according to the temperature being measured. In a test by a
manufacturers representative, a trial was performed at two different temperature settings
using standard black body calibration sources. The results were as follows:
True Reading ∈= .95 ∈=.6 ∆
300oF 298 oF 400 oF 100 oF
400oF 398 oF 650 oF 150 oF
For HCAT/CHCAT, the corrections will be for two conditions:
Condition Correction
Spraying of large specimens like corrosion Primarily emissivity

panels
Spraying of small specimens like fatigue, Both emissivity and spot size
corrosion bars
Two processes for correction have been used by HCAT/CHCAT industry members with
equal success on both counts. The processes are shown in Table 101and
Table 102
In these situations, one spray source may use an ∈ of .7 (Process 1) while the other
location dials in a value of .4 (Process 2). Discussions with the manufacturer indicate
that there should be no electronic error introduced using a wide range of ∈ values. The
key in both cases is again a constant background to achieve repeatable results.
The real effect temperature variation in the “background” behind the specimen was also
researched. If the “background” is primarily air and the surrounding booth, a temperature
increase from 80 to 110 oF will have a minimal effect because the percentage is very
small compared to the 250-350 oF values for the small specimen. However, if a piece of
metal is inadvertently placed behind the specimen and begins to heat up, the error from
background can and would become significant.
Two prominent manufacturers who have websites and information on infared theory are:
214
Raytek Raytek Corporation Home Page
Ircon IRCON
Table 101 Process # 1 Table 102 Process # 2
1.1.1.2.Process # 1 1.1.1.1.Process # 2
1) Measure the temperature on a large 1) Measure the temperature on a small

flat coated surface where spot size is not specimen with a constant background.
an issue. It is assumed that spot size limitations
will produce a lower reading.
2) Compare temperature readings

between a touch/contact thermocouple 2) Compare temperature readings
probe and the infared unit. between a touch/contact thermocouple
probe and the infared unit.
3) Adjust the emissivity on the infared

unit to achieve similar results. This 3) Adjust the emissivity on the infared
correction will then be primarily for a unit to achieve similar results. This
“true” emissivity difference between a correction will then be a combination
“black body” and the specimen. of a “true” emissivity differences and a
compensation for averaging the
“background temperature and test bar
4) Perform the same comparison on the temperature.
smaller specimens such as a fatigue bar
with a constant background.
5) Perform sufficient comparisons to

understand the differential between the
infared reading and the ”true” contact
value. If the contact reads 300 oF while
the infared reads 150 oF**, then 150 oF
can be used as a control value for the unit.
6) Run the spray process using the 150 oF

infared reading as the maximum
temperature guideline.
** A formula could then be possibly determined based upon the data. If the bar
215
diameter takes up 40% and the background 60% of the spot size, the equation would be:
Actual Reading = .4 (Bar temp) + .6 (Background temp). So if the actual reading is 180
o
F, 180 oF = .3 (Bar temp) + .7 ( normally 85 oF). So the bar temperature would be
approximately 325 oF
216
Appendix 2. FATIGUE DATA
Document 6 Fatigue Data
"Fatigue Data.xls"
Fatigue data spreadsheet – Double-click in box to access Excel spreadsheet of full data
set.
217
Table 103. Fatigue data - small hourglass, full set.
2360-70249-27 ( Small Hour Glass ) Room Temperature Sine
Frequency Vary
Test Specimen Assigned Nf Results Frequency Test Test Failure Failure Test Regres
Number Number Condition Cycles Hours Frame origin Location Notes Smax Calc. Nf
( ksi max ) ( " ) end of
specimen
R = -1.0 4340 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
3/4" Hydralic Hourglass Specimen
Un-peened
272 01--01 175.0 9,680 Failure 5 0.5 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
278 01--17 175.0 12,238 Failure 5 0.7 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 175 14,359
281 01--02 150.0 191,408 Failure 5 10.6 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling
284 01--18 150.0 247,547 Failure 5 13.8 60052 1.70" sub-surface patch area Spalling 150 128,033
296 01--03 125.0 1,518,323 Shank 29 14.5 60052 .55 " from the end of the specimen
298 01--07 125.0 641,675 Shank 29 6.1 60052 .70 " from the end of the specimen
300 01--11 125.0 2,009,169 Shank 29 19.2 60055 .55 " from the end of the specimen Spalling
307 01--15 125.0 1,581,645 Failure 29 15.1 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 05-08 Shanks peened
308 01--19 125.0 1,479,246 Failure 29 14.2 60052 1.75" surface patch area Spalling 05-08 Shanks peened 125 1,702,721
266 01--04 110.0 10,000,078 Removal 29 95.8 60052 Coating has many cracked
267 01--08 110.0 10,030,508 Removal 29 96.1 60055 Coating has many cracked and spalling
318 01--12 110.0 10,013,187 Removal 29 95.9 60052 Coating has many cracked 05-08 Shanks peened
319 01--16 110.0 10,062,077 Removal 29 96.4 60072 Coating has many cracked and spalling 05-08 Shanks peened 110 10,449,632
N. P. F. 01--20 110.0 This specimen is not fully processed ?
218
R = .10 4340 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
195 01--21 220.0 47,881 Failure , Gage 59 hz 0.2 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
200 01--37 220.0 24,126 Failure , Gage 59 hz 0.1 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 220 16,430
142 01--34 190.0 36,665 Failure , Radius 59 hz 0.2 60052 1.65" surface patch area Spalling
160 01--27 165.0 84,995 Failure , Gage 59 hz 0.4 60052 1.75" surface patch area Spalling PEB has this specimen.
161 01--31 165.0 13,768,157 Removal 59 hz 64.8 60052 na Removal na No spalling
164 01--39 165.0 152,733 Failure , Gage 59 hz 0.7 60055 1.70" surface patch area Spalling 165 1,201,695

234 01--40 150.0 10,214,501 Removal 59 hz 48.1 60052 na Removal na No spalling 150 4,981,913
219
Peened
51 01--46 150.0 89,868 Failure , Gage 5 hz 5.0 60055 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling
128 01--43 125.0 4,144,354 Failure , Gage 29 hz 39.7 60046 1.72" sub-surface patch area Spalling
138 01--47 125.0 10,005,992 Removal 29 hz 95.8 60046 Removal Coating multi-cracks
145 01--51 125.0 2,109,898 Failure , Gage 29 hz 20.2 60046 1.80 " sub-surface patch area Spalling
151 01--55 125.0 8,111,814 Failure , Gage 29 hz 27.7 60046 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling
163 01--59 125.0 10,009,109 Removal 29 hz 95.9 60046 Removal Coating multi-cracks 125 2,508,587
233 01--52 110.0 10,163,865 Removal 29 hz 97.4 60046 Removal Coating cracks
254 01--60 110.0 10,031,800 Removal 29 hz 96.1 60055 Removal Coating multi-cracks 110 17,632,340
220
R = .10 4340 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
194 01--61 220.0 50,779 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.2 60046 1.80" multi-surface patch area Spalling
202 01--65 220.0 49,343 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.2 60055 1.70" surface patch area Spalling
205 01--77 220.0 32,302 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.2 60055 1.78" surface patch area Spalling 220 63,592
144 01--62 190.0 5,502,426 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 25.9 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling
165 01--74 190.0 59,966 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.3 60055 1.80 " surface patch area Spalling
166 01--78 190.0 118,312 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.6 60055 1.75" surface patch area Spalling 190 510,029
177 01--63 165.0 10,000,180 Removal 59 HZ 47.1 60055 Removal

188 01--75 165.0 179,017 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.8 60046 1.78" surface patch area No Spalling 165 3,781,906

253 01--80 150.0 10,000,149 Removal 59 HZ 47.1 60052 Removal 150 14,640,136
221
R = -1.0 4340 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
Peened
324 01--81 175.0 9,451 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60055 1.80 " surface patch area Spalling ( small )
344 01--97 175.0 8,721 Failure , Gage 5 hz 2.4 60052 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling ( small ) 175 8,860
341 01--84 110.0 3,818,684 Failure , Gage 29 hz 36.6 60052 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling ( small )
370 01--92 110.0 1,748,654 Failure , Gage 29 hz 16.7 60055 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling ( small )
351 01--96 110.0 480,173 Failure , Gage 29 hz 4.6 60052 1.55" surface edge no Spalling Failure not in the min. dia.
350 01--100 110.0 664,893 Failure , Gage 29 hz 6.4 60055 1.55" surface edge no Spalling Failure not in the min. dia. 110 1,548,475
222
R = -1.0 4340 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
53 01--101 175 5,260 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.3 60055 1.80 " multi-surface patch area No spalling
57 01--117 175 5,197 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.3 60052 1.80 " multi-surface patch area No spalling 175 4,091
75 01--102 150 15,090 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.8 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
78 01--114 150 16,426 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.9 60055 1.77" multi-surface patch area No spalling
79 01--118 150 12,711 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.7 60052 1.80 " multi-surface patch area No spalling 150 18,758
132 01--119 125 43,374 Failure , Gage 29 hz 0.4 60052 1.75" surface patch area No spalling 125 113,598
135 01--112 110 10,024,747 Removal 29 hz 96.0 60055 na Removal No spalling
136 01--116 110 10,027,264 Removal 29 hz 96.0 60052 na Removal No spalling
137 01--120 110 139,047 Failure , Gage 29 hz 1.3 60046 1.70" surface patch area No spalling 110 401,586
223
R = .10 4340 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
190 01--121 220.0 8,683 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
208 01--129 220.0 9,957 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60055 1.80" mutli-surface patch area No spalling
210 01--133 220.0 8,754 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60055 1.80" surface patch area No spalling Split level fracture face .
211 01--137 220.0 8,910 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60055 1.80" mutli-surface patch area No spalling 220 9,179
149 01--134 190.0 18,968 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60052 1.80" mutli-surface patch area No spalling PEB has this specimen.
153 01--138 190.0 16,567 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60052 1.75" mutli-surface patch area No spalling 190 17,377
158 01--139 165.0 27,470 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.1 60052 1.78" surface patch area No spalling 165 32,116
242 01--140 150.0 50,633 Failure , Gage 59 HZ 0.2 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling 150 48,633
224
Peened
178 01--141 175.0 9,459 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
73 01--145 175.0 10,747 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.6 60052 1.80" mulit-surface patch area No spalling
180 01--157 175.0 11,172 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.6 60052 1.80" mulit-surface patch area No spalling 175 9,664
112 01--158 150.0 55,078 Failure , Gage 5 hz 3.1 60055 1.77" surface patch area No spalling 150 109,176
232 01--143 125.0 8,035,894 Failure , Gage 29 hz 77.0 60055 1.75" sub-surface patch area No spalling
237 01--151 125.0 10,000,041 Removal 29 hz 95.8 60055 Removal
248 01--155 125.0 10,234,077 Removal 29 hz 98 60055 Removal
255 01--159 125.0 4,925,684 Failure , Gage 29 hz 47.2 60052 1.75" sub-surface patch area No spalling 125 1,920,920

260 01--160 110.0 7,688,528 Failure , Gage 29 hz 73.6 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling 110 14,344,916
225
R = .10 4340 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
213 01--161 220.0 16,527 Failure , Gage 59 hz 0.1 60055 1.80" multi-surface patch area No spalling
243 01--164 150.0 10,033,497 Removal 59 hz 47.2 60052 Removal Na Na

247 01--180 150.0 12,965,904 Removal 59 hz 61.0 60052 Removal Na Na 150 434,999
226
R = -1.0 4340 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
371 01-181 175.0 6,303 Failure , Gage 5 0.4 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
373 01-189 175.0 6,656 Failure , Gage 5 0.4 60052 1.80" muti-surface patch area No spalling
381 01-197 175.0 6,569 Failure , Gage 5 0.4 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling 175 7,087
369 01-184 110.0 524,780 Failure , Gage 29 5 60052 1.75" surface patch area No spalling
380 01-192 110.0 1,313,992 Failure , Gage 29 12.6 60055 1.72" surface patch area No spalling
Spares 4340
Spares 01--201
Spares 01--202
Spares 01--203
Spares 01--204
Spares 01--205
227
R = -1.0 300 M non-coated Tested as 2360-70249-21 ( qty 20 ) not -27 code
3/4" Hydralic Hourglass Specimen Note: Smooth Specimen 4340 WCCo tested as -21 ( TN 19-21 SN 02-18 , TN 20-21 SN 02-19 , & TN 21-21 SN 02-20 )
Non-Coated Non-Coated
Un-peened
17 M1-17 180 9,686 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.8 60052 1.75" surface Na Na
18 M1-18 180 12,876 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.7 60052 1.80" multi-surface Na Na
22 M1-19 180 8,430 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60052 1.78" surface Na Na Note:1 180 4,725
16 M1-16 170 14,347 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.8 60052 1.80" surface Na Na 170 11,291
Na Na
15 M1-15 160 22,648 Failure , Gage 5hz 1.3 60052 1.75" surface Na Na 160 28,445
12 M1-12 140 61,866 Failure , Gage 5hz 3.4 60052 1.80" surface Na Na
13 M1-13 140 87,378 Failure , Gage 5hz 4.9 60052 1.75" surface Na Na
23 M1-20 140 74,231 Failure , Gage 5 hz 4.1 60052 1.80" surface Na Na Note:1 140 217,687
3 M1-03 130 822,677 Shank 29 hz 7.9 60052 Na surface Na Na

4 M1-04 130 263,063 Failure , Gage 59/29 hz 2.5 60052 1.70" surface Na Na
9 M1-10 130 2,855,038 Failure , Gage 29 hz 6.5 60052 1.70" surface Na Na 130 673,509
5 M1-05 125 2,249,183 Failure , Gage 59/29 hz 10.6 60052 1.80" surface Na Na 29 hz to make level.
8 M1-08 125 4,913,210 Failure , Gage 29 hz 47.1 60052 1.70" surface Na Na
10 M1-09 125 6,334,285 Failure , Gage 29 hz 60.7 60052 1.80" sub-surface Na Na 125 1,224,448
2 M1-02 120 8,590,400 Failure , Gage 29 hz 82.3 60052 1.80" sub-surface Na Na 120 2,281,056
1 M1-01 100 1,532,833 Shank 59 hz 7.2 60052 Na surface Na Na
Note 1 : ( MI-19 & M1-20 ) Decision was made in late February 00 to run these two tests at 180.0 ksi and 140.0 ksi ( PEB / TAC / DCW )
228
R = -1.0 300 M coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
265 M1-21 180.0 8,515 Failure 5 0.5 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
270 M1-33 180.0 10,592 Failure 5 0.6 60052 1.80" mutli-surface patch area Spalling
271 M1-37 180.0 11,460 Failure 5 0.6 60055 1.75" surface patch area Spalling 180 10,563
285 M1-22 140.0 660,790 Failure 5 36.7 60055 1.75" sub-surface patch area Total Spalling
299 M1-38 140.0 408,708 Failure 5 22.7 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 140 473,338
261 M1-23 130.0 1,359,296 Failure 29 13.0 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling
262 M1-27 130.0 1,371,314 Failure 29 13.1 60052 1.75" surface patch area Spalling
293 M1-35 130.0 2,093,314 Failure 29 20.1 60052 1.75" sub-surface patch area Total Spalling
295 M1-39 130.0 3,109,224 Failure 29 29.8 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 130 1,452,556
317 M1-40 125.0 2,098,302 Failure 59 9.9 60072 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling 125 2,629,366
229
R = -1.0 300 M coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
3 M1-41 180 16,675 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.9 60050 1.75" surface patch area Spalling
9 M1-45 180 13,305 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.7 60047 1.75" multi-surface patch area Spalling ( little )
13 M1-57 180 12,039 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.7 60047 1.80" multi-surface patch area Spalling 180 12,955
5 M1-42 140 694,702 Failure , Gage 5 hz 38.6 60050 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling 4 restarts
15 M1-46 140 550,425 Failure , Gage 5 hz 30.6 60047 1.70" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
19 M1-50 140 532,624 Failure , Gage 5 hz 29.6 60047 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
20 M1-54 140 351,970 Failure , Gage 5 hz 19.6 60050 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling
28 M1-58 140 405,551 Failure , Gage 5 hz 22.5 60050 1.75" surface patch area Spalling 140 659,004
18 M1-43 130 4,075,390 Failure , Gage 5 hz 39.0 60046 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling
21 M1-47 130 2,618,078 Failure , Gage 29 hz 25.1 60050 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
29 M1-51 130 3,400,427 Failure , Gage 29 hz 32.6 60050 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
31 M1-59 130 1,926,256 Failure , Gage 29 hz 18.3 60050 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 130 2,099,333
38 M1-52 125 3050916 Failure , Gage 59 hz 14.4 60050 1.75" sub-surface patch area Spalling
40 M1-60 125 7,571,921 Failure , Gage 59 hz 35.6 60050 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 125 3,876,055
230
R = -1.0 300 M coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
329 M1-61 180.0 9,042 Failure , Gage 5 0.5 60055 1.75" surface patch area No spalling
428 M1-65 180.0 10,360 Failure , Gage 5 0.6 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
432 M1-77 180.0 8,412 Failure , Gage 5 0.5 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 180 8,447
433 M1-78 140.0 164,389 Failure , Gage 5 9.1 60052 1.78" surface patch area No spalling 140 178,019
330 M1-63 130.0 185,354 Failure , Radius 29 1.8 60055 1.55" surface edge patch No spalling
435 M1-75 130.0 623,536 Failure , Gage 29 6.0 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling
426 M1-76 125.0 1,323,924 Failure , Gage 59 12.7 60055 1.78" surface patch area No spalling
436 M1-80 125.0 996,315 Failure , Gage 59 9.5 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 125 703,713
231
R = -1.0 300 M coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
64 M1-81 180 8,009 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.4 60055 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
63 M1-85 180 6,654 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.4 60052 1.80" multi-surface patch area No spalling
67 M1-97 180 23,464 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.3 60052 1.78" surface patch area No spalling 180 7,635
96 M1-87 130 1,202,961 Failure , Gage 29 hz 11.5 60046 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling
101 M1-95 130 49,290 Failure , Radius 29 hz 0.5 60046 1.65" surface patch area No spalling Test Note : 2
60 M1-84 125 8,375,010 Failure , Gage 59 hz 39.4 60046 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
90 M1-96 125 154,827 Failure , Radius 59 hz 0.7 60046 1.60" surface patch area No spalling Test Note : 1
Test Note 1: MI-96 The failure was not in the minimum diameter.
Test Note 2: MI-95 The failure was not in the minimum diameter.
232
R = -1.0 300 M coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
48 M1-101 180 18,357 F, G , S 5 hz 1.0 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling
52 M1-117 180 17,087 F, G , S 5 hz 0.9 60052 1.80" surface patch area No spalling 180 16,284
89 M1-102 140 324,709 F, G , S 5 hz 18.0 60052 1.75" sub-surface patch area No spalling
M1-106 140 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling
218 M1-118 140 759,976 F, G , S 5 hz 42.2 60055 1.75" dob. sub-surfacepatch area No spalling 140 581,189
212 M1-103 130 1,693,639 F, G , S 29 hz 16.2 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling
126 M1-119 130 1,560,383 F, G , S 29 hz 14.9 60055 1.75" sub-surface patch area No spalling 130 1,667,762
223 M1-104 125.0 3,609,869 Failure , Gage 59 hz 17.0 60055 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling
45 M1-120 125 3,101,098 F, G , S 59 hz 14.6 60046 1.80" sub-surface patch area No spalling 125 2,913,585
233
R = -1.0 300 M coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
322 M1-123 130.0 210,830 Failure , Radius 29 2.0 60052 1.45" surface edge patch No spalling
400 M1-131 130.0 291,096 Failure , Gage 29 2.8 60055 1.80" surface ( ss ? ) patch area No spalling
410 M1-140 125.0 967816 Failure , Gage 59 4.6 60055 1.75" surface patch area No spalling 125 369,662
Spares 300 M
Peened
Spares M1-141
Spares M1-142
Spares M1-143
Spares M1-144
Spares M1-145
234
R = -1.0 A100 ( uncoated ) Tested as 2360-70249-22 ( qty 20 ) not -27 code
Non-Coated Non-Coated
Un-peened
5 A1-05 160 32,610 step 5 hz 1.8 60050
5--a A1-05 180 4,568 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.3 60050 1.80" multi-surface Na Na
37,178 Total cycles
7 A1-07 180 13,948 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.8 60050 1.80" surface Na Na

