1. CO2 Spray Development Activities
John Inks and Rick Osterman 26 May DOD Low VOC Coatings Application Workshop
ATS LO Maintainability TIM
Oklahoma City, Air Logistics Center
Rick Osterman
7 October 1998 N

2. Equipment Development Activities
Equipment Roadmap
Benefit Comparisons
Equipment Progress
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
Internal Funding (1998)
Air Force Funding (1999)
Conclusions

3. Equipment Development
Equipment Roadmap
1998
1999
3Qtr
4Qtr
1Qtr
2Qtr
3Qtr
4Qtr
High Volume
Low Pressure
(HVLP)
Plural Component
Spray
(PCS)
Equipment
Down Select
Site 4 Dem/Val
& Process Specs
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
Convergent Spray
Technology
(CST)
Go/No-Go
Process
Spec
Program Phases
Baseline
Equipment Development
Dem/Val

4. Equipment Environmental Benefits
In Addition to Reformulating Coatings to Reduce or Eliminate Hazmats, NGC Is Evaluating Spray Equipment for Further Benefits
Carbon Dioxide Spray (CO2)
Applicable to Primers, Topcoats and Specialty Coatings
VOC and HAP Reduction
Solvent Reduction
Cost, Cycle Time, and Film Quality Benefits

5. Carbon Dioxide Spray Reasons for NGC Consideration
Environmentally Friendly
Reduced VOC Emissions
Higher Transfer Efficiency
Higher Coating Rates
Minimal Solvent Disposal
Improved Performance, Quality, Repeatability
Quicker Curing
Improved Film Smoothness
Similar to a Class A Car Finish
Cost Reduction
Reduced Process Flow & Labor
Less Over-Spray

6. High Volume Low Pressure Diagram
Base
1 QT
Pressure
Pot
1 QT
Pressure
Pot
Manual
Weigh & Mix B
Catalyst
Features and Benefits/Draw Backs
Manual Proportioning
Utilizes HVLP Spray Guns
Single Component (Batch) Design
Work Life Limitation C
Thinner

7. Supercritical CO2 Diagram
Base
CO2
Manual
Weigh &
Mixing B
Catalyst
Pressure =
1500 PSI
Admixed
Coating C
Thinner
HEAT
HEAT
Features and Benefits/Draw Backs
Maximum VOC Reduction
Utilizes Airless Spray Gun
Single Component (Batch) Design
Work Life Limitation

8. Unicarb CO2 Spray System Diagram
Blend Supercritical CO2 with Standard Coating Solvents
Reduces Solvent Content
Improves Coating Finish
Union Carbide Patented and Licensed Technology

9. Unicarb CO2 Spray Spray Pattern

10. ATS LO Maintainability TIM
CO2 Spray Process Advantage, Mandate and Cost
Advantages
VOC Reduction
Improved Flexibility
Improved Film Finish
Reduced Cure Times
Faster Coating Build
Mandatory For
High VOC Materials
Low Flexibility Coatings
ROM Costs
$160K to $320K
Can Operate Spray Guns From Each Unit

11. CO2 Equipment Development Activities
Internal Funding (1998)
Mil Spec Topcoat
Air Force Funding (1999)
Program Baseline Primer and Developmental Conductive and Topcoat
Developmental Primer and Topcoat
Developmental Topcoats
Developmental Waterborne Primer N

12. 1998 CO2 Coating Evaluations
Objective
Evaluate Supercritical Fluid CO2 Coating Technology for Application of MIL-SPEC Qualified Paint Systems
1998 Project Goals
Reformulate a Mil-C Qualified Topcoat For Use in UNICARBÒ Coating Application System
Perform Testing & Evaluation of Coated Panels to Selective MIL-C Requirements
Obtain Sponsorship by Northrop Grumman Programs to Develop, Validate and Transition-to-Production the CO2 Paint Technology
Identify DoD/Industry Partners for CRAD and CRADA Opportunities

13. 1998 Project Plan UNICARBÒ Problem / Need Statement Long Term Benefits
Environmental Regulations Continue to Lower Allowable VOC Content. This Requirement Is Usually Achieved by Reducing Organic Solvent Content, But Low VOC Coatings Have Poor Surface Finish Quality. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide is Currently Used as a Solvent in Automotive Paint Formulations Producing a Class A Surface Finish.
Long Term Benefits
Reduce Paint Cure Times
Improve Finish Quality and Paint Application Rate
50% VOC Reduction for Paints and Primers
Objective
Milestones and Products
Reformulate a Mil-Spec Qualified Paint System to Use CO2 and Demonstrate Effectiveness 1 2 3
Approach / Tasks
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr th Qtr
Reformulate Hentzen Coatings’ MIL-C-85285, Gray Flat Topcoat for Use With Unicarb CO2 Paint System
Spray Coating on Test Panels at Union Carbide
Conduct Coating Performance Testing at NGC for Comparison to HVLP Spray Coatings
1) Complete Reformulation and Delivery of Paint System to Union Carbide
2) Application of Paint Using CO2 Spray System
3) Complete Coating Performance Testing

