Powder has taken
some giant steps
forward recently as it
strives to be a legitimate
contender in
the chemical agent
resistant coating
(CARC) ring. While
powder primers have
been used for years
in CARC systems,
only recently has
powder stepped up
to challenge liquid
paints in the more
demanding role of
CARC top coats. -Paul Mills
Today, CARC powder coatings
have been approved as top
coats; the military has written
new specifications for powder and is
investing millions of dollars in powder
coating research. Powder suppliers
are optimistic that the latest orders for
new tactical vehicles due out later this
year may specifically call for powder
coating technology.
These accomplishments along with
the impressive track record of powder
primers over the last decade have led
many to reconsider the role of powder
in military coatings and to think about
how other pieces of the coating process,
such as chemical pretreatment,
can be adapted for a growing role of
powder coatings.
Asked about the share of powder in
CARC coatings, John Mort, director of
sales for aerospace and defense coatings
at Hentzen Coatings in Milwaukee,
says, “It’s small. If I said 5 percent that
would be a good estimate.” He explains
that’s not because of any shortcoming
of powder coatings, but rather
to a system that changes slowly. “If
you look at how this market works,
it’s really specification driven. All of
the engineering drawings to this point
have been liquid based. The legacy
systems are buried in paperwork that
says liquid, liquid, liquid. Since powder
has come out so recently, it hasn’t
yet had a chance to shine,” Mort says.
But Mort also sees changes coming
for powder. “There was so much
capacity on the liquid side that prices
dropped and there was no reason
to pursue powder because it didn’t
make dollar sense,” he says. “But the
next big contract coming out is for
the joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV).
The JLTV may be the first chance for
powder to really make an impression
and create movement in the market.
A decision on that project is due as
early as December, and I think you
will see powder make an impact at
that point.”
Experts say that CARC research
began when a Russian tank, captured
in Egypt in the early 1970s was dismantled
and analyzed by U.S. military
scientists. Their analysis revealed that
the Russians had developed a coating
system to provide them with the ability
to decontaminate a vehicle if it was
attacked by chemical weapons.
Primary Objective:
Warfighter Survival
The overarching goal of CARC
coatings is to ensure the survival of
the American Warfighter. They do
this by providing military assets with
greater reliability through enhanced
corrosion protection and by improving
battle readiness by allowing military
hardware to be returned to service as
quickly as possible in the event of a
chemical attack. To accomplish these
goals, CARC top coats must satisfy
some demanding and somewhat technically
opposing needs.
First, CARC powder coatings must
provide the proper appearance. This
is no trivial color-matching task when
some color standards require dead
matte finishes below 1.0 on the gloss
meter. These colors must also withstand
fading in the harsh environment
of desert sand and sun. To qualify,
these matte finishes must not change
color appreciably after extreme exposure
conditions. To test these coatings,
the most sophisticated accelerated
weathering such as EMMAQUA®
(Equatorial Mount with Mirrors for
Acceleration with Water) is used. Not
only must these camouflage colors
match standards in a way that meets
the eye, but also CARC coatings
are formulated to have a distinctive
infrared (IR) signature that comes
from specific pigments. This characteristic
IR signature allows soldiers
to identify between friendly forces
and foes through the paints spectral
properties.
The second broad requirement
for CARC coatings is that the coating
must be able to withstand attack by
chemical and biological agents, be
decontaminated, and then returned
to service intact. This requires that
coating suppliers submit samples
to the military for live agent testing
against some of the most dangerous
chemicals around. To many chemists,
the demand for dead matte colors and
resistance to chemical agents are somewhat
at odds with each other because
many of the usual techniques to flatten
the gloss of coatings make it more
difficult to achieve the other required
properties.
This is particularly true for powder
coatings. “Many of the additives
a powder chemist might ordinarily
choose to lower the gloss of a coating
to the degree required for CARC
also make the powder more likely to
absorb live agents,” explains Kevin
Biller, president of the Powder Coating
Research Group and technical editor
of this magazine. “So the powder
formulators have had to develop a new
set of tricks to achieve the appearance
standard while providing a coating that
doesn’t absorb chemical agents. That is
one reason why the goal of a powder
top coat remained elusive for quite
some time,” he says.
