Rationale
A lot of data has been generated in HCAT/CHCAT program in the past 3 or 4 months Aim is to show overall status - where we are in testing and what we have learned overall
Put current data in a logical order Address what we are doing to resolve some testing issues Suggest some compartments for existing and new data
Overview
Aircraft use of HVOF coatings Why are we doing this? commercial flight tests Overall status of JTP tests
Conditions seen by real parts Summary of findings to date What does all this mean for actual usage?
JTP - Corrosion, wear, fatigue, embrittlement, impact Ancillary - Process specs, producibility, additional corrosion, additional fatigue, failure mechanisms
Flight testing (Boeing, Delta, Lufthansa etc.) shows acceptable performance with no serious problems
no gouges, striations, flaking, etc. commonly seen in Cr better seal life if Ra~4 (rapid seal damage if rough) some FPI crack pattern indications on Lufthansa aft inner cylinders (Barkhausen showed no crack penetration to substrate), nothing requiring removal from service
Coating
HVOF, plasma, D-gun WC-Co HVOF, plasma, D-gun WC-18Co
Specification
BAC 5851 BAC 5851
Notes
Boeing OEM coating Boeing OEM coating
Overhaul and Repair Overhaul and Repair Overhaul and Repair Titanium alloy
BAC 5851
Main and nose landing gear O&R at Delta Airlines OEM usage all new-design hydraulics
F/A-18 E/F
74A430702 Piston head assy Retract Actuator NLG Cover assy Gear/manifold Head, Piston Shock Absorber MLGF-18 E/F Diamalloy 1004 (Al bronze) Applied per AMS2447 Tribaloy T400 6.612 OD Production part
74A430616
8.974 ID
Production part
F/A-18 C/D
74A410603 Diamalloy 1004 (Al bronze) Applied per AMS2447 WC-Co per DCMP 210 (AMS2447-7) AMS 2447-4 Ni95-Al5 AMS 2447-9 OD R&O DRED
Hawker 4000
34520-1 REO 45062601 74A410509 Lock link outboard forward door mechanism NLG Tube Restrictor Support Axle of the polygon Flat stops 2.623/2.621 OD 2.931/3.374 polygon 4.614 OD Production part R&O In progress
Cl601RJ
Shock strut piston MLG 17114-1 Shock strut pin MLG WC-Co-Cr per DCMP 213 (AMS 2447-9) WC-Co-Cr per DCMP 213 (AMS 2447-9) Tribaloy T400 DCMP 203 (AMS2447-2) Under evaluation in service by Air Canada, NIEO Under evaluation in service by Air Canada, NIEO Production part
1.498 OD
17207-1
A340 CLG
37173-101 37174-101 15173-101 15174-101 BD 100 40672 Sleeve thrust shock strut 2.348 ID
0.866 OD
Production part
x -
x x x x
R=-1, 0.1 R=-1, 0.1 R=-1, 0.1 R=-1. Delamination above 180 ksi load ??? R=-1. Delamination above 125 ksi load ??? R=-1. Rapid corrosion initial tests
Data being obtained Equivalent or better than Cr Data complete - being analyzed Data complete - being analyzed
Corrosion
C-HCAT B117
US-HCAT B117
Retesting under way Different sealing - Boeing Cd method 2 different geometries (Flats and cylinders) 2 different deposition conditions (Southwest Aero, Hitemco) 2 different cabinets
Keith Legg 847-680-9420
Embrittlement
Sequence 1 - HVOF does not cause embrittlement - Pass Sequence 2 - Not yet complete
Outstanding issues
Fatigue - WC-Co
WC-Co
WC-CoCr
US-HCAT testing complete All WC-Co air fatigue data equal to or better than Cr Pass All WC-Co corrosion-fatigue data equal to or better than Cr - Pass Delamination from some specimens at high cycles
WC-CoCr 0.003 delamination at high load Pass below 180 ksi, Fail above 180 ksi WC-CoCr 0.010 delamination at high load Pass below 125 ksi, Fail above 125 ksi WC-CoCr corrosion-fatigue Fail??