16 A1-16 180 19,710 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.1 60050 1.80" multi-surface Na Na
20 A1-20 180 11,915 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.7 60052 1.80" multi-surface Na Na Note: 1 180 13,883
6 A1-06 175 18,889 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1 60050 1.80" surface Na Na 175 20,561
3 A1-03 150 52,437 Failure , Gage .5/5hz 20 60050 1.75" surface Na Na Three restarts
17 A1-17 150 65,753 Failure , Gage 5 hz 3.7 60050 1.75" surface Na Na 150 176,338



19 A1-19 135 6,799,993 Failure , Gage 29 hz 65.1 60052 1.80" surface Na Na 135 766,036
2 A1-02 130 1,500,347 Shoulder 29 hz 14.4 60050 Shoulder Na Na Five restarts

9 A1-09 130 9,081,697 Failure , Gage 59 hz 42.8 60050 1.80" sub-surface Na Na * See Test Note 130 1,296,424
8 A1-08 120 10,107,505 Removal 59 hz 47.6 60050 Removal Na Na 120 3,956,984
1 A1-01 100 10,030,040 Removal 59 hz 47.2 60050 Removal Na Na 100 50,260,481
235
Note : 1 : A1-20 decision to test at 180.0 ksi ( PEB / DCW ) 03-02-00.
* Test Note : A1-09 assigned at + / - 130.0 ksi . Gradual stress increase occurred around 1,500,000 cycles to - 133 ksi min . Testing continued at + 130 ksi max / - 133 ksi min .
R = -1.0 A100 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
263 A1-21 180.0 26,600 Failure 5 1.5 60052 1.77" surface patch area Spalling
277 A1-33 180.0 21,840 Failure 5 1.2 60052 1.75" multi-surface patch area Spalling
279 A1-37 180.0 23,815 Failure 5 1.3 60055 1.77" surface patch area Spalling 180 17,165
290 A1-38 150.0 272,468 Failure 5 15.1 60055 1.75" surface patch area Spalling 150 182,419
305 A1-39 145.0 1,817,100 Shank 29 17.4 60055 Na Na Na Spalling 145 283,090
310 A1-28 135.0 102,901 Failure 29 1.0 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 05-09 Shanks peened
311 A1-32 135.0 917,391 Failure 29 8.8 60052 1.77" surface patch area Spalling 05-09 Shanks peened
312 A1-36 135.0 6,174,376 Failure 29 59.1 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 05-09 Shanks peened
314 A1-40 135.0 3,011,527 Failure 29 28.8 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling 05-09 Shanks peened 135 714,850
236
R = -1.0 A100 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
2 A1-41 180 22,662 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.3 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling ( very little )
1 A1-45 180 43,139 Failure , Gage 5 hz 2.4 60047 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
14 A1-57 180 59,733 Failure , Gage 5 hz 3.3 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 180 37,605
7 A1-50 150 342,458 Failure , Gage 5 hz 19.0 60047 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling
17 A1-54 150 1,130,661 Failure , Gage 5 hz 62.8 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
24 A1-58 150 1,544,045 Failure , Gage 5 hz 85.8 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 150 916,045
27 A1-59 145 3,567,031 Failure , Gage 29 hz 34.2 60050 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 145 1,658,667
36 A1-60 135 5,603,160 Failure , Gage 29 hz 53.7 60050 1.80" sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 135 5,797,616
237
R = -1.0 A100 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
328 A1-61 180.0 30,783 Failure , Gage 5 1.7 60055 1.80" surface patch area Total Spalling
384 A1-65 180.0 57,781 Failure , Gage 5 3.2 60052 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling
385 A1-69 180.0 49,850 Failure , Gage 5 2.8 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
396 A1-77 180.0 28,628 Failure , Gage 5 1.6 60052 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling 180 33,910
402 A1-74 150.0 137,116 Failure , Gage 5 7.6 60055 1.80" muti-surface patch area Spalling
394 A1-78 150.0 135,538 Failure , Gage 5 7.5 60055 1.75 " surface patch area Spalling 150 253,743
334 A1-63 145.0 1,002,703 Failure , Gage 29 9.6 60055 1.73 " surface patch area Spalling
404 A1-79 145.0 217,381 Failure , Gage 29 2.1 60052 1.65" surface patch area Spalling 145 368,909
405 A1-76 135.0 1,618,372 Failure , Gage 29 15.5 60052 1.80" surface patch area Spalling
398 A1-80 135.0 458,063 Failure , Gage 29 4.4 60055 1.80" surface patch area Spalling 135 811,891
238
R = -1.0 A100 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Un-peened
68 A1-81 180 9,439 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60055 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling
72 A1-97 180 8,164 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60055 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling 180 8,252
103 A1-82 150 21,401 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.2 60055 1.80" multi-surface patch area No Spalling
114 A1-83 145 26,872 Failure , Gage 29 hz 0.3 60055 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling See Test Note
Test Note : A1-83 assigned at + / - 145.0 ksi. Overload occurred upon start-up . Testing continued at + / - 150.0 ksi .
239
R = -1.0 A100 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment Air
Peened
58 A1-101 180.0 20,683 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.1 60052 1.80" muti-surface patch area No Spalling
59 A1-105 180.0 16,490 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.9 60055 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling
62 A1-117 180.0 15,475 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.9 60055 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling 180 12,560
193 A1-110 150.0 76,340 Failure , Gage 5 hz 4.2 60055 1.75" sub-surface patch area No Spalling
111 A1-103 145.0 1,353,375 Failure , Gage 29 hz 13.0 60052 1.80" sub-surface patch area No Spalling
197 A1-111 145.0 1,447,664 Failure , Gage 29 hz 13.9 60046 1.80" surface patch area No Spalling
219 A1-112 135.0 2,450,433 Failure , Gage 29 hz 23.5 60046 1.75" surface patch area No Spalling
230 A1-120 135.0 2,319,412 Failure , Gage 29 hz 22.2 60055 1.72" surface patch area No Spalling 135 1,723,833
240
R = -1.0 A100 coated with EHC and ground to 0.003" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
362 A1-125 180.0 17,147 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1 60052 1.78" surface patch area No Spalling
353 A1-133 180.0 19,309 Failure , Gage 5 hz 1.1 60052 1.75" multi-surface patch area No Spalling
241
Spare A100
Peened
Spare AI-141
Spare AI-142
Spare AI-143
Spare AI-144
Spare AI-145
A100
Peened
A1-146 For PAXRiver / Eun Lee
David Wingerberg
GSRB0249
242
(0.003" COATING) R = 0.1, AIR
240
EHC/UNPeened
EHC/Peened
220 EHC/Peened/FIT
WCCo/UNPeened
210 WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
WCCo/Peened
200
WCCo/Peened/FIT
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 120. Fatigue - 4340 small hourglass, R=0.1, in air, EHC and WC-Co, peened and unpeened.
243
(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/UNPeened
EHC/Peened
EHC/Peened/FIT
180 WCCo/UNPeened
WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
170 WCCo/Peened
WCCo/Peened/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 121. Fatigue - 4340 small hourglass, R=-1, EHC and WC-Co, 0.003", in air, peened and unpeened.
244
(0.003" COATING), PEENED, AIR
240.0
EHC/-1
R = -1 vs 0.1
EHC/-1/FIT
WCCo/-1
220.0
WCCo/-1/FIT
EHC/0.1
EHC/0.1/FIT
200.0 WCCo/0.1
WCCo/0.1/FIT
180.0
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 122. Fatigue 4340, small hourglass, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, R=0.1 vs R=-1.
245
300M, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
200
Bare/UNPeened
EHC/UNPeened
EHC/Peened
EHC/Peened/FIT
180 WCCo/UNPeened
WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
WCCo/Peened
170 WCCO/Peened/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 123. 300M, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, peened and unpeened.
246
A100, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING) R = -1, AIR
190
Bare/UNPeened
Bare/UNPeened/FIT
180 EHC/UNPeened
EHC/UNPeened/FIT
EHC/Peened
170
EHC/Peened/FIT
WCCo/UNPeened
160 WCCo/UNPeened/FIT
WCCo/Peened
WCCo/Peened/FIT
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 124. A100, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air, peened and unpeened.
247
4340, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
EHC/Air
EHC/Air/FIT
190
EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
180 WCCo/Air
WCCo/Air/FIT
170 WCCo/NaCl
WCCo/NaCl/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 125. 4340, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl.
248
300M, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
EHC/Air
EHC/Air/FIT
190
EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
180 WCCo/Air
WCCo/Air/FIT
WCCo/NaCl
170 WCCo/NaCl/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 126. 300M, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl.
249
A100, R = -1, SMALL HOURGLASS SPECIMEN
200
EHC/Air
EHC/Air/FIT
190 EHC/NaCl
EHC/NaCl/FIT
WCCo/Air
180 WCCo/Air/FIT
WCCo/NaCl
WCCo/NaCl/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 127. A100, small hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", air vs NaCl.
250
Table 104. Fatigue - large hourglass, full data set.
2360-70249-29 ( Large Hour Glass ) Room Temperature

Sine Frequency Vary
Test Specimen Assigned Nf Results Freq. Test Test Failure Failure Test
Number Number Condition Cycles Hours Frame origin Location Notes Smax
specimen
1.5" Threaded Large Hour Glass
Peened
6 04--01 175.0 10,110 Failure , Gage 3 0.9 60004 3.90" surface patch area Spalling ( total ) Heat-up 78 F to 90 F
7 04--05 175.0 7,390 Failure , Gage 3 0.7 60004 3.90" surface patch area Spalling ( total )
14 04--17 175.0 8,320 Failure , Gage 3 0.8 60004 3.90" multi-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 175.0
5 04--18 150.0 37,931 Failure , Gage 5 2.1 60010 3.80" surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 150.0
11 04--07 125.0 1,886,500 Failure , Gage 10 52.4 60004 3.80" s-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
15 04--11 125.0 338,290 Failure , Gage 10 9.4 60004 3.60" L-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) Large sub-surface
27 04--15 125.0 258,973 Failure , Gage 10 7.2 60010 3.80" L-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) Large sub-surface
28 04--19 125.0 517,920 Failure , Gage 10 14.4 60004 3.80" s-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 125.0
8 04--04 110.0 1,363,406 Failure , Gage 15 25.2 60010 3.85" L-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
12 04--08 110.0 3,228,198 Failure , Gage 15 59.8 60010 3.80" s-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) One piece
29 04--12 110.0 3,508,159 Failure , Gage 15 65.0 60010 3.70" L-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) Large sub-surface
36 04--16 110.0 3,449,780 Failure , Gage 10 95.8 60004 3.60" s-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total )
37 04--20 110.0 1,586,669 Failure , Gage 15 29.4 60010 3.75" s-sub-surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 110.0
251
Peened
16 04--21 175.0 5,380 Failure , Gage 3 0.5 60004 3.85" surface patch area No spalling ( small )
20 04--37 175.0 6,690 Failure , Gage 3 0.6 60004 3.85" surface patch area No spalling ( small ) 175.0
22 04--22 150.0 11,130 Failure , Gage 5 0.6 60004 3.85" surface patch area No spalling
25 04--38 150.0 11,830 Failure , Gage 5 0.7 60004 3.80" surface patch area No spalling 150.0
21 04--23 125.0 41,290 Failure , Gage 10 1.1 60004 3.85" surface patch area No spalling Red on surface ( floor )
Spares 4340 Environment Air

Peened
Spares 04--41
Spares 04--42 Dummy Used as a dummy specimen to check out 60004 performance ( compressive spike being indicated and test frame is being kicked out )
252
R = -1.0 300M coated with WCCo and ground to 0.010" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
41 M4-01 180.0 8,319 Failure , Gage 3 0.8 60010 3.80" surface patch area Total Spalling
43 M4-05 180.0 10,490 Failure , Gage 3 1.0 60004 3.90" surface patch area Total Spalling Test note # 2
52 M4-13 180.0 7,712 Failure , Gage 3 0.7 60010 3.75" surface patch area Total Spalling two step fracture face
53 M4-17 180.0 7,483 Failure , Gage 3 0.7 60010 3.90" surface patch area Total Spalling 180.0
46 M4-02 140.0 71,640 Failure , Gage 5 4.0 60004 3.75" surface patch area Total Spalling Test note # 1
59 M4-20 125.0 353,830 Failure , Gage 10 9.8 60010 3.75" surface ? patch area Total Spalling 125.0
Test Note # 1 : M4-02: 28,520 and 30,010 cycles into the test there was a test frame kickout with a compression spike noted to 152 ksi each time.
The test was re-started to the original test level each time . There were several compression spikes noted as the test ran but not as large as the compression spikes at time of kickout..
Test Note # 2 : M4-05: Assigned at + / - 180.0 ksi. 0-140 cycles adjsuting to level , 140 - 960 cycles on level , 960 - 5,390 cycles under max level assigned at 168 ksi max.
5,390 - 5,600 restart adjusting to level , 5,600 - 10,490 cycles on level. Total cycles run 10,490 . Total cycles at level 5,710.
253
R = -1.0 300M coated with EHC and ground to 0.010" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
74 M4-37 180.0 6,957 Failure , Gage 3 0.6 60010 3.90" surface patch area Spalling 180.0
64 M4-26 140.0 35,128 Failure , Gage 5 2.0 60010 3.85" surface patch area No spalling black surface
75 M4-34 140.0 39,330 Failure , Gage 5 2.2 60010 3.70" surface patch area No spalling See test note :
78 M4-38 140.0 52,484 Failure , Gage 5 2.9 60010 3.90" surface patch area No spalling 140.0
( M4-34 ) after failure the specimen sat in salt water for over 28 hours. ( Black surface )
( M4-32 ) after failure the specimen sat in salt water for over 4 hours.
( M4-23 ) after failure the specimen sat in salt water for over 15 hours.
Spares 300M
Peened
Spares M4-41
Spares M4-42
254
R = -1.0 A100 coated with WCCo and ground to 0.010" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
81 A4-01 180.0 13,990 Failure , Gage 3 1.3 60010
85 A4-05 180.0 12,350 Failure , Gage 3 1.1 60004
87 A4-09 180.0 14,860 Failure , Gage 3 1.4 60004
86 A4-13 180.0 15,540 Failure , Gage 3 1.4 60004
99 A4-17 180.0 18,459 Failure , Gage 3 1.7 60010 180.0
82 A4-02 150.0 55,442 Failure , Gage 5 3.1 60010

88 A4-06 150.0 51,820 Failure , Gage 5 2.9 60004
89 A4-10 150.0 60,110 Failure , Gage 5 3.3 60004
90 A4-14 150.0 51,763 Failure , Gage 5 2.9 60004
101 A4-18 150.0 62,651 Failure , Gage 5 3.5 60010 150.0
83 A4-03 145.0 68,832 Failure , Gage 10 1.9 60010

94 A4-07 145.0 83,056 Failure , Gage 10 2.3 60010
95 A4-11 145.0 141,808 Failure , Gage 10 3.9 60010
96 A4-15 145.0 47,898 Failure , Gage 10 1.3 60010
97 A4-19 145.0 104,677 Failure , Gage 10 2.9 60010 145.0
84 A4-04 135.0 175,419 Failure , Gage 10 4.9 60010

91 A4-08 135.0 191,675 Failure , Gage 10 5.3 60010
92 A4-12 135.0 167,375 Failure , Gage 10 4.6 60010
93 A4-16 135.0 145,659 Failure , Gage 10 4 60010
98 A4-20 135.0 166,358 Failure , Gage 10 4.6 60010 135.0
255
R = -1.0 A100 coated with EHC and ground to 0.010" thick Environment NaCl
Peened
100 A4-21 180.0 8,241 Failure , Gage 3 0.8 60010
104 A4-25 180.0 10,080 Failure , Gage 3 0.9 60010
109 A4-29 180.0 9,619 Failure , Gage 3 0.9 60010
110 A4-33 180.0 11,002 Failure , Gage 3 1.0 60010
115 A4-37 180.0 9,892 Failure , Gage 3 0.9 60010 180.0
102 A4-22 150.0 28,208 Failure , Gage 5 1.6 60010

105 A4-26 150.0 27,941 Failure , Gage 5 1.6 60010
111 A4-30 150.0 27,416 Failure , Gage 5 1.5 60010
114 A4-34 150.0 29,922 Failure , Gage 5 1.7 60010
116 A4-38 150.0 29,319 Failure , Gage 5 1.6 60010 150.0
103 A4-23 145.0 43,039 Failure , Gage 10 1.2 60010

106 A4-27 145.0 50,687 Failure , Gage 10 1.4 60010
113 A4-31 145.0 50,704 Failure , Gage 10 1.4 60010
117 A4-35 145.0 47,232 Failure , Gage 10 1.3 60010
118 A4-39 145.0 37,492 Failure , Gage 10 1.0 60010 145.0
107 A4-24 135.0 73,286 Failure , Gage 10 2.0 60010

