SBIR Final Report

Engineering Research and Development
May 22, 2003
Commander
Naval Sea Systems Command
Attn: Darryl Sheedlo, Code PMS 312H
Bldg. 197, Room 4W-2655
1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20376-1200
Subject: Final Technical Report, Option Phase

Topic N99-115, Contract No. N00024-00-C-4084
Dear Mr. Sheedlo:
Enclosed is the Option Phase Final Technical Report for the above-referenced contract, “Flexible
Corrosion Preventative Coverings.” This report contains the comprehensive results from both the Base
and Option Phases of this project.
I want to thank you for all of your support in making this project a success.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached either at 603-643-3800, x359, or
nae@creare.com.
Sincerely,
Dr. Nabil A. Elkouh

Principal Investigator
6098.6/amh
Enclosures: Creare TM-2251
Distribution List
Forms DD250 and SF298
cc: Jeffrey J. Breedlove
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Contract No. N00024-00-C-4084
Commander
Bldg. 197, Room 4W-2655
(electronic copy via email: SheedloDB@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL)

Attn: George Tabak
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376
(electronic copy via email: TabakG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL)

Attn: Cathy Nodgaard
(electronic copy via email: nodgaardcg@navsea.navy.mil)
Brant T. Ackerman
COMPACFLT N43X
Fleet Maintenance Science Advisor
NAVSEA
92-1196 Hulucoa Place
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707
(electronic copy via email: brant.t.ackerman@navy.mil)
Commander
Attn: Ms. Tammy Ryman, Code 024S
(1 copy)
Commander
Attn: SEA 05R1
(1 copy)
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

ATTN: DTIC-OCP
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218
(2 copies)
TM-2251
Final Report
Flexible Corrosion Preventative Coverings
SBIR Phase II Topic No. N99-115

Contract No. N00024-00-C-4084
Period of Performance: 6/24/02–04/22/03
Submitted to:
Commander
Bldg. 197, Room 4W-2655
Prepared by:
Nabil A. Elkouh, Ph.D., Principal Investigator
Jeffrey J. Breedlove, Project Engineer
(603) 643-3800, nae@creare.com
Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only.

Other requests for this document must be referred to NAVSEA 03R5.
SBIR DATA RIGHTS

Contract No.: N00024-99-C-4107
Contractor Name: Creare Incorporated
Address: P.O. Box 71, Etna Road, Hanover, NH 03755
Expiration of SBIR Data Rights Period: 4/22/2008
The Government’s rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data
or computer software marked with this legend are restricted during the period shown as provided in paragraph
(b)(4) of the Rights in Noncommercial Technical Data and Computer Software  Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) Program clause contained in the above identified contract. No restrictions apply after the
expiration date shown above. Any reproduction of technical data, computer software, or portions thereof marked
with this legend must also reproduce the markings.
Creare Incorporated 603-643-3800

PO Box 71, Etna Road Creare #6098
Hanover, NH 03755 May 2003
TM-2251
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The purpose of our research was to demonstrate the performance of Creare’s flexible composite
corrosion preventative coverings and to scale up the manufacturing of the coverings. Our coverings
respond to the need of the Navy and the other branches of the Armed Forces to reduce the huge cost
burden associated with corrosion. Corrosion continues to be a pervasive problem despite current
mitigation techniques and efforts. The Navy is exceedingly vulnerable to corrosion from seawater, in
particular from sea spray and fog, and spends billions annually on corrosion-related duties that include
equipment and structural maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement costs. Yet despite the billions of
dollars spent each year, Naval equipment continues to be ill-protected and subject to the ravages of
corrosion. An ability to mitigate corrosion with a robust system that is easy to implement and maintain
would allow the Navy to lower Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and ameliorate Sailor Quality of Life (SQL)
by reducing the need for costly and cumbersome refurbishment and replacement of corroded equipment
and parts.
RESEARCH PERFORMED
On this project, we demonstrated that Creare’s flexible corrosion preventative coverings, called
Envelop™ Protective Covers:
• Reduce the corrosion rate significantly of topside equipment and weapons systems.
• Provide an excellent return on investment (ROI).
• Reduce the rate of corrosion by 95% compared to stock Navy tarps.
• Exceed the durability limits of stock Navy tarps.
Shipboard testing demonstrated that Envelop is easy to install and use. Furthermore, shipboard personnel
preferred it to the stock coverings currently in use by the Navy. A rigorous series of laboratory-scale
experiments were used to optimize the covering structure. A small production run of coverings
demonstrated their ease-of-manufacture and suitability for installation in the field.
RESEARCH RESULTS RELATIVE TO OBJECTIVES
We met and exceeded our technical objectives for this Phase II project. The overall objective of
this Phase II project was to bring our development to the point of production. The goal of the Base Phase
was to arrive at an optimized covering configuration through thorough testing of coverings in realistic
Navy environments. The goal of the Option Phase was to produce coverings for testing following a small
production run based on a sound production plan.
APPLICATIONS POTENTIAL
The Creare coverings are expected to lead directly to a reduction in TOC for the Navy. The
coverings have broad application in the area of corrosion control of outdoor equipment and structures
ranging from maritime to inland environments.
i
TM-2251
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................iv
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Need for Corrosion Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Envelop Protective Covers ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Current Baseline Technology ....................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop ........................................................................... 4
1.5 Objectives of the Phase II Effort .................................................................................................. 5
2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS ................................... 6

2.1 Material Selection......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Performance of Envelop Against A-A-55308 .............................................................................. 6
2.3 Quantification of Envelop Protective Cover Performance ........................................................... 9
2.4 Shipboard Demonstrations of Covering Performance ................................................................ 11
2.4.1 Preparatory Testing ......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Base Phase USS Barry (DDG-52) Results ...................................................................... 14
2.4.3 Base Phase USS Detroit (AOE-4) Results ..................................................................... 16
2.4.4 Base Phase USS Arctic (AOE-8) Results........................................................................ 17
2.4.5 Base Phase USS Anzio (CG-68) ..................................................................................... 18
2.4.6 Option Phase USS Milius DDG-69 Results .................................................................... 19
2.4.7 Option Phase USS Oscar Austin DDG-79 Results ......................................................... 21
2.4.8 Option Phase USS Barry DDG-52 Results ..................................................................... 21
2.4.9 Option Phase USS Russell DDG-59 Results................................................................... 22
2.4.10 Option Phase USS Cole DDG-67 Results....................................................................... 22
2.4.11 Option Phase USS Leyte Gulf CG-55 Results ................................................................ 22
2.4.12 Option Phase USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 Results .................................................................. 22
3 COMMERCIALIZATION AND MANUFACTURING PLAN STATUS ........................................ 26
STANDARD FORM 298 ........................................................................................................................... 29
ii
TM-2251
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Performance Characteristics of Creare’s Envelop Protective Cover vs. Traditional Tarps....... 2
Figure 2 Creare’s Outdoor Test Area Dedicated to Covering Evaluation – Mid-Winter Scene............ 10
Figure 3 Average Measured Corrosion Rates for 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Envelop
and 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Herculite .................................................................. 10
Figure 4 Mild Steel Disks after Five Weeks of Environmental Exposure in an Outdoor Test
Conducted at Creare ................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5 Ship Administrative Message Sent by the USS Barry (DDG-52) Regarding Envelop
Performance During the Base Phase ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 6 Station 11 Gypsy Winch at the Commencement of Testing on the USS Detroit (AOE 4)
in November 2000 ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7 Motor Operated Valve (MOV) and two MOVs Covered with Envelop at Installation........... 18
Figure 8 Envelop Coverings Shortly After Installation on the USS Milius........................................... 19
Figure 9 Two Messages from the USS Milius Detailing Covering Performance.................................. 20
Figure 10 Installed Envelop Cover on a 25 mm Machine Gun on the USS Barry DDG-52 ................... 21
Figure 11 Email from Combat Systems LCPO on USS Barry (DDG-52) Regarding Envelop
Performance During the Option Phase .................................................................................... 22
Figure 12 0.50 Caliber Guns Covered with Envelop and Herculite Following No Maintenance
During Two Weeks in Rough Seas ......................................................................................... 23
Figure 13 Email from the USS Leyte Gulf Regarding Envelop Performance......................................... 24
Figure 14 Message from USS Iwo Jima Six Months After Installation .................................................. 25
Figure 15 Drawing of 0.50 Caliber Gun and Mount Envelop Covering in Support of NSN
Application .............................................................................................................................. 27
iii
TM-2251
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop ............................................................... 4
Table 2 Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop ........................................................................ 4
Table 3 Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop ..................................................................... 6
Table 4 Optimized Fire Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop............................................................ 7
Table 5 Qualification Test Results and Requirements ........................................................................... 8
Table 6 Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results............................................................ 11
Table 7 Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results ........................................................ 12
Table 8 Results of Test During the Base Phase on the USS Detroit (AOE 4) ..................................... 17
iv
CREARE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION: 5/22/03
SBIR Data Rights TM-2251
1 INTRODUCTION
This report contains the key results and information from the Base Phase (June 2000 through June
2002) and Option Phase (July 2002 through April 2003) of Creare’s Phase II SBIR project to develop,
test, and evaluate Envelop™ Protective Covers, a unique and simple approach to corrosion mitigation.
During the full course of this project, we completed the covering development, rigorously tested the
coverings in the laboratory and on Navy ships, developed a sound manufacturing plan, produced a small-
scale production run, licensed the intellectual property (US Patent Number 6,444,595), and transitioned
the technology to the licensee. At the completion of this Phase II project, Envelop Protective Covers were
in the process of being transitioned to the US Navy Fleet.
Creare’s Envelop Protective Covers have very broad applicability, not only across all Navy
platforms, but also across all branches of the Armed Services and beyond. While Envelop design and
testing has been aimed at solving some of the Navy’s most serious corrosion problems encountered on the
weather decks, the corrosion mitigation features inherent to Envelop find application in many other DOD
and Federal contexts where preservation of weapons and equipment could lead to significant reduction in
maintenance and replacement costs. In addition to Navy, Coast Guard, and Army shipboard applications,
a small sample of some of the other customers having critical applications and needs include:
• DOD force pre-positioning agencies or management offices.

