QUARTERLYVolume 6, Number 3

AMPTIAC is a DOD Information Analysis Center Adminis tered by the Defense Information Sys tems Agency, Defense Technical Informat ion Center and Operated by I IT Research Ins t i tu te

Mobile Parts HospitalMaking Replacement Parts

in the Field

MaterialEASE: Tips and Pitfalls

of Corrosion Testing

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology InformationAnalysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, operated by IIT Research Institute and administratively managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA),Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more than 25,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to David H. RoseDirector, AMPTIAC315-339-7023E M A I L : a m p t i a c @ i i t r i . o rgU R L : http :/ / a m p t i a c . i i t r i . o rg

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMPTIACATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK201 Mill StreetRome, New York 13440

PHONE : 315 .339 .7008FAX : 315 .339 .7107

E M A I L : a m p t i a c _ n ews @ i i t r i . o rg

Editor-in-ChiefWade G. Babcock

Creative Director Cynthia Long

Information ProcessingJudy E. TallarinoPatricia McQuinn

Inquiry ServicesDavid J. Brumbaugh

Product SalesGina Nash

Training CoordinatorChristian E. Grethlein, P.E.

Every Defense researcher knows that our ultimate responsi-bility is to help our soldiers and sailors by providing them withthe best possible equipment and technology available. We takethis mission very seriously, and realize that our efforts will even-tually save the lives of our countrymen by enabling them to dotheir jobs better, from farther away, with more precision andaccuracy.

Our military is in the midst of a fundamental change in thetype of war it will wage in the future. We have spent the betterpart of the past fifty years preparing to fight a well-organizedenemy, with massive war-making tools on the land and in thesea and air. This enemy played by a similar rulebook to ours,structured itself similarly, and basically had a fighting abilityand sense of morality not unlike our own. Our experienceswith enemies in Europe and Japan taught us much about howto fight, but in the end we always knew who our enemies were,and could invite them to a negotiating table to discuss peace.

In the 60s and 70s, we learned a valuable lesson: Much of thetechnology we had developed proved less effective against aloosely organized enemy with basic weapons and an intensedesire to defend their homeland. We learned to fight a guerrillawar, in the jungles, ditches and swamps, with foot soldiers onthe ground the main asset to face the enemy. We learned a les-son we had initially taught the British almost two centuriesbefore: loosely organized militia with plenty of hiding places willpose a difficult challenge to organized and structured troopsstudying a well-defined rule book for how wars are supposed tobe fought. We also learned that intelligence gathering was goingto be a key ingredient of future combat. Our experiences in theFar East thirty years ago again taught us much, but our primaryenemy was still the Soviet Union and Southeast Asia was onlyone battle against Communism, not the entire war.

I am not a military historian, and these views are simply mytake on recent history that has led us to this point in time. Our

former enemies are now our allies, our new enemies are shroud-ed in mystery and our technology has many difficulties inbreaching their organizations. Our military faces far greaterchallenges in today’s world: How do you fight an enemy thatwe know so little about? How do you find out more? How doyou fight him in his own land, streets, and buildings? How doyou shift your war-making tools to policing tools after the bat-tles are won? Indeed, how do you find someone who has prac-ticed hiding to the point that it is an innate skill?

Our military is carrying out its new mission, but it is a mis-sion that is still evolving. We are learning how to use the toolswe have in new ways, to accomplish new tasks that weren’tenvisioned just a few years ago. We are learning to focus moreon information in the battlespace, such that resources are usedin the most effective manner possible. Constant vigilance is ouronly ally, because our new enemy is very creative, devious and,above all, patient

But back to us, the Defense materials and processes commu-nity. Our mission of supporting our military is a challengingone. We are often so far from the "point of the spear" that werisk loosing sight of our mission, and sometimes we even strug-gle with our own political opinions. Simply put, our job is tocreate the new materials and technologies needed for remotesensing, force protection, intelligence gathering, guidance, con-trol, and weapons systems. Existing tools will be modified andnew ones designed to fit the needs of a new and very differentkind of war. Advanced materials are just as important inenabling today’s new systems and capabilities as they were inthe past. We must also realize that our focus may have to evolveto recognize new opportunities. But when all is said and done,our mission is simply to provide our warfighters with theequipment they need to do the job, and in that, we will not fail.