108 A4-28 135.0 90,448 Failure , Gage 10 2.5 60010
112 A4-32 135.0 57,741 Failure , Gage 10 1.6 60010
119 A4-36 135.0 111,786 Failure , Gage 10 3.1 60010
120 A4-40 135.0 55,307 Failure , Gage 10 1.5 60010 135.0
Spares A100
Peened
Spares A4-41
Spares A4-42
David Wingerberg
GSRB0249
256
4340, R = -1, AIR
LARGE (0.010"CTNG) VS. SMALL (0.003"CTNG) HOURGLASS
200.0
LgHG/EHC/Peened
190.0 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo/Peened
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
180.0 SmHG/EHC/Peened
SmHG/EHC/FIT
170.0 SmHG/WCCo/Peened
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 128. 4340, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in air, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small hourglass).
257
300M, R = -1, NaCl
200.0
LARGE HOURGLASS SPECIMEN (0.010" COATING)
LgHG/EHC/Peened
190.0 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCO/Peened
180.0 LgHG/WCCo/FIT
170.0
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 129. 300M, large hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.010", in NaCl .
258
AERMET 100, R = -1, NaCl
LARGE HOURGLASS SPECIMEN (0.010" COATING)
200.0
LgHG/EHC/Peened
190.0 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo/Peened
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
180.0
170.0
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 130. A100, large hourglass, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.010", in NaCl .
259
300M, R = -1, NaCl
200
SmHG/EHC
190 SmHG/EHC/FIT
SmHG/WCCo
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
180 LgHG/EHC
LgHG/EHC/FIT
170 LgHG/WCCo
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 131. 300M, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in NaCl, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small hourglass).
260
A100, R = -1, NaCl
200
SmHG/EHC
SmHG/EHC/FIT
190 SmHG/WCCo
SmHG/WCCo/FIT
LgHG/EHC
180 LgHG/EHC/FIT
LgHG/WCCo
LgHG/WCCo/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Figure 132. A100, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, in NaCl, 0.010" vs 0.003" (large vs small hourglass).
261
Table 105. Fatigue - smooth bar, full data set.
2360-70249-28 ( Smooth ) Room Temperature

Sine Frequency Vary
Test Specimen Assigned Nf Results Freq. Test Test Failure Failure Test Regression
Number Number Condition Cycles Hours Frame origin Location Notes Smax Calc. Nf
specimen
3/4" Hydralic Smooth Specimen
Peened
15 02--01 175 7,500 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.4 60046 2.10 surface patch area Spalling
16 02--05 175 6,194 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.3 60046 1.95 surface outside patch area Spalling ( total )
18 02--09 175 6,612 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.3 60046 1.95 surface outside patch area Spalling
19 02--13 175 8,717 Failure , Gage 5 hz 0.5 60046 2.10 surface patch area Spalling ( total ) 175 7,212
21 02--02 150 56,777 Failure , Gage 5 hz 3.2 60046 1.90 sub-surface outside patch area No spalling
25 02--14 150 65,491 Failure , Gage 5 hz 3.6 60046 2.10 sub-surface patch area Spalling 150 47,644
28 02--03 125 341,510 Failure , Gage 29 hz 3.3 60046 2.15 sub-surface patch area Spalling
30 02--07 125 476,205 Failure , Gage 29 hz 4.6 60052 2.10 sub-surface patch area Spalling
31 02--11 125 622,363 Failure , Gage 29 hz 6.0 60046 1.95 sub-surface edge of patch area Spalling
51 02--15 125 637,380 Failure , Gage 29 hz 6.1 60046 1.90 sub-surface outside patch area Spalling 125 444,417
27 02--04 110 1,401,499 Failure , Gage 59 hz 6.6 60046 2.05 sub-surface patch area Spalling
26 02--08 110 2,479,350 Failure , Gage 59 hz 11.7 60052 1.90 sub-surface outside patch area No spalling
36 02--12 110 3,395,624 Failure , Gage 59 hz 16.0 60052 2.05 sub-surface patch area Spalling
37 02--16 110 1,283,683 Failure , Gage 59 hz 6.0 60052 2.00 sub-surface patch area Spalling 110 2,126,901
02--17 Per PEB this specimen will not be tested to keep the groups even at 4 apiece
A = .95 Tested as 2360-70249-21 ( qty 23 ) not -28 code

Note : Tested as sprayed not ground ( to get quick results before all specimens were sprayed )
19 02--18 160 9,677,347 Failure , Gage 59 hz 45.6 60052 1.90 " sub-surface edge of patch area No spalling
262
4340, SMOOTH SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
Bare/Peened (Nuse)
190 EHC/Peened
EHC/FIT
WCCo/Peened
180
WCCo/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 133. 4340, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
263
4340, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190 WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
180 WCCo/HG
WCCo/HG/FIT
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 134. Sooth vs hourglass, 4340, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
264
300M, SMOOTH SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200.0
EHC/Peened
EHC/FIT
190.0
WCCo/Peened
WCCo/FIT
180.0
170.0
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 135. 300M, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
265
300M, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200.0
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190.0
WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
180.0 EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
WCCo/HG
170.0
WCCo/HG/FIT
160.0
150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 136. Smooth vs hourglass, 300M, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
266
A100, SMOOTH SPECIMEN
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/Peened
190 EHC/FIT
WCCo/Peened
WCCo/FIT
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 137. A100, smooth bar, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
267
A100, SMOOTH VS HOURGLASS PEENED SPECIMENS
(0.003" COATING), R = -1, AIR
200
EHC/Smooth
EHC/Smooth/FIT
190
WCCo/Smooth
WCCo/Smooth/FIT
180 EHC/HG
EHC/HG/FIT
170 WCCo/HG
WCCo/HG/FIT
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Figure 138. Smooth vs hourglass, A100, R=-1, EHC, WC-Co, 0.003", in air.
268
Appendix 3. CORROSION DATA
Document 7 Corrosion Data – LG JTP
"Corrosion Data - LG
JTP.xls"
JTP corrosion data can be obtained by double-clicking on the box above.
Document 8 Corrosion Data supplementary – LG JTP
"Corrosion Data
supplementary - LG J
Supplementary corrosion data can be obtained by double-clicking on the box above.
269
LANDING GEAR JTP - B117 CORROSION
TESTING (FROM “CORROSION DATA – LG
JTP.XLS”)
Table 106. Landing gear JTP corrosion data - B117 full data set (from “Corrosion Data – LG
JTP.XLS”, “ASTM B117” tab)
RESULTS OF SALT SPRAY TESTING (in accordance with ASTM B 117)
Sample ID Protection rating Vertical Horizontal Comments

creepage creepage
(mm) (mm)
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer,

no sealer
O3 - 11 7
O3 - 12 7
O3 - 13 4 3
O3 - 14 6
O3 - 15 5
Average 6.25
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, nickel sublayer, no

sealer
O3 - 16 9
O3 - 17 10
O3 - 18 4 3
O3 - 19 9
O3 - 20 9
Average 9.25
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer,

sealer applied
O3 - 21 8
O3 - 22 8
O3 - 23 4 3
O3 - 24 7
O3 - 25 9
Average 8
270
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel
sublayer, no sealer
O3 - 41 9
O3 - 42 7
O3 - 43 2 1.5
O3 - 44 7
O3 - 45 7
Average 7.5
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel

sublayer, sealer applied
O3 - 46 7
O3 - 47 8
O3 - 48 3 2
O3 - 49 7
O3 - 50 7
Average 7.25
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, nickel sublayer,

no sealer
O3 - 51 9.9
O3 - 52 9
O3 - 53 2 1
O3 - 54 10
O3 - 55 10
Average 9.72
3 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel, no

sealer
O3 - 61 1 severe undercutting
O3 - 63 19 4
Average 1
3 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel,

sealer applied
O3 - 66 8 blisters
O3 - 67 7 blisters
O3 - 68 12 5
O3 - 69 8 blisters
O3 - 70 6 blisters
Average 7.25
271
10 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel, no
sealer
O3 - 86 2 coating corrosion
O3 - 88 15 8
Average 2
10 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel,

sealer applied
O3 - 91 5 blisters
O3 - 92 3 blisters
O3 - 93 12 20
O3 - 94 4 blisters
O3 - 95 5 blisters
Average 4.25
3 mils WC/Co/Cr over 4340 Steel,

no sealer
O3 - 101 3 undercut, coating
corrosion
corrosion
O3 - 103 11 58
corrosion
corrosion
Average 3
10 mils WC/Co/Cr over 4340 Steel,

no sealer
corrosion
corrosion
O3 - 113 18 47
corrosion
Average 7.5
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel

sublayer, no sealer
M3 - 01 9
M3 - 02 9.5
M3 - 03 9 5
M3 - 04 9.5
M3 - 05 7
Average 8.75
272
M3 - 06 8
M3 - 07 7
M3 - 08 6.5 2
M3 - 09 8
M3 - 10 9
Average 8
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, nickel sublayer,

no sealer
M3 - 81 10
(M3-11)
M3 - 12 10
M3 - 13 5 3.5
M3 - 14 9.9
M3 - 15 10
Average 9.97

sublayer, no sealer
M3 - 41 8
M3 - 42 8
M3 - 43 3 2
M3 - 44 8
M3 - 45 8
Average 8
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, no

sealer
M3 - 46 0 severe undercutting
M3 - 48 10 38
Average 0
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer,

sealer applied
M3 - 51 7 blisters
M3 - 52 7 blisters
M3 - 53 4 3
M3 - 54 7 blisters
M3 - 55 7 blisters
Average 7
273
sealer
M3 - 86 1 undercut, coating
corrosion
M3 - 87 1 undercut, coating
corrosion
M3 - 88 3 3
M3 - 89 2 coating corrosion
M3 - 90 3 coating corrosion
Average 1.75
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
A3 - 06 7
A3 - 07 6
A3 - 08 1 0
A3 - 09 6
A3 - 10 6
Average 6.25
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, nickel

sublayer, no sealer
A3 - 11 9
A3 - 12 10
A3 - 13 0.5 0
A3 - 14 10
A3 - 15 9.9
Average 9.72
10 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel

sublayer, no sealer
A3 - 41 9.5
A3 - 42 10
A3 - 43 0 0
A3 - 44 9.5
A3 - 45 9.5
Average 9.62
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer,

no sealer
A3 - 46 2 one crack, coating
corrosion
A3 - 47 2 coating corrosion
A3 - 48 0 0
A3 - 49 2 unndercut, coating
corrsoion
Average 2
274
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer,
sealer applied
A3 - 56 8 blisters
A3 - 57 3 blisters
A3 - 58 3 2
A3 - 59 7 blisters
A3 - 60 7 blisters
Average 6.25
10 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel

sublayer, no sealer
A3 - 88 0 0
Average 2.5
Control Set of 4340 Steel, no coating of any variety, no

sealer
O3 - 01 0
O3 - 02 0
O3 - 03 Not Not applicable
applicabl
e
O3 - 04 0
O3 - 05 0
Average 0
275
Table 107. Landing gear JTP data summary - B117 corrosion.
Coating Steel Ni sublayer Sealer Protection Vertical Horizontal
rating creepage creepage
(mm) (mm)
0.003" EHC 4340 6.25 0.1 3
0.003" EHC 4340 X 9.25 4 3
0.003" EHC 4340 X 8 4 3
0.010" EHC 4340 7.5 2 1.5
0.010" EHC 4341 X 7.25 3 2
0.010" EHC 4342 X 9.72 2 1
0.003" WC-Co 4340 1 19 4
0.003" WC-Co 4340 X 7.25 12 5
0.010" WC-Co 4340 2 15 8
0.010" WC-Co 4340 X 4.25 12 20
0.003" WC-CoCr 4340 3 11 58
0.010" WC-CoCr 4340 7.5 18 47
0.003" EHC 300M 8.75 9 5
0.003" EHC 300M X 8 6.5 2
0.010" EHC 300M X 9.97 5 3.5
0.010" EHC 300M 8 3 2
0.003" WC-Co 300M 0.1 10 38
0.003" WC-Co 300M X 7 4 3
0.010" WC-Co 300M 1.75 3 3
0.003" EHC A100 X 6.25 1 0.1
0.003" EHC A101 X 9.72 0.5 0.1
0.010" EHC A102 9.62 0.1 0.1
0.003" WC-Co A103 2 0.1 0.1
0.003" WC-Co A104 X 6.25 3 2
0.010" WC-Co A105 2.5 0.1 0.1
none 4340 0.1 Not applicable Not applicable
Note: 0.1 substituted for 0 to see on graph.
276
Protection rating - GM 9540P
Control Set of 4340 Steel, no coating of any variety, no sealer

10 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
10 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
10 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
10 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
10 mils WC/Co/Cr over 4340 Steel, no sealer
10 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel, sealer applied
10 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel, no sealer
3 mils WC/Co over 4340 Steel, sealer applied
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, nickel sublayer, no sealer
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
10 mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 Mils Hard Chrome over 4340 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 139. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion protection ratings.
277
Vertical creep - GM 9540P
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 140. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion Vertical Creepage.
278
Horizontal creep - GM 9540P
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 141. Landing gear JTP - B117 corrosion Horizontal Creepage.
279
LANDING GEAR JTP – GM9540P CYCLIC
CORROSION TESTING
Table 108. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540P full data set (from “Corrosion Data – LG JTP.XLS”,
“GM 9540P” tab).
ACCELERATED CORROSION TESTING (General Motors Test
Method 9540P, Method B)
Sample ID Protection rating Vertical Horizontal

creepage creepage
(mm) (mm)

sublayer, no sealer
M3 - 16 10
M3 - 17 10
M3 - 18 1.5 1.5
M3 - 19 10
M3 - 20 10
Average 10

M3 - 21 10
M3 - 22 10
M3 - 23 2 2
M3 - 24 10
M3 - 25 10
Average 10

sealer
M3 - 61 9
M3 - 62 9
M3 - 63 2 2
M3 - 64 8
M3 - 65 8
Average 8.5
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer,

sealer applied
M3 - 66 8
M3 - 67 8
M3 - 68 1 1
M3 - 69 8
M3 - 70 8
Average 8
280
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no
sealer
A3 - 16 10
A3 - 17 10
A3 - 18 0 0
A3 - 19 10
A3 - 20 10
Average 10
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer
applied
A3 - 21 10
A3 - 22 10
A3 - 23 0 0
A3 - 24 10
A3 - 25 10
Average 10

sublayer, no sealer
A3 - 61 8
A3 - 62 8
A3 - 63 0 0
A3 - 64 8
A3 - 65 8
Average 8

A3 - 66 9
A3 - 67 9
A3 - 68 0 0
A3 - 69 9
A3 - 70 9
Average 9
281
Table 109. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540P cyclic corrosion summary.
Sample ID Protection Vertical Horizontal
rating creepage creepage
(mm) (mm)
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, no 10 1.5 1.5
sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, 10 2 2
sealer applied
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer 8.5 2 2
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer 8 1 1
applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel 10 0.01 0.01
sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel 10 0.01 0.01
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no 8 0.01 0.01
sealer
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, 9 0.01 0.01
sealer applied
Note: 0.01 substituted for 0 to see on graph.
282
Protection rating - GM 9540P
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer

applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer
applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100 Steel, no nickel sublayer, no

sealer
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer

applied
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 142. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540 Protection Ratings.
Vertical/horizontal creepage - GM 9540P
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no

nickel sublayer, sealer applied
3 mils WC/Co over Aermet 100 Steel, no
nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100

Steel, no nickel sublayer, sealer applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over Aermet 100

Steel, no nickel sublayer, no sealer
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel
3 mils WC/Co over 300M Steel, no nickel

sublayer, no sealer
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no

nickel sublayer, sealer applied
3 mils Hard Chrome over 300M Steel, no
nickel sublayer, no sealer
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 143. Landing gear JTP - GM 9540 Vertical and Horizontal Creepage (both identical).
283
SUPPLEMENTARY CORROSION DATA – FROM
“CORROSION DATA SUPPLEMENTARY – LG
JTP.XLS”
Table 110. Supplementary corrosion data – 4340 plate NRL. Full data set (from "Corrosion Data
Supplementary - LG JTP", “4340 plate NRL” tab).
APPEARANCE AND PROTECTION RATINGS FOR TYPE 4340, PLATE GEOMETRY METAL
SAMPLES
1000 HOURS SALT FOG TESTING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ASTM B 117
SAMPLE # Appearance rating Protection Rating Comments

O5-2 2 10 Coating not breached
Small areas have a corrosion layer
Cd Top & Bot compromised
Small areas have a corrosion layer
O5-5 0 10 Coating not breached but
general attack over entire surface
O5-38 0 10 Coating not breached but significant
general attack over entire surface
O5-1 3 10 Coating not breached but slightly
attacked
O5-30 3 10 Coating not breached but slightly
attacked
Cd staining evident
O5-4 3 10 Coating not breached but general
corrosion evident over surface
Cd staining evident
CD Top & Bot cvompromised
O5-32 4 10 Coating not breached with
small areas of surface corrosion
284
O5-12 1 10 Coating not breached with Cd staining
evident
O5-40 1 10 Coating not breached with Cd staining
evident
O5-3 4 10 Coating not brached with light
surface corrosion evident
O5-36 4 10 Coating not breached with surface
corrosion evident.
O5-28 4 10 Coating not breached but tiny
pits evident in clad's surface
285
Table 111. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 4340 rods NRL (from “Corrosion
Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “4340 rod NRL” tab).
APPEARANCE AND PROTECTION RATINGS FOR TYPE 4340, ROD GEOMETRY
METAL SAMPLES
1000 HOURS SALT FOG TESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM B 117
SAMPLE # Appearance rating Protection Rating Comments

O3-84 1 4 Coating Breached &
Undercut
Cd Top OK; Bot compromised
Some coating corrosion
Cd intact but has run down
sample side
attacked over entire
surface
Cd Top OK; Bot gone
attacked over entire
surface
Cd Top & Bot missing
general attack on surface
Cd Top compromised; Bot OK
O3-82 9 10 Cd Staining on coating but no
general attack on clad
Cd Top OK; Bot missing
O3-134 3 3 Coating breached
Cd Top & Bot OK
attack on surface
Cd Top OK; Bot missing
WC/CoCr 3 mil Unground SW
Aero
attack on surface
Cd Top & Bot OK
286
Cd staining evident
Cd staining evident
Cd Top & Bot OK
287
Table 112. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 4340 rods KSC (from “Corrosion
Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “4340 rod KSC” tab).
APPEARANCE AND PROTECTION RATINGS ON TYPE 4340, ROD GEOMETRY METAL
SAMPLES
SAMPLES FROM KENNEDY SPACE CENTER CORROSION CHAMBER
1000 HOUR SALT FOG TESTING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ASTM B 117
SAMPLE # Appearance rating Protection rating COMMENTS