• Navy, Army, and Coast Guard shipyards.
• NASA coastal launch sites.
• Special Operation Forces in the Army, Navy, and Marines.
• Air Force, Navy, and Army aircraft mothballing facilities.
Because Envelop Protective Covers uniquely offer corrosion protection found in more expensive and
cumbersome preservation systems while remaining simple to install like a common tarp, customers will
be able to preserve equipment in situations previously thought impractical, either due to budget or
logistical considerations.
Summary of Results. On this project, we met and exceeded our technical objectives and
conclusively demonstrated that Envelop:
• Reduces significantly the corrosion rate of topside equipment and weapons systems.
• Provides an excellent return on investment (ROI).
• Reduces the rate of corrosion by 95% compared to stock Navy tarps.
• Exceeds the durability limits of stock Navy tarps.
Shipboard testing demonstrated that Envelop is easy to install and use, while significantly reducing the
maintenance requirement associated with protected equipment. Furthermore, shipboard personnel have
stated that they prefer Envelop to the stock Herculite® coverings currently in use by the Navy. At the
conclusion of this project, Envelop coverings are commercially available and being procured by US Navy
ships, such as the USS Cole (DDG 67).
1.1 NEED FOR CORROSION MITIGATION

As military maintenance budgets shrink, weapons systems and equipment are expected to
perform for periods far exceeding original design expectations. One of the major factors limiting
extended life cycles of equipment and weapons systems in the Navy is corrosion, which costs the Navy
billions of dollars annually. Corrosion damage accelerated by the maritime environment is a tremendous
1
problem for the Navy, impacting equipment maintenance costs, availability, rework and repair, and
reliability.
The Navy has spent a great deal of effort developing storage methods to reduce seawater
exposure to sensitive equipment. Equipment stored on deck, as well as on shore, is often stored in
protective storage systems that have proved to be less than optimally effective. Equipment often is
covered with waterproof tarps made from Herculite, which simply do not prevent corrosion and can
actually accelerate corrosion progression because of the resulting greenhouse effect that results in the
micro-environment beneath the covering.
Shipboard items, including the anchor windlass, torpedo tubes, 0.50-caliber machine gun mounts,
and chaff-decoy launchers, are continuously exposed to the marine environment with little or no
protection. Even when equipment is covered by waterproof tarps, water still penetrates through or around
the tarp into the protected space where seawater collects, recirculates in the airspace, and corrodes the
underlying equipment and inner structures. Other techniques, such as dehumidification and vapor
corrosion inhibitors, are also used, but traditionally rely on a hermetically sealed environment to be
effective. Such an environment is difficult to achieve, expensive to create, and burdensome to implement.
As such, these techniques are often eschewed and equipment and structures are ill-protected. The result is
that corrosion continues to be a significant and costly problem, requiring many man-hours dedicated to
rust removal, painting, repair, and refurbishment—ultimately leading to excessive cost, premature
equipment replacement, or equipment or weapons systems that are not safe. In short, until now no middle
ground solution for combating corrosion has existed.
1.2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVERS

Envelop Protective Covers, developed entirely under this Phase II and associated Phase I
contract, are a new way of providing flexible corrosion protection that inhibits the contact of seawater
with the protected surface, depresses the local relative humidity, and avoids the above-listed pitfalls, as
shown in Figure 1. It represents significant Total Ownership Cost (TOC) reduction potential for the
Navy, in addition to improvement of Sailor Quality of Life (SQL). Equipment availability and reliability
could be vastly improved, operations could be simplified, maintenance programs could be scaled back,
and inventory required for replacement equipment could be reduced. Envelop primarily protects
equipment and structures from seawater, rain, and condensation, in addition to tolerating global marine
environmental conditions. Additionally, it is easy to store, install, and use while accommodating a broad
range of sizes and shapes.
Figure 1. Performance Characteristics of Creare’s Envelop Protective Cover vs. Traditional Tarps
2
Envelop Protective Covers provide corrosion prevention by absorbing moisture from beneath the
covering, storing it inside of the covering, passively releasing the moisture as water vapor back to the
outside environment, and conditioning the area beneath the covering with corrosion inhibitors. These
features are provided by four separate synergistic flexible layers:
1. Outer Shell. The outer surface of the covering is protected by a tough flexible fabric that
forms a barrier to the environmental elements like rain or snow. It also is permeable only to
water vapor, thus allowing moisture to evaporate from beneath the covering.
2. Inner Wicking Layer. A layer that contacts the protected equipment and forms the inner
surface is used to wick water that contacts protected equipment or structures. The layer is
made from material that is hydrophobic that has a porous structure that wicks water. The
water is passed to the absorbent inner matrix.
3. Absorbent Inner Matrix. A superabsorbant-based absorbent matrix stores water within its
structure. Water is only released back to the environment when humidity is less than 100%.
Water vapor passes through the outer shell. The superabsorbants can also slightly depress the
humidity beneath the cover, thereby preventing condensation when the dew point for the
ambient air is reached.
4. Corrosion Inhibiting Layer. A layer that contains corrosion inhibitors is used to condition the
micro-environment beneath the covering to displace, in particular, chlorides from the surface
of the protected structure. Because the outer shell is impervious to the corrosion inhibitors,
the corrosion inhibitors can only escape through any openings at closure points. Also, when
water vapor might be driven through the outer shell, water vapor must pass through the
corrosion inhibitors first, where it picks up corrosion inhibiting compounds before it might
contact the surface of the protected equipment.
1.3 CURRENT BASELINE TECHNOLOGY

