Galvanic Corrosion Protection:

Those Old Galvanic Potential Tables Are Finally Being Replaced

The galvanic potential tables people have been using for years often give the wrong answer. Now the
U.S. Navy is taking a new approach and updating MIL-STD-889, the galvanic corrosion standard,
replacing galvanic charts and tables with corrosion rate calculations. What does this mean for
industry?

Contact: Alan Rose (arose@corrdesa.com ), Corrdesa LLC; www.corrdesa.com; 770-683-3960

1
Although most people think of the U.S. Navy as ships patrolling the world’s oceans, the size of the U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps air force is second only to the US Air Force, with a total of over 3,700 aircraft of
all types. With aircraft flying from the decks of aircraft carriers around the world, these Naval aircraft are
extremely sophisticated machines operating in some of the world’s harshest environments. Because
aircraft are so complex, galvanic corrosion is their primary corrosion problem, costing $3.6 billion per
year. Even without extreme conditions, the risk of galvanic corrosion plagues products across the
majority of industries, from oilfield equipment to cell phones.

Corrdesa has developed Corrosion Djinn™ for the U.S. Navy as an easy to use web application that
allows any engineer, technician, designer or manager to quickly predict both self corrosion and
galvanic corrosion with nothing but a mobile phone. Winner of the 2017 Materials Performance
Innovation of the Year Award, Corrosion Djinn is available for commercial use.

What is wrong with galvanic tables?

Galvanic potential tables have been in use for 50 years so, what is wrong with them? At a recent US
Department of Defense workshop, Victor Rodriguez-Santiago discussed how the work of the US Office of
Naval Research Sea-Based Aviation Program has confirmed what materials engineers have known all
along– that galvanic corrosion is not simply a matter of differences in galvanic potentials. What really
matters is the galvanic current that this potential difference creates, and that depends on the rate of
electrochemical reactions at the surface.

What is the danger of relying on galvanic tables?

Consider a scenario where an engineer must
perform maintenance on the wing of an F-18
aircraft. The engineer opens up the wing of the
aircraft after a few years of service to see
hundreds of bolt holes, all galvanically corroded
like the picture on the left. The repair procedure
involves grinding away corroded material and
inserting a bushing to restore the hole diameter.
In this case, there are two bushing material
options available; stainless steel and titanium, but
how does the engineer determine which bushing
to use? MIL-STD-889 states that stainless steel is a
Inside an F-18 wing. (NAVAIR Public Release SPR-2012-982)
much better material to use with aluminum.
However, the next time the aircraft comes in for
repair, corrosion is much worse around the bushings and they all must be removed and replaced with
bigger ones, which causes even worse corrosion. The graph in the figure below shows how the galvanic
potential tables produced a compounding corrosion issue by suggesting that stainless steel is a better
material choice over titanium based on the potential difference.

Contact: Alan Rose (arose@corrdesa.com ), Corrdesa LLC; www.corrdesa.com; 770-683-3960

2
Presentation made by Victor Rodriguez-Santiago, ASETSDefense Workshop 2018

Clearly having a better understanding of the

phenomenon of galvanic corrosion together with
usable predictive tools and methodologies should
contribute significantly to reducing corrosion costs.
However, it is important that the fundamental
science leveraged by such guidelines and tools
should be robust. One example where standards
have been correctly applied but have still resulted in
poor design choices or oversights is the corrosion
issue with the F-22 fighter that resulted in $228M in
repair costs. “The root cause of this problem lay
within the galvanic couple between the conductive
Figure 1. $228M repair for galvanic corrosion
gap filler and aluminum skin panels.” 1 Had

1
Dunmire. D.J., Director, DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, reported in CorrDefense, Spring 2011, Vol7,
Number 1
Contact: Alan Rose (arose@corrdesa.com ), Corrdesa LLC; www.corrdesa.com; 770-683-3960
3
Corrosion Djinn™ been available to the designers, then the risk would have been identified immediately
and the problem could have been avoided.