03-125 1 2 Coating breached
Cd T & B compromised
03-129 1 10 Coating not breached
Cd T & B missnig
O3-127 6 10 Coating not breached with light
surface attack
O3-135 1 1 Coating Brached
O3-126 0 10 Coating not breached but surface attack
evident
O3-137 0 3 Coating breached
Cd T & B missing
288
O3-141 10 10 Coating not breached but Cd
staining evident
Cd T & B OK
O3-143 9 10 Coating not breached but Cd
staining evident
Cd T & B OK
289
Table 113. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 300M rods NRL (from “Corrosion
Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “300M rod NRL” tab).
APPEARANCE RATING AND PROTECTION RATING FOR TYPE 300M
METAL, ROD GEOMETRY
1000 HOURS SALT FOG TESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM B 117
SAMPLE Appearance Protection Comments

# Rating Rating
WC/Co 3mil Ground
Hitemco
M3-101 2 2 Coating breached
WC/Co 3 mil Ground SW
Aero
M3-109 2 10 Coating not breached but general
corrosion of surface
Cd Top has slight cracking; Bot OK
WC/Co 3 mil Unground
Hitemco
M3-100 0 10 Coating not breached but entire
surface is attacked
Cd Top & Bot OK
WC/Co 3 mil Unground
SW Aero
M3-112 2 10 Coating not breached but significant
surface corrosion
WC/Co 10 mil Ground
Hitemco
M3-102 2 10 Coating not breached but general
Cd Top & Bot OK
WC/Co 10 mil Ground SW
Aero
M3-113 2 10 Coating not breached but Cd staining
evident on surface
Cd Top & Bot OK
WC/CoCr 3 mil Ground
Hitemco
M3-97 9 10 Coating not breached & some light
surface attack
Cd Top & Bot OK
290
SW Aero
M3-115 9 2 Coating breached in 1 spot but
balance of clad
looks good - significant corrosion of
substrate
where cladding spalled.
Cd Top OK; Bot slightly
compromised
WC/CoCr 3 mil Unground
Hitemco
M3-96 0 10 Coating not breached but heavy
surface corrosion of clad
WC/CoCr 3 mil Unground
SW Aero
M3-117 0 4 Coating breached. In areas where clad
is
still attached there is significant
surface
corrosion.
Cd Top & Bottom missing
Hitemco
M3-105 10 10 Coating not breached with some Cd
staining
evident; no clad surface corrosion
Cd Top & Bot OK
SW Aero
M3-119 4 10 Coating not breached but some
surface
corrosion evident
Cd Top & Bot OK
EHC 3 mil Ground SW
Aero
M3-121 10 10 Coating not breached. Small amount
of
Cd staining on surface
Cd Top & Bot intact
EHC 10 mil Ground SW
Aero
M3-123 10 10 Coating not breached. Small amount
of
Cd staining on surface
Cd Top & Bot intact
291
Table 114. Supplementary corrosion data - B117 full data set, 300M rods KSC (from “Corrosion
Data Supplementary – LG JTP.XLS”, “300M rod KSC” tab).
APPEARANCE AND PROTECTION RATINGS ON TYPE 300M METAL, ROD
GEOMETRY SAMPLES
SAMPLES FROM KENNEDY SPACE CENTER CORROSION CHAMBER
1000 HOURS SALT FOG IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM B 117
SAMPLE # APPEARANCE PROTECTION COMMENTS
M3-110 2 10 Coating intact but surface of clad
is attacked
M3-103 2 10 Coating intact but clad shows
surface attack
M3 -114 1 10 Coating intact but significant
surface corrosion
Cd T&B compromised
M3-98 10 10 Coating intact
Cd T&B compromised
Cd T&B compromised
Hitemco
M3-106 6 10 Coating intact with mild
surface attack on clad
WC/CoCr 10 mil Ground SW
Aero
Cd T&B compromised
EHC 10 mil Ground Sw Aero
Cd T&B compromised
292
Figure 144. Supplementary corrosion data - 4340 rod, Summary Data and graphs.
293
Figure 145. Supplementary corrosion data - 4340 plate, Summary Data and graphs.
294
Figure 146. Supplementary corrosion data - 300M rod, Summary Data and graphs.
295
Appendix 4. WEAR DATA
Document 9 L12 data fretting and sliding
"L12 data fretting

and sliding - Report.x
JTP wear data from L12 Design of Experiment matrix. Double-click to view Excel file.
Document 10 L8 full data - Report
"L8 full data -

Report.xls"
JTP wear data from L8 Design of Experiment matrix, and friction and temperature data. Double-
click to view Excel file.
296
WEAR
L12 Matrix
Table 115. L12 Matrix
L12 DoE for Measuring Sensitivity to Wear Test Variables

FRETTING
Design 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Factors
DoE Std. Block or Rod/ Shoe Load Coating Hydraulic Stroke Frequency Cycles Temp
Order Bushing Coating (lbs) Finish Fluid (inches) (cpm) (n) (Deg F)
Lubric’n
1 4340 Chrome 72 4 partial 0.01 600 720,000 70
2 4340 Chrome 72 4 full 0.05 240 360,000 200
3 4340 WC-17Co 288 8 partial 0.01 600 360,000 200
4 Nitrile Chrome 288* 8 partial 0.05 240 720,000 70
5 Nitrile WC-17Co 72 8 full 0.05 240 720,000 200
6 Nitrile WC-17Co 288* 4 full 0.01 600 360,000 70
L12 DoE for Measuring Sensitivity to Wear Test Variables

ROD/
BUSHING
Design 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Factors
DoE Std. Block or Rod/ Shoe Load, Coating Hydraulic Stroke Frequency Cycles (n) Temp
Order Bushing Coating lbs Finish Fluid (inches) (cpm) (Deg F)
Lubric’n
7 4340 WC-17Co 288 4 partial 1.0 30 108,000 200
8 4340 WC-17Co 72 8 full 1.0 90 108,000 70
9 4340 Chrome 288 8 full 0.1 30 54,000 70
10 Nitrile WC-17Co 72 4 partial 0.1 30 54,000 70
11 Nitrile Chrome 288 4 full 0.1 90 108,000 200
12 Nitrile Chrome 72 8 partial 1.0 90 54,000 200
297
Table 116. Rod and bushing data
TEST TEST BUSHING SEAL ROD WEAR

NUMBER SERIES WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT RANKING
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE (ROD)
14-04 7A -0.1271 -0.0200 10

23-04 7B -0.0633 -0.0003 6
7-04 8A -0.0218 0.0018 1
17-04 8B 0.0014 0.0049 1
9-04 9A 0.0043 -0.0003 3
19-04 9B 0.0021 0.0069 3
24-04 10A-L -0.0223
24-04 10A-R -0.0383 0.0035 2
29-04 10B-L -0.0046
29-04 10B-R -0.0057 0.0000 2
25-04 11A-L -0.0049
25-04 11A-R -0.0100 0.0107 3
27-04 11B-L 0.0509
27-04 11B-R 0.0560 0.0102 4
26-04 12A-L -0.4432
26-04 12A-R -0.1761 -0.0040 7
28-04 12B-L -0.2973
28-04 12B-R -0.1348 -0.0184 8
WEAR RANKING (ROD)
10
8
RANKING
6
4
2
0
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
10A-R
10B-R
11A-R
11B-R
12A-R
12B-R
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
Figure 147. Rod and bushing data – rod wear ranking.
298
WEIGHT CHANGE, BUSHING/SEAL
0.1000
0.0000
-0.1000
GRAMS
-0.2000
-0.3000
-0.4000
Avg. bushing wt. = 219 gm Avg. seal wt. = 2.9 gm
-0.5000
10A-R
10B-R
11A-R
11B-R
12A-R
12B-R
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
Figure 148. Weight change, bushing/seal.
WEIGHT CHANGE, ROD
0.0200
0.0100
GRAMS
0.0000
-0.0100
-0.0200 Avg. rod wt. = 880 gm
-0.0300
10A-R
10B-R
11A-R
11B-R
12A-R
12B-R
7A
7B
8A
8B
9A
9B
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
Figure 149. Weight change, rod.
299
WEIGHT CHANGE, BUSHING, SEAL/ROD
0.1000
0.0000
BUSHING WEIGHT CHANGE
SEAL WEIGHT CHANGE
-0.1000 ROD WEIGHT CHANGE
GRAMS
-0.2000
-0.3000
-0.4000 Avg. bushing wt. = 219 gm
-0.5000
10A-L
10B-L
11A-L
11B-L
12A-L
12B-L
7A
8A
9A
Figure 150. Weight change - rod, bushing, seal.
Table 117. Fretting Data

TEST TEST BLOCK SEAL SHOE WEAR Wear couple
NUMBER SERIES WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT RANKING block/shoe
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE (SHOE)
1-04 1A 0.0001 0.0003 2 4340/EHC

3-04 1B 0.0012 0.0008 2 4340/EHC
12-04 2A 0.0006 0.0016 2 4340/EHC
13-04 2B -0.0052 -0.0050 2 4340/EHC
15-04 3A 0.0034 0.0049 2 4340/WC-Co
20-04 3B -0.0022 0.0011 2 4340/WC-Co
4-04 4A 0.0102 0.0078 2 Nitrile/EHC
8-04 4B -0.0759 0.0038 2 Nitrile/EHC
22-04 5A -0.0171 0.0114 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
30-04 5B 0.0462 0.0133 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
6-04 6A -0.0665 0.0057 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
10-04 6B -0.0991 0.0128 1 Nitrile/WC-Co
300
10
8
RANKING
6
4
2
0
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
Figure 151. Fretting data - ranking.
WEIGHT CHANGE, BLOCK/SEAL
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
0.0000
GRAMS
-0.0200
-0.0400
-0.0600
-0.0800
-0.1000
-0.1200
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
Figure 152. Fretting data - weight change.
301
W EIGHT CHANGE, SHOE
0.0150
A vg. s hoe wt. = 54 gm
0.0100
GRAMS
0.0050
0.0000
-0.0050
-0.0100
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
T E S T S E R IE S
Figure 153. Fretting data - weight change, shoe.
WEIGHT CHANGE, BLOCK/SHOE
0.0600
0.0400
0.0200
WEIGHT CHANGE (GRAMS)
0.0000
-0.0200
-0.0400
-0.0600
-0.0800
-0.1000
-0.1200
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6A 6B
Figure 154. Fretting data - weight change, block/shoe.
302
L8 Matrix
Table 118 L8 Matrix

L8 MATRIX
Design Factors
C B A D
Test No. DOE Expt. No. 4340 Rod Ctg Bushing Cycles Load, lb.
49 A&B L8-01 Chrome 4340 80K 72
50 A&B L8-02 Chrome 4340 240K 288
51 A&B L8-03 Chrome AMS 4640* 80K 288
52 A&B L8-04 Chrome AMS 4640 240K 72
53 A&B L8-05 WC-17Co 4340 80K 288
54 A&B L8-06 WC-17Co 4340 240K 72
55 A&B L8-07 WC-17Co AMS 4640 80K 72
56 A&B L8-08 WC-17Co AMS 4640 240K 288
1st L8 Half
Replicate (a)
57 A&B L8-5a WC-10Co-4Cr 4340 80K 288
58 A&B L8-6a WC-10Co-4Cr 4340 240K 72
59 A&B L8-7a WC-10Co-4Cr AMS 4640 80K 72
60 A&B L8-8a WC-10Co-4Cr AMS 4640 240K 288
2nd L8 Half
Replicate (b)
3rd L8 Half
Replicate (c)
4th L8 Half 4340 Rod Ctg Bushing Cycles Load, lb.
Replicate (d)
69 A&B L8-3d Chrome KAron B seal 80K 288
70 A&B L8-4d Chrome KAron B seal 240K 72
71 A&B L8-5d WC-17Co KAron B seal 80K 72
72 A&B L8-6d WC-17Co KAron B seal 240K 288
5th L8 Half
Replicate (e)
73 A&B L8-1e Chrome KAron B seal 80K 72
74 A&B L8-2e Chrome KAron B seal 240K 288
75 A&B L8-3e WC-10Co-4Cr KAron B seal 80K 288
76 A&B L8-4e WC-10Co-4Cr KAron B seal 240K 72
77 A&B L8-5e Chrome AMS 4640 80K 288
78 A&B L8-6e Chrome AMS 4640 240K 72
6th L8 Half
Replicate (f)
X2 for each
TOTAL = 68 * Al-Ni Bronze
303
Table 119 L8 Matirx Test Parameters
L8 MATRIX TEST
PARAMETERS
Variable design
factors
C - Rod coating
B - Bushing type
A - Cycles
D - Normal load
Design factors held

constant
Test type:
Rod/Bushing
Coating Finish: 8
Ra
Hydraulic Lube:
Partial
1 hr. drip,
4340/Anodiz
Al/AlNiBrnz
1 hr. pressurized
lube for nitrile seal
Dry for Karon B
Stroke: 0.5” (1/2

cycle distance)
Frequency: 90
cpm
Temperature: 75 F
304
Table 120 Mean Comparisons
Data set Wear couple Weight change Weight change Visual rank, Rod
Rod bushing/seal
Baseline CHROME -0.000604163 -0.001448588 4.75
WC-Co -0.00038525 -0.00916085 3.875
Cr/4340 -0.00038 -0.00035 6.25
WC-Co/4340 -0.00058 -0.01039 3.00
Cr/Al Bronze -0.00083 -0.00255 3.25
WC-Co/Al Bronze -0.00019 -0.00794 4.75
1st half replicate CHROME -0.000609 -0.0014365 4.75
WC-Co,Cr -0.002229875 -0.0088355 3.375
Cr/4340 -0.00038625 -0.00032375 6.25
WC-Co,Cr/4340 -0.0020755 -0.0106905 2.5
Cr/Al Bronze -0.00083175 -0.00254925 3.25
WC-Co,Cr/Al Bronze -0.00238425 -0.0069805 4.25
2nd half replicate CHROME -0.000556975 -0.000196575 6.5
WC-Co -0.000407775 -0.005149338 2.125
Cr/4340 -0.000344825 -0.000323725 6.25
WC-Co/4340 -0.000577875 -0.010386325 3
Cr/Al Anodize -0.000769125 -0.000069425 6.75
WC-Co/Al Anodize -0.000237675 0.00008765 1.25
3rd half replicate CHROME -0.012231723 -0.14130359 6.65
WC-Co 4.98419E-05 -0.044563246 2.25
EHC - 4340 AVG -0.000389807 -0.000323715 6.3
WCCo - 4340 AVG -0.000577869 -0.010386335 3
EHC - Nitrile AVG -0.024073638 -0.282283465 7
WCCo - Nitrile AVG 0.000677553 -0.078740157 1.5
4th half replicate CHROME -0.000166873 0.002116219 4
WC-Co -0.00017948 -0.005390696 2
EHC 4340 AVG -0.000389807 -0.000323715 6.25
WC-Co 4340 AVG -0.000577869 -0.010386335 3
EHC Karon AVG 5.60614E-05 0.004556153 1.75
WC-Co Karon AVG 0.000218909 -0.000395058 1
5th half replicate CHROME 0.000749135 -0.002382218 4.5
WC-CoCr -0.001567984 -0.003254874 2.625
EHC AlNiBronze -0.000186447 -0.005674157 7.5
WC-Co,Cr AlNiBronze -0.001323467 -0.006980337 4.25
EHC Karon 0.001684718 0.000909722 1.5
WC-Co,Cr Karon -0.0018125 0.000470588 1
6th half replicate CHROME -0.000780567 -0.05081198 5.5
WC-CoCr -0.000714799 -0.092067705 2.625
EHC - AlNiBrnz AVG -0.000831968 -0.002549157 3.25
WCCoCr - 4340 AVG -0.001194853 -0.010690529 3.5
EHC - Nitrile AVG -0.000729167 -0.099074803 7.75
WCCoCr - Nitrile AVG -0.000234744 -0.173444882 1.75
305
L8 Average Weight Loss
0.000000
-0.010000
-0.020000
-0.030000
Weight loss
-0.040000
-0.050000
-0.060000
Chrome rod
-0.070000
Chrome bushing/seal
-0.080000 HVOF rod
-0.090000
HVOF bushing/seal
-0.100000
Figure 155. L8 average weight loss.
L8 Average visual rating

10.000000
8.000000
Chrome rod
Visual rating
6.000000 HVOF rod
4.000000
2.000000
0.000000
Figure 156. L8 visual rating.
306
307
Table 121. Mean comparisons and unusual data
BASELINE 1st HALF REP 2nd HALF REP

Std TN Order Rod Bush Visual TN Order Rod Bush Visual TN Order Rod Bush Visual
Order
1 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000569 0.001111 3 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3
9 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001500 -0.000268 4 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001500 -0.000268 4 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001379 -0.000268 4
2 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000167 -0.000779 9 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000167 -0.000779 9 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 -0.000779 9
10 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000736 -0.001456 9 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000736 -0.001456 9 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000677 -0.001456 9
3 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.000444 -0.004691 3 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.000444 -0.004691 3 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.000458 0.000764 9
11 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.001306 -0.001503 3 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.001306 -0.001503 3 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.001213 -0.001111 7
4 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000486 -0.002542 3 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000492 -0.002542 3 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.000038 0.001403 7
12 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 -0.002069 -0.001461 4 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 -0.002069 -0.001461 4 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 -0.001443 -0.001333 4
5 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051 2 57A-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 -0.003755 -0.042158 6 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051 2
13 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146 5 57B-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 -0.002031 -0.000868 2 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146 5
6 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333 3 58A-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 -0.002503 0.000132 1 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333 3
14 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015 2 58B-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 -0.000013 0.000132 1 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015 2
7 55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.000238 -0.000253 1 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.006003 -0.000829 2 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000631 0.000639 1
15 55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.000426 -0.001039 1 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.000268 -0.005744 3 63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000139 -0.000444 1
8 56A-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000156 -0.009480 8 60A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 -0.003729 -0.016152 8 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000172 0.000131 2
16 56B-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 -0.000738 -0.020969 9 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000463 -0.005197 4 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000008 0.000025 1
CHROME -0.000604 -0.001449 4.8 CHROME -0.000609 -0.001437 4.8 CHROME -0.000557 -0.000197 6.5
WC-Co -0.000385 -0.009161 3.9 WC-Co,Cr -0.002230 -0.008836 3.4 WC-Co -0.000408 -0.005149 2.1
Cr/4340 -0.000375 -0.000348 6.25 Cr/4340 -0.000386 -0.000324 6.25 Cr/4340 -0.000345 -0.000324 6.25
WC-Co/4340 -0.000578 -0.010386 3.00 WC-Co,Cr/4340 -0.002076 -0.010691 2.50 WC-Co/4340 -0.000578 -0.010386 3.00
Cr/Al Bronze -0.000833 -0.002549 3.25 Cr/Al Bronze -0.000832 -0.002549 3.25 Cr/Al Anodize -0.000769 -0.000069 6.75
WC-Co/Al Bronze -0.000193 -0.007935 4.75 WC-Co,Cr/Al Bronze -0.002384 -0.006981 4.25 WC-Co/Al Anodize -0.000238 0.000088 1.25
308
Table 122 Mean comparison and unusual data
BASELINE 1st HALF REP 2nd HALF REP