14. 1998 Progress
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) Requested Hentzen Coatings, Inc. to Reformulate Their Mil-C Flat Gray Topcoat for Use in UNICARBÒ Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Paint System
Hentzen, In Cooperation With NGC Produced the New Coating in Four Weeks
Test Panels Were Sprayed at Union Carbide One Week Later
Morphology Was Smooth and Continuous
Unaided Visual Appearance of Coated Panels Was Excellent (No Orange Peel)
Coating Performance Tests Completed

15. Test Results
CO2 Coated Panels Met the Following Specification Requirements
Adhesion
Gloss
Surface Roughness
Heat Resistance
Solvent Rub
Hiding Power
Low Temperature Flex on Four Inch Mandrel

16. Summary Exceeded Initial Coating Formulation/Application Goals
Test Results Are Positive Warranting Further Evaluation
NGC Procured Laboratory CO2 Spray Unit
New Unit Will Be Tested to Certify Compliance South Coast Air Quality Management District Requirements
Minimum 65%Transfer Efficiency or Equivalence to HVLP

17. 1999 Project Plan Problem / Need Statement Long Term Benefits
Environmental Regulations Continue to Lower Allowable VOC Content
Current Coating Processes are Time & Labor Intensive
Long Term Benefits
Reduce Coating Process Time
Improve Finish Quality and Paint Application Rate
Significant VOC & Emission Reduction
Objective
Milestones and Products
Evaluate Candidate Paint Systems to Use CO2 and Demonstrate Effectiveness 1 2 3
Approach / Tasks
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr th Qtr
Obtain Paint Samples from Various Suppliers
Spray Paint Samples at Union Carbide
Conduct Coating Performance Evaluation at NGC for Comparison to HVLP Spray Applied Coatings
1) Complete Phase I Coating & Spray Development
2) Complete Phase II Coating & Spray Development
2) Complete Equipment Demonstration & Validation

18. Primer, Conductive, and Topcoat CO2 Baseline Coating Evaluation (24 - 25 August ‘98) at UCC
Sprayed 3 Coatings
Courtauld’s Polyurethane Primer
In-House Formulation Conductive Coating
In-House Formulation Topcoat
Added Small Amounts of Solvents to Coatings
MAK and EEP
Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable
VOC’S Were Reduced Over Baseline Coatings
Coating Cure Rates Were Reduced
Primer Dry Hard Time Decreased From 3 Hrs to 2 Hrs
Test Panels Were Sprayed for Physical Property Testing

19. High Solids Primer and Topcoat CO2 Coating Evaluation (19 - 23 April ‘99) at UCC
Sprayed 2 Coatings
US Paint’s High Solids Primer
US Paint’s High Solids Topcoat
Added Small Amounts of Solvents to Coatings
MAK and EEP
Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable
VOC’S Were Reduced Over Baseline Coatings
Coating Cure Rates Were Reduced
Primer Dry-to-Touch Decreased 50%
Test Panels Were Sprayed

20. More Topcoats CO2 Coating Evaluation (20 - 22 May ‘99) at UCC
Sprayed 2 Coatings
Hentzen’s Moisture Curing Topcoat
Dexter’s Polyurethane Topcoat
Hentzen Topcoat Results
Added Small Amounts of MAK Solvent to Coating
Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable
VOC Was Reduced
Coating Cure Rate Reduced 50%
Dexter Topcoat Panels Results
Required Mixture of Solvents to Meet Film Spray Stds.

21. Waterborne Primer CO2 Coating Evaluation (25 May ‘99) at UCC
Sprayed 1 Coating
Spraylat’s Waterborne Primer
No Solvents Were Added to Coatings
Sprayed As Supplied
Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable
Spray Panels Were Coated for Evaluation
Added Salt Spray Test Panels
CO2 Interaction Could Change Coating pH Which Could Affect Corrosion Inhibitors

22. Conclusions
Coating Reformulation is Not The Only Means of Meeting VOC Reduction Requirements
CO2 Cure Rate Acceleration Factor Dependent Upon Coating Being Evaluated
Not All Commercial Coatings Are Applicable to CO2 Spray
Keys to Reformulating for CO2
Formulation Stability
Solvent Selection
Film Build
Compatibility
Equipment Design
Single Batch Mix Versus Continuos Plural Mixing
Cold Versus Hot Circulating

23. Conclusions Continued
CO2 Spray Has Added Benefits Over Reformulation
Cost Reduction
Reduced Touch Labor and Less Material
Cycle Time Reduction
Spray Process Finish Quality Improvements
Must Evaluate Each Use of CO2 Against Need and Benefits
Subsequent Sessions Will Include Cost Analyses
Equipment Development is More Capital Intensive Than Reformulation for HVLP Spray
Additional Costs Should Be Offset Recurring Savings