Wade G. BabcockEditor-in-Chief

Editorial: Survival of the Fittest

CORRECTION: On page 7 of the last issue of AMPTIAC Quarterly, in Figures 3 and 4 of the article“Lowering the Cost of Titanium,” the Internet address for AeroMet Corporation was incorrectly identified.The correct Web address is www.aerometcorp.com. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

IntroductionMultiple pressures are driving both commercial and militaryairframes to stay in service much longer than their designedservice life. Accordingly, inspection requirements to insure air-craft airworthiness have created a need for cost effective NDItechniques that are accurate, reliable and easy to use.

Studies made it clear that aircraft kept on the ground dur-ing long maintenance cycles dramatically increased theexpense of air transport. Maintenance groups not only needednew and better equipment, they also needed a process toimplement these new technologies into themaintenance mainstream. Magneto-optic imag-ing is one such technique, and has gained wideacceptance for detection of both surface and sub-surface defects.

Similar requirements apply to military aircraftas well if not more so. Many military airframesare expected to fly up to, and in some cases morethan, twice their design life. Some flight crewsmay be operating the same airframes that flewtheir fathers or even grandfathers! Inspections forthese aging aircraft must be capable of detectingsurface and subsurface defects, including cracksand corrosion. This article discusses the develop-ment of the magneto-optic technology and itscurrent inspection applications in both commer-cial and military aircraft maintenance programs.

An incident involving an Aloha AirlinesBoeing 737, where a large section of the plane’sskin peeled off during flight, defined the need toperform careful periodic inspections. It also

spurred companies like PRI Research & Development (PRI)to bring their budding technologies to the marketplace. Onesuch technology is the Magneto Optic Imager (MOI), intro-duced by PRI to the aircraft maintenance world in 1990 at theFarnborough Air Show in the United Kingdom. Applicationof the instrument is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a controlunit, a handheld imager and a head-mounted video display.

Since its introduction, use of the MOI has steadily increasedparticularly in areas where it clearly outperformed traditionalmethods such as eddy-current spot probes and sliding probes.Multiple tests have shown the MOI to be a fast and reliablemethod of finding surface and subsurface cracks and some-times corrosion in metal aircraft skins. Since its introduction,many changes and improvements to the instrument have beenmade. These changes have been driven by the changinginspection priorities and have resulted in the new MOI 308currently used today (Figure 2). The number of procedures bymajor aircraft manufacturers continues to increase, allowingmaintenance personnel to use the instrument in many moreinspections, increasing the cost effectiveness of the instrumentand their acceptance of its place in the NDT arsenal.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3 17

W.C.L. Shih, G.L. Fitzpatrick, PRI R&D, 25500 Hawthorne Blvd. #2300

Torrance, CA 90505

Figure 1. Usingthe MOI*

Figure 2. The MOI 308 System

* All images in this article courtesy PRI Research & Development

308/3Imager

Personal Video System

Control Unit

308/7 Imager

Low FrequencyEddy-current Attachment

The Technology: Its Growth and ChangeThe MOI uses a combination of an innovative eddy cur-rent induction method to induce magnetic fields in defectsand magneto-optics to form images of the magnetic fieldsassociated with the defects. These real time field imagesclosely resemble the defects themselves. The MOI is ableto image through paint and other surface coverings in realtime and displays results as visual images on a heads-updisplay and/or an ordinary TV monitor. The instrument ishand-held, portable, requires minimal training, and great-ly increases the speed and reliability of inspection. Resultsmay be videotaped, printed using a video printer or cap-tured digitally.

The magneto-optic/eddy current nondestructive testinginstrument is based in part on the principles of Faraday mag-neto-optic rotation. In 1845 British physicist Michael Faradayfirst observed the effect when linearly polarized light was trans-mitted through a piece of glass placed in an external magneticfield. It was observed that magnetic fields affect optical proper-ties of certain materials so that when linearly polarized light istransmitted through the material in the direction of an appliedmagnetic field, the plane of polarization is rotated. This is theFaraday magneto-optic effect also referred to as the Faradayrotation, where the amount of rotation is proportional to themagnetic field H and the path length l.

In the case of the MOI, the images are formed by distortionsin the magnetic domains of the magneto-optic sensor inresponse to the external fields and are relatively insensitive tothe strength of these fields. That is, the images are of a binarynature, which form with some minimum field strength.