Not a structural issue, but a functional issue (Messier-Dowty) Outstanding issues Results of WC-CoCr fatigue testing
Wear
Impact
Under way
Completed - HVOF as good as or better than Cr - Pass
Gravelometry (Boeing)
Leakage (grams)
15
C hrome, Enercap Tribaloy, Enercap WC-C o, Enercap WC-Co-C r, Enercap Chrome, ACT Tribaloy, ACT WC-Co, ACT
25
35
45
Cycles (millions)
4-9 Ra
not a problem with long stroke utility actuators and landing gear at 4 Ra
Messier-Dowty F-18 E/F NLG fatigue Messier-Dowty F-18 E/F drag brace fatigue
BFG Dash-8/400 MLG BFG NLG steering actuator BFG simulated piston fatigue
Flight tests
Boeing 767-400
HVOF WC-CoCr flight qualified and used in production Messier-Dowty polygon repair
Boeing QPL processes Low stress grind used on samples Used on flight test landing gear
x x
x x x
FPI, Barkhausen good; MPI poor Flat samples - generic tests Flat samples - generic tests Flat samples - generic tests New seal; flat, round, var. vendors, var. cabinets
Process parameters
OO-ALC, Hitemco - JP 5000, DJ Process designed for 8-12 Almen compressive stress
DJ-gun at NRC and VacAero Process designed for 8-12 Almen compressive stress Coating parameters different from QPL conditions used by Southwest Aero
Surface measurement and superfinishing developed for landing gear by Jay Randolph at Delta Testing carried out by John Falkowski (Boeing) and Jim Nuse (Southwest Aeroservice) - AESF paper Additional testing under way
Boeing, SW Aero, Sulzer Metco, Engelhard, Praxair, Green Tweed, Supfina, Delta
Keith Legg 847-680-9420
Stripping
Water jet does not work very well Rochelle salt works well for WC-Co and WC-CoCr
Testing at Praxair and others shows no embrittlement with strippers No good method for T400 yet Outstanding - need good chemical strip for Tribaloy
Fluid compatibility
Under way shortly at Heroux Will include evaluations of hydrogen embrittlement due to fluids
NDI
Delta, Boeing
MPI not effective Boeing has used Barkhausen with some success Heroux testing begun Outstanding - how detect cracks in substrate without removing coating?
Corrosion
All HCAT generic, C-HCAT, Lufthansa data on flats shows HVOF having better performance than Cr
US-HCAT Landing gear JTP data on rods showed worse than Cr - Fail
Repeating with better edge seal - comparing sample shapes, deposition conditions, test locations
Fatigue of WC-CoCr - the picture folks took back from Ottawa meeting
Findings of cracking by AFRL (Bob Ware) Careful analysis done at NRC (Jason Dyer, Peter Au)
WC-CoCr fails, cracks and delaminates under high compressive load (R=-1) 0.003 coating, failure at 180 ksi and above 0.010 coating, failure at 125 ksi and above (note that thicker coating carries more load) cracks grow down from coating surface and often run parallel to interface (similar mechanism to that designed into composites) cracks do not appear to propagate from coating into substrate
Surfaces of WC-CoCr fatigue specimens from Southwest Aeroservice also show crack pattern and some spalling at failure and runout This shows there may be operational limits of WC-CoCr
Questions:
Where should we be testing? What are the real-world requirements? What are the functional limits of WC-CoCr and WC-Co?
WC-Co initially designed using bend test cracking data WC-CoCr designed to have better corrosion performance, but lower fracture strength So, WC composite coatings balance hardness and wear resistance against brittleness (fracture strength)
1998 - Crack-like indications found by FPI on aft side of WC-CoCrcoated Lufthansa landing gear. Barkhausen analysis by Boeing showed no crack propagation into steel. Returned to service - no reported problems.
Bend test of Praxair WC-CoCr. Reported by Jay Randolph, Delta Airlines, July 1998
Keith Legg 847-680-9420
Coupons provide stress engineers the data to start analyzing for customer and air-worthiness justification
Difficult to translate from load on full scale item to stress on test coupon
Qualification always depends on full-scale item fatigue testing under spectrum loading to 2 or 4 lifetimes
Bulk of public domain data for AerMet 100 was run at 150 ksi or less (Roger Eybel)
Gary Erickson Boeing Commercial Roque Panza-Giosa BFG Craig Edwards GA/Air Force Roger Eybel Messier Dowty
Vendor qual test Al alloys 20ksi 180kpsi is once-in-a-lifetime event. 135 normal use Bulk of public domain data some at higher load for interest only Drag Brace Trunnion Pin Test - max bending stress Limit Ultimate (P3, E6, V22) Design Ultimate (high performance) 4340 (90% of yield) 300M (90% yield) A100 (90% of yield)
Makes no sense to test coatings above levels used in full rig tests Looks as though we have the following maximum needs:
Commercial 170 ksi, R=0.1 Military, typical 180 ksi, R=-1 Military, high performance 240 ksi, R=-1 At what loads/cycles were F-18 landing gear qualified? Do you really go to yield thousands of times?
Questions:
Corrosion
Producibility testing
samples made
Fatigue
C-HCAT testing 0.003 WCCoCr below 180 ksi Rethinking tests for 0.010 WC-CoCr Comparative testing with SW Aero WC-CoCr and WC-Co Environmental embritt.
Embrittlement
Fatigue testing
Definition of load/thickness limits for WC-Co as done for WCCoCr WC-CoCr with hourglass specimens to define S/N curve comparable with WC-Co per JTP?
Commercial
no brainer - in production
likely to work with WC-Co may be near edge of envelope for WC-CoCr
Military - general
need to define operational loads carefully to match qual of existing gear may need lower hardness, higher toughness material
Remaining issues