CORROSION TESTING OF ADVANCED COATINGS FOR MILITARY HYDRAULIC

ACTUATORS

Robert B. Mason, Martin Konrad, Paulo Legaspi, and Mark F. Singleton, PhD
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
7995 114th Avenue, Largo, FL 33773
Phone (727) 549-7246, Fax (727) 549-7230, Email: masonr@ctc.com

Bruce Sartwell
Hard Chrome Alternatives Team
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D.C.

Don Skelton
U.S. Army Corrosion Office
Picatinny, NJ 07806

ABSTRACT

Military organizations employ a large fleet of hydraulic-based vehicles and systems in routine
operations. Hydraulic systems are critical to the operability of tactical forklifts, air defense artillery
systems, cranes, armored vehicles, and aircraft. Hydraulic actuators are often coated with electrolytic
hard chrome, which is effective for wear resistance but provides minimal corrosion resistance.
Commercial and emerging coating technologies are available that can replace electrolytic hard chrome
on actuators; these coatings can provide reduced ownership costs, environmental compliance costs, and
maintenance burden. However, the comparative corrosion performance of these coatings with respect to
hard chrome must be confirmed for the specific applications. Under the U.S. Army Technology
Demonstration for Prevention of Material Degradation Program, Concurrent Technologies Corporation,
in association with the Hard Chrome Alternatives Team, is conducting testing and evaluation on
advanced coatings for applicability for actuator shafts. This paper presents the findings for the initial
salt spray corrosion tests. Seven coatings, comprising electrolytic hard chrome and six alternatives,
were tested on four different substrate materials that were represented on both panels and simulated
hydraulic shafts. Coating performance throughout the testing and at the conclusion of the testing will be
demonstrated.

Keywords: corrosion, hydraulics, U.S. Army, fluid power, hard chrome, thermal spray

1
 INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic systems, often simply referred to as hydraulics, are devices that utilize pressurized
liquid to do work. Hydraulic systems are simple, easy to control, and cost-effective; they are typically
employed in a wide variety of commercial and military applications, including construction equipment,
elevators, and brake systems.

The main disadvantage of hydraulics is the constant need to maintain the precision components
within the system. This is an ongoing challenge for operators and maintenance personnel, as hydraulic
components are often exposed to aggressive climates, bad weather, and dirty atmospheres in daily
operation. Over time, operation in these environments can lead to significant corrosion and material
degradation of hydraulic components. Protection against dirt, corrosion, and material degradation is
therefore essential for hydraulic components. Without such protection, dirty/corroded components can
cause pressure and efficiency losses that can destroy the functionality of the entire hydraulic system.
Often, this can render the entire hydraulic-bearing piece of equipment nonfunctional.

The effects of hydraulic corrosion/degradation on military vehicles and weapon systems are
particularly significant. The U.S. Army utilizes a large fleet of vehicles, weapon systems, and support
equipment containing hydraulics. Among the most prominent components of this fleet are armored
vehicles, air defense artillery equipment, tactical vehicles, transportation and logistics assets, aircraft,
and engineering equipment. Downtime of these hydraulic-bearing assets, which is in large part
attributable to corrosion-/degradation-related failures, reduces mission readiness and operability.
Subsequently, significant maintenance and replacement costs are generated to put these assets back into
service.

Objective

Under the U.S. Army Technology Demonstration for Prevention of Material Degradation
(TDPMD) Program, an effort was conducted to evaluate commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies
that can be used to mitigate corrosion and material degradation of U.S. Army hydraulic components.
This specific activity is part of a larger ongoing effort to gather information on the most critical
hydraulic components and systems, and subsequently identify and validate corrosion-prevention
technologies with the end uses in mind. The overall effort is being accomplished in several phases:

1. The identification of the most critical hydraulic-bearing Army assets, and the assessment of
the impact of hydraulic corrosion/degradation upon the identified critical assets.
2. The identification of the most critical hydraulic components within these assets, and the
impact of corrosion/degradation on these components.
3. The identification of advanced coatings to mitigate corrosion/degradation on the identified
critical hydraulic components.
4. The testing and validation of corrosion- /degradation-resistant coatings for these components.

Phases 1 and 2 were conducted under past efforts, and the results have been presented
elsewhere1, 2. The principal hydraulic components of interest were found to be hydraulic hose-end
fittings, hydraulic hoses, and actuator arms. Actuator arms (also referred to as actuators, shafts, or arms)
are the principal hydraulic components of interest in this portion of the effort.