A schematic of the MOI instrument is shown in Figure 3. Afoil carrying alternating current serves as the excitation sourceand induces eddy currents in a conducting test specimen.Under normal conditions, the associated magnetic flux is tan-gential to the specimen surface. Anomalies in the specimengenerate a normal component of the magnetic flux density,which the magneto-optic sensor images. The sensor used in theinstrument consists of a thin film of bismuth-doped iron gar-net grown on a substrate of gadolinium gallium garnet. Thesefilms exhibit three important properties that are crucial forgenerating a magneto-optic image, namely,1) They possess uniaxial magnetic anisotropy, i.e. they have an

‘easy’ axis of magnetization normal to the sensor surface anda ‘hard’ axis of magnetization in the plane of the sensor.

2) They possess ‘memory’, i.e. if the magnetization along theeasy axis of magnetization is removed the film will retainmost of the established magnetization.

3) Garnet films possess a relatively large specific Faraday rota-tion θf which can be in the range of 3 or 4 degrees permicron of material thickness.

If linearly polarized light is incident normally on the sensor,the plane of polarization of light is rotated by an angle θ givenapproximately by

θ ≈ θf (k→

• M→

)l/(|k→

||M→

|)Where k

→is the wave vector of the incident light, l is the sensor

thickness, and M→

is the local state of magnetization of the sen-sor. Note that M

→is always directed parallel to the ‘easy’ axis of

magnetization. When the reflected light is viewed through theanalyzer, local occurrence of normal magnetic flux is seen as a‘dark’ or ‘light’ area in the magneto-optic image depending onthe direction of magnetization.

When the MOI was introduced in 1990, inspectors had towatch images on a monitor that had to be carried with them.In addition, a second scan of the inspection area was necessary,because the linear eddy-current induction method produced anull in the magnetic field in the same direction as that of thecurrent induction. The original equipment had only one imag-er with a frequency range of 6.5 kHz to 100 kHz. High inter-est in corrosion detection spurred development of an imagerutilizing an even lower eddy current induction frequency (to1.5 kHz to permit deeper field penetration). Further develop-ment replaced the monitor with a head mounted display (seeFigure 1), making the inspector completely mobile. In addi-tion, the imager incorporated a rotating current scheme thateliminated the need for a second scan. Images now reflect acomplete 360 degrees of the area being inspected.

During the mid nineties, an MOI system directed toward theinspection of gas turbine engine parts was developed. The resultwas the MOI 307, which is significantly smaller and lighter andwas able to operate at higher frequencies for engine materialssuch as stainless steel and titanium.

The MOI 308 was introduced in 2000 (see Figure 2). Thissystem replaces the MOI 303 and MOI 307 with a systemincorporating both imagers with one single control unit. Thenew MOI 308 is a modular design approach, allowing inspec-tors to purchase as much or as little of the equipment necessaryto accomplish the inspections required by various procedures.It is available in the following configurations:• The MOI 308/3 (MOI 303 imager) has a frequency range of

1.5 kHz to 100 kHz.• The MOI 308/7 (MOI 307 imager) has a total frequency

range of 1.5 kHz to 200 kHz. This smaller imager has twodifferent eddy-current induction attachments. The low fre-quency unit has a frequency range of 1.5 kHz to 50 kHz andthe high frequency unit has a frequency range of 20 kHz to200 kHz. They are interchangeable and snap on the imager.

• The MOI 308/37 includes both the MOI 303 and MOI 307imagers.

18 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3

Figure 3. Schematic ofthe Magneto OpticImaging System

Light Source

PolarizerAnalyzer

Induction FoilSensor

Bias Coil

Lap Joint

The primary difference between the MOI 308/3 and theMOI 308/7 is in the size and weight of the imagers and the sizeof the imager field of view (FOV). Due to its larger FOV theMOI 308/3 allows for easier interpretation of subsurface cor-rosion and permits a larger number of rivets to be seen at once.The higher frequency range of the MOI 308/7 allows a widerrange of applications that include lower conductivity materialssuch as titanium and stainless steel with improved resolution.

Its low weight and small size facilitate its use in restricted areasas well as general surface and subsurface inspections. Examplesof MOI images for surface cracks using the 303 and 307imagers are shown in Figure 4.

The real-time imaging capability of the MOI permits rapidscanning of lap joints for the inspection of spot welds whichwas originally performed by tedious spot probe methods at theAir Force Logistic Centers (ALCs). An example is shown inFigure 5.

POD Studies for Surface CracksThe capabilities of the MOI for detecting surface cracks havebeen evaluated in independent probability-of-detection (POD)studies.