Buoyed by encouraging technical
results and the efforts of some of the
industry’s leading coating suppliers,
in 2012 the military announced that
it would develop a powder CARC
topcoat to meet Type III of MILPRF-32348. The Type III was the major
step from primers to top coats for
powder. The following spring, in what
has been termed “a dramatic game
changer,” the U.S. Army Research
Laboratory (ARL) in Aberdeen, Md.,
issued the first approval of a CARC
powder top coat to Hentzen Coatings.
“It took us seven years to get it right. It
was a tough combination to achieve,”
says Mort. “We have a 40-year history
with CARC coatings, so when we approached
the new specification we had
a database of information, experience
and background from the liquid side
that definitely helped on the powder
side. Instead of starting from scratch,
to some extent we felt we were already
on the 5-yard line based on knowledge
we had already developed.”
To stimulate the development of
CARC powder coating technology, the
military has also committed to funding
extensive R&D in powder coatings.
Through the Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program,
or SERDP, the Department of Defense
(DoD), Department of Energy (DoE),
and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) joined together to fund
the development of powder coatings
for military use by private companies.
In 2012, Sherwin-Williams was
selected to lead a $1.4 million research
and development project to develop
an environmentally preferable CARC
powder topcoat. Then, in January
2013, in a second round of funding,
PPG Industries received a $1.5 million
SERDP award to develop a CARC powder
top coat.
“The strong part about the SERDP
program is that we had partners who
had expertise in all the different areas,”
says Dr. Beth Ann Pearson, global
products manager, Metal and Plastics,
for Sherwin-Williams Product Finishes.
Her team uses the latest technology,
such as electron microscopy and confocal
Raman spectroscopy, to understand
the design of CARC powders at
the molecular level. “The shapes of the
molecules for different chemical agents
are very different. Therefore, we think
about the porosity of the coating and
ask ‘what is not going to allow those
agents to migrate through the surface
of the coating?’ In the past, what really
made a coating chemical resistant wasn’t necessarily always well
understood—specifically in powder
coatings. We have been successful in
understanding the intricacies of the
polymer network required for decontamination;
as a result, we currently
have two products listed on the qualified
products database (QPD),” says
Pearson.
Secondary Objective:
Lower VOHAPs
Although the primary objective of
CARC coatings is the survival of our
armed forces, there are other forces behind
the military’s interest in powder
coating development as well. The U.S.
EPA wants the military to switch to
coatings that are free of volatile organic
hazardous air pollutants (VOHAPs),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and inorganic hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs). According to John Escarsega,
a leader of the ARL at Aberdeen,
“There are many advantages to allowing
powder coating to be a part of the
program. Environmental is a big reason,
but there are also some reduced
costs…It’s a good step forward.”
An important justification for
federal funding of CARC powder
development is the potential reduction
of VOCs that can be reduced by using
powder coatings instead of liquid
paint. The DoD and its industrial base
currently emit upwards of an estimated
5.2 million pounds (2,600 tons) of
organic solvents per year from CARC
topcoat application. According to Escarsega,
the use of solventless powder
topcoats in high production environments
such as depots and OEMs has
the potential to eliminate hundreds—if
not thousands—of tons of VOCs,
HAPs, and other organic solvent emissions
per year.
Another driving force is money.
“The cost of corrosion is prohibitive,”
says Pearson. The DoD spends more
than $20 billion dollars a year on corrosion-
related damage. “CARC powder
is really showing remarkable weatherability
because we can create a thicker
film with powder coatings. If you talk
about the primer and top coat, we’ve
got an excellent system to offer for
protection,” she says.