Strengths and Weaknesses of Baseline Technology. Currently, there are two general classes of
systems that are employed in an attempt to preserve equipment and prevent the onset of corrosion. The
first category is tarps. These are quite often the first and only line of defense against corrosion in virtually
most applications. While tarps are easy to install and can prevent rain or other elements from directly
contacting equipment, they offer practically no protection from corrosion progression and in most cases
can lead to accelerated corrosion beneath the tarp because of the establishment of the greenhouse effect.
In effect, then, tarps should not be considered corrosion protection despite their nearly universal presence.
The other class of systems is categorized by the creation of a controlled environment that is cut
off from the ambient environment. The controlled environment is then either dehumidified or treated
with corrosion inhibitors. Both methods can be used to great effect, but are cumbersome, costly, and not
often practical to implement. Dehumidification systems completely shelter the equipment or materials to
be protected and are connected to dehumidification equipment that controls and monitors the space to
guarantee relative humidity levels lower than 50%. At a relative humidity level of 50% or less, corrosion
can be prevented indefinitely. Such systems can cost upwards of $100/ft2 of protected material.
Corrosion inhibitor systems also rely on a sealed environment to be effective. Corrosion
inhibitors are high vapor pressure compounds that fill the enclosed environment and deposit on the
surface of the protected materials. The deposited material forms a monolayer that displaces water vapor
and chlorine, thereby breaking the galvanic coupling with the base metal and inhibiting corrosion. For
situations where a closed environment must be formed, costs for such systems are greater than $20/ft2.
Because the environment must be sealed, corrosion inhibitor systems are not frequently a practical
3
solution for corrosion mitigation, especially for equipment that is frequently in use. As such, a great need
exists for a means to mitigate corrosion that is technically cost effective and simple to implement.
Comparison of Baseline with Envelop. Envelop Protective Covers are designed to incorporate
the performance benefits associated with the cumbersome and expensive controlled atmosphere
protection systems while remaining simple and practical to implement like a tarp. When compared to
competing protection systems, Envelop is a fraction of the cost, effective for several years, and allows
easy access to protected equipment. For the comparison in Table 1, it was assumed that topside
equipment such as a chaff-decoy launcher would be protected. It should be noted that Envelop is the only
method that can provide a practical solution for this assumed scenario.
1.4 FEATURES, ADVANTAGES, AND BENEFITS OF ENVELOP

Envelop Protective Covers have been designed to offer the performance advantages usually
associated with dehumidification or corrosion inhibitor systems in a tarp-like package. As such, Envelop
offers true corrosion protection hoped for in a tarp, while remaining simple and easy to use. Table 2 lists
the features, advantages, and benefits of Envelop.
Table 1. Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop

Characteristics Dehumidification Corrosion Inhibitors Envelop Protection
Systems System
Average Approximate Cost/ft2 >$100 >$20 $10 to $15
Sealed Environment Required YES YES NO
Compact Stowage NO (single use) YES
Easy Access to Equipment NO NO YES
Table 2. Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop

Features Advantages Benefits
Lightweight and flexible Easy installation and access to Minimal installation costs;
equipment; compact stowage no training required
Weather-resistant materials Protection in severe environments Life of Envelop longer than
Herculite
Passively regenerative Continuous protection No Envelop maintenance costs
Automatic water removal Keeps equipment surfaces dry to Lower maintenance costs for outer
reduce surface corrosion surfaces
Humidity depression Eliminates condensation—a Less down time for major
major route to corrosion maintenance and replacement
Resistant to oil, hydraulic Protection not affected by Replacement of Envelop not
fluid, diesel, jet fuel, etc. common contaminants immediately required
Integrated vapor corrosion Corrosion mitigation for surface No hassle corrosion inhibitor
inhibitors and internal structures protection; lower install costs
Synergetic composite Sealed environment not required No environmental monitoring;
layers operate equipment while protected
4
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE II EFFORT

We met and exceeded our technical objectives for this Phase II project. The overall objective of
this Phase II project was to bring the development to the point of production. The goal of the Base Phase
was to arrive at an optimized covering configuration through thorough testing of coverings in realistic
Navy environments. By the end of the Base Phase of this project, we planned to have and achieved:
• An optimized and refined family of corrosion preventative coverings. We tested and

evaluated hundreds of materials in laboratory-scale tests to optimize the corrosion mitigating
features of Envelop, as well as the structural integrity of the coverings. To prove out the
optimized designs, we installed coverings on four different Navy ships. At the conclusion of
the Base Phase of this project, we had an optimized covering suitable for installation on the
weather deck of Navy ships.
• A preliminary production plan and coverings that are ready for full-scale production. We
chose materials in our optimization process that could easily be sewn together using standard
industrial sewing techniques. As such, the plan reduces to, simply, quilt all layers together
except the outer shell and then sew the quilted layers and outer shell together. Coverings that
were installed on ships were all constructed in this manner to prove the manufacturing
feasibility of our innovation. At the conclusion of the Base Phase, we were in a position to
transition our technology directly to our licensee for production.
Our Base Phase provided a smooth transition to the Option Phase and beyond to full production.
The goal of the Option Phase was to produce a complete manufacturing plan to enable seamless transition
to production in Phase III. We met and exceeded our goals. Namely, by the end of the Option Phase, we
have:
• A finalized production plan for our covering family. We produced a final list of materials and
manufacturing practices to produce the coverings. AutoCAD® drawings were generated for
the 0.50 caliber gun and 25 mm gun covers. The Sail Loft Office at Pearl Harbor was trained
to produce the coverings. In addition to the baseline configuration of the Envelop Protective
Covers, we also specified the materials needed to meet the fire retardancy guidelines in
NFPA 701A. Furthermore, the chosen materials for both the baseline and fire-retardant
versions of Envelop were subjected to the requirements of A-A-55308.
• Completed a small-scale run of product. We transitioned the production plan and other
information related to the production of Envelop Protective Covers to the licensee. With this
information, Creare assisted the licensee in producing a small production run that yielded test
coverings that were installed on 11 ships on a variety of equipment and weapon systems. We
produced over 4,000 ft2 of coverings, which exceeded the 3500 ft2 specified in our contract.
5
2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS

Our test and evaluation program goals were to (1) down-select covering materials to optimize
performance, (2) quantify covering performance, and (3) demonstrate covering performance through
shipboard testing. The following subsections describe our tests and results in support of these goals.
2.1 MATERIAL SELECTION

Baseline Envelop Formulation. Through a series of laboratory-scale tests, we optimized the
material combinations that form the layers of Envelop Protective Covers. In particular, the materials in
our optimized coverings must:
1. Function together to mitigate corrosion.
2. Withstand harsh marine environments.
3. Allow for simple manufacturing based upon standard industrial sewing practices.
4. Cost less than alternative corrosion prevention practices.
Tests were conducted to determine water wicking ability, permitted regeneration cycles, and
water vapor permeability. Qualitative assessments were made of the relative corrosion mitigating abilities
of both the individual layers and the layered composite structure and the ability to tolerate long-term
exposure to the marine environment. As a result of our tests and associated optimizing criteria, we
selected the materials shown in Table 3 for our final covering configuration.
Fire Retardant Envelop Formulation. Based upon the specifications listed in A-A-55308, Cloth
and Strip, Laminated or Coated, Vinyl Nylon or Polyester, High Strength, Flexible, we developed a
version of Envelop that is fire-retardant. This version of the coverings passes NFPA 701A, while
maintaining all of the corrosion mitigating abilities of the baseline Envelop coverings. The specifications
for this set of materials is shown in Table 4.
Table 3. Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop

Component Material Comments
Outer Shell Cordura® bonded to copolyether Water repellent, UV resistant, abrasion
film resistant, excellent puncture strength
Wicking Layer K-Too® Hydrophobic knitted material; abrasion
resistant; excellent water uptake
Water Storage Matrix Multilayer, bonded nonwoven Flexible layer with good water retention
containing superabsorbant that can be sewn; excellent passive
polymers, natural and synthetic regeneration properties
fibers
Corrosion Inhibitor Combination of polyethylene, and Long-life form of corrosion inhibitor;
vapor/contact corrosion inhibitors flexible and can be sewn
Thread #542950 Fil-Tec Premofast UVR Suitable for long-term outdoor exposure
Polyester Monocord Tex 90, in marine environments
Series 92
Seam Seal Bemis 4220 Heat Seal Tape Prevents seepage of water at seams
6
Table 4. Optimized Fire-Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop

Component Material Comments
Outer Shell Sunbrella Firesist® bonded to Fire Retardant, water repellent, UV
copolyether film resistant, abrasion resistant, excellent
puncture strength
Wicking Layer K-Too® treated with National Fire Retardant, hydrophobic knitted
Fireproofing Co., Flame Stop I-DS material; abrasion resistant; excellent
water uptake
Water Storage Matrix Multilayer, bonded nonwoven Flexible layer with good water retention
containing superabsorbant that can be sewn; excellent passive
polymers, natural and synthetic regeneration properties
fibers
Corrosion Inhibitor Combination of polyethylene, and Long-life form of corrosion inhibitor;
vapor/contact corrosion inhibitors flexible and can be sewn
Thread #542950 Fil-Tec Premofast UVR Suitable for long-term outdoor exposure
Polyester Monocord Tex 90, in marine environments
Series 92
Seam Seal Bemis 4220 Heat Seal Tape Prevents seepage of water at seams
2.2 PERFORMANCE OF ENVELOP AGAINST A-A-55308

Even though, as shown in the sections below, Envelop out-performs Herculte in shipboard testing
and is preferred by the Fleet, we chose to perform the qualification tests that are required for protective
covers and tarpaulins that are listed in A-A-55308, Cloth and Strip, Laminated or Coated, Vinyl Nylon or
Polyester, High Strength, Flexible. It is unclear whether Envelop must comply with this specification.
A-A-55308 is a commercial item description, which the General Services Administration has authorized
the use of in preference to MIL-C-43006, which has been canceled. The tests required by this
specification are listed below with the reference to the standardized test procedure that must be followed:
• Weight per ASTM-D-3776 Method C

• Initial breaking strength per ASTM-D-5034
• Breaking strength per ASTM-D-5035 after abrasion resistance per ASTM-D-4157
• Breaking strength per ASTM-D-5035 after accelerated weathering per FED-STD-191, M 5804
• Tearing strength per ASTM-D-2261
• Hydrostatic resistance per ASTM-D-751
• Stiffness per TAPPI Method T-451
• Coating adhesion per ASTM-D-751
• Flame resistance per NFPA 701 Small Scale Test
• Blocking per ASTM-D-751
SGS U.S. Testing Company Incorporated (www.ustesting.sgsna.com), located in Fairfield,
New Jersey, performed all of the required tests. For each test, SGS tested Envelop and the Herculite
material that the Navy currently uses to fabricate shipdeck coverings. The qualification test results and
requirements are summarized in Table 5.
7
Table 5. Qualification Test Results and Requirements

Test Results Test Requirements
Test Identification Envelop Herculite Heavy Duty Medium Duty
2
Weight [oz/yd ] 27.3 17.8 19.8 (max) 11.0 (max)
17.1 (min) 9.0 (min)
Initial Breaking Strength [lbs]
Warp Direction 464 273 295 (min) 90 (min)
Fill Direction 394 263 295 (min) 90 (min)
Breaking Strength after Abrasion [lbs]
Breaking Strength after Weathering [lbs]
Tearing Strength [lbs]
Warp Direction 71 NA 93 (min) 32 (min)
Hydrostatic Resistance [psi] 677 367 425 (min) 180 (min)
Stiffness [cm]
At 70°F 13.0 9.5 18.0 (max) 9.0 (max)
At 20°F 13.0 9.0 25.0 (max) 15.0 (max)
Coating Adhesion [lbs]
Warp Direction 26 14.1 25.0 (min) 15.0 (min)
Fill Direction 26 10.8 25.0 (min) 15.0 (min)
Flame Resistance
Baseline Materials (Table 3) Fail Pass Pass Pass
Flame Retardant Materials (Table 4) Pass NA Pass Pass
Blocking 1 1 2 (max) 2 (max)
8
The test data show that Envelop Protective Covers exceed most of the qualification test
requirements for heavy duty materials. In addition, Envelop performed as well or better than Herculite in
more than half of the tests. Specific observations are as follows:
• The breaking strength of Envelop significantly exceeds the breaking strength of Herculite and
the minimum required values except when the Envelop protection system is tested in the fill
direction after either abrasion testing or accelerated weathering. Although the breaking
strengths for these two cases are slightly less than the minimum required values for heavy
duty materials, they are nearly equal to the measured Herculite values.
• The measured tearing strength of Envelop is less than the measured tearing strength of
Herculite and the minimum required values for heavy-duty materials. However, shipboard
tests have demonstrated that Envelop coverings are significantly more durable than Herculite
coverings, which brings into question the value of this measurement.
• The hydrostatic resistance of Envelop is nearly two times greater than the hydrostatic
resistance of Herculite. As a result, Envelop is able to prevent water penetration significantly
better than Herculite.
• Envelop is about 50% heavier than Herculite, and its weight exceeds the maximum required
value for heavy duty materials by 7.5 oz/yd2. It should be noted that we receive no complaints
from the Fleet regarding the weight of the Envelop coverings during shipboard testing.
• Table 5 indicates that the baseline Envelop configuration (Table 3) did not pass the
NFPA 701 flame resistance test. As a result, we developed an alternative combination of
materials for Envelop (Table 4) that did pass the NFPA 701 test.
2.3 QUANTIFICATION OF ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER PERFORMANCE

To quantify covering performance, we conducted tests according to ASTM Standard Practice for
Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens G1. We attached ten (10) 1.6 inch
diameter, 1018 mild steel disks to each of the faces of two 2-foot Styrofoam cubes. We covered one cube
with Envelop and the other with Herculite, which is the standard stock covering material used by the
Navy. The cubes were placed outdoors at Creare’s facility (Figure 2) and experienced the full gammet of
New England weather: rain, fog, sun, snow, extreme temperature and humity fluctuations, and high
winds.
We briefly removed the coverings once each week to examine the corrosion status of the steel
disks to gain a qualitative feel for the test progress. After four months of testing, we removed 15 disks
from each cube and etched the discs according to ASTM G1 to remove the rust. Discs were subsequently
weighed. The mass that was “lost” during the test is the amount of material that was sacrificed to form
corrosion. The mass loss rate is determined by dividing the mass loss by the exposure time. According to
ASTM G1, the mass loss rates are to be divided by the material density and the exposed surface area to
calculate the corrosion rate in units of mils (of thousandths of an inch) per year (MPY).
Figure 3 displays the average measured corrosion rates for the 15 steel disks that were protected
with Envelop and the 15 steel disks that were protected with Herculite. These results show that Envelop
reduces the corrosion rate by approximately 95% compared to Herculite.
9
Figure 2. Creare’s Outdoor Test Area Dedicated to Covering Evaluation – Mid-Winter Scene
0.20
EPS Herculite Disk

Herculite
0.16
Corrosion Rate [Mils per Year]
0.12
Envelop Disk
0.08
0.04
0.00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Test Duration [Days]
Figure 3. Average Measured Corrosion Rates for 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with
Envelop and 15 Mild Steel Disks Protected with Herculite
10
2.4 SHIPBOARD DEMONSTRATIONS OF COVERING PERFORMANCE

We successfully demonstrated the superior performance of Envelop Protective Covers compared
to the Navy’s current practices of topside equipment preservation under both the Base and Option Phases
of this project. Coverings were installed on four ships in the Base Phase to begin to give Envelop wide
exposure to the Fleet. The purpose of the tests, in addition to demonstrating corrosion prevention
performance, was to determine covering durability, ease of use, and acceptance by shipboard personnel.
In the Option Phase, we installed more than 23 coverings on 11 ships. The purpose of these tests was to
(1) continue verifying covering durability, ease of use, and acceptance by shipboard personnel, (2) verify
if small production runs of coverings perform as well as prior coverings in the field, and (3) increase the
Fleet-wide visibility of Envelop. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7.
Details for some of these tests are given in the subsections that follow.
2.4.1 Preparatory Testing
Prior to our first shipboard tests, we tested coverings outdoors at Creare to acquire a qualitative
understanding of covering performance. Coverings were subjected to naturally occurring atmospheric
conditions (snow, rain, fog, sun, wind, temperature and humidity fluctuations, etc.) and artificially
generated sea spray. These tests minimized the risk of poor covering performance during shipboard tests.
A typical result after five weeks of environmental exposure is shown in Figure 4.
Table 6. Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