2
Background

Hydraulic actuators are the heart of hydraulic systems. They are the components that are
actually “pushed” by the pressure generated from incoming hydraulic fluid; this motion is in turn used to
do work. Actuators found on U.S. Army ground vehicles are typically made of low-alloy carbon steels
(some actuators found in commercial systems are made of stainless steel, but few Army systems appear
to have this upgrade). These carbon steels are generally insufficient to resist the corrosive/erosive attack
of the environments in which they are most commonly deployed. Protective coatings are therefore
utilized to prevent extreme corrosion damage and prolong the life of the hydraulic system.

Electroplated coatings, specifically hard chrome, are the most common coatings used to protect
actuators. Hard chrome is designed to impart improved wear resistance, anti-galling characteristics, and
low coefficient of friction, providing protection to actuators as well as hydraulic cylinder piston rods,
shock rods, valve stems, and piston rings3. While it does also provide some degree of corrosion
resistance, hard chrome is not meant to mitigate aggressive corrosion attack. The “microcracked”
structure of plated chromium, generally accepted to be due to chromium hydride inclusions4, creates a
degree of porosity that, over time, can allow moisture and acids to enter the cracks and corrode the base
metal. Failures can also arise from aggressive hard-particle impingement, wear from abrasive particles
caught in the sealing collar, and cracks from straining due to surface expansion. In any case, these
defects roughen the actuator surfaces and eventually damage seals, initiating and propagating leaks.

Under previous efforts, military depots were visited, with the purpose of interviewing
maintenance personnel about the impact of hydraulic component corrosion and degradation on the
overall fleet. It was during these visits that the degree of corrosive attack on actuators became apparent.
Photographs were taken during these visits, and the corrosive attack depicted in these photographs is
representative of the condition of assets that have been sent for depot-level repair. A close-up
photograph of aggressive pitting attack on a hydraulic actuator arm from a military bulldozer is
presented in Figure 1. It should be noted that this asset was still in service at the time that this photo
was taken. Further use of the actuator in this condition would most likely rupture the seals and cause
fluid leakage. Figure 2 displays significant pitting on the hydraulic actuator arm of an M4K tactical
forklift. Once again, this asset was still in service at the time that the photo was taken. The aggressive
corrosive attack on the actuators of this asset can be partly attributed to the design of the system. To
comply with safety protocols, the M4K tactical forklift is normally stored in the “forks down” position,
with the cylinder actuator arms extended approximately ten inches. This leaves the actuator arms
exposed to the environment. Over time, the thin layer of hydraulic fluid that protects the arms
disappears, and corrosion is initiated. In addition, dry actuators tear the seals when the system is used
again.

Several additional points should be understood concerning actuator corrosion and subsequent
hydraulic fluid leakage. Firstly, the military hard chrome specification5 recognizes that electroplated
hard chrome (EHC) is not a corrosion-resistant coating per se, and as such does not contain a corrosion-
resistance requirement. Secondly, it should be noted that a hydraulic system leak does not have to be
significant in order to severely impact the readiness of a piece of equipment. The Army Technical
Manuals for two military hydraulic-bearing assets, the M9 Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE) and the
Palletized Load System (PLS), both define a critical leak as a singular falling drop of hydraulic fluid6, 7.
At this point, the vehicle is considered Not Mission Capable (NMC) and must be sent for maintenance
and/or overhaul. Finally, it should be noted that many commercial vehicles mitigate actuator corrosion

3
by enclosing the exposed arms in a housing or expandable rubber boot; however, no hydraulic actuators
with this protection were observed during the site visits.
While some of the properties of EHC, such as corrosion resistance, are not sufficient for some
applications, the maturity and recognized benefits of EHC have facilitated its use for a wide variety of
applications, and it is the most prevalent coating in use for hydraulic actuators. However, recent events
have introduced new concerns regarding the environmental, safety, and health aspects of the
electroplating process by which EHC is deposited. New federal regulations are being considered that
will reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of workplace exposure for hexavalent chrome (the
chemical form from which EHC is typically deposited). This action not only highlights the need for
improved environment and health safeguards, but also may eventually impact the availability and cost of
this coating in the near term.

Based upon these concerns, there is an opportunity to evaluate existing and emerging coating
systems that can provide wear performance similar to EHC while concurrently providing enhanced
corrosion resistance and a reduced health and environmental impact. The evaluation of such coatings
from a corrosion standpoint is the focus of this study.