Std TN Order Rod Bush Visual TN Order Rod Bush Visual TN Order Rod Bush Visual
Order
1 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3
2 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000167 (0.000779) 9 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000167 (0.000779) 9 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 (0.000779) 9

3 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.000444) (0.004691) 3 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.000444) (0.004691) 3 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.000458) 0.000764 9
4 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000486 (0.002542) 3 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000492 (0.002542) 3 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.000038 0.001403 7
5 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.000943) (0.000051) 2 57A-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.003755) (0.042158) 6 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.000943) (0.000051) 2
6 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.000705) (0.033333) 3 58A-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.002503) 0.000132 1 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.000705) (0.033333) 3
7 55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.000238 (0.000253) 1 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.006003) (0.000829) 2 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.000631) 0.000639 1
8 56A-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000156 (0.009480) 8 60A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 (0.003729) (0.016152) 8 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.000172) 0.000131 2
9 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.001500) (0.000268) 4 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.001500) (0.000268) 4 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.001379) (0.000268) 4

10 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.000736) (0.001456) 9 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.000736) (0.001456) 9 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.000677) (0.001456) 9
11 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.001306) (0.001503) 3 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.001306) (0.001503) 3 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.001213) (0.001111) 7
12 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.002069) (0.001461) 4 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.002069) (0.001461) 4 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 (0.001443) (0.001333) 4
13 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.000295) (0.002146) 5 57B-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.002031) (0.000868) 2 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.000295) (0.002146) 5
14 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.000369) (0.006015) 2 58B-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.000013) 0.000132 1 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.000369) (0.006015) 2

15 55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.000426) (0.001039) 1 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.000268) (0.005744) 3 63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.000139) (0.000444) 1
16 56B-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 (0.000738) (0.020969) 9 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000463 (0.005197) 4 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.000008) 0.000025 1
309
BASELINE 2nd HALF

REP
Std Rod Bush Visual Rod Bush Visual
Order
1 9 0.000524 (0.001500) 0.001208 (0.000268) 3 4 0.000524 (0.001379) 0.001208 (0.000268) 3 4
2 10 0.000167 (0.000736) (0.000779) (0.001456) 9 9 0.000153 (0.000677) (0.000779) (0.001456) 9 9
3 11 (0.000444) (0.001306) (0.004691) (0.001503) 3 3 (0.000458) (0.001213) 0.000764 (0.001111) 9 7
4 12 0.000486 (0.002069) (0.002542) (0.001461) 3 4 0.000038 (0.001443) 0.001403 (0.001333) 7 4
5 13 (0.000943) (0.000295) (0.000051) (0.002146) 2 5 (0.000943) (0.000295) (0.000051) (0.002146) 2 5
6 14 (0.000705) (0.000369) (0.033333) (0.006015) 3 2 (0.000705) (0.000369) (0.033333) (0.006015) 3 2
7 15 0.000238 (0.000426) (0.000253) (0.001039) 1 1 (0.000631) (0.000139) 0.000639 (0.000444) 1 1
8 16 0.000156 (0.000738) (0.009480) (0.020969) 8 9 (0.000172) (0.000008) 0.000131 0.000025 2 1
1st HALF REP

Std Rod Bush Visual
Order
1 9 0.000524 (0.001500) 0.001208 (0.000268) 3 4
2 10 0.000167 (0.000736) (0.000779) (0.001456) 9 9
3 11 (0.000444) (0.001306) (0.004691) (0.001503) 3 3
4 12 0.000492 (0.002069) (0.002542) (0.001461) 3 4
5 13 (0.003755) (0.002031) (0.042158) (0.000868) 6 2
6 14 (0.002503) (0.000013) 0.000132 0.000132 1 1
7 15 (0.006003) (0.000268) (0.000829) (0.005744) 2 3
8 16 (0.003729) 0.000463 (0.016152) (0.005197) 8 4
310
311
Table 125 Mean comparisons 3 – 5 repl
3rd half rep DOE rod bush bush+sea seal Visual

l
EHC - 4340 AVG -0.000390 -0.000324 -0.000324 6.3
WCCo - 4340 AVG -0.000578 -0.010386 -0.010386 3.0
EHC - Nitrile AVG -0.024074 -0.000993 -0.283276 -0.282283 7.0

WCCo - Nitrile AVG 0.000678 -0.000904 -0.079644 -0.078740 1.5
6th half rep DOE rod bush bush+sea seal Visual

l
EHC - AlNiBrnz AVG -0.000832 -0.002549 -0.002549 3.3
WCCoCr - 4340 AVG -0.001195 -0.010691 -0.010691 3.5
EHC - Nitrile AVG -0.000729 -0.000812 -0.099887 -0.099075 7.8

WCCoCr - Nitrile AVG -0.000235 -0.002687 -0.176132 -0.173445 1.8
4th half rep DOE rod bush Visual

EHC 4340 AVG -0.000390 -0.000324 6.3
WC-Co 4340 AVG -0.000578 -0.010386 3.0
EHC Karon AVG 0.000056 0.004556 1.8

WC-Co Karon AVG 0.000219 -0.000395 1.0
5th half rep DOE rod bush Visual

EHC AlNiBronze -0.000186 -0.005674 7.5
WC-Co,Cr AlNiBronze -0.001323 -0.006980 4.3
EHC Karon 0.001685 0.000910 1.5

WC-Co,Cr Karon -0.001813 0.000471 1.0
312
49
A
-E
H
C
/4
34
-0.015000
-0.012500
-0.010000
-0.007500
-0.005000
-0.002500
0.000000
0.002500
49 0/
B 80
-E K
H /7
C 2
/4
50 34
A 0/
80
-E
H K
C /7
2
/4
34
50 0/
24
Rod
B 0K
-E
H /2
C
4340
/4 88
34
51 0/
Bushing
A 24
-E 0K
H /2
C
/A 88
lN
51 iB
B r/8
-E 0K
H /2
C 88
/A
lN
52 iB
A r/8
-E 0K
H /2
C 88
/A
lN
iB
A
52
B r/2
-E 40
H K
C /7
/A 2
lN
53 iB
A r/2
-W 40
C K
C /7
2
EHC
o/
43
Al Ni Bronze
53 40
B /8
-W 0K
C /2
C 88
o/
43
54 40
A /8
-W 0K
C /2
C 88
o/
43
54 4 0/
B 24
-W 0K
C
WC-Co
C /7
2
o/
4340
43
55 40
A /2
-W 40
C K
C /7
o/
A 2
lN
55 i
Figure 157. L8 baseline DOE rod and bushing wear volumes.
B B
-W r/8
C 0K
C /7
o/
A 2
56 l
A N
-W i B
C r/8
C 0K
o/ /7
A 2
56 lN
B iB
-W r/2
C 40
C K
o/ /2
A 88
L8 Baseline DOE Rod & Bushing Wear Volumes
lN
iB
r/2
40
K
/2
88
Al Ni Bronze
313
49
A
-E
H
49 C/
43
0.0000
0.0150
B- 40
(0.0750)
(0.0600)
(0.0450)
(0.0300)
(0.0150)
EH /8
C/ 0K
43 /7
40 2
50 /8
A 0K
-E /7
H 2
50 C/
43
B- 40
EH /2
C/ 40
43 K
40 /2
88
/2
51 40
A K
-E /2
H 88
ROD
C/
51 A
B- lN
EH iB
C/ r/8
A 0K
lN /2
iB
BUSHING
88
r/8
52 0K
A /2
-E
H 88
C/
52 A
B- lN
EH iB
C/ r/2
A 40
lN K
iB /7
r/2 2
53 40
A K
-W /7
CC 2
EHC
53 o/
B- 43
W 40
CC /8
o/ 0K
43 /2
40 88
54 /8
0K
A /2
-W 88
Figure 158. Data - all metal bushings.

CC
54 o/
B- 43
W 40
Weight loss, baseline
CC /2
o/ 40
43 K
/7
240
WC-Co
/2
55
A 4 0K
-W /7
CC 2
55 o /
B- A
W lN
CC iB
o/ r/8
A 0K
lN /7
56 iB 2
A r/8
-W 0K
CC /7
56 o/ 2
B- A
W lN
CC iB
o/ r/2
A 40
lN K
iB /2
r/2 88
40
K
/2
88
314
49
A-
EH
49 C
B- /4
EH 34
C 0/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
/4 80
34 K/
50 0/ 72
A- 80
EH K/
50 C 72
B- /4
EH 34
0/
C 24
/4 0K
34
51 0/ /2
24 88
A- 0K
EH /2
51 C 88
B- /A
EH lN
iB
C r/8
/A
lN 0K
52 iB /2
r/8 88
A- 0K
EH /2
52 C 88
Figure 159. Data all Metal Bushings – Visual Ratings
B- /A
EH lN
iB
C r/2
/A
lN 40
53 iB K/
r/2 72
A-
W 40
C K/
53 C 72
B- o/
EHC
W 43
C 40
C /8
o/ 0K
43
54 40 /2
/8 88
A-
W 0K
Visual Ratings, Baseline
C /2
54 C 88
B- o/
W 43
C 40
C /2
o/ 40
43
55 40 K/
WC-Co
A- /2 72
W 40
C K/
55 C 72
B- o/
W Al
N
C
VISUAL
C iB
o/ r/8
56 Al 0K
N /7
A- iB 2
W r/8
C
56 C 0K
B- o/ /7
W Al 2
C N
C iB
o/ r/2
Al
N 40
iB K/
r/2 28
40 8
K/
28
8
315
Table 126. Measurement Accuracy
51 53 56 57 28 92 93 94
884.2475 883.5675 883.7347 882.9758 873.7553 874.265 875.2033 875.4505
884.2478 883.5673 883.7348 882.9759 873.7559 874.2651 875.2032 875.4506
884.2477 883.5676 883.7349 882.9763 873.7557 874.2649 875.203 875.4503
884.2476 883.5675 883.7346 882.9760 873.7556 874.265 875.203 875.4502
884.2476 883.5679 883.7350 882.9764 873.7555 874.2644 875.2028 875.4501
884.2478 883.5679 883.7349 882.9762 873.7553 874.2643 875.2033 875.4499
AVG 884.2477 883.5676 883.7348 882.9761 873.7556 874.2648 875.2031 875.4503

St Dev 0.000121305 0.000240 0.000147 0.000237 0.000234 0.000343 0.0002 0.000259
max 884.2478 883.5679 883.7350 882.9764 873.7559 874.2651 875.2033 875.4506

min 884.2475 883.5673 883.7346 882.9758 873.7553 874.2643 875.2028 875.4499
Range 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0006 0.0006 0.0008 0.0005 0.0007 wgts error range
Densities Max Vol

error
13.6 0.00002 0.00004 0.00003 0.00004 0.00004 0.00006 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006 carbides
7.2 0.00004 0.00008 0.00006 0.00008 0.00008 0.00011 0.00007 0.00010 0.00011 metals & EHC
1.27 0.00024 0.00047 0.00031 0.00047 0.00047 0.00063 0.00039 0.00055 0.00063 seals & anodize
316
Table 127. MT Format – baseline volume
Wgt Chng Wgt Chng Wgt Chng ROD Volume Volume Volume
ROD/BUSHING ROD BUSHING Total VISUAL Order Corrected Rod Bushing Corrected Total Corr.Total Density Matl
49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 0.0128 3 1 0.0005 0.00057 0.00111 0.00121 0.00168 0.00173 7.2 EHC
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) (0.0049) 9 2 0.0002 0.00017 -0.0008 -0.0006 -0.00063 12.2 WC-Co
51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0032) (0.0334) (0.0366) 3 3 -0.0004 -0.0047 -0.0051 7.83 4340 steel
52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0035 (0.0181) (0.0146) 3 4 0.0005 0.00049 -0.0025 -0.0021 -0.00205 7.12 AlNiBronze
53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) (0.0119) 2 5 -0.0009 -5E-05 -0.001 13.6 WC-Co-Cr
54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) (0.2696) 3 6 -0.0007 -0.0333 -0.034
55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.0029 (0.0018) 0.0011 1 7 0.0004 0.00024 -0.0003 -2E-05 0.00015
56A- 0.0019 (0.0675) (0.0656) 8 8 0.0003 0.00016 -0.0095 -0.0093 -0.00921
WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288
49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) (0.0129) 4 9 -0.0015 -0.0003 -0.0018
50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) (0.0167) 9 10 -0.0007 -0.0015 -0.0022
51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0094) (0.0107) (0.0201) 3 11 -0.0013 -0.0015 -0.0028
52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0149) (0.0104) (0.0253) 4 12 -0.0021 -0.0015 -0.0035
53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) (0.0204) 5 13 -0.00030 -0.0003 -0.0021 -0.0024
54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) (0.0516) 2 14 -0.00037 -0.0004 -0.006 -0.0064
55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0052) (0.0074) (0.0126) 1 15 -0.00043 -0.0004 -0.001 -0.0015
56B- (0.0090) (0.1493) (0.1583) 9 16 -0.00074 -0.0007 -0.021 -0.0217
WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288
317
This page left intentionally blank
318
Table 128. MT Format – baseline volume
Wear
Volume
TN/ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LO Rod Bushing
AD
49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.00052 0.00121
49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.0015 -0.0003
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.00015 -0.0008
50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.0007 -0.0015
51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.0004 -0.0047
51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.0013 -0.0015
52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.00049 -0.0025
52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 -0.0021 -0.0015
53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.0009 -5E-05
53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.0003 -0.0021
54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.0007 -0.0333
54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.0004 -0.006
55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.00041 -0.0003
55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.0004 -0.001
56A-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.00027 -0.0095
56B-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 -0.0007 -0.021
319
49
A
-E
H
C
/4
34
-0.015000
-0.012500
-0.010000
-0.007500
-0.005000
-0.002500
0.000000
0.002500
49
B 0/
80
-E
H K
C /7
2
50 /4
A 3 40
-E /8
H
C 0K
/4 /7
50 3 40 2
B /2
Rod
-E 40
H K
C
4340
/4 /2
51 34 88
A 0
Bushing
-E /2
H 40
C K
/A /2
51 lN 88
B iB
-E r/8
H 0K
C /2
/A
Figure 160. L8 rod and bushing wear volumes.

52 lN 88
A iB
-E r/8
H 0K
C /2
/A
52 lN 88
B iB
-E r/2
H 40
C K
/A /7
53 lN 2
A iB
-W r/2
C 40
C K
o/
EHC
/7
53 43 2
B
Al Ni Bronze
40
-W /8
C 0K
C /2
o/ 88
54 43
A 40
-W /8
C 0K
C /2
o/ 88
54 43
B 40
-W /2
C 40
C K
WC-Co
o /4 /7
2
4340
55
A 3 4
-W 0/
C 2
C 40
K
o/
55 A /7
2
B l N
-W iB
C r/8
56 C 0K
o/ /7
A A 2
-W lN
C iB
C r/8
o/
56 A 0K
B lN /7
-W iB 2
C r /2
C 40
o/
A K
L8 Baseline DOE Rod & Bushing Wear Volumes
lN /2
iB 88
r/2
40
K
/2
88
Al Ni Bronze
320
Figure 161. Rod correlation – visual and weight
Correlation of Wgt Change and Visual Rating for Rods
0.0100
0.0000
(0.0100)
Wgt. Change
(0.0200)
(0.0300)
(0.0400)
(0.0500)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Visual Rating
321
49
A-
EH
49 C
B- /4
EH 34
C 0/
0.0000
2.0000
4.0000
6.0000
8.0000
10.0000
80
(2.0000)
/4 K/
50 34
A- 0/ 72
EH 80
K/
50 C 72
B- /4
EH 34
C 0/
24
/4 0K
34
/2
Figure 162. Visual rating - baseline
51 0/
A- 24 8
EH 0K 8
51 C /2
B- /A 88
EH lN
C iB
/A r/8
lN 0K
iB /2
52
A- r/8 8
EH 0K 8
52 C /2
B- /A 88
EH lN
C iB
/A r/2
lN 40
53 iB K/
A- r/2 72
W 40
53 C
B- C K/
72
o/
W 43
C
C 40
/8
o/ 0K
43
54 40 /2
A- /8 8
W 0K 8
54 C /2
B- C 88
o/
W 43
C
C 40
/2
Visual Ratings, Baseline
o/ 40
43
55 40 K/
A- /2 72
W 40
55 C
B- C K/
72
o/
W Al
C N
C iB
o/ r/8
56 Al
A- N 0K
W iB /7
56 C r/8 2
B- C 0K
o/ /7
W Al 2
C N
C iB
o/ r/2
Al
N 40
iB K/
r/2 28
40 8
K/
28
8
ROD
VISUAL
BUSHING
322
Table 129 Data 1st half rep volume
1st HALF REPLICATE DOE WEAR VOLUMES

TN/ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING
49A 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208
49B 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001500 -0.000268
50A 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000167 -0.000779

50B 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000736 -0.001456
51A 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.000444 -0.004691

51B 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.001306 -0.001503
52A 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000492 -0.002542

52B 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 -0.002069 -0.001461
57A 57A-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 -0.003755 -0.042158

57B 57B-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 -0.002031 -0.000868
58A 58A-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 -0.002503 0.000132

58B 58B-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 -0.000013 0.000132
59A 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.006003 -0.000829

59B 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.000268 -0.005744
60A 60A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 -0.003729 -0.016152