Ship Equipment Duration (months) Results and Comments
USS Barry 0.50 Caliber Gun and 6 • Envelop eliminated the 1hr/day of
DDG-52 Mount required maintenance associated
with Herculite covers
• Estimated ROI > $10K
• Envelop durability excellent
USS Detroit 4 @ Motor Operated 19 • Envelop dramatically reduced visible
AOE-4 Valves corrosion
• Envelop still functioning well at the
end of 19-month testing period
USS Arctic Boom Hook Wire 19 • Envelop still functioning well at the
AOE-8 Control Stand; Gypsy end of 19-month testing period
Winch; Topping Lift
Winch
USS Anzio Anchor Windlass 4 • Attempted to quantify corrosion rate
CG-68 Control Station according to ASTM G1
• Poor choice of equipment to protect
• Inconclusive results
11
Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

USS Milius 25 mm Gun, 0.50 6 • Ship confirmed superior
DDG-69 Caliber Gun and performance noted on the USS
Mount Barry in the Base Phase
• Envelop outperformed Herculite
during sandstorms during GWII
because of the many holes that
developed in Herculite
• Eliminated daily rust checks, which
became weekly
• Rust that does develop just wipes
away
• Oil on gun remains, unlike Herculite
• After 6 months, Herculite coverings
were replaced 3 times before
Envelop had to be replaced (very
rough seas)
USS Oscar Austin 2@ 25 mm, 2 @ 6 • Ship received first production run
DDG-79 0.50 Caliber Gun coverings
and Mount, MK
• Early reports were very positive
32 Torpedo
Tubes • Ultimately seam sealing during
production was not adequate, which
has since been corrected
• Seam sealing problems led to non-
optimal performance of the
coverings
• New coverings were sent along with
a digital camera, but were never
received by the ship
USS Barry 25 mm Gun, 0.50 4 • As in the Base Phase, the ship
DDG-52 Caliber Gun and continues to prefer Envelop over
Mount Herculite
• SIMA was very pleased with the
condition of the guns upon their
scheduled retrieval.
• Noted that the coverings should be
a little looser for convenience.
12
Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results (continued)

USS Russell 25 mm, 0.50 4 • For a two-week period, no
DDG-59 Caliber Gun and maintenace on any guns in test and
Mount pictures clearly show benefit
• Ship did 30 knots during the two-
week deployment and guns were
soaked
• USS Russell already ordering more
coverings
• One sailor said, “We should wrap
our ship in it.”
USS Cole 0.50 Caliber Gun 2 • Ship liked the covering so much that
DDG-67 and Mount she purchased 56 Envelop
coverings for 23 unique applications
on the weather deck
USS Leyte Gulf 0.50 Caliber Gun 4 • Ship noted reduced maintenance
CG-55 and Mount and better than Herculite
• “Great product”
USS Iwo Jima 25 mm Gun, 0.50 6 • Envelop holding up very well
LHD-7 Caliber Gun and
• Envelop drastically reducing routine
Mount
maintenance
USS Reuben 2 @ 0.50 Caliber 9 • Little feedback except that Envelop
James Gun and Mount survived and protected guns very
FFG-57 well during a storm with 70 knot
winds, 8 foot waves, and 13 degree
listing of the ship.
USS Hawes MK 32 Torpedo 6 • No report back.
FFG-53 Tubes
USCG Shearwater 0.50 Caliber Gun 1 • Covering supplied to ship by

WPB 87349 and Mount W. Scott Johnson of NSWC Crane,
Mgr., Armament Systems Branch
• No report at time of writing
• Cover gives exposure to the Coast
Guard
USNS Dahl 2 @ 0.50 Caliber 1 • No report at time of writing
T-AKR 312 Gun and Mount
• Covers give exposure to MSC ships
13
Protected with Herculite Protected with Envelop
Figure 4. Mild Steel Disks after Five Weeks of Environmental Exposure

in an Outdoor Test Conducted at Creare
2.4.2 Base Phase USS Barry (DDG-52) Results

Definite proof that Envelop provides vastly superior protection of topside equipment was
provided by the USS Barry (DDG-52) in a test facilitated by Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics
Company. The USS Barry tested an Envelop Protective Cover for the duration of a six-month
deployment on a 0.50 caliber gun and mount. The performance was compared directly to Herculite. A
ship administrative message was issued by the USS Barry and is reproduced in Figure 5. The test details
are as follows:
• One 0.50 caliber gun and mount was covered with a fitted Envelop Protective Cover.
• Five 0.50 caliber guns and mounts were covered with fitted Herculite covers.
• Guns were checked daily to determine maintenance requirements.
The USS Barry reported the following results:

• Little to no maintenance was required on the gun protected by Envelop. The gun showed
little or no corrosion, and the nonabrasive nature of Envelop did not disturb the oil on the
gun.
• Envelop still looked and performed like a new covering at the deployment completion. The
covering remained flexible and unblemished.
• One hour per day per gun spent maintaining guns protected by Herculite. Corrosion had to be
removed daily and the gun had to be re-oiled. Herculite was very abrasive and quickly
removed oil and other protective coatings from the guns.
• All of the Herculite coverings had to be replaced at the end of the deployment. The coverings
were brittle, cracked, and worn.
Based upon this result, Bath Iron Works estimates that for a single Envelop 0.50 caliber gun and
mount cover, the ROI is greater than $10K. Furthermore, the payback period is between 30 and 40 days.
14
From: DMDSOPR (CNSL)

Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:57 PM
To: N81 Message Traffic; N002B Message Traffic; N412 Message Traffic;
N431 Message Traffic; N434 Message Traffic; N6 Message Traffic; Cassidy,
Patrick T CAPT (RSG Mayport N00); N65 Message Traffic; ALL Naval Message
Traffic (DMDS); MSGIN; SDO; N7 Message Traffic; N43 Maintenance Duty Officer
Message Traffic
Subject: R 091600Z APR 02 USS BARRY OP EVAL OF THE CREARE CORROSION
COVERING FOR THE .50 CAL// UNCLAS
Importance: Low
ATTENTION INVITED TO ADMINISTRATIVE MESSAGE
ROUTINE
R 091600Z APR 02 ZYB PSN 573232L22
FM USS BARRY
TO COMNAVSURFLANT NORFOLK VA//N653/N65//
INFO PEO CARRIERS WASHINGTON DC//PMS312H//
ZEN/COMGWBATGRU
ZEN/COMDESRON TWO SIX
BT
UNCLAS //N08000//
MSGID/GENADMIN/BARRY//
SUBJ/OP EVAL OF THE CREARE CORROSION COVERING FOR THE .50 CAL//
REF/A/EMAIL/BARRY/04APR2002//
AMPN/REF A IS EMAIL FROM DARRYL B SHEEDLO (NSSC) TO GMC WENTWORTH
(USS BARRY) REQUESTING INFORMATION ON THE CREARE CORROSION COVER.//
POC/CROSS/ORDO/USS BARRY/LOC:(757) 445-1152
/EMAIL:CROSSJ(AT)BARRY.NAVY.MIL//
RMKS/1. SINCE SEPTEMBER 11 ORIG HAS HAD TO KEEP THE .50 CAL MACHINE GUNS ON
STATION 24/7. FOR YEARS CORROSION HAS BEEN AN ISSUE WITH .50 CAL.
MACHINEGUNS, EVEN WHEN COVERED. GUNNERSMATES ARE REQUIRED TO WIPE DOWN AND RE-OIL THE
COVERED WEAPONS DAILY. EVEN WITH THIS PREVENTATIVE ACTION THE RUST WOULD RETURN BY THE
NEXT MORNING. WHEN ORIG CAME OFF DEPLOYMENT IN 2000, CG DIVISION HAD TO ORDER ALL NEW .50
CALS DUE ONLY TO THE EXTENSIVE ORROSION OF THE WEAPONS, DESPITE PMS BEING MAINTAINED.
LAST FALL ORIG WAS GIVEN ONE NEW PROTOTYPE CORROSION COVERING FOR ONE .50 CAL
MACHINEGUN BY BIW. ORIG PLACED THE PROTOTYPE ON THE FORWARD PORT WEAPON THAT SEEMED TO
GET THE MOST ABUSE. AFTER SIX MONTHS OF 24/7 USE THE WEAPON THAT HAD BEEN OUT ON STATION
WITH THE NEW COVER SUFFERED VERY LITTLE CORROSION COMPARED TO THE OTHER THREE ON
STATION WEAPONS. THE SHIP HAS BEEN UNDERWAY SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE SIX MONTH TEST
PERIOD AND CG DIVISION HAD TO REPLACE THE OTHER COVERS AT LEAST ONCE DUE TO RIPPING OR
BEING BLOWN OFF THE WEAPON BY HIGH WINDS. AFTER SIX MONTHS, THE NEW PROTOTYPE COVER STILL
LOOKED LIKE NEW AND HAD NOT COME OFF. ALSO NOTED WAS THE EASE IN REMOVING THE COVER
DURING QUICK REACTION DRILLS COMPARED TO THE OLDER COVERS. THE PROTOTYPE COVER DOES NOT
RETAIN MOISTURE UNDERNEATH AS THE OLD ONES DO. FURTHER, IT ALLOWS THE OIL TO STAY ON THE
WEAPON UNLIKE THE OLDER COVERS THAT SEEMED TO WIPE THE OIL OFF.
2. SINCE RETURNING THE PROTOTYPE TO THE MANUFACTURER, ORIG HAS BEEN UNDERWAY FOR PRE-
DEPLOYMENT EXERCISES. THE PROTOYPE COVER IS SORELY MISSED AS CG DIVISION'S GUNNERSMATES
NOW SPEND ALMOST AN HOUR A DAY PER WEAPON TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE CORROSION FORMING
ON THE .50 CAL. MACHINEGUNS. ORIG WHOLEHEARTEDLY ENDORSES THE FIELDING OF THIS ROTOTYPE
.50 CAL COVER.
3. TEAM BARRY...WE ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION.//
BT
#0854
NNNN
RTD:000-000/COPIES:
Figure 5. Ship Administrative Message Sent by the USS Barry (DDG-52)

Regarding Envelop Performance During the Base Phase
15
2.4.3 Base Phase USS Detroit (AOE-4) Results

Testing on the USS Detroit proved that Envelop covers are durable, easy to use, and accepted by
ship personnel. Creare covered a gypsy winch, boom hook wire control box, and a topping lift winch.
Coverings were installed in November 2000. Pictures of the gypsy winch and the associated Envelop
cover at the time of install are shown in Figure 6. Coverings were checked in port (Naval Weapons
Station Earle) by Creare personnel on at least two occasions over a 16-month installation period.
Envelop-covered hardware was located on Station 11 of the weather deck. Identical hardware was
located on Station 6, where it was left uncovered—coverings were scarce on the ship. As such, the focus
of our comparison was to determine to what extent corrosion could be prevented by the use of Envelop,
durability of the coverings, and acceptance by personnel.
Although the hardware in both stations was refurbished prior to test commencement, the
Station 11 test hardware exhibited significantly more corrosion than the Station 6 control hardware at the
time of installation. Detroit personnel explained that the Station 11 environment is more corrosive than
the Station 6 environment because:
• The ship architecture shelters Station 6 from sea spray better than it shelters Station 11 from
sea spray.
• Corrosive stack gases are emitted near Station 11.
Table 8 shows the results of our test on the USS Detroit. As can be seen in the table, Envelop
appears to mitigate corrosion well. Visual comparison to pictures and video taken of the equipment at
installation showed that corrosion had not progressed much, if at all, on the equipment protected by the
Envelop coverings. At the end of the 16-month test period, the coverings were in excellent shape; that is,
the coverings remained flexible, were clean, and continued to absorb water. The Boatswain in charge of
maintaining the equipment in these stations remarked that Envelop lasted longer than Herculite based
upon his experience. The ship planned to continue to use the coverings to protect the equipment.
Original Condition Envelop Protective Cover
Figure 6. Station 11 Gypsy Winch at the Commencement of Testing

on the USS Detroit (AOE 4) in November 2000
16
Table 8. Results of Test During the Base Phase on the USS Detroit (AOE 4).
Condition of Equipment after 16 Months of Exposure on the Weather Deck.
Boom Hook Wire Boom Hook Wire Gypsy Winch Gypsy Winch
Control Control View 1 View 2
Control Box Base
Envelop
Station 11
No covering
(standard
protection)
Station 6
It should be noted that the Envelop Protective Cover for the topping lift winch was damaged
shortly after installation because it was used improperly. The winch was operated with the cover
installed. As a result, the winch cable dragged the covering into the winch spool and destroyed it.
2.4.4 Base Phase USS Arctic (AOE-8) Results
The only result that can be drawn from tests conducted on the USS Arctic is that Envelop
Protective Covers are more durable than Herculite covers.
In November 2000, Creare personnel installed Envelop coverings on four Motor Operated Valves
(MOVs). The other twelve MOVs were covered using Herculite. Figure 7 shows a picture of an MOV
and two Envelop-covered MOVs at the time of install.
Unfortunately, during the course of the 16-month test period, all of the coverings were
interchanged multiple times from their original install locations. Thus, no conclusions could be drawn
relative to corrosion mitigation performance. Although long-term testing on the USS Arctic did not
generate useful corrosion prevention performance data, the test demonstrated that the Envelop coverings
are durable, easy to use, and accepted by ship personnel. The Envelop coverings were in excellent
condition and performing normally after 17 months of exposure to the rugged weather deck environment.
Conversely, the Herculite MOV coverings had relatively large holes and rips, even though they were
installed after the Envelop coverings were installed. The USS Arctic crew was pleased with performance,
durability, ease of use, and visual appearance of the Envelop coverings.
17
Figure 7. Motor Operated Valve (MOV) and two MOVs Covered with Envelop at Installation
2.4.5 Base Phase USS Anzio (CG-68)

We could not draw any conclusions based upon the results from our tests on the USS Anzio. The
intent of these tests was to quantify the reduction of the rate of corrosion by using Envelop compared to
Herculite via ASTM G1, as described in Section 2.2. The equipment that was to be covered for the
duration of the test (three months) was covered, we believe, at best only 50% of the time. As such,
determining corrosion mitigation performance, as compared to Herculite, was not possible. Nonetheless,
valuable lessons were learned regarding the performance of shipboard tests, such as:
• Quantification of corrosion prevention performance according to ASTM G1 is not reliable on

a working Navy ship. Enforcement of the strict protocols related to exposure and handling
weight-loss samples required for accurate performance quantification is difficult. These
weight-loss samples must be very carefully exposed to the environment, and the exposure
must be closely monitored. Despite a DFS procedure having been submitted by the ship, the
ship personnel’s first priority, and rightly so, is the safe operation of the ship, not the careful
monitoring of weight loss samples that must take place.
• Equipment that is not normally covered should not be used to test the performance of a
covering. Unless the ship’s crew is already familiar with covering a particular piece of
equipment, we will not provide coverings for testing in the future. On the USS Anzio, we
and the ship personnel chose to cover the anchor windlass control stands. Unfortunately,
these control stands did not have a covering history prior to the commencement of testing.
As a result, the ship personnel, despite their best intentions, did not always keep the coverings
in place because such a protocol did not exist prior to our experiment. As a result, in the
Option Phase we only evaluated Envelop’s performance on equipment that already uses
Herculite coverings, which minimizes the disruption to the ship’s crew and their routines.
18
2.4.6 Option Phase USS Milius DDG-69 Results