ALTERNATIVE COATING SYSTEMS

The first focus of this study was the identification of viable EHC replacements for the particular
application. Many alternative coating schemes and surface treatments (STs) that can replace EHC have
been evaluated for various applications in past studies. A cursory review of the literature provided
relevant data on a number of approaches and technologies for both corrosion-resistance and wear-
resistance applications. Among the technologies considered were nickel-based coatings (electroplated
nickel alloys, electroless nickel (EN) alloys, and composite coatings of both), surface modification
technologies (plasma treatments, laser energy systems, and diffusion technologies), trivalent chrome
plating, thermal spray (TS) coatings, coatings deposited by physical vapor deposition, and others8-14.

Since the alternatives for EHC replacement are numerous, efforts were made to focus on those
alternatives that have either already been implemented for similar applications or are being considered
by other military organizations. The most prevalent replacement technologies at the time of this writing
are those coatings deposited by TS, particularly tungsten carbide and chromium carbide alloys. The
work of the Hard Chrome Alternatives Team (HCAT), a consortium of government and commercial
organizations evaluating EHC replacement technologies for aerospace applications, has found that there
are significant benefits to the use of TS coatings in place of EHC for many applications11, 12.

While TS coatings are able to meet the performance requirements of EHC in many applications,
it is recognized that this technology may not be able to replace EHC in all applications, because it is a
line-of-sight process. Many military applications require non-line-of-sight (NLOS) coating processes.
For example, it has been reported that NLOS requirements comprise between 20% and 40% of all EHC
applications within the Air Force14. NLOS processes such as EN coatings have therefore also been
considered for this application, both as stand-alone coatings and as barrier coats between the substrate
and the EHC coating. EN is an autocatalytic process in which a nickel alloy (usually nickel and
phosphorus or nickel and boron) is deposited onto a substrate in a chemical bath through reduction of
the nickel, as follows15:

2H2PO2- + 2H2O + Ni2+ Ni0 + H2 + 4H+ + 2HPO3-- (Eq. 1)

4
 The enhanced corrosion performance of EN coatings over EHC coatings of the same thickness
has been well established in corrosion tests3. Corrosion-performance improvements have also been
realized through the utilization of duplex EN coatings13.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Corrosion testing was conducted on specimens (cylindrical actuator shafts and flat panels) that
were coated with EHC and alternative coatings. These specimens came from two sources. One
grouping (shafts only) was procured under the TDPMD effort. These specimens were designed to
simulate the materials and coatings for hydraulic actuators found on military ground vehicles. Two
other groupings (one consisting of flat panels, the other consisting of shafts) were supplied by HCAT.
These were designed to simulate the materials and coatings for hydraulic actuators found on military
and commercial aircraft. The specimens from each of these groupings are described in more detail in
the following sections.

TDPMD Actuator Shaft Preparation

1045 alloy cold rolled (CR) steel bar shafts 38 mm (1.5") in diameter were procured to simulate
the alloys and configurations of ground vehicle hydraulic actuators. These were cut to 101.5 mm (4")
lengths and then sent to various vendors for coating.

TDPMD Actuator Shafts – Controls

As mentioned above, EHC is the most prevalent coating in use for protecting actuators. Shafts
were coated with EHC in accordance with the military specification5. These EHC specimens, along
with bare (uncoated) shafts, were utilized as controls. Final EHC specimen coating thicknesses were
0.002", in accordance with the specification5.

TDPMD Actuator Shafts – Candidates

Alternative coatings were selected on the basis of three potential applications: chrome repair,
chrome enhancement, and chrome replacement. A promising candidate for each of these applications
was selected.

A chrome repair process is useful for repairing corrosion damage without removing the existing
EHC coating. TS coatings and technologies such as electrospark deposition can be employed in this
regard. Since much work has already been done on the most available of these technologies, a
promising new COTS TS process, which has not yet been considered under other efforts, was selected16.
Five uncoated shafts were sent to a vendor for coating and returned upon completion. Final COTS TS
specimen coating thicknesses were reportedly 0.002" but could not be confirmed by the vendor.

For chrome enhancement technologies, a COTS ST was selected17. This ST was applied in-
house to five EHC-coated shafts. Final COTS ST specimen coating thicknesses were not determined.