60B 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000463 -0.005197
323
49
A
-E
H
49 C
/4
B 34
-E
H
-0.015000
-0.012500
-0.010000
-0.007500
-0.005000
-0.002500
0.000000
0.002500
0/
C 80
K
/4
34 /7
0/ 2
50 80
A K
-E /7
H 2
50 C
/4
B 34
-E
H 0/
C 24
ROD
/4 0K
4340
34 /2
0/
51 24 88
A 0K
BUSHING
-E /2
H 88
51 C
/A
B lN
-E iB
H
C r/8
/A
Figure 163. Data 1st half replicate Volumes

lN 0K
iB /2
52 r/8 88
A 0K
-E /2
H 88
52 C
/A
B lN
-E iB
H
C r/2
/A 40
lN K
57 iB /
A r/2 72
-W 40
C K
57 C /7
2
B oC
EHC
-W r/4
Al Ni Bronze
C 34
C 0/
oC 80
r/4 K
34 /2
58 0/ 88
A 8
-W 0K
C /2
58 C 88
B oC
-W r/4
C 34
C 0/
oC 24
4340
r/4 0K
59 34 /7
A 0/
WC-Co-Cr
-W 24 2
C 0K
59 C /7
B oC 2
-W r/A
C l N
C iB
oC
r/A r/80
60 lN K
A iB /7
-W r 2
C /8
L8 1st Half Replicate DOE Wear Volumes
60 C 0K
B o /7
-W Cr/
A 2
C lN
C i
oC B
r/A r/24
lN 0K
iB /
r/2 288
40
K
/2
88
Al Ni Bronze
324
Wgt. Change, gms
49
A
-E
49 HC 0.0100
0.0300
(0.1500)
(0.1300)
(0.1100)
(0.0900)
(0.0700)
(0.0500)
(0.0300)
(0.0100)
B- /4
EH 3 4
C 0/8
/4
50 34 0K/
A- 0/ 72
E 80
50 HC K/
B- /4 72
EH 34
C 0
/4 /24
34 0K
51 0/ /
A- 24 288
EH 0K
51 C /2
B- /A 88
Figure 164. 1st Half Replicate with WC-Co-C

EH lN
C iB
/A r/8
lN 0 K
52 iB /
A- r/8 288
EH 0K
52 C /2
B- /A 88
EH l N
C iB
/A r/2
57 lN 40
A- iB K
W r/2 /72
57 CC 40
B- o K/
W Cr 72
C /
C 434
oC 0
58 r/4 /80
A- 3 4 K/
W 0/ 28
80 8
58 CC K/
B- o 28
W Cr 8
C / 4
Rod/Bushing/Cycles/PN
C
oC 340
59 r/4 /24
A- 34 0 K
W 0/ /
L8 1st Half Replicate Wear Testing
5 9 CC 24 72
B- 0K
oC
W /7
2
C r/ A
C lN
60 oC iB
A- r/A r/8
W lN 0K
6 0 CC iB /
B- r/8 72
oC
W 0K
ROD
C r/A /7
C 2
oC lNiB
BUSHING
r/A r/2
lN 40
iB K
r/2 /28
40 8
K/
28
8
325
Wgt. Change, gms
49
A-
E
49 HC
B- /4
E H 34
C 0/8
0.8500
1.8500
2.8500
3.8500
4.8500
5.8500
6.8500
7.8500
8.8500
9.8500
/4
(0.1500)
50 3 4 0K
A- 0/ / 72
E 80
50 HC K/
B- /4 72
EH 34
C 0/ 2
/4
34 40K
51 0/
A- 24 /28
EH 0K 8
51 /2
B- C/A 88
EH lN
C iBr
/A /
lN 80K
52 iB
A- r/8 /28
E 0K 8
52 HC /2
B- /A 88
EH lN
C Br i
57 /A /
lN 240
i
Figure 165. Visual Ratings, 1st Half Replicate

A-
W B K
r/2 /7
57 C
C 4 2
B- 0K
W oCr /7
C 2
C / 43
oC 40
58 r / 4 /80
A- 34 K
W 0/ / 28
58 C 80 8
B- C K/
W oCr 28
C / 4 8
C 3
oC 40
59 r/4 /24
Rod/Bushing/Cycles/PN
A- 34 0K
W 0/
59 C 24 /72
B - Co 0K
L8 1st Half Replicate Wear Testing
W Cr /7
C / 2
C AlN
60 oC iB
A- r/A r/
W lN 80K
60 C iB
B- Co r/8 /72
W Cr 0K
C /7
C /AlN
oC 2
iB
ROD
ROD
r/A r/
VISUAL
lN 240
iB K
BUSHING
BUSHING
r/2 /2
40 88
K/
28
8
326
Table 130 DATA 2nd Half Replicate
Wgt Chng Wgt Chng ROD

ROD/BUSHING ROD BUSHING VISUAL WEAR VOLUMES
49A 49A- 0.0041 0.0087 3 TN/ROD/BUSHINGCYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING
EHC/4340/80K/72 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208
49B 49B- (0.0108) (0.0021) 4 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001379 -0.000268
EHC/4340/80K/72
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 -0.000779
50A 50A- 0.0012 (0.0061) 9 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000677 -0.001456
EHC/4340/240K/288
50B 50B- (0.0053) (0.0114) 9 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.000458 0.000764
EHC/4340/240K/288 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.001213 -0.001266
61A 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0033) 0.0055 9 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.000095 0.001403

61B 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0095) (0.0040) 7 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 -0.001443 -0.001519
62A 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.0003 0.0101 7 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051

62B 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 (0.0113) (0.0048) 4 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146
53A 53A- (0.0115) (0.0004) 2 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333

WCCo/4340/80K/288 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015
53B 53B- (0.0036) (0.0168) 5
WCCo/4340/80K/288 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000631 0.000639
63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000139 -0.000506
54A 54A- (0.0086) (0.2610) 3
WCCo/4340/240K/72 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000172 0.000131
54B 54B- (0.0045) (0.0471) 2 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000008 0.000025
WCCo/4340/240K/72
63A 63A- (0.0077) 0.0078 1

WCCo/Al/80K/72
63B 63B- (0.0017) (0.0016) 1
WCCo/Al/80K/72
64A 64A- (0.0021) 0.0016 2

WCCo/Al/240K/288
64B 64B- (0.0001) 0.0003 1
WCCo/Al/240K/288
327
Vol Wear
TN/ROD/BUSHINGCYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING Visual
1 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3
2 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001379 -0.000268 4 MINITAB INPUT FORMAT
3 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 -0.000779 9 Wear Volumes Order
4 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000677 -0.001456 9 TN/ROD/BUSHINGCYCLES/LOA ROD BUSHING Visual Original Minitab
5 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.000458 0.000764 9 D
6 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.001213 -0.001266 7 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3 1 1
7 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.000095 0.001403 7 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 -0.000779 9 3 2
8 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 -0.001443 -0.001519 4 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.000458 0.000764 9 5 3
9 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051 2 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.000095 0.001403 7 7 4
10 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146 5 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051 2 9 5
11 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333 3 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333 3 11 6
12 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015 2 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000631 0.000639 1 13 7
13 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000631 0.000639 1 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000172 0.000131 2 15 8
14 63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000139 -0.000506 1 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001379 -0.000268 4 2 9
15 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000172 0.000131 2 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000677 -0.001456 9 4 10
16 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000008 0.000025 1 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 -0.001213 -0.001266 7 6 11
62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 -0.001443 -0.001519 4 8 12
EHC-4340 AVG -0.000345 -0.000324 6 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146 5 10 13
WCCo-4340 AVG -0.000578 -0.010386 3 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015 2 12 14
63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 -0.000139 -0.000506 1 14 15
EHC-Anodize Al AVG -0.000755 -0.000155 7 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 -0.000008 0.000025 1 16 16
WCCo-Anodize Al AVG -0.000238 0.000072 1
328
49
A
-E
H
C
49 /4
B 34
-E 0/
-0.015000
-0.012500
-0.010000
-0.007500
-0.005000
-0.002500
0.000000
0.002500
H 80
C K
/4 /7
34 2
0/
50 80
A K
-E /7
H 2
C
50 /4
B 34
-E 0/
H 24
C 0K
/4
34 /2
88
ROD
0/
4340
24
0K
/2
Figure 166. Data 2nd Half Replicate

61 88
BUSHING
A
-E
H
C
61 /A
B l/8
-E 0K
H
C /2
/A 88
l/8
0K
/2
62 88
A
-E
H
C
62 /A
B l/2
-E 40
H K
C /7
/A 2
l/2
53 40
A K
-W /7
C 2
Al Anodize
C
EHC
53 o/
B 43
-W 40
C /8
C 0K
o/
43 /2
40 88
/8
54 0K
A /2
-W 88
C
54 C
o/
B 43
-W 40
C
WC-Co
C /2
4340
o/ 40
43 K
/7
40 2
/2
40
K
/7
63
A 2
-W
C
63 C
o/
B A
-W l/8
C 0K
C /7
o/
A 2
l/8
L8 2nd Half Replicate DOE Wear Volumes
64 0K
A /7
2
-W
C
64 C
o/
B A
-W l/2
C 40
C K
o/
A /2
l/2 88
Al Anodize
40
K
/2
88
329
Wgt. Change, gms
49
A-
E
49 HC
B- /4
EH 34
C 0/8
0.0000
0.0500
(0.3000)
(0.2500)
(0.2000)
(0.1500)
(0.1000)
(0.0500)
/4
50 34 0K/
A- 0/ 72
EH 80
50 C K/
B- / 4 72
EH 34
C 0
/4 /24
34 0K
0/ /
24 288
61 0K
A- /2
E 88
61 HC
B- /A
EH l/8
C 0K
Figure 167. 2nd Half Replicate with Anodize

/A /
l/8 288
62 0K
A- /2
E 88
62 HC
B- /A
EH l/2
C 40
53 /A K
A- l/2 /72
W 40
53 CC K/
B- o 72
W /43
C 4
C
o/ 0/8
43 0K
54 40 /2
A- /8 88
W 0K
54 CC /2
B- o/ 88
W 43
C 4
Rod/Bushing/Cycles/PN C
o/ 0/2
43 40
40 K/
/2 72
L8 2nd Half Replicate Wear Testing
63 40
A- K/
W 72
63 CC
B- o/
W Al
C
C /80K
64 o/
Al /72
A- /8
W 0K
64 CC /7
B- o/ 2
W Al
C /2
C
o/ 40K
Al
/2 /28
ROD
40 8
K/
28
BUSHING
8
330
49
A-
E
49 HC
B- /4
EH 34
C 0/8
0.0000
2.0000
4.0000
6.0000
8.0000
10.0000
(2.0000)
/4 0
50 34 K/
A- 0/ 72
E 80
K/
50 HC 72
B- /4
EH 3 40
C /
/4 240
34 K/
0/
24 288
61 0K
A- /2
EH 88
61 C
B- /A
EH l/8
C 0K
/A /
l/8 288
Figure 168. Visual Ratings, 2nd Half Replicate

62 0K
A- /2
E 88
62 HC
B- /A
EH l/2
C 40K
53 /A
A- l/2 /72
W 40
53 CC K/
B- o 72
W /43
C
C 40/
o/ 8
43 0K
54 40 /2
A- /8 88
W 0K
54 C /2
B- Co 88
W /43
C 4
C 0/
o/ 2
43 40
40 K/
/2 72
63 40
A- K/
W 72
63 CC
B- o/
W Al
C /
C 80K
o/
64 Al /72
A- /8
W 0K
/7
64 CC 2
B- o
W /Al
C /2
C
o/ 40K
Al
/2 /28
40 8
ROD
K/
VISUAL
28
8
BUSHING
331
Table 134. Data all
TEST WEIGHT VISUAL

CHANGE
G
BASELIN
E
49A 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 3
49B 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) 4
50A 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) 9

50B 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) 9
51A 51A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0032) (0.0334) 3

51B 51B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0094) (0.0107) 3
52A 52A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0035 (0.0181) 3

52B 52B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0149) (0.0104) 4
53A 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) 2

53B 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) 5
54A 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) 3

54B 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) 2
55A 55A-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 0.0029 (0.0018) 1

55B 55B-WCCo/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0052) (0.0074) 1
56A 56A-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0019 (0.0675) 8

56B 56B-WCCo/AlNiBr/240K/288 (0.0090) (0.1493) 9
332
Table 135. Data all
TEST WEIGHT VISUAL

CHANGE
G
1ST L8 HALF-REPLICATE
57A 57A-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.0294) (0.3301) 6
57B 57B-WCCoCr/4340/80K/288 (0.0159) (0.0068) 2
58A 58A-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.0196) 0.0018 1

58B 58B-WCCoCr/4340/240K/72 (0.0001) 0.0018 1

59B 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0021) (0.0409) 3

60B 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0033 (0.0370) 4
2ND L8 HALF-REPLICATE
61A 61A-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0033) 0.0055 9
61B 61B-EHC/Al/80K/288 (0.0095) (0.0040) 7
62A 62A-EHC/Al/240K/72 0.0003 0.0101 7

62B 62B-EHC/Al/240K/72 (0.0113) (0.0048) 4
63A 63A-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.0077) 0.0078 1

63B 63B-WCCo/Al/80K/72 (0.0017) (0.0016) 1
64A 64A-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.0021) 0.0016 2

64B 64B-WCCo/Al/240K/288 (0.0001) 0.0003 1
333
Table 136. Data all

3RD L8
HALF-
REPLICATE
65A 65A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 0.2933 (0.0131) (0.0751) (0.0423) 5
65B 65B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 (0.0013) (0.0063) (0.0366) (0.0520) 8
66A 66A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 (0.0073) (0.0073) (0.4355) (0.2570) 6

66B 66B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 (0.0071) (0.0044) (0.2583) (0.2772) 9
67A 67A-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0009) (0.0124) (0.0779) (0.1863) 1

67B 67B-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0035) (0.0042) (0.0058) (0.0078) 2
68A 68A-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.0026 (0.0101) (0.0288) (0.0373) 1

68B 68B-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.0013 (0.0016) (0.0226) (0.0335) 2
4TH L8
HALF-
REPLICATE
69A 69A-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0005 (0.0008) 1
69B 69B-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0003 0.0622 1
70A 70A-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0006) (0.0010) 3

70B 70B-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0016) 0.0776 2
71A 71A-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 0.0002 0.0003 1

71B 71B-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 (0.0008) 0.0055 1
72A 72A-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 (0.0071) (0.0098) 1

72B 72B-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 0.0021 0.0541 1
334
5TH L8 HALF-
Table 137 Data all
REPLICATE
73A 73A-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0103 0.0035 2
73B 73B-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0004 0.0091 2
74A 74A-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0017) 0.0034 1

74B 74B-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0008) 0.0102 1
75A 75A-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0335) 0.0022 1

75B 75B-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0011) 0.0077 1
76A 76A-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0056 1

76B 76B-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0101 1
77A 77A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0016) (0.0328) 9

77B 77B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 0.0022 (0.0235) 6
78A 78A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0065) (0.0463) 8

78B 78B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0005 (0.0590) 7
6TH L8 HALF-
REPLICATE
79A 79A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0016) (0.0018) (0.0604) (0.0783) 8
79B 79B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/72 (0.0007) 0.0030 (0.0072) (0.0012) 7
80A 80A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/288 (0.0021) (0.0040) (0.1539) (0.1256) 8

80B 80B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/288 (0.0166) (0.0229) (0.0373) (0.0394) 8
81A 81A-WCCoCr/NITRILE/80K/288 (0.0049) (0.0391) (0.1289) (0.2392) 2

82A 82A-WCCoCr/NITRILE/240K/72 0.0023 0.0006 (0.0926) (0.2962) 2

SEAL A SEAL B
DRIVE FREE
SIDE SIDE
335
Table 138. Data all
DENSITIES USED FOR

VOLUME WEAR
CONVERSIONS
SPECIMENS MATERI GM/CC
ALS
ROD COATINGS EHC 7.2
WC-Co 12.2
WC- 13.6
Co,Cr
BUSHINGS 4340 7.83
Steel
Al Ni 7.12
Bronze
Anodized 3.16
2024 Al
SEALS Nitrile 1.27
rubber
Karon B 1.51
336
Table 139. 3rd half rep DOE
WEIGHT VISUAL VOLUME VISUAL

CHANGE CHANGE
ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/ ROD BUSHING SEAL A SEAL B RATING ROD BUSHING Bush+Seal SEAL A SEAL B Seal A+B RATING
LOAD
49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 3 0.00052 0.00121 0.00121 3
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) 9 0.00015 -0.00078 -0.00078 9
65A- 0.2933 (0.0131) (0.0751 (0.0423 5 -0.09411 -0.00167 -0.09411 -0.05913 -0.03331 -0.09244 5
EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 ) )
66A- (0.0073) (0.0073) (0.4355 (0.2570 6 -0.00101 -0.00093 -0.54621 -0.34291 -0.20236 -0.54528 6
53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) 2 -0.00094 -0.00005 -0.00005 2
54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) 3 -0.00070 -0.03333 -0.03333 3
67A- (0.0009) (0.0124) (0.0779 (0.1863 1 RUBBER -0.00007 -0.00158 -0.20962 -0.06134 -0.14669 -0.20803 1
WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 ) ) TRANS
68A- 0.0026 (0.0101) (0.0288 (0.0373 1 RUBBER 0.00205 -0.00129 -0.05334 -0.02268 -0.02937 -0.05205 1
WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 ) ) TRANS
49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) 4 -0.00150 -0.00027 -0.00027 4
50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) 9 -0.00074 -0.00146 -0.00146 9
65B- (0.0013) (0.0063) (0.0366 (0.0520 8 -0.00018 -0.00080 -0.07057 -0.02882 -0.04094 -0.06976 8
66B- (0.0071) (0.0044) (0.2583 (0.2772 9 -0.00099 -0.00056 -0.42222 -0.20339 -0.21827 -0.42165 9
53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) 5 -0.00030 -0.00215 -0.00215 5
54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) 2 -0.00037 -0.00602 -0.00602 2
67B- (0.0035) (0.0042) (0.0058 (0.0078 2 -0.00029 -0.00054 -0.01125 -0.00457 -0.00614 -0.01071 2
WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 ) )
68B- 0.0013 (0.0016) (0.0226 (0.0335 2 0.00102 -0.00020 -0.04438 -0.01780 -0.02638 -0.04417 2
WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 ) )
ROD BUSHING Bush+Seal Seal A+B Visual
Grand avg. -0.00609 -0.00315 -0.09341 -0.18051 4.4
Grand 0.02349 0.00819 0.16348 0.19853 2.9
St.Dev.
EHC 4340 -0.0004 -0.0003 -0.0003 6.3

EHC Nitrile -0.0241 -0.001 -0.2833 -0.2823 7.0
WC-Co -0.0006 -0.0104 -0.0104 3.0

4340
WC-Co 0.00068 -0.0009 -0.0796 -0.0787 1.5
Nitrile
337
Table 140 3rd half rep DOE
New Order MiniTab ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING Bush+Seal Seal A+B Visual
1 4 66A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00101 -0.00093 -0.54621 -0.54528 6
2 12 66B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00099 -0.00056 -0.42222 -0.42165 9
3 3 65A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.09411 -0.00167 -0.09411 -0.09244 5
4 11 65B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.00018 -0.00080 -0.07057 -0.06976 8
5 8 68A-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00205 -0.00129 -0.05334 -0.05205 1
6 16 68B-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00102 -0.00020 -0.04438 -0.04417 2
7 7 67A-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00007 -0.00158 -0.20962 -0.20803 1
8 15 67B-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00029 -0.00054 -0.01125 -0.01071 2
9 2 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.00015 -0.00078 -0.00078 9