“Mil for mil, powder has very
good weathering and has seems have
a huge advantage over liquid coatings
in terms of durability and corrosion
resistance,” says Mort. “Where liquid
paint has been compared to throwing
snowballs at a wall, powder is designed
flow out to produce a uniform coating
in the form of a continuous film.” He
also says that while the current use of
powder is low, the places that allow
powder to be used have really
taken off.
“But the top coat was always the
Holy Grail and that was cracked in
2013,” Mort continues. He says the
biggest advance is not the technology,
but the writing of the specification and
the inclusion of powder into new and
upcoming contracts. There is a list of
approved suppliers on the approved
Qualified Products List (QPL), but whether a coating is
written into the specification is another story. “Now the
specifications are being written so we are capable of actually
using those products is the biggest change that’s coming.”
Despite the breakthroughs, Hentzen’s Mort concedes
that powder cannot rest on its laurels. His own company
is already developing a zero-VOC water reducible top coat
as well as isocyanate-free CARC liquid coatings that will
challenge the latest powder technology.
Sherwin-Williams’ Pearson says that the scientific
approach to powder development is critical to the future
because CARC coating development is always a moving
target. “This approach is really advancing the knowledge
needed to deal with the new color spaces that are coming
and the chemical agent testing that will be developing.
What has been an art in the past is now a science,” she says.
Examining Other Aspects
The progress in CARC powder coatings has prompted
the DoD to examine other aspects of the coating process as
well. For example, while zinc phosphate has been qualified
for pretreatment, it is not the ideal process for powder
coating of ferrous substrates. The ARL has undertaken a
comprehensive study of alternative pretreatment chemistries
more suitable for powder coating systems.
According to Tom Braswell, a senior systems engineer
for the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), good progress is
being made on this front as well. “We have a couple of nonzinc
phosphate products on the QPL right now that work
great with powder and five or six more in the loop,” He
says. Braswell’s team has been innovative in trying to spur
the development of new materials while upholding stringent
performance standards. Because of the sunset issues
with chrome, Braswell says the team rewrote TT-C-490—
the chemical conversion coatings and pretreatments for
metallic substrates specification—to qualify other materials
as long as they could meet the standards, even if they took
a different approach. “We didn’t want to wait around,” he
says, “and it has worked really well. By rewriting the spec
to allow substitutes for the legacy products called out on
drawings as long as they work, we get
calls from companies that want us to
test their products that haven’t seen in
the past.”
Braswell points to work on lower-
temperature powder coatings as a
frontier for powder in military applications.
“There are a lot of opportunities
if the powder can cure at temperatures
75 to 100 degrees lower,” says
Braswell. Low-temperature powder
coatings might not only extend the use
of powder to more kinds of assets, but
combined with the spray-in-place pretreatments
could make powder touch
up more attractive, he says.
Pearson also points to the potential
for other technologies to shape the
future of CARC powder coatings. For
example, in 2012, researchers from
Rice University and MIT developed
a coating with a layer-cake structure
made of layers just a few nanometers
thick but strong enough to stop a
speeding bullet from penetrating the
coating. “In the military world, if you
have a gas tank and the enemy force
shoots it, in the past it would explode.
With a self-sealing coating the bullet
gets caught in the coating so the bullet
never makes it all the way though.
That’s an example of smart coating
technology that has translated into the
military world on the liquid side,”
she says.
Technology transfer between
military and civilian applications has
also flowed in the other direction.
Just as innovations from NASA’s space
program have spun off everyday inventions
such as ear thermometers, freezedried
food and cordless drills, the work
on CARC military coatings is creating
technology that may find uses in other
industries. “We are taking the dead
matte color technology we developed
for military communications equipment
and applying it to automotive
trim, motorcycles and cosmetic bottles.
Designers look at dead matte finishes
as sort of the cutting edge of style,”
Biller concludes.
Paul Mills is a marketing and business
development consultant to industry chemistry
and equipment suppliers. He has been a
writer for the powder coating industry since
1994. Paul can be reached at 440-570-5228
or via email at pmillsoh@aol.com.