Chrome replacement technologies, in which the EHC coating is replaced altogether, were also
investigated. A COTS EN product that is being considered for other military applications was selected.
Five uncoated shafts were sent to the vendor for coating and returned upon completion. Final COTS EN
specimen coating thicknesses were reported to be 0.0025" by the vendor based upon their process

5
sheets. These specimens were also heat treated after coating at 250°F for 4 hours by the vendor before
being returned.

A summary of the TDPMD control and candidate specimens is presented in Table 1.

HCAT Panels

HCAT supplied 33 specimens of TS coatings on flat panels to be tested concurrently with the
TDPMD specimens. These panels were comprised of three substrates (4340 steel, 15-5 precipitation
hardened (PH) stainless steel, and Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy) that are commonly used in the aerospace
industry, and were coated with either the control (EHC) or one of two TS coatings (Tribaloy 400 (T400)
alloy or tungsten carbide cobalt chromium (WC/10Co4Cr)). Final coating thicknesses ranged from
0.0036" to 0.0105". Surface roughness (Ra) values ranged from 6 to 15 microinches. The exact process
parameters were not reported. A listing of the HCAT panels is presented in Table 2.

HCAT Actuator Shaft Specimens

HCAT also supplied 32 1" diameter actuator shafts to be tested. These were comprised of the
same three substrates as the HCAT panels, and were coated with the control (EHC), one of the same two
TS coatings (T400 and WC/10Co4Cr), or a third coating, chromium-carbide nickel chromium
(Cr3C2/20NiCr). Final coating thicknesses ranged from 0.0036" to 0.0105". Surface roughness (Ra)
values ranged from 6 to 15 microinches. The exact process parameters were not reported. A listing of
the HCAT actuator shafts is presented in Table 3.

Corrosion Testing

Testing was conducted in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
specification B11718. It should be noted that the corrosion testing delineated under ASTM B117 and
employed under this effort was conducted to gather basic corrosion data on the tested specimens. The
results of this test should not be considered as a life prediction tool, and past studies have demonstrated
significant discrepancies when this test is used in this way19. These corrosion results are simply for
comparative performance. It is anticipated that future efforts will evaluate the best performers from this
effort in a more suitable life-predicting corrosion test, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) specification J233420.

All specimens were cleaned in accordance with ASTM G121 before testing. The test chamber
employed was a COTS cyclic corrosion chamber22. The specimens were placed into the chamber at
angles of about 25° from the vertical and subjected to a constant 5% salt spray environment at 35°C
(95°F) in accordance with ASTM B117.

During the testing, the specimens were removed from the chamber, photographed, and evaluated
at intervals of 0, 125, 250, 375, 500, 625, 750, 875, and 1000 hours. Evaluations were conducted in
accordance with ASTM B53723. This specification assigns ratings of 0 to 10 (10 being best, 0 being
worst) for two aspects of observed coating performance. “Protection” is determined by how well the
coating protects the substrate from corrosion. “Appearance” incorporates the protection aspect but also
accounts for other visual aspects of corrosion performance (staining, dripping, etc.) that might be
considered detrimental but not a protection defect.

6
 Since the appearance of a coating in the field is used as an indicator for performance, the
appearance ratings at the completion of the testing (after 1000 hours of exposure) formed the basis of
the evaluations presented herein.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The specimen matrix consisted of three groups: TDPMD actuator shafts, HCAT panels, and
HCAT actuator shafts. The appearance ratings of all specimens after 1000 hours of B117 testing are
presented in Tables 4–6 and Figures 3–5. Since these tables and figures present the appearance ratings
only at the completion of the testing, significant results that occurred both during the testing and at the
completion of testing are described in this section. Specimens that were completely corroded (0 rating)
before the test completed 1000 hours were eliminated from further consideration.