Both a 25 mm cover and a 0.50 caliber cover were installed on the USS Milius, as shown in
Figure 8. We provided the ship with a digital camera to obtain pictures of evidence of Envelop’s
performance relative to Herculite. Despite many wonderful photographs taken, direct comparisons
of performance were not possible. Nonetheless, the ship reported excellent results for Envelop. In
particular, (1) Envelop eliminated the daily rust checks required with Herculite, making the checks
weekly, (2) rust that did form under Envelop easily wiped away and did not require the extensive
maintenance required for rust formed under Herculite, and (3) Envelop survived the sandstorms and
protected equipment from sand, which Herculite did not. The email messages detailing these results are
shown in Figure 9.
Finally, after six months, the ship reported that the 0.50 caliber Herculite coverings had to be
replaced three times and the 0.50 caliber Envelop finally needed to be replaced. These coverings were in
the forward position of the ship. Thus, Envelop was shown both to reduce maintenance significantly and
last three times longer than Herculite.
Figure 8. Envelop Coverings Shortly After Installation on the USS Milius
19
From: Broglia, P. GM1 [mailto:BrogliaP@milius.navy.mil]

Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 3:18 AM
To: 'Tom Nelson'
Subject: RE: weapon cover on USS Milius DDG69
Hi Tom
Sorry for the delay, the work load is heavy. The tears are just random and
are not expanding. I will try the silicone idea and let you know. I have
never heard of a DFS, would the ship have that on board? Is it a standard
Navy form? I would be happy to fill it out for you. As far as the maintenance
it has been lighter. The weapon will still develop rust on it but it takes
longer to do so, and it is considerably less. When we had the cover off it
was hard to determine the difference but since the cover has been on for a
while it is clear the cover has benefits. It does not eliminate maintenance
but does stop the daily rust check. As it stands with proper oil on the
weapon my checks have been once a week and it has been more of a weekly
oiling rather than a cleaning. The occasional surface rust shows up but it
just wipes away. I will continue to gather the data you need.
Sincerely Philip Broglia GM1
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:38 PM

To: BrogliaP@milius.navy.mil
Subject: RE: weapon cover on USS Milius DDG69
Dear Tom
You may have heard about the recent sand storm that hit the area here.
Just to let you know we were in two. The first made the news and was quite
large. It was so bad a helicopter made an emergency landing on our ship to
avoid crashing. As for the Envelopes, no problem. The covers kept the sand
out and no maintenance was required of either the 25mm or 50 cal. The stock
covers let some sand in and those weapons needed to be cleaned. I am trying
to start the departure from spec ducument but with all that is happening (the
war thing) it has been difficult. I am hoping to have more time available
during the trip home.
Sincerely
Philip
Figure 9. Two Messages from the USS Milius Detailing Covering Performance
20
2.4.7 Option Phase USS Oscar Austin DDG-79 Results

The shipboard testing on the USS Oscar Austin illustrated the need for the licensee to improve the
seam sealing during production of the coverings. All other coverings installed during the Option Phase
were made with improved seam sealing, as recommended by Creare. During the month of October 2002,
the ship encountered very rough seas for an extended period. As a result, the 0.50 caliber Envelop cover
began to take on a lot of water because of waves over the bow. The 25 mm gun faired better and did not
take on much water. New coverings were sent to the ship as replacements. However, as of six months
after the installation of the coverings, the ship still had not received the replacement coverings or digital
camera that were sent to FCCM(SW) Mark A. Palmer, SURFLANT N6512/N602A, Combat Systems
(757-836-3297), who was facilitating in arranging the shipboard testing out of Norfolk. According the
Master Chief, the coverings and camera were shipped to the USS Oscar Austin in December 2002, which
at the time was in the Mediterranean. We will continue to try to replace the coverings on the ship.
2.4.8 Option Phase USS Barry DDG-52 Results
The most recent reports from the USS Barry support the earlier results outlined in Section 2.4.2.
During the Option Phase, the USS Barry received two Envelop covers, one for the 25 mm machine gun
(Figure 10) and another for a 0.50 caliber machine gun and its mount. Both guns were well-protected and
the ship was very happy with Envelop’s performance after four months of installation on the ship. The
ship reports that SIMA was also happy with the condition of the guns. The ship does suggest making the
coverings a little larger. An email message detailing the testing results is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 10. Installed Envelop Cover on a 25 mm Machine Gun on the USS Barry DDG-52
21
>>> "Wentworth, Clayton GMC (DDG52 N65 CG)" <wentworthc@barry.navy.mil>

04/30/03 13:34 PM >>>
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I had to wait for my GM1 to
get back to update me. Over the cover did real good, we have already sent
the guns back to SIMA for overhaul and won't get them back till next year.
Don't worry we kept the cover. My guys were real pleased with how the
cover kept the corrision off of the gun, it allowed the the gun to breath
and kept the mositer off. They did say the cover was real tight and not
too easy to put on or off, needs to be a little losser.
Other than that it did real good, SIMA was very pleased at the condition
of the gun when they took it back.
If I can help any other way, let me know.
GMC(SW) Clay Wentworth

USS BARRY DDG-52
Combat Systems LCPO
Figure 11. Email from Combat Systems LCPO on USS Barry (DDG-52)
Regarding Envelop Performance During the Option Phase
2.4.9 Option Phase USS Russell DDG-59 Results

The USS Russell performed an excellent test. One set of 25 mm and 0.50 caliber guns were
covered with Envelop and another with Herculite. No maintenance was performed for a two-week
deployment during which the ship traveled at an average of 30 knots. Pictures were taken at the end of
the two-week period. It can be seen from the photographs taken by the ship (Figure 12) that Envelop
clearly functions as intended. As a result of this test and the use of the coverings over a four-month
period, the ship is in the process of purchasing coverings from the licensee of Envelop.
2.4.10 Option Phase USS Cole DDG-67 Results
As will be discussed in Section 3, the USS Cole issued a purchase order for 56 Envelop coverings
for 23 unique pieces of equipment on the weather deck. Their purchase was based on reports from the
excellent reports from other ships and evaluation of a sample 0.50 caliber gun mount covering.
Installation of these coverings is to take place in May 2003.
2.4.11 Option Phase USS Leyte Gulf CG-55 Results
Excellent results were noted by the ship. Reduced maintenance and acceptance by gunner mates
was highlighted in an email four months after installation on the ship (Figure 13). Unfortunately, despite
being provided with a digital camera, no pictures were provided by the ship.
2.4.12 Option Phase USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 Results
As with the other ships, maintenance reduction and ability to withstand deployment are noted by
the ship. Details are given in the email in Figure 14.
22
Figure 12. 0.50 Caliber Guns Covered with Envelop and Herculite Following No Maintenance
During Two Weeks in Rough Seas
23
From: WEPS [mailto:wilkersj@leytegulf.navy.mil]

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:25 PM
To: 'tom.nelson@foldypac.com'
Subject: Envolpe covers
Mr. Nelson,
Sorry that you have not gotten any feedback on the covers so far. I was
under the impression that my Leading Gunners Mate had already sent you
feedback.
The cover is great. We have used it since the day we received it, and have
had great results. In comparison, to the other type we have onboard. The
mount that we have placed your cover on seem not be rusting where the others
are. My impression on the cover is that it takes all the condensation away
from the gun and keeps it dry. This keeps the gunners from having to do
maintainance on the weapons as much as they have to on the mounts with out
your cover. I think that it would be a great asset to have them for all the
50 cal mounts and would like to see one for the M60 mounts. The cover is a
very good product.
Thank you for all your assistance.
V/r
LTjg Wilkerson, Jason
Weapons / Force Protection Officer
USS LEYTE GULF (CG-55)
wilkersj@leytegulf.navy.mil
wilkersj@leytegulf.navy.smil.mil
757-444-6620 (WR)
757-444-6674 (WEPS/SUPPO)
Figure 13. Email from the USS Leyte Gulf Regarding Envelop Performance
24
"Lynskey, Jason P. GM2" To: "'steve.laskey@gdbiw.com'"

