DoD Releases Landmark Cost of Corrosion Study

Agency Completes Data Analysis for Two New Reports in Study’s Second Phase

By Eric Herzberg

The DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight has released three new reports as part of the second phase of a broad-based, landmark study on the cost of corrosion for all military equipment and infrastructure. (To read a summary of Phase one results, which address the cost of corrosion for Army ground vehicles and Navy ships, click here.) One of the new reports estimates the cost of corrosion for DoD facilities and infrastructure. The second report analyzes corrosion costs for Army aviation and missile equipment and the third addresses corrosion costs for Marine Corps ground vehicles.

The Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (IPT) completed the most recent studies on June 30, 2007.

LMI Government Consulting prepared the three new reports, under the aegis of the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control IPT. The first report is titled "The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Facilities and Infrastructure" and is discussed below. The second and third studies are called The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Army Aviation and Missile Equipment and The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Marine Corps Ground Vehicles, respectively. Please click on either of the two above-mentioned reports to learn more about their results. All three reports are now available to the public.

Cost of Corrosion Highlights—Phase Two Report on Facilities and Infrastructure

The estimated annual corrosion costs for DoD facilities and infrastructure is $1.77 billion each year. Below are key conclusions from the report, taken from the Executive Summary prepared by LMI.

Figure 1.   Cost of Corrosion for DoD Facilities and Infrastructure (Fiscal Year 2005)

The highest costs of corrosion occur during the performance of facilities and infrastructure maintenance, from the standpoint of a total cost and a percentage of expenditure. The cost of corrosion for maintenance is approximately seven times higher than corrosion costs associated with construction. There are two main reasons for this:

• Corrosion is rarely identified as a justification for the construction of a new facility.
• If estimated construction costs need to be reduced to obtain funding of the project, preventive corrosion measures are among the first considered for removal.

Maintenance costs caused by corrosion generally increase as the time of wetness increases. We do not see the same impact for the corrosion costs associated with installations located within 1 mile of seawater, which is our measure of the presence of airborne salinity.

DoD spent more than twice as much on corrective corrosion maintenance ($1,042 million) as it did on preventive corrosion maintenance ($504 million). However, of the total preventive facility and infrastructure maintenance expenditures, more than one-third are corrosion-related.

Cost–Reduction Opportunities

Facility and infrastructure types that are large in total size are generally the highest contributors to total corrosion costs, but they have a low corrosion cost per unit of size measurement. For example, the three facilities with the highest total corrosion costs from Table 1 are also among the three largest facilities in terms of total size (only Facility 4421 is larger); however, each of these three facilities has a fairly low corrosion cost per square foot. The facilities with a high corrosion cost per unit of size measurement, such as ship maintenance dry-dock (Facility 2131) and electrical power substation (Facility 8131), are better targets of opportunity for corrosion cost reduction.

Table 1.   Top 10 Corrosion Costs by Facility Analysis Category

The application of the eight corrosion-related "best practices" listed in the full cost of corrosion report will help reduce corrosion costs. Among them is the use of anti-corrosion water treatment for closed-loop heating and cooling systems. Specific studies by DoD installations have found that leaving the water untreated in closed loop systems not only raises corrective corrosion costs, but also lowers the operating efficiency of the system over time by 10 to 15 percent. This results in increased energy costs by approximately the same proportion. The diligent treatment of closed-loop heating and cooling systems with anti-corrosive measures could lower both corrective corrosion costs and energy expenditures.

Using Corrosion Cost Information to Improve Sustainment Cost Estimates

Each year the military services estimate what resources are needed to effectively maintain their facilities and infrastructure. This estimate for each facility involves calculating a sustainment cost factor (SCF). The SCF includes a cost of corrosion for each facility, but it does not differentiate between the varying environmental corrosion impacts. For example, the corrosion costs per square foot for a "Family Housing Dwelling" (Facility 7110) in Hawaii are the same costs per square foot as a "Family Housing Dwelling" in Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

We believe the data contained in this study can assist with refining and improving the actual estimate for sustaining each DoD facility.

To download a complete copy of the report The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Facilities and Infrastructure, click here. DoD officials explain the results, history, goals, and methodology of the Cost of Corrosion study in that document. Look for in-depth reports on various phases of the Cost of Corrosion study in future issues of CorrDefense.

Cynthia Greenwood contributed to this report.

CorrDefense Home  |  Top Stories  |  Featured Projects   |   Inside DoD  |  Conferences  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2005-2008 CorrDefense