TDPMD Actuator Shafts

The appearance ratings at 1000 hours of the TDPMD specimens as tested in accordance with
B117 are presented in Table 4 and Figure 3. As expected, the uncoated specimens exhibited severe
corrosion early in the test (averaged 1 rating after 125 hours) and were eliminated (0 rating for all) by
250 hours. The EHC-coated specimens demonstrated improved performance over the uncoated
specimens, which is consistent with expected performance3. However, the EHC-coated specimens still
exhibited significant corrosion after 125 hours (averaged 4 rating) and were completely eliminated (0
rating for all) by 875 hours. The COTS TS-coated specimens demonstrated improved performance over
both uncoated and EHC-coated specimens (averaged 3.5 rating after 1000 hours). The EHC-coated
specimens with the COTS ST demonstrated significantly improved performance (averaged 4.1 rating
after 1000 hours) over the EHC-coated specimens that were not treated (0 rating for all, as stated above).
It is theorized that the ST plugs the microcracks and prevents the corrosive electrolyte from reaching the
substrate. It should be noted that delamination of the ST from the EHC coating was observed to a
degree. The COTS EN-coated specimens demonstrated considerable corrosion (averaged 3.0 rating)
after only 125 hours and were eliminated (0 rating for all) after 500 hours. It is theorized that the alloy
composition and microstructure of the coating may impact the performance. It is recognized that some
EN coatings contain active grain boundaries that can influence corrosion performance24. The heat
treatment may also have influenced the performance, as this procedure has been shown to affect the
corrosion performance of EN coatings25; however, it is unlikely that heat treatment at the low
temperature employed for these specimens had a significant influence.

HCAT Panels

The appearance ratings for the HCAT panels are presented in Table 5 and Figure 4. The
corrosion performance of the HCAT panels was overall much better than that of the TDPMD specimens.

Interestingly, the EHC-coated specimens for all three substrates were the best performers. The
15-5PH stainless steel EHC-coated specimens averaged 9.5 rating after 1000 hours, followed by the
Ti-6Al-4V EHC-coated specimens (averaged 7.1 rating) and the 4340 EHC-coated specimens (averaged
7.0 rating). It must be noted that the EHC coatings performed much better on the HCAT panels than on
the TDPMD actuator shafts. This is most likely due in part to the greater EHC coating thicknesses of
the HCAT specimens compared to those of the TDPMD specimens, which has a significant influence on
the corrosion performance of EHC coatings26. The differences may also be attributable to the differing

7
substrates (15-5PH stainless steel, titanium, and 4340 steel versus 1045 CR steel) and possible differing
specimen process parameters, which could also have a considerable impact26, 27.

The T400 coatings performed somewhat comparably to the EHC coatings (averaged 7.8 rating
for titanium, 6.8 rating for 15-5PH, and 6.5 for 4340). The WC/CoCr coating provided somewhat less
protection (averaged 5.0 rating for 15-5PH, 3.6 rating for Ti-6Al-4V, and 2.8 rating for 4340). These
results are somewhat inconsistent with those of past work26 and may indicate the impact of coating
thickness, substrate, and specimen process parameters on the performance of the coating system.

HCAT Actuator Shaft Specimens

The appearance ratings for the HCAT actuator shafts are presented in Table 6 and Figure 5. Like
the HCAT panels, all these specimens performed better than the TDPMD specimens.

The EHC-coated specimens were again the best performers (averaged 10.0 rating for 15-5PH,
9.75 rating for 4340, and 8.8 rating for Ti-6Al-4V). The EHC coatings performed much better on the
HCAT actuator shafts than on the TDPMD actuator shafts. The Cr3C2/NiCr coating provided slightly
less protection (averaged 8.8 rating for Ti-6Al-4V, 8.0 rating for 4340, and 6.8 rating for 15-5PH). The
WC/CoCr-coated shafts performed comparably to the Cr3C2/NiCr-coated shafts, averaging 7.0 rating for
15-5PH, 6.75 rating for titanium, and 5.4 rating for 4340. These results were better than those for the
HCAT panels coated with this material, and are more consistent with those of past efforts27. The T400
coatings were the worst performers, averaging 6.0 rating for 15-5PH, 6.5 for Ti-6Al-4V, and 3.5 rating
for 4340, which is also consistent with past efforts26.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to consider alternatives for EHC coatings on military hydraulic actuators. This
need is driven by environmental and health issues as well as a desire for improved corrosion
performance. To this end, corrosion testing was conducted on specimens coated with EHC coatings and
available alternatives. While the performance was dependant upon the coating thickness, the substrate,
and the specimen process parameters, several promising candidates were identified from the testing. For
ground vehicle applications, the COTS TS and COTS ST technologies were the best performers and are
recommended for study under future efforts. For aerospace applications, the WC/CoCr and Cr3C3/NiCr
coatings provided only slightly lesser corrosion protection to three substrates. The performance of the
T400-coated specimens was somewhat inconsistent but generally less promising.