10 10 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.00074 -0.00146 -0.00146 9
11 1 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.00052 0.00121 0.00121 3
12 9 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.00150 -0.00027 -0.00027 4
13 5 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00094 -0.00005 -0.00005 2
14 13 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00030 -0.00215 -0.00215 5
15 6 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00070 -0.03333 -0.03333 3
16 14 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00037 -0.00602 -0.00602 2
338
Page left intentionally blank
339
Table 141 3rd half rep DOE
Mintab Format
ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING Bush+Sea Seal A+B

l
49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.00052 0.00121 0.00121
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.00015 -0.00078 -0.00078
65A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.09411 -0.00167 -0.09411 -0.09244
66A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00101 -0.00093 -0.54621 -0.54528
53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00094 -0.00005 -0.00005
54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00070 -0.03333 -0.03333
67A-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00007 -0.00158 -0.20962 -0.20803
68A-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00205 -0.00129 -0.05334 -0.05205
49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.00150 -0.00027 -0.00027
50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.00074 -0.00146 -0.00146
65B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.00018 -0.00080 -0.07057 -0.06976
66B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00099 -0.00056 -0.42222 -0.42165
53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00030 -0.00215 -0.00215
54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00037 -0.00602 -0.00602
67B-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00029 -0.00054 -0.01125 -0.01071
68B-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00102 -0.00020 -0.04438 -0.04417
ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING Bush+Sea Seal A+B

l
49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.00052 0.00121 0.00121
49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.00150 -0.00027 -0.00027
50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.00015 -0.00078 -0.00078
50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.00074 -0.00146 -0.00146
65A-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.09411 -0.00167 -0.09411 -0.09244
65B-EHC/NITRILE/80K/288 -0.00018 -0.00080 -0.07057 -0.06976
66A-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00101 -0.00093 -0.54621 -0.54528
66B-EHC/NITRILE/240K/72 -0.00099 -0.00056 -0.42222 -0.42165
53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00094 -0.00005 -0.00005
53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.00030 -0.00215 -0.00215
54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00070 -0.03333 -0.03333
54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.00037 -0.00602 -0.00602
67A-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00007 -0.00158 -0.20962 -0.20803
67B-WCCo/NITRILE/80K/72 -0.00029 -0.00054 -0.01125 -0.01071
68A-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00205 -0.00129 -0.05334 -0.05205
68B-WCCo/NITRILE/240K/288 0.00102 -0.00020 -0.04438 -0.04417
EHC - 4340 AVG -0.00039 -0.00032 -0.00032

WCCo - 4340 AVG -0.00058 -0.01039 -0.01039
EHC - Nitrile AVG -0.02407 -0.00099 -0.28328 -0.28228

WCCo - Nitrile AVG 0.00068 -0.00090 -0.07964 -0.07874
340
66
A
-E
H
C
66 /N
B IT
-E R
H IL
C E/
/ N
-0.35000
-0.30000
-0.25000
-0.20000
-0.15000
-0.10000
-0.05000
0.00000
0.05000
65 24
A ITR 0K
-E I /7
H L 2
C E/
2
65 / N 4
B IT 0K
Figure 169 3rd half rep DOE

-E R /7
H I LE 2
68 C
A /N /8
0
-W IT K
C R
EHC
I /2
68 C L 88
o/ E/
B N 8
-W IT 0K
C R /2
C ILE 88
67
o/
N / 24
A IT 0K
-W R /2
IL
C E/ 88
67 C 2
o/ 40
B N K
-W IT /2
C R 88
C IL
o/ E/
N 80
Nitrile Seals
IT
R K
/7
IL 2
E/
80
K
WC-Co
50
A /7
-E 2
H
C
50 /4
B 34
-E 0/
H 24
C 0K
/4
49 34 /2
88
A 0/
2
-E 40
H K
C /2
49 /4 88
B 34
-E 0/
H 80
53 C K
EHC
A /4 /7
-W 34 2
C 0/
53 C 8 0K
o/
B 43 /7
-W 40 2
C /
LG L8 3rd Half Rep Wear Volumes
C 80
54 o/ K
A 43 /2
-W 40 88
C /8
54 C 0 K
o/
B 43 /2
-W 40 88
C /
C
Metal Bushing
24
o/ 0K
43 /7
40 2
ROD
/2
40
K
WC-Co
BUSHING
Seal A+B
/7
Bush+Seal
2
341
66
A
-E
H
C
/N
66 IT
B R
-E IL
H E/
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
/N 24
65 IT 0K
A R /7
-E IL 2
H E/
C 2 4
/N 0K
65 IT
B R /7
2
-E IL
H E/
68 C 80
A / N K
-W IT /2
C R
I 88

C LE
68 o/
N / 8
B IT 0K
-W R /2
I
EHC
C LE 88
C /2
o/
N 40
67 IT K
A R /2
-W IL 88
C E /2
C 40
67 o/
N K
B IT /2
-W R 88
C IL
C E /8
o/
N 0K
Nitrile Seals
IT /7
R 2
IL
E/
80
K
50 /7
A 2
-E
H
C
WC-Co
/4
50 34
B 0/
-E 24
H
C 0K
/4 /2
34 88
49 0/
A 24
-E 0K
H /2
C
/4 88
49 34
B 0/
-E 80
EHC
H K
53 C /7
A /43 2
-W 40
C /8
C 0K
53 o/ /7
43 2
B 40
-W
C / 80
C K
54 o/ /2
43 88
A 4
-W 0/
C 80
C K
Visual
54 o/ /2
43 88
B 4
-W 0/
Metal Bushing
C 2
C 40
o/ K
43 /7
40 2
/2
WC-Co
40
K
/7
2
342
66
A
-E
H
C
66 /N
B IT
-E R
H IL
C E/
/
-0.00600
-0.00500
-0.00400
-0.00300
-0.00200
-0.00100
0.00000
0.00100
0.00200
65 N 24
A IT 0K
-E R /7
IL 2
H E
C /2
65 / N 4
IT 0K
B R
EHC
-E I /7
H LE 2
68 C /8
A

/N 0K
-W IT /2
C R
C IL
E
88
68 o / /
B N 80
-W IT K
C R /2
C IL 88
o/ E /2
N 40
67 IT K
A R /2
-W I LE 88
C / 2
C 4
67 o/ 0K
B N
Nitrile Seals
-W IT /2
R 88
C I
C LE
o/ /8
N 0K
IT
R /7
WC-Co
IL 2
E/
80
50 K
A /7
-E 2
H
C
50 /4
B 34
-E 0/
H 24
C 0K
/4 /2
34 88
49 0/
A 24
-E 0K
H
C /2
49 /4 88
EHC
34
B 0/
-E
H 80
K
53 C
A /4 /7
2
-W 34
C 0 /
C 80
53 o/ K
B 43 /7
-W 40 2
C /80
C K
54 o/ /2
A 43 88
ROD
-W 40
C /8
C 0K
BUSHING
54 o/ /2
4
Metal Bushing
B 34 88
-W 0/
C 2
C 40
o/ K
43 /7
40 2
WC-Co
/2
40
K
/7
2
343
Table 142 4th half rep DOE
4th half WEIGHT CHANGE VISUAL Volume

rep DOE Wear
New Std TN ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOA ROD BUSHING RATING Alt Order ROD BUSHING VISUAL
Order Order D
9 1 49A 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 3 1 0.000524 0.001208 3
10 9 49B 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) 4 2 -0.001500 -0.000268 4
11 2 50A 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) 9 3 0.000153 -0.000779 9
12 10 50B 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) 9 4 -0.000736 -0.001456 9
1 3 69A 69A-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0005 (0.0008) 1 5 0.000331 -0.000530 1
2 11 69B 69B-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0003 0.0622 1 6 0.000199 0.008639 1
3 4 70A 70A-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0006) (0.0010) 3 7 -0.000083 -0.000662 3
4 12 70B 70B-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0016) 0.0776 2 8 -0.000222 0.010778 2
13 5 53A 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) 2 9 -0.000943 -0.000051 2
14 13 53B 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) 5 10 -0.000295 -0.002146 5
15 6 54A 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) 3 11 -0.000705 -0.033333 3
16 14 54B 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) 2 12 -0.000369 -0.006015 2
5 7 71A 71A-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 0.0002 0.0003 1 13 0.000132 0.000025 1
6 15 71B 71B-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 (0.0008) 0.0055 1 14 -0.000066 0.000451 1
7 8 72A 72A-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 (0.0071) (0.0098) 1 15 -0.000582 -0.006490 1
8 16 72B 72B-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 0.0021 0.0541 1 16 0.001391 0.004434 1
Grand avg. -0.000173 -0.001637 3.0

Grand 0.000669 0.009546 2.6
St.Dev.
EHC 4340 -0.000390 -0.000324 6.3

EHC Karon 0.000056 0.004556 1.8
WC-Co 4340 -0.000578 -0.010386 3.0

WC-Co 0.000219 -0.000395 1.0
Karon
344
New Std TN ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING RATING AltOrder ROD BUSHING RATING
Order Order
9 1 49A 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.0041 0.0087 3 1 0.000524 0.001208 3
11 2 50A 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.0012 (0.0061) 9 3 0.000153 -0.000779 9
1 3 69A 69A-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0005 (0.0008) 1 5 0.000331 -0.000530 1
3 4 70A 70A-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0006) (0.0010) 3 7 -0.000083 -0.000662 3
13 5 53A 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0115) (0.0004) 2 9 -0.000943 -0.000051 2
15 6 54A 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0086) (0.2610) 3 11 -0.000705 -0.033333 3
5 7 71A 71A-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 0.0002 0.0003 1 13 0.000132 0.000025 1
7 8 72A 72A-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 (0.0071) (0.0098) 1 15 -0.000582 -0.006490 1
10 9 49B 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 (0.0108) (0.0021) 4 2 -0.001500 -0.000268 4
12 10 50B 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 (0.0053) (0.0114) 9 4 -0.000736 -0.001456 9
2 11 69B 69B-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.0003 0.0622 1 6 0.000199 0.008639 1
4 12 70B 70B-EHC/KARON/240K/72 (0.0016) 0.0776 2 8 -0.000222 0.010778 2
14 13 53B 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 (0.0036) (0.0168) 5 10 -0.000295 -0.002146 5
16 14 54B 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 (0.0045) (0.0471) 2 12 -0.000369 -0.006015 2
6 15 71B 71B-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 (0.0008) 0.0055 1 14 -0.000066 0.000451 1
8 16 72B 72B-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 0.0021 0.0541 1 16 0.001391 0.004434 1
345
NewOrder Std Order AltOrder ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING VISUAL

1 3 5 69A-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.000331 -0.000530 1
2 11 6 69B-EHC/KARON/80K/288 0.000199 0.008639 1
3 4 7 70A-EHC/KARON/240K/72 -0.000083 -0.000662 3
4 12 8 70B-EHC/KARON/240K/72 -0.000222 0.010778 2
5 7 13 71A-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 0.000132 0.000025 1
6 15 14 71B-WCCo/KARON/80K/72 -0.000066 0.000451 1
7 8 15 72A-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 -0.000582 -0.006490 1
8 16 16 72B-WCCo/KARON/240K/288 0.001391 0.004434 1
9 1 1 49A-EHC/4340/80K/72 0.000524 0.001208 3

10 9 2 49B-EHC/4340/80K/72 -0.001500 -0.000268 4
11 2 3 50A-EHC/4340/240K/288 0.000153 -0.000779 9
12 10 4 50B-EHC/4340/240K/288 -0.000736 -0.001456 9
13 5 9 53A-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000943 -0.000051 2
14 13 10 53B-WCCo/4340/80K/288 -0.000295 -0.002146 5
15 6 11 54A-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000705 -0.033333 3
16 14 12 54B-WCCo/4340/240K/72 -0.000369 -0.006015 2
346
69
A
-E
H
C
/K
A
69 R
B O
N
-0.006000
-0.005000
-0.004000
-0.003000
-0.002000
-0.001000
0.000000
0.001000
0.002000
-E
H /8
C 0K
/K /2
A
70 R 88
A O
-E N
H /8
C 0K
/K /2
ROD
A
70 R 88
B O
-E N
H /2
C
EHC
40
BUSHING
/K K
Figure 172 4th half rep DOE

71 A /7
A R 2
-W O
N
C /2
C 40
o/
K K
71 A /7
B R 2
-W O
C N
C /8
72 o/ 0K
A K /7
-W A 2
C R
O
C N
o/ /8
K 0K
72
B A
R /7
2
-W O
C N
C /2
Karon Seals
o/ 40
K K
A /2
R 88
O
N
/2
WC-Co
40
K
/2
88
49
A
-E
H
C
/4
49 34
B 0/
8
-E 0K
H /7
C 2
50 /4
A 34
-E 0/
H 8
C 0K
/4 /7
50 34 2
B 0/
2
-E
EHC
40
H K
C /2
/4 88
53 34
A 0/
2
-W 40
C K
C /2
o/
53 4 34
88
B 0/
-W 8
C 0K
C /2
o/
54 4 34
88
A
LG L8 4th Half Rep DOE Wear Volumes
-W 0/
8
C 0K
C /2
o/ 88
4340 Bushing
54 43
B 40
-W /2
C 40
C K
o/ /7
43 2
40
WC-Co
/2
40
K
/7
2
347
New Std TN ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING RATING Alt Order ROD BUSHING VISUAL
Order Order
1 1 73A 73A-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0103 0.0035 2 1 0.006821 0.000486 2 QUESTIONABLE
2 9 73B 73B-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0004 0.0091 2 2 0.000265 0.001264 2 QUESTIONABLE
3 2 74A 74A-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0017) 0.0034 1 3 -0.000236 0.000472 1
4 10 74B 74B-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0008) 0.0102 1 4 -0.000111 0.001417 1
9 3 75A 75A-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0335) 0.0022 1 5 -0.002463 0.000162 1 PHASE SHIFT
10 11 75B 75B-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0011) 0.0077 1 6 -0.000081 0.000566 1
11 4 76A 76A-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0056 1 7 -0.002353 0.000412 1
12 12 76B 76B-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0101 1 8 -0.002353 0.000743 1
5 5 77A 77A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0016) (0.0328) 9 9 -0.000222 -0.004607 9
6 13 77B 77B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 0.0022 (0.0235) 6 10 0.000309 -0.003301 6
7 6 78A 78A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0065) (0.0463) 8 11 -0.000903 -0.006503 8
8 14 78B 78B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0005 (0.0590) 7 12 0.000070 -0.008287 7
13 7 79A 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0470) (0.0059) 2 13 -0.003456 -0.000829 2
14 15 79B 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0021) (0.0409) 3 14 -0.000154 -0.005744 3
16 16 80B 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0033 (0.0370) 4 16 0.000463 -0.005197 4
NOTE: Ctg & Bushing colums Grand avg. -0.000409 -0.002819 3.6
switched. Ctg is B, bush is C Grand 0.002293 0.004780 3.0
St.Dev.
EHC Karon 0.001685 0.000910 1.5

WC-Co,Cr -0.001813 0.000471 1.0
Karon
EHC -0.000186 -0.005674 7.5

AlNiBronze
WC-Co,Cr -0.001323 -0.006980 4.3
AlNiBronze
348
New Std TN ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOA ROD BUSHING RATING Alt ROD BUSHING RATING
Order Order D Order
1 1 73A 73A-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0103 0.0035 2 1 0.006821 0.000486 2
3 2 74A 74A-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0017) 0.0034 1 3 -0.000236 0.000472 1
9 3 75A 75A-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0335) 0.0022 1 5 -0.002463 0.000162 1
11 4 76A 76A-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0056 1 7 -0.002353 0.000412 1
5 5 77A 77A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 (0.0016) (0.0328) 9 9 -0.000222 -0.004607 9
7 6 78A 78A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 (0.0065) (0.0463) 8 11 -0.000903 -0.006503 8
2 9 73B 73B-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.0004 0.0091 2 2 0.000265 0.001264 2
4 10 74B 74B-EHC/KARON/240K/288 (0.0008) 0.0102 1 4 -0.000111 0.001417 1
10 11 75B 75B-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 (0.0011) 0.0077 1 6 -0.000081 0.000566 1
12 12 76B 76B-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 (0.0320) 0.0101 1 8 -0.002353 0.000743 1
6 13 77B 77B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 0.0022 (0.0235) 6 10 0.000309 -0.003301 6
8 14 78B 78B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.0005 (0.0590) 7 12 0.000070 -0.008287 7
14 15 79B 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 (0.0021) (0.0409) 3 14 -0.000154 -0.005744 3
16 16 80B 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.0033 (0.0370) 4 16 0.000463 -0.005197 4
349
Std Alt Order ROD/BUSHING/CYCLES/LOAD ROD BUSHING VISUAL

Order
1 1 73A-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.006821 0.000486 2
9 2 73B-EHC/KARON/80K/72 0.000265 0.001264 2
2 3 74A-EHC/KARON/240K/288 -0.000236 0.000472 1
10 4 74B-EHC/KARON/240K/288 -0.000111 0.001417 1
3 5 75A-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 -0.002463 0.000162 1
11 6 75B-WCCoCr/KARON/80K/288 -0.000081 0.000566 1
4 7 76A-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 -0.002353 0.000412 1
12 8 76B-WCCoCr/KARON/240K/72 -0.002353 0.000743 1
5 9 77A-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 -0.000222 -0.004607 9

13 10 77B-EHC/AlNiBr/80K/288 0.000309 -0.003301 6
6 11 78A-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 -0.000903 -0.006503 8
14 12 78B-EHC/AlNiBr/240K/72 0.000070 -0.008287 7
7 13 59A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.003456 -0.000829 2
15 14 59B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/80K/72 -0.000154 -0.005744 3
8 15 60A-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 -0.002147 -0.016152 8
16 16 60B-WCCoCr/AlNiBr/240K/288 0.000463 -0.005197 4
350
73
A
-E
H
C
/K
A
73
B R
O
-0.006000
-0.005000
-0.004000
-0.003000
-0.002000
-0.001000
0.000000
0.001000
0.002000
-E N
H /8
C 0K
74 /K /7
A A 2
-E R
H O
C N
/K /8
A 0K
74 R /7
B O 2
ROD
-E N
H /2
4
C

