1. HCAT Propeller Hub Chrome Plate Replacement Program
Aaron Nardi - Steve Pasakarnis
Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering

2. Coatings Characterization Testing Contacts
Fatigue - Steve Pasakarnis
Wear - Aaron Nardi
Corrosion - Blair Smith, Aaron Nardi
TCLP - Folashade Anderson
Low Pitch Stop Lever Sleeve, Sub-Component Test - Ed Faillace, Folashade Anderson

3. Covered in fatigue presentation on Wednesday morning by John Sauer

4. Wear Testing Coating Types Conterfaces Test Variables WC-Co WC-Co-Cr
Tribaloy T-800
Chrome Plate (AMS 2406)
Nickel Plate (AMS 2423)
Conterfaces
4340 Steel
Beryllium Copper
Viton Seal Material
15% Glass filled PTFE
Test Variables
Contamination Iron oxide, silica sand, Arizona Road Test
Oil Type (Mil-H-83282, Mil-H-87257) Drip on each specimen
Stroke Length- Full Stroke and Dithering
Load
Surface Finish

5. Wear Test Fixture Load Pin 3000 lb. capacity
Flat Counter-face Specimens
Spring Washers
Pivots
Coated Panel Specimen

6. Wear Testing Results Quantitative Results Qualitative Results
Weight loss and wear depth ( profilometer )results being measured
Data not yet reduced
Qualitative Results
Chrome plate exhibited the most extensive pitting when dithering against steel with contaminated Mil-H-83282
Chrome plate exhibited the most extensive adhesive plowing against the Be-Cu samples
phosphate lubricants in Mil-H will only lubricate iron based alloys
Neither HVOF WC-Co or T-800, exhibited pitting or adhesive plowing to the extent of the Chrome Plate in any samples tested, with WC performing the best overall

7. Dithering Tests With Steel Counterfaces in Contaminated Mil-H-83282
Hard Chrome Plate
WC-17Co HVOF
T-800 HVOF

8. Stroking Tests With BeCu Counterfaces in Clean Mil-H-83282
Hard Chrome Plate
WC-17Co HVOF
T-800 HVOF

9. Corrosion Testing ASTM B-117 Testing Checked panels on a daily basis
.001, .005, .010” coating thickness on coupons
Testing ground vs. as sprayed surface
Removal from tank criteria was:
3 or more spots
Spot bigger than 1/4”

10. Results From Corrosion Testing
Nickel Plating was the overall top performer
WC-Co-Cr was marginally the best HVOF coating
In General, the thick coatings performed better than thin coatings
Machined specimens generally performed worse than panels in the as coated condition.e to substantial corrosion
Photos are worst case-coated panels showed
Co and CoCr showed varying results from panel to panel
T800 results were very consistent across all panels
Trends were similar across the thickness ranges

11. As Coated Nickel Corrosion Panels
W-1, 8 days, Thick
W-6, 8 days, Thick

12. As Coated Tribaloy T-800 Corrosion Panels
T-1, 5 days, Thick
T-2, 5 days, Thick
T-3, 5 days, Thick

13. As Coated WC-Co Corrosion Panels
W-1, 12 days, Thick
W-2, 8 days, Thick
W-6, 20 days, Thick

14. As Coated WC-Co-Cr Corrosion Panels
WCR-1, 20 days, Thick
WCR-2, 8 days, Thick
WCR-3, 8 days, Thick

15. TCLP Testing Results Spent Material Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800)
Virgin Powder Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800)
NOT HAZARDOUS WASTE
In Connecticut Would Be Considered Non-Hazardous Regulated Waste

16. Rig/Component Testing
Rig test of low pitch stop lever sleeve component
Part experiences 10 cycles per flight and testing will accumulate sufficient cycles to correspond to 7500 hrs of flight (i.e. overhaul interval)
Loading will simulate actual flight conditions using hydraulic fluid at 150 degrees and pressure of 310 psi

17. Program Milestones Wear Testing - April 2001
Fatigue Testing - April 2001
Corrosion Testing - Complete
TCLP Testing - Complete
Component Testing -
Testing to begin April 2001
Flight Test - Start September 2001
Navy to Define Test Location