COTS technologies are available that can provide a comparable degree of corrosion protection
for military hydraulic actuators with respect to EHC coatings. The benefits of these technologies
include providing enhanced readiness and operator safety while reducing the maintenance burden and
environmental impact. The implementation of these technologies will lead to improved life cycle cost,
sustainability, and readiness for the warfighter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded under the U.S. Army’s TDPMD Program. The authors wish to thank Dr.
Joe Argento (retired) and Mr. John Theis of the U.S. Army Corrosion Office for their continued support.
The authors also wish to thank the depot maintenance personnel interviewed under this effort. Finally,

8
the authors wish to recognize Mr. Larry Gintert, Mr. James Failor, Dr. R. Gerry Miller, and Mr. Scott
Ryan of Concurrent Technologies Corporation in Largo, Florida, for their contributions to this work.

REFERENCES

1. R. Mason et al., “Corrosion of Military Hydraulic Equipment,” Navy RUST 2004 Corrosion
Technology Exchange, Louisville, Kentucky, July 2004.
2. R. Mason et al., “Evaluation of Advanced Coatings for Improved Performance on Military
Hydraulic Equipment,” SUR/FIN 2005, St. Louis, Missouri, June 2005.
3. Prince Hydraulics website: http://www.princehyd.com/Default.aspx?tabid=35.
4. F. Altmayer, “What Causes Macro-Cracks in Chromium Deposits?” Plating and Surface
Finishing, American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers, Orlando, Florida, December 2002.
5. AMS-QQ-C-320, “Chromium Plating (Electrodeposited),” Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, Pennsylvania, issued July 2000.
6. Operator’s Manual TM5-2350-262-10, Armored Combat Earthmover (ACE), M-9,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., June 1992 (revised March 5, 2003).
7. Operator’s Manual TM 9-2320-364-10, Truck, Tractor, M1074 and M1075 Palletized Load
System (PLS), Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., August 1999.
8. E. Brooman, “Corrosion Behavior of Environmentally Acceptable Alternatives to Cadmium and
Chromium Coatings: Chromium, Part I,” Metal Finishing, Elsevier, Inc., New York, New York,
July 2000.
9. E. Brooman, “Corrosion Behavior of Environmentally Acceptable Alternatives to Cadmium and
Chromium Coatings: Chromium, Part II,” Metal Finishing, Elsevier, Inc., New York, New York,
August 2000.
10. E. Brooman, “Wear Behavior of Environmentally Acceptable Alternatives to Cadmium and
Chromium Coatings: Nickel-Based Candidates,” Metal Finishing, Elsevier Inc., New York, New
York, September 2004.
11. K. Legg, “Replacement of Cr and Cd Plating,” presentation to Partners in Environmental
Excellence, December 2002.
12. K. Legg, “Status of Chromium Replacement for Aviation Applications,” presentation to Solvent
Substitution Workshop, December 2002.
13. E. Schmeling and G. Schmitt, “The Application of Electroless Nickel Coatings Under Severe
Mechanical and Corrosion Conditions,” Electroless Nickel Conference III, Chicago, Illinois,
March 1981.
14. M. Klingenberg et al., “Nano-Particle Composite Plating as an Alternative to Hard Chromium
and Nickel Coatings,” Plating and Surface Finishing, American Electroplaters and Surface
Finishers Society, Orlando, Florida, April 2005.
15. F. Lowenheim, “Chapter 17: Autocatalytic (“Electroless”) Plating,” Electroplating:
Fundamentals of Surface Finishing, McGraw-Hill, 1978.
16. Super Hard Steel, available from The NanoSteel Company, Maitland, Florida.
17. RO-59, available from RO-59, Inc., Stoughton, Massachusetts.
18. ASTM B117, “Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2002.
19. B. Appleman, “Predicting Exterior Marine Performance of Coatings from Salt Fog: Two Types
of Errors,” Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings, Steel Structures Painting Council,
October 1992.
20. SAE J2334, “Cosmetic Corrosion Lab Test,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale,
Pennsylvania, revised June 1998.

9
21. ASTM G1, “Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test
Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1990 (reapproved 1999).
22. Auto Technology Company, Strongsville, Ohio.
23. ASTM B537, “Standard Practice for Rating of Electroplated Panels Subjected to Atmospheric
Exposure,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1970 (reapproved 1997).
24. W. Riedel, Electroless Nickel Plating, ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio, 1991.
25. R. Mason, “Electroless Nickel Hardness Considerations,” Garden State AESF meeting, 1998.
26. B. Sartwell et al., Validation of HVOF WC/Co Thermal Spray Coatings as a Replacement for
Hard Chrome Plating on Aircraft Landing Gear, Report NRL/MR/6170-04-8762, Naval
Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., March 2004.
27. Joint Program Final Report for HVOF Process Development, Evaluation and Qualification,
Canadian Hard Chrome Alternatives Team, DSS Contract No. W2207-8-EH02/001/SV, July 31,
2002.