Shown in Figure 6 are POD curves obtained at theAirworthiness Assurance Nondestructive Inspection ValidationCenter (AANC) at Sandia National Laboratories using the MOIon a set of fatigue crack samples produced to evaluate variousinspection techniques. The four curves to the right were obtainedusing the earlier MOI 301 and an eddy current based slidingprobe. The results were published in a Materials Evaluation arti-cle[1]. The furthest curve on the left was obtained subsequentlyusing the newer MOI 303. No data on the same samples havebeen obtained with the MOI 307 imager. However, similarresults as for the MOI 303 are to be expected.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3 19

Photograph of spot weld sample Cracked spot welds next to fasteners

Uncracked spot welds (not visible) next to fasteners

Figure 6. POD Curves for the MOI on Fatigue Crack Samples

Figure 4. MOI 308/3 Image (a) and MOI 308/7 Image (b) of Surface Cracks

Figure 5. MOI Image of Spot Welds. The Larger Split Images are of Fasteners and Smaller Images areof Defective Spot Welds. Linear Eddy Current Induction Mode is Used.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Crack length from rivet shank (mils)

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Prob

abili

ty o

f Det

ectio

n

MOI 301 Lab EC Lab MOI 301 Field EC Field MOI 303

(b)(a)

20 The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3

Subsurface DefectsSince the MOI is also eddy current-based, the depth of penetra-tion of electromagnetic waves into conducting inspection mate-rials may be varied by adjusting the eddy current induction fre-quency. This permits the inspection of conducting materials forsubsurface defects such as fatigue cracks and corrosion.

Figure 7 shows the MOI image of a third layer-simulatedcrack. The crack is made with EDM (electrical-discharge-machining) creating a notch which measures 0.200" from the5/32" rivet shank. Two sheets of .040" aluminum representingthe outer skin and doubler cover thethird layer .040" aluminum sheet.Behind the third layer is another.040" tear strap. The MOI inductionfrequency is 3 kHz.

Figure 8 shows the image of corro-sion from an actual aircraft belly skinsample. The piece was cut from theaircraft after the corrosion wasdetected by an MOI from the out-side of the aircraft. The skin is .063"thick with a step to .093".

The worm-like structure seen inthe images are the magnetic domainsin the magneto-optic sensor. Theyinteract with the magnetic fieldsfrom the defects to form the images.When the MOI is scanned over theinspection area, the domain structureremains stationary while the defectimages move. This facilitates distin-

guishing subtler defect images from the background. Currently,image-processing algorithms are being developed at MichiganState University to perform this function.

Computational Analysis SupportSince MOI technology is relatively new, its full capabilities havenot been fully explored, but the use of numerical computa-tional methods has been very useful in evaluating some of itscapabilities. An Iowa State University computational non-destructive evaluation (CNDE) group under Prof. L. Udpa

Figure 7. MOI Image of Simulated Third Layer Crack

Figure 8. MOI Image of Corrosion on ActualAircraft Belly Skin

Backside of skin

MOI image from front side of skin

Figure 9. Peak Value ofMagnetic Flux Densityas a Function ofCorrosion Dome Heightfor the Single andDouble LayerGeometry.

Corrosion

Chem-milled Step

Single Layer

Two Layers

(Current MOI)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Depth of Corrosion Dome (%)

Peak

Val

ue o

f Flu

x D

ensit

y (G

auss

)

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3 21

(now at Michigan State University) has performed these com-putations. One exercise was to determine the effect of the sec-ond layer of a lap joint on the detectability of corrosion on thebackside of the first layer.

The computations[2] were conducted for corrosion domes ofdepths 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of total thickness at the bot-tom of an aluminum plate. The model was then modified tostudy the effect of a second layer of aluminum in the geometrybelow the first layer. The presence of a second layer of alu-minum - below the corrosion, provides an additional path forthe induced eddy currents, thereby reducing the magnetic fluxat the sensor placed above the first plate. The peak values ofmagnetic field in the presence of the second layer are thereforereduced by a factor of 2. Figure 9 shows that peak amplitudesof the magnetic field B

→

z max are a function of height h of the cor-rosion dome for both single and double layer geometry.

These results are extremely useful in guiding further devel-opment of the MOI for the detection of corrosion in lap joints.This can be accomplished by a combination of increased sensorsensitivity and/or increase in eddy current induction. Suchimprovements are being implemented.