New Practice for 2019 Revision of MIL-STD -889

As Rodriguez-Santiago explained, in 2019 the MIL standard is being modified to overcome the shortfalls
of using galvanic potential tables by using the calculation of galvanic current instead. In preparation for
this, Appendix B of MIL-STD-889C states that the maximum corrosion current is actually identified by the
crossing point of the material polarization curves. This “Curve Crossing” method is based on the well-
known fact that when two dissimilar materials are in physical contact in the presence of an electrolyte,
the total ion current from the corroding material must equal the total current from the noble material.
This Mixed Potential Approach is a standard method used in electrochemical analysis and is the
foundation of Corrdesa’s Corrosion Djinn™.

Verified and Validated as required by the Navy standard MIL-STD-3022, Corrosion Djinn™ is currently
being used by NAVAIR and several commercial companies in different industries. Not only does this tool
provide an accurate prediction of corrosion risk, it also provides a way of evaluating alternative
materials, coatings and finishes to solve galvanic corrosion problems.

While galvanic potential tables crudely compare generic materials, Corrosion Djinn™ is based on a
continuously expanding database of modern alloys, heat treatments, coatings and finishes. All of the
data taken is measured using a standardized method, so that it accurately represents the materials
actually used in a product.

Implementation & Compliance with MIL-STD-889D using Curve-Crossing

Corrosion Djinn™ is a fast and easy-to-use web application tool that can be used by anyone, whether or
not they are experienced in using galvanic tables. The user can quickly evaluate pairs of alloys, coatings
and treatments to assess galvanic compatibility or choose better combinations (click to see a short
demo).

Material 1 Material 2 ΔE (mV) Self-corr Rate, Galv Corr Galv

(Anode) (Cathode) anode (µm/yr) Rate, anode Acceleration
(µm/yr) Factor
Al 7075-T6 Stainless 756 18.4 123 6.7
bare 15-5PH
Al 7075-T6 Stainless 778 9E-3 85 9520
BSAA+Cr6 15-5PH
seal
Al 7075-T6 Ti6Al4V 773 9E-3 1.5 173
BSAA+Cr6
seal

It takes just a few minutes to generate a comparison table showing that a titanium bushing reduces
corrosion by two orders of magnitude compared with stainless steel, and that anodizing contributes
very little towards galvanic corrosion resistance.

Contact: Alan Rose (arose@corrdesa.com ), Corrdesa LLC; www.corrdesa.com; 770-683-3960

4
Consider the F-18 scenario from earlier. This time, when an engineer has to specify a material for
bushings to be used in an airframe repair, instead of relying on the galvanic tables, the engineer has
access to Corrosion Djinn™. As we can see in the above table, the bushing material is very important, as
a poor material choice causes significant galvanic corrosion risk. Using Djinn, it takes just a few minutes
to set up 3 possible couples to examine the impact of repair options: (1) anodizing the Al 7075-T6
airframe, (2) inserting a 15-5 PH stainless steel bushing or (3) using a Ti6Al4V bushing. All the relevant
polarization curves are pulled from the database and crossed to calculate the respective corrosion
currents. Based on the comparison table above, the engineer would use the titanium bushings not
stainless steel.

What does this mean for industry?

Use of galvanic potential tables for predicting galvanic corrosion is almost universal. Most defense
contracts require that suppliers use MIL-STD-889, or equivalent, to minimize corrosion, and many
manufacturers of non-military equipment follow the same approach. The specification shift from
galvanic potential tables to accurate galvanic corrosion rates is a positive modification that will reduce
the occurrence of corrosion damage and structural failure, especially in complex systems such as
electronics and aircraft. However, meeting the new standard requires a major shift in the way that
engineering design and repair decisions are made. Corrosion Djinn™ was developed to satisfy the
requirement of the revised standards, simplify the transition, and solve galvanic corrosion issues for
today and tomorrow. Having a tool to combat galvanic corrosion and improve material choice is a cost
saving benefit to all industries regardless of size.

As the use of this approach grows, the electrochemical data on which it rests will need to grow with it.
As new materials and coatings are developed, new electrochemical data must be measured by a
qualified electrochemical laboratory. At Corrdesa, new materials and coatings data are actively being
added to the curated Corrosion Djinn™ database to better serve the user by gathering all decision
making data into one convenient, accurate, and easy to use web based application tool.

Contact: Alan Rose (arose@corrdesa.com ), Corrdesa LLC; www.corrdesa.com; 770-683-3960

5