TABLE 1
TDPMD ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS

Control/Candidate Specimen ID Number of

Configuration Test Duration
Coating System Range Specimens
ASTM
None As Received A1 – A5 5 1000 hours or until failure
B117
ASTM
EHC As Received A6 – A10 5 1000 hours or until failure
B117
ASTM
COTS TS As Received A11 – A15 5 1000 hours or until failure
B117
ASTM
EHC with COTS ST As Received A16 – A20 5 1000 hours or until failure
B117
ASTM
COTS EN As Received A21 – A25 5 1000 hours or until failure
B117

10
 TABLE 2
HCAT PANEL SPECIMENS

Substrate – Designation Coating

PH – C1
PH – C2
PH – C5
PH – C6
Ti – C1
Ti – C2 WC/CoCr
Ti – C5
Ti – C6
4340 – C1
4340 – C2
4340 – C5
PH – C17
PH – C18
PH – C21
PH – C22
Ti – C17 T400
Ti – C18
Ti – C21
Ti – C22
4340 – C21
4340 – C22
PH – C25
PH – C26
PH – C28
PH – C29
Ti – C25
Ti – C26 EHC
Ti – C28
Ti – C29
4340 – C25
4340 – C26
4340 – C29
4340 – C30

11
 TABLE 3
HCAT ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS

Substrate – Designation Coating

15-5PH – 1
15-5PH – 2
Ti6-4 – 1
Ti6-4 – 2 EHC
4340 – 1
4340 – 2
4340 – 5
4340 – 6
15-5PH – 4
15-5PH – 6
Ti6-4 – 4
Ti6-4 – 6
4340 – 9 WC/CoCr
4340 – 10
4340 – 11
4340 – 12
4340 – 19
4340 – 16
4340 – 17 WC/CoCr-SF*
4340 – 21
15-5PH – 8
15-5PH – 10
Ti6-4 – 8 Cr3C2/NiCr
Ti6-4 – 10
4340 – 23
4340 – 25
15-5PH – 12
15-5PH – 14
Ti6-4 – 12
Ti6-4 – 14 T400
4340 – 27
4340 – 29
*Super-Finish (additional post-treatment)

12
 TABLE 4
B117 CORROSION TEST RESULTS, TDPMD ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS

Substrate Coating Appearance Rating, 1000 Hours

1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel None 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel EHC 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 5
1045 CR Steel 4
1045 CR Steel COTS TS 4.5
1045 CR Steel 2.5
1045 CR Steel 1.5
1045 CR Steel/ 5
1045 CR Steel 6
1045 CR Steel EHC with COTS ST 2.5
1045 CR Steel 1.5
1045 CR Steel 5.5
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel COTS EN 0
1045 CR Steel 0
1045 CR Steel 0

13
 TABLE 5
B117 CORROSION TEST RESULTS, HCAT PANEL SPECIMENS

Substrate – Designation Coating Appearance Rating, 1000 Hours

PH – C1 4.5
PH – C2 5
PH – C5 5
PH – C6 5.5
Ti – C1 2.5
Ti – C2 WC/CoCr 2.5
Ti – C5 4.5
Ti – C6 5
4340 – C1 0
4340 – C2 2
4340 – C5 6.5
PH – C17 6
PH – C18 6.5
PH – C21 7
PH – C22 7.5
Ti – C17 8
Ti – C18 T400 7
Ti – C21 8
Ti – C22 8
4340 – C21 7
4340 – C22 6
PH – C25 10
PH – C26 8.5
PH – C28 9.5
PH – C29 10
Ti – C25 7.5
Ti – C26 7.5
Ti – C28 EHC 6.5
Ti – C29 7
4340 – C25 8
4340 – C26 7.5
4340 – C29 5.5
4340 – C30 7