One additional example is the numerical verification of aninspection used at an Air Force ALC for the detection of cir-cumferential cracks in dimpled countersinks under rivet heads.Originally, the observation was made that the usual symmetri-cal MOI image of some rivet sites was distorted using linearcurrent induction. Upon visual inspection, a circumferentialcrack was detected in the countersink region. This effect waslater modeled and verified numerically[3]. The computationalregion is shown in Figure 10. The computed magnetic field dis-tribution is shown in Figure 11. The predicted MOI image can

be inferred from Figure 11 by taking a plane cut parallel to they-z plane through the field distribution. The resulting cross sec-tion will be the MOI image. Due to the asymmetry of the fielddistribution, the resulting image will be asymmetric. The actu-al MOI image is shown in Figure 12.

ProceduresProcedures for using MOI have been written by airlines, main-tenance facilities and the military. In particular, Boeing,Lockheed, Cessna and Bombardier have developed commercialinspection procedures and the military has written TechnicalOrders for KC-135s, B-52s, E-2s, P-3s, and C-141s.Gulfstream has issued a corrosion inspection procedure.

A recently issued procedure for the MOI uses traditionaleddy current spot probe procedures for the detection of hiddencracks in the skin along the chem-milled (doubler) edge on theback side of the outer skin. It was found that the MOI is sig-nificantly faster and easier to use. Boeing personnel estimatethat using the MOI for the chem-mill crack inspections wouldbe faster by at least a factor of four including verification ofMOI-detected cracks with a spot probe. Actual on-plane testsproved even faster.

The MOI permits the inspector to simultaneously locate thedoubler edge as well as scan for subsurface cracks along thedoubler edges from the front side of the skin. On the otherhand, using a spot probe, the inspector would first have to traceout the doubler edge, mark the location on the surface and thenuse the spot probe to inspect for cracks along the marked edge.This would be a very tedious procedure.

There have also been some creative uses of the instrument,not detailed in manufacturer’s procedures. Considerable success

Figure 10. Computational Grid for Dimpled Countersink withCircumferential Crack

Figure 11. Magnetic FieldDistribution for DimpledCountersink with Crack

Figure 12. MOI Image of Cracked Countersink (image on right)

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 322

has been achieved in using the MOI for screening old 707s forconversion to JSTARS specifications for the Air Force. TheMOI was used to rapidly identify aircraft unfit for use. Thisresulted in significant savings by avoiding unnecessary, expen-sive repairs. According to Bill Pember with Northrop-Grumman in Melbourne, Florida, initially these aircraft wereevaluated primarily through visual screening and documenta-tion review. They often required tremendous rework and repairto bring them up to the required level of quality and structuralintegrity. The cost associated with this labor-intensive task wasdifficult to accept. The newly developed philosophy (1998)which utilizes MOI in the assessment of aging aircraft hasreduced this problem and significant savings are now beingrealized.[4]

R&D activities and other applicationsDeveloping improvements to the MOI system is an on-goingactivity. Many of the improvements have been made asupgrades to existing units to minimize equipment obsoles-cence. Current activities include an FAA-sponsored researchprogram to improve the magneto-optic sensor’s sensitivity andto develop image processing techniques to improve and auto-mate defect recognition.

PRI has also cooperated with NASA under a Space ActAgreement. The intent is to develop a prototype reader forData Matrix symbols (used for direct parts marking (DPM))covered by paint and other coverings.

SummaryThe MOI technology represents a relatively new application ofmagneto-optics to NDT. It retains many attributes associatedwith eddy current testing with obvious advantages of providing avisual display of the results using only analog methods. In thisarticle, we have summarized the development of the MOI sinceits introduction to the NDT community a decade ago. Althoughthe instrument is now widely used by both commercial and mil-itary installations to inspect for surface and subsurface defects,the route to general acceptance and use by the community has

been long and serendipitous. As yet, there is no well-definedprocess or criteria by which new technologies are introduced andaccepted into the marketplace. The OEM on whose aircraft theinstrument will be used must approve use of the instrument forspecific inspections. If no general procedures exist, then each air-line must receive specific approval for its use. The difficulty is thedevelopment of general criteria applicable to all possible inspec-tions of a multiple variety of structural designs.

For more information The preceding article describes an NDT technique aiding in

the search for corrosion and other flaws on aging aircraft. Whilethe article details specific materials-related attributes of this sys-tem’s design and implementation, this is just one of many tech-niques available in the large field of NDT The interested read-er is encouraged to consult our colleagues at theNondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center (NTIAC,one of 13 Defense Technical Information Center IACs likeAMPTIAC) who specialize in this field. NTIAC can providemore information on NDE techniques, systems and standards,as well as links to other resources in the NDE community.