<lynskejp@iwo-jima.navy.mil> <steve.laskey@biw.com>
04/13/2003 11:31 AM cc:
Subject: USS Iwo Jima weapon covers
Mr. Laskey,
I am off the USS Iwo Jima, and currently we have a cover for the
25mm and the .50 cal. Fortunately the 25mm has been in full service since
we left and with daily maintenance it is hard to judge how well the cover
would be doing. From my perspective though when it was on, the barrel
especially required less maintenance. For rain we have a foul weather cover
that fits over the feeder for the 25mm to keep the electric components
somewhat dry. I was wondering if you had anything like that in your
material.
I am personally responsible for the .50 cal that your cover is on.
It is holding up better than any other cover I've seen. With my daily
checks on it I have drastically reduced my preventive maintenance time.
There is no longer the daily rust wipe off that we have become accustomed
to. I like the size of the cover so I don't need to wrestle with it to put
it on or take it off. I think the barrel section could be made a little
wider though. Another favorite is the clips that secure it, the rope on the
other covers becomes worn and frayed to easy. So far they're holding up
well, and I really like the one for the .50. I will be sure to keep you
updated as the months go on. Any problems or questions please write.
Respectfully
GM2 Jason Lynskey
CG Division
Uss Iwo Jima
Figure 14. Message from USS Iwo Jima Six Months After Installation. Message is to
Mr. Steve Laskey of Bath Iron Works, who at the time was helping to facilitate testing on ships.
25
3 COMMERCIALIZATION AND MANUFACTURING PLAN STATUS

During Phase II, we conducted a number of commercialization and manufacturing/technology
transfer activities to maximize the likelihood that Creare could commercialize the results of this project.
As a result of these activities, we have already sold our product to the Navy, even before the completion
of this project. Key activities are described below.
Commercialization Activities. On this project, we:
• Received US Patent Number 6,444,595 “Flexible Corrosion-Inhibiting Cover for a Metallic

Object” and have applied for several more. These patents form the basis for international
patent applications that will be sent immediately following the completion of this project.
• Received a Trademark to protect the term “Envelop” for use associated with our invention.
This trademark and associated logo clearly define our product.
• Licensed the intellectual property and trademark to Industrial Crating Incorporated, Itasca,
Illinois. Industrial Crating is currently transferring Envelop to a spin-off company called
Foldy Pac Protective Systems, whose sole product will be Envelop. Industrial Crating
produced all of the coverings in the Option Phase as part of our technology transfer.
• Promoted the results of our project at the annual Navy Corrosion Forums through the
presentation of technical results and in dedicated product booths, other corrosion conferences,
meetings with Science Advisors of SURFLANT, PACFLEET, COMPAC, Army, Marines,
and Air Force. These meetings have significantly raised the awareness of Envelop in all of
the service branches. As a result of these meetings, the Army will purchase coverings for the
ROWPU (reverse osmosis water purification units).
• Sold our first product, through our licensee, to the USS Cole DDG-67 and the Sail Loft
Office at Pearl Harbor. The USS Cole purchased 56 coverings for 23 unique items on the
weather deck through contract No. N00406-03-P-4292 for $79,066. The Sail Loft Office
purchased the raw material to fabricate coverings under contract No. N00604-03-P-A158 for
$8,262.78. At the end of this project, the USS Russell, Barry, and O’Kane (DDG-77) were
each ready to buy Envelop coverings to protect all topside weapons systems.
• Began the process of applying for NSNs. The first NSN will be for the 0.50 cal gun covering.
The drawing, currently under review by Scott Johnson who is the Manager of the Armament
Systems Branch at NSWC Crane, is shown in Figure 15.
• Sent 20 M16 Machine Gun coverings to Charlotte Lent, Industrial Engineer, US Army
Materiel Command, Logistics Support Activity, Tobyhanna Army Depot, for testing against
other candidate coverings. If chosen, Envelop would be used to cover all M16 guns in the
Marines and possibly the Army.
Manufacturing Plan/Technology Transfer. At every step of development of Envelop, we focused
on ways to simplify manufacturing, which in turn simplifies the technology transfer to both the licensee
and the government entities that wish to produce Envelop coverings. As a result, each of the materials
that form our covering are now available in rolls that are suitable for industrial sewing procedures, which
in essence is the manufacturing plan. As proof that our plan is sound, our licensee was able to produce all
of the coverings in the Option Phase of the project for a total of about 4,000 square feet. It is these
coverings that provided the final proof that Envelop indeed works well and will be a valuable tool for not
only the Navy, but all of the Armed Services.
26
Figure 15. Drawing of 0.50 Caliber Gun and Mount Envelop Covering in Support of NSN Application
27
Furthermore, we worked with the licensee to train the Pearl Harbor Sail Loft Office (NSY &
IMF) to make Envelop coverings for the Pearl Harbor shipyard. This training session was organized by
the CINCPAC Fleet Maintenance S&T Advisor and took two days, during which the coverings
fabricators worked on individualized projects to gain experience with the composite Envelop structure.
At the end of the training session, the Sail Loft Office was in a position to produce coverings if they could
make the capital investment in a seam sealing machine. Nonetheless, this is proof that the technology can
be easily transferred to multiple parties provided they are trained by either the licensee or Creare subject
themselves to periodic monitoring of covering quality.
28
29

SBIR Final Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SBIR Final Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Engineering Research and Development

May 22, 2003

Subject: Final Technical Report, Option Phase

Dear Mr. Sheedlo:

Dr. Nabil A. Elkouh

Naval Sea Systems Command

Naval Sea Systems Command

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

Flexible Corrosion Preventative Coverings

SBIR Phase II Topic No. N99-115

Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only.

SBIR DATA RIGHTS

Creare Incorporated 603-643-3800

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................i

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................iii

2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS ................................... 6

3 COMMERCIALIZATION AND MANUFACTURING PLAN STATUS ........................................ 26

STANDARD FORM 298 ........................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 8 Envelop Coverings Shortly After Installation on the USS Milius........................................... 19

Table 1 Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop ............................................................... 4

Table 2 Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop ........................................................................ 4

Table 3 Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop ..................................................................... 6

Table 4 Optimized Fire Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop............................................................ 7

Table 5 Qualification Test Results and Requirements ........................................................................... 8

Table 6 Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results............................................................ 11

Table 7 Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results ........................................................ 12

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

• DOD force pre-positioning agencies or management offices.

1.1 NEED FOR CORROSION MITIGATION

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

1.2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVERS

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

1.3 CURRENT BASELINE TECHNOLOGY

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

1.4 FEATURES, ADVANTAGES, AND BENEFITS OF ENVELOP

Table 1. Comparison of Baseline Technologies with Envelop

Table 2. Features, Advantages, and Benefits of Envelop

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE II EFFORT

• An optimized and refined family of corrosion preventative coverings. We tested and

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

2 ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER TEST AND EVALUATION RESULTS

2.1 MATERIAL SELECTION

Table 3. Optimized Baseline Set of Materials for Envelop

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

Table 4. Optimized Fire-Retardant Set of Materials for Envelop

2.2 PERFORMANCE OF ENVELOP AGAINST A-A-55308

• Weight per ASTM-D-3776 Method C

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

Table 5. Qualification Test Results and Requirements

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

2.3 QUANTIFICATION OF ENVELOP PROTECTIVE COVER PERFORMANCE

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

EPS Herculite Disk

Test Duration [Days]

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

2.4 SHIPBOARD DEMONSTRATIONS OF COVERING PERFORMANCE

Table 6. Base Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results

SBIR Data Rights TM-2251

Table 7. Option Phase Summary of Shipboard Tests and Results (continued)