14
 TABLE 6
B117 CORROSION TEST RESULTS, HCAT ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS

Substrate – Designation/ Coating Appearance Rating, 1000 Hours

15-5PH – 1 10
15-5PH – 2 10
Ti6-4 – 1 9
Ti6-4 – 2 EHC 8.5
4340 – 1 9
4340 – 2 10
4340 – 5 10
4340 – 6 10
15-5PH – 4 7
15-5PH – 6 7
Ti6-4 – 4 6
Ti6-4 – 6 7.5
4340 – 9 WC/CoCr 6.5
4340 – 10 2
4340 – 11 3.5
4340 – 12 3
4340 – 19 6.5
4340 – 16 6.5
4340 – 17 WC/CoCr–SF 7.5
4340 – 21 7.5
15-5PH – 8 6.5
15-5PH – 10 7
Ti6-4 – 8 CR3C2/NiCr 9
T16-4 – 10 8.5
4340 – 23 8
4340 – 25 8
15-5PH – 12 4.5
15-5PH – 14 7.5
Ti6-4 – 12 T400 5.5
Ti6-4 – 14 7.5
4340 – 27 2
4340 – 29 5

15
 FIGURE 1
CLOSE-UP OF PITTING ON HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR ARM

FIGURE 2
CYLINDER ON M4K TACTICAL FORKLIFT, WITH CORROSION ON EXTENDED
PORTION OF MAIN VERTICAL ACTUATOR ARM

16
 10

11
APPEARANCE RATINGS FOR HCAT PANEL SPECIMENS, AFTER 1000 HOURS of B117

APPEARANCE RATINGS FOR TDPMD ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS, AFTER 1000

7
PH-C1 / WCCoCr

PH-C2 / WCCoCr 1045 CR Steel / None

PH-C5 / WCCoCr 1045 CR Steel / None

PH-C6 / WCCoCr
1045 CR Steel / None
Ti-C1 / WCCoCr
1045 CR Steel / None
Ti-C2 / WCCoCr

Ti-C5 / WCCoCr
1045 CR Steel / None

Ti-C6 / WCCoCr 1045 CR Steel / EHC

4340-C1 / WCCoCr
1045 CR Steel / EHC
4340-C2 / WCCoCr
1045 CR Steel / EHC
4340-C5 / WCCoCr

HOURS OF B117 EXPOSURE

PH-C17 / T400 1045 CR Steel / EHC

PH-C18 / T400 1045 CR Steel / EHC

PH-C21 / T400
1045 CR Steel / COTS TS
EXPOSURE

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 3
PH-C22 / T400
1045 CR Steel / COTS TS
Ti-C17 / T400
17

Ti-C18 / T400 1045 CR Steel / COTS TS

Ti-C21 / T400 1045 CR Steel / COTS TS

Ti-C22 / T400
1045 CR Steel / COTS TS
4340-C21 / T400
1045 CR Steel / EHC / COTS ST
4340-C22 / T400

PH-C25 / EHC 1045 CR Steel / EHC / COTS ST

PH-C26 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / EHC / COTS ST
PH-C28 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / EHC / COTS ST
PH-C29 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / EHC / COTS ST
Ti-C25 / EHC

Ti-C26 / EHC 1045 CR Steel / COTS EN

Ti-C28 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / COTS EN
Ti-C29 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / COTS EN
4340-C25 / EHC
1045 CR Steel / COTS EN
4340-C26 / EHC

4340-C29 / EHC 1045 CR Steel / COTS EN

4340-C30 / EHC
 10

11

12

13
0

9
15-5PH-1 / EHC

15-5PH-2 / EHC

APPEARANCE RATINGS FOR HCAT ACTUATOR SHAFT SPECIMENS, AFTER 1000

Ti6-4-1 / EHC

Ti6-4-2 / EHC

4340-1 / EHC

4340-2 / EHC

4340-5 / EHC

4340-6 / EHC

15-5PH-4 / WCCoCr

15-5PH-6 / WCCoCr

Ti6-4-4 / WCCoCr

HOURS OF B117 EXPOSURE

Ti6-4-6 / WCCoCr

4340-9 / WCCoCr

4340-10 / WCCoCr

4340-11 / WCCoCr

FIGURE 5
4340-12 / WCCoCr
18

4340-19 / WCCoCr

4340-16 / WCCoCr

4340-17 / WCCoCr

4340-21 / WCCoCr

15-5PH-8 / Cr3C2

15-5PH-10 / Cr3C2

Ti6-4-8 / Cr3C2

Ti6-4-10 / Cr3C2

4340-23 / Cr3C2

4340-25 / Cr3C2

15-5PH-12 / T400

15-5PH-14 / T400

Ti6-4-12 / T400

Ti6-4-14 / T400

4340-27 / T400

4340-29 / T400