75 /K 0K
A A
BUSHING
/2
EHC
-W R 88
C O
C N
oC /2
75 40
B
r/K K
-W A /2
C R 88
C O
N
oC /8
76 r/K 0K
A A /2
-W R 88
C O
C N
oC /8
76 r/K 0K
B A /2
-W R 88
C O
C N
oC /2
40
r/K
A K
/7
Karon B Seals
R 2
O
N
/2
40
K
/7
77 2
A
WC-Co,Cr
-E
H
C
/A
77 lN
B iB
-E r/8
H 0K
C /2
/A
78 lN 88
A i B
-E r/ 8
H 0K
C /2
/A 88
78 lN
B iB
-E r/ 2
H
EHC
C 40
59 /A K
A l /7
-W N 2
iB
C r
C /2
40
oC
59 r/A K
B /7
-W lN 2
C iB
60 C r/8
oC 0K
A /7
-W r/A
C l N 2
C iB
LG L8 5th Half Rep DOE Wear Volumes
60
oC r/8
r/A
B lN
0K
-W /7
C iB 2
C r/2
oC 40
r/A K
lN /2
iB 88
r/2
40
K
AlNiBronze Bushing
/2
88
WC-Co,Cr
351
79
A
-E
H
C
/N
79 IT
B R
-E IL
-0.006000
-0.005000
-0.004000
-0.003000
-0.002000
-0.001000
0.000000
0.001000
0.002000
H E /8
C 0K
80 /N
A IT
R
/7
2
-E IL
H
C E/
/N 8 0K
80 IT
B R /7
-E IL 2
H E/
81 C 24

A /N 0K
EHC
-W IT /2
R
C IL 88
C E/
oC 24
81
B r/N 0K
-W IT /2
C R 88
C IL
oC E/
82 8 0K
A r/N
/2
-W IT
C R 88
C IL
E/
oC
82 80
B r/N K
-W IT /2
C R 88
C IL
oC E/
Nitrile Seals
r/N 24
0K
IT /7
R 2
IL
E/
24
0K
/7
2
WC-Co,Cr
51
A
-E
H
C
/A
51 lN
B iB
-E r/8
H
C 0K
/A /2
52 lN 88
A iB
-E r/8
H
C 0K
/A /2
52 lN 88
B iB
EHC
-E r/2
H
C 40
K
57 /A /7
A lN 2
-W iB
C r/2
C 40
oC
57 K
B r/4 /7
-W 34 2
LG L8 6th Half Rep Wear Volumes
C 0/
8
C 0K
oC
58 /2
A r /4
88
-W 34
C 0/8
C 0K
oC
58 r /2
Metal Bushing
B / 43 88
-W 40
C /
C 24
oC 0K
r /4 /7
34 2
0/
24
ROD
WC-Co,Cr
0K
/7
2
BUSHING
352
Friction and Temperature Graphs
353
EHC/4340
0.40
49A
49B
0.35 50A
50B
0.30
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
CYCLES
Figure 175 Tests 49 and 50
354
EHC/AlNiBr
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
51A
51B
0.10 52A
52B
0.00
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
CYCLES
355
WCCo/4340
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
53A
53B
0.10 54A
54B
0.00
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
CYCLES
356
WCCo/AlNiBr
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10 55A
55B
56A
0.05 56B
0.00
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000
CYCLES
357
ROD/BUSHING TESTS WITH PTFE SEALS
288 lbs. PN, 1.0" Stroke
0.80
Cr, Continuous Lube

0.70 WCCo, Continuous Lube
WCCo, Lube 1 hr.
0.60
Coefficient of Friction
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,00 110,00
0 0
Cycles
Figure 179 Various friction, temperature
358
ROD/BUSHING TESTS WITH 4340 BUSHINGS
Slow Drip for 1 hr., 288 lbs. PN, 1.0" Stroke
2.50
Cr
WCCo
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,00 110,00
0 0
Cycles
359
ROD/BUSHING TESTS WITH 4340 BUSHINGS
Slow Drip for 1 hr., 72 lbs. PN, 0.5" Stroke
0.40
Cr
0.35 WCCo
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000
Cycles
360
TEMPERATURE VS. FRICTION
4340 Bushings with Coated Rods
200
175
150
Temperature, F
125
Cr/72/Slow(1/4)
Cr/72/1 hr.
100
Cr/288/1 hr.
WCCo/72/Slow(1/4)
WCCo/72/1 hr.
75 WCCo/288/1 hr.
50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
361
TEMPERATURE VS. FRICTION
PTFE Seals with Coated Rods
200
Cr/288/Cont. Lube
WCCo/288/Cont. Lube
175 WCCo/288/1 hr.
150
Temperature, F
125
100
75
50
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
362
TEMPERATURE VS. CYCLES
PTFE Seals with Coated Rods
130
120
110
TEMPERATURE, F
100
90
80
Cr/288/Cont. Lube
70 WCCo/288/Cont. Lube
WCCo/288/1 hr.
60
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,00 110,00 120,00
0 0 0
CYCLES
363
Page left intentionally blank
364
Appendix 5. IMPACT DATA
GRAVELOMETRY DATA
All gravelometry data are incorporated in the main text of the report.
BALL DROP IMPACT DATA

Document 11 Ball drop impact data
"Ball drop impact

data.xls"
Double-click box to view data file in Excel.
12:00
9:00 3:00
6:00
Figure 185. Schematic of ball impact test and notation.
Figure 185 shows a schematic of a typical impact “crater” on the rod, indicating the
photograph position convention.
Table 148 shows the full data set and contains links to the figures.
Table 149 summarizes an analysis of the figures. Each figure was examined to evaluate
the approximate number of clear and faint circumferential and radial cracks in the 12:00
(or 6:00) o’clock and 3:00 (or 9:00) o’clock positions respectively around the impact
point. (Note that these evaluations are somewhat qualitative, depending on general
surface features and photographic contrast.)
Figure 186 to Figure 204 are photographs of the impact damage around the impact area.
All photographs are approximately 65x.
365
Table 148. Ball drop impact testing – full data set.
Test # Drop Coating Coating # impacts Metcut photo # Visual observations (Dayton T
height (") material thick-ness Brown)
1 60 Cr 0.003 1 1a,b Figure 186

2 60 Cr 0.010 1 2a,b Figure 188
3 60 WC-Co 0.003 1 3a,b Figure 187
4 60 WC-Co 0.010 1 4a,b Figure 189
5 60 WC-CoCr 0.003 1 5a,b Figure 190
6 60 WC-CoCr 0.010 1 6a,b Figure 191
7 93 Cr 0.003 1
8 93 Cr 0.010 1
9 93 WC-Co 0.003 1
10 93 WC-Co 0.010 1
11 93 WC-CoCr 0.003 1
12 93 WC-CoCr 0.010 1
13 102 Cr 0.003 1 13a,b Figure 192 Flattened - no obvious damage
14 102 Cr 0.010 1 14-3 to 5 Figure Flattened - appear to be cracks
193 through ink marks
15 102 WC-Co 0.003 1 15a,b Figure 194 Flattened - no obvious damage
16 102 WC-Co 0.010 1 16 -1 to 4 Figure Flattened - appear to be
195 circumferential cracks around
impact site
17 102 WC-CoCr 0.003 1 17a,b Figure 196 Flattened - looks like cracks
around impact site
(circumferential)
18 102 WC-CoCr 0.010 1 18-1 to 4 Figure Flattened - no obvious damage
197
19 72 Cr 0.003 1
20 72 Cr 0.003 1
21 72 Cr 0.003 25 Multiple impact sites - no
obvious damage
22 72 WC-Co 0.010 50 Multiple impact sites - no
obvious damage
23 72 Cr 0.010 50 Multiple impact sites - looks
like cracks through ink marks,
but no obvious damage
24 72 WC-CoCr 0.010 50 Multiple impact sites - no
obvious damage
25 24 Cr 0.010 1 25a,b Figure 198
26 24 Cr 0.003 1 26a,b Figure 199
27 24 WC-Co 0.003 1 27a,b Figure 200
28 24 WC-Co 0.010 1 28a,b Figure
201
29 24 WC-Co 0.010 1 29a, Figure 202
30 24 WC-CoCr 0.003 1 30a,b Figure 203
31 24 WC-CoCr 0.010 1 31a,b Figure 204
Tests photographed shown by figure number. Click figure # to jump to figure.
366
Table 149. Ball drop test (single impact) – analysis of photographic data set.
Test # Drop Coating Coating Photo # # clear # faint # radial Total Total
height material thick- circum- circum- cracks circum- radial
(inch) ness ferential ferential (parallel to ferential
cracks cracks rod axis)
26 24 Cr 0.003 26a,b 1 3 1 4 1
25 24 Cr 0.010 25a,b 2 3 1 5 1
27 24 WC-Co 0.003 27a,b 1 1 0 2 0
28 24 WC-Co 0.010 28a,b 1 0 0 1 0
29 24 WC-Co 0.010 29a,b 1 0 0 1 0
30 24 WC-CoCr 0.003 30a,b 1 0 0 1 0
31 24 WC-CoCr 0.010 31a,b 0 1 0 1 0
1 60 Cr 0.003 1a,b 3 3 2 6 2
2 60 Cr 0.010 2a,b 2 4 1 6 1
3 60 WC-Co 0.003 3a,b 3 1 0 4 0
4 60 WC-Co 0.010 4a,b 1 3 0 4 0
5 60 WC-CoCr 0.003 5a,b 1 3 0 4 0
6 60 WC-CoCr 0.010 6a,b 1 1 0 2 0
13 102 Cr 0.003 13a,b 2 4 3 6 3
14 102 Cr 0.010 14-1 to 5 2 5 3 7 3
15 102 WC-Co 0.003 15a,b 2 3 0 5 0

16 102 WC-Co 0.010 16 -1 to 4 2 2 0 4 0
17 102 WC-CoCr 0.003 17a,b 1 1 0 2 0

18 102 WC-CoCr 0.010 18-1 to 4 2 1 0 3 0
Cr WC-Co WC-CoCr
367
Figure 186 Test 1, Cr 0.003", 60" drop.
Figure 188. Test 2, Cr 0.010", 60" drop.
Figure 187. Test 3, WC-Co 0.003”, 60” drop. 368

Figure 189. Test 4, WC-Co 0.010”, 60” drop.
Figure 190. Test 5, WC-CoCr 0.003”, 60” drop.
Figure 191. Test 6, WC-CoCr 0.010”, 60” drop. 369

Figure 192. Test 13, EHC 0.003”, 102” drop.
370
371

372

373
374
375
Appendix 6. HYDROGEN
EMBRITTLEMENT DATA
Document 12 Embrittlement data
"Embrittlement
data.xls"
Double-click box for Excel spreadsheet
376
DATA TABLES
Table 150. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 1 data.

Sequence 1
# Baseline
samples
Column # 1 2 3
Pretest H load No No
Test environment Air Air
Hydrogen bake No Yes
Grind coating No No
Notch partly exposed
Load (% of NTS) 75% 75%
Coatings: Sample Life Average Sample # Life Average
# (hrs) (hrs)
None 15 H2480 216 214.6
H2053 218
H2250 210
EHC, 0.003” 18 H1688 0 0.03 349617- 210 224
H1488
H2174 0 349617- 222
H1719
H2238 0.1 349617- 240
H2075
WC-Co, 0.003” 21 H1689 216 211.3
H2129 200
H2457 218
WC-Co-Cr, 21 H2114 213 215.3
0.003”
H2118 216
H2586 217
EHC, 0.010” 12 H2204 0.1 0.07 349618- 210 214
H2102
H2239 0.1 349618- 222
H2220
H2511 0 349618- 210
H2451
WC-Co, 0.010” 15 H2016 213 212.7
H2121 215
H2529 210
WC-Co-Cr, 15 H1028 209 208.7
0.010”
H1341 217
H2188 200
377
Table 151. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 2 data.
Sequence 2
# Hydrogen pre-test loading
samples
Column # 1 4 5
Pretest H load Yes Yes
Test environment Air Air
Hydrogen bake No Yes
Grind coating No No
Notch partly exposed
Load (% of NTS) 75% 75%
Coatings: Sample Life Average Sample Life Average
# (hrs) # (hrs)
None 15 H1157 0 216 H2058 214 216.3
H2215 216 H2120 216
H2499 216 H2420 219
EHC, 0.003” 18
WC-Co, 0.003” 21 H1991 6.1 6.0 H1825 210 138.7

H1402 4 H1766 77.2
H1368 7.8 H2004 129
WC-Co-Cr, 21 H2089 2 6.3 H2402 210 208
0.003”
H2192 10.2 H1091 213
H2490 6.8 H2128 201
EHC, 0.010” 12
WC-Co, 0.010” 15 H2534 10.7 5.8 H1216 0 210

H2164 2.8 H1661 211
H2116 4 H1818 209
WC-Co-Cr, 15 H2543 57.8 27.4 H2487 215 214.7
0.010”
H1019 16.6 H2267 215
H1006 7.7 H2286 214
378
Table 152. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 3 data - DI water embrittlement.
Sequence 3
# Environmental embrittlement
samples
Column # 1 6 7
Pretest H load No
Test environment DI H2O
Hydrogen bake Yes
Grind coating No
Notch partly exposed No Yes
Load (% of NTS) 45%
Coatings: Sample # Life (hrs) Fracture Sample # Life (hrs) Fracture
location location
None 15 H1686 22.2 33.8
H1692 25.8
H1720 53.5
EHC, 0.003” 18 H2008 0.1 0.1 H1927 6.4 2.2
H2010 0.1 H2214 0.1
H2062 0.1 H2414 0.1
WC-Co, 0.003” 21 H2258 7.7 4.7 H2108 6.5 9.8
H2152 2 H1623 7.2
H1001 4.5 H1183 15.6
WC-Co-Cr, 0.003” 21 H2455 13.4 15.6 H2088 31.4 36.8
H2504 17.1 H1702 33.9
H2029 16.3 H1051 45.1
EHC, 0.010” 12 H1024 0.1 0.1
H1238 0.1
H1284 0.1
WC-Co, 0.010” 15 H0961 4.5 5.0
H1405 6.3
H2482 4.2
WC-Co-Cr, 0.010” 15 H2501 9.3 19.4
H2525 25.5
H0981 23.4
379
Table 153. Hydrogen embrittlement Sequence 3 data - 3.5% NaCl
embrittlement.
Sequence 3
# Environmental embrittlement
samples
Column # 1 8 9
Pretest H load No
Test environment 5% NaCl
Hydrogen bake Yes
Grind coating No
Notch partly exposed No Yes
Load (% of NTS) 45%
Coatings: Sample Life Fracture Sample Life Fracture
# (hrs) location # (hrs) location
None 15 H2462 <24 15.3
H2476 25
H2515 21
EHC, 0.003” 18 H2111 0.1 0.1 H2530 0.1 0.1
H2123 0.1 H2535 0.1
H2191 0.1 H2547 0.1
WC-Co, 0.003” 21 H2000 2.7 3.4 H2081 7.2 6.8
H2581 3 H2210 5.8
H2498 4.6 H2299 7.5
WC-Co-Cr, 21 H2245 6.7 8.3 H2031 24.2 14.3
0.003”
H2585 17.6 H2034 18
H2105 0.7 H2051 0.8
EHC, 0.010” 12 H1411 0.1 0.1
H1752 0.1
H1776 0.1
WC-Co, 0.010” 15 H2274 1.5 3.6
H2561 0.8
H2293 8.4
WC-Co-Cr, 15 H2069 2.2 4.8
0.010”
H2199 7.8
H2415 4.5
380
FRACTURE SURFACES
Typical fracture surfaces are shown in Figure 205 to Figure 208 below.
381
a b
c d
Figure 205. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel -

uncoated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl.
a b
c d
Figure 206. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel -

chrome plated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl.
382
a b
c d
Figure 207. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel –

WC-Co coated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl.
a b
c d
Figure 208. Environmental embrittlement fracture surfaces of 4340 steel – WC-

CoCr coated. a) and b) DI water; c) and d) 5% NaCl.
383

Norma - HCAT - Validation of WCCo HVOF Thermal Spray Coatings As A Replacement For Hard Chrome Plating

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norma - HCAT - Validation of WCCo HVOF Thermal Spray Coatings As A Replacement For Hard Chrome Plating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

JOINT TEST REPORT

Validation of WC/Co HVOF

Date: November 21, 2002

The results of the testing can be summarized as follows:

• Hydrogen Embrittlement – A series of embrittlement tests was conducted that

Table 1. Landing gear aircraft applications.

Table 2. Defense System programs potentially affected.

SH-60 (Navy) AV-8B E-6 A-7 F-16

Boeing Aircraft Corporation (BAC) Standards:

Table 5. Summary of tests conducted in JTP.

Powder feed Powder Diamalloy 2005 Stark Amperit 526.062

Combustion Gases Fuel Hydrogen Kerosene, Type 1-K

Cooling Air Pressure 90-110 psi 90-110 psi

2.1.2. HCAT Coating Optimization and Deposition Philosophy-

2.1.3. Fatigue Cycle Life vs. Fatigue Coating Integrity

2.2. Test methodology

2.2.2. HVOF Optimization

Table 7. Inputs and outputs for design of experiment

2.2.3. General Example CCAD Analysis

2.3. Test Results

Table 10 DOE Sites and Locations (data in

NADEP-CP DJ 2600 1998-9

2.3.2. Northwestern/Generic Protocol_Hill AFB JP 5000

Design 1: Use L8 design 8 runs total FIXED:

RESPON SES: RELATED CTG FUN CTIO N :

Table 12 Summary of Results for the Hill JP 5000 DOE.

Effects Range Thk/Pass CY6 Tem p Alm en H V300

Table 13 Run Order for Hill AFB Work

Table 14 Final Parameters for Hill AFB JP 5000

Combustion Gases Kerosene, Type 1-K

Spray Distance 18 inches

Cooling Air 90-110 psi

2.3.3. CCAD DOE 1998

Table 15 DOE Matrix for CCAD 1998

Table 16 Random Run Listing for CCAD DOE

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Figure 1 Microhardness Response for CCAD DOE

Pareto Chart of the Effects

Figure 2 Substrate Temperature Response for

Figure 3 Almen Strip Response for CCAD DOE

2.3.3.2. General Discussion

Table 17 Final Summary of Factors in CCAD DOE

2.3.4. LG DOE at Hitemco 1998-1999 DJ 2600 System

Table 19 Random Runs for Hitemco DOE

Figure 4 Microhardness Response for Hitemco DOE

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

Figure 5 Substrate Temperature Response for Hitemco DOE

Figure 6 Almen Strip Response for Hitemco DOE

2.3.4.1. General Discussion

Powder feed Powder Diamalloy 2005

Combustion Gases Fuel Hydrogen

Out 77-100 oF typical

Gun Traverse Speed 400 linear in/min for round bars

Cooling Air Pressure 90-110 psi

A summary of the Hitemco work can be found in the Appendix 1.

2.3.5. Almen Strip and Temperature Measurement Procedures

Table 21 Primary and secondary determinants of coating

3.2. Test Rationale

Figure 8. Typical smooth fatigue bar.

Table 23. Fatigue testing variables.

3.3. Specimen Fabrication

Table 24. Substrate materials in LG JTP

Figure 17 shows the comparison of R ratio, namely -1 and 0.1 values. As