NTIAC can be reached at www.ntiac.com, or 1-800-NTIAC39.

References[1] “The Validation Process as Applied to the Magneto-Optic/Eddy Current Imager (MOI),” Vanessa Brechling(Northwestern University) and Floyd Spencer (Sandia NationalLaboratories), Materials Evaluation, July, 1995, Vol. 53, No. 7,pp. 815-818.[2] “Finite-Element Predictions of MOI Performance forApplication to Aging Aircraft Inspection” Lalita Udpa, inCenter for NDE News, Iowa State University, Vol. 10, Issue 3,Winter 2000.[3] Private communications from Professor L. Udpa and Dr. L.Xuan of Michigan State University.[4] Private communications from Bill Pember, Northrop-Grumman, Melbourne, FL.

Help us update our mailing list

315 . 3 3 9 . 7 0 9 2

f a x 315 . 3 3 9 . 7 10 7

ampt iac@i i t r i . o rg

P lease i nc lude t he 5 o r 6 d ig i t ID number on t he ma i l i ng labe l o f each subsc r ip t ion you w i sh to upda te .

AMPTIAC

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3 23

AMPTIAC DirectoryGovernment Personnel

TECHNICAL MANAGER/COTRDr. Lewis E. Sloter IIStaff Specialist, Materials & StructuresODUSD(S&T)/Weapons Systems1777 North Kent St., Suite 9030Arlington, VA 22209-2110(703) 588-7418, Fax: (703) 588-7560Email: lewis.sloter@osd.mil

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POCMelinda Rozga, DTIC-AI8725 John J. Kingman Road, STE 0944Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218(703) 767-9120, Fax: (703) 767-9119Email: mrozga@dtic.mil

ASSOCIATE COTRS

CERAMICS, CERAMIC COMPOSITES

Dr. S. Carlos SandayNaval Research Laboratory4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Code 6303Washington, DC 20375-5343(202) 767-2264, Fax: (202) 404-8009Email: sanday@anvil.nrl.navy.mil

ORGANIC STRUCTURAL MATERIALS & ORGANIC MATRIX COMPOSITES

Roger GriswoldDivision ChiefUS Air ForceAFRL/MLS2179 Twelfth St., Bldg. 652Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7702(937) 656-6052, Fax: (937) 255-2945Email: roger.griswold@wpafb.af.mil

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

& SPECIAL FUNCTION MATERIALS

Dr. James MurdayNaval Research Laboratory4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Code 6100Washington, DC 20375-5320(202) 767-3026, Fax: (202) 404-7139Email: murday@ccsalpha3.nrl.navy.mil

DIRECTOR, AMPTIACDavid Rose201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315) 339-7023, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: drose@iitri.org

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AMPTIACChristian E. Grethlein, P.E.201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315)-339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: cgrethlein@iitri.org

TECHNICAL INQUIRY SERVICES MANAGER

David Brumbaugh201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315) 339-7113, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: dbrumbaugh@iitri.org

Overworked? Overloaded? Could you use some materials engineering help? AMPTIAC can provide answers to materials-related technical questions.

Here’s how it works: You contact our inquiry manager with the problem. Theinquiry manager discusses the problem with you to make sure we understand exactly whatyou need. He then assigns the task to an AMPTIAC technical expert with knowledge andexperience of the discipline in question.

AMPTIAC maintains the DOD’s knowledge base in advanced materials; nearly 220,000 technical reports addressingall classes of materials. Our database contains information on properties, durability, applications, processes, and more.Plus if we don’t find it in our resources, we also have direct access to NASA and DOE databases. With this tremendousamount of data, our engineering staff can save you time and money by quickly providing you with off-the-shelf infor-mation or technical solutions that directly meet your needs.

For smaller inquiries and bibliographic searches we can provide you some information free of charge. Larger efforts areon a cost-reimbursable basis but under no circumstances do we begin work before you accept our quote and issue us apurchase order. For more information on how we can help you, please contact AMPTIAC’s Inquiry Services Manager,Mr. David Brumbaugh, at (315) 339-7113.

A Recent Example A government contractor asked us to locate and compile properties of carbon fiber composites at cryogenic temperature.In less than 2 weeks we:

• performed a literature review • identified 162 relevant technical reports • reviewed the reports and extracted appropriate data • organized 152 pages of data in a binder • and cross-linked the data to a searchable spreadsheet

The resultant data book provided the contractor with valuable information they needed in their effort to design a satel-lite structure.

IITRI Personnel