c[eaningtimes

Using Simp[e Scienceto Assay Surface C[ean[iness

rhen one considers production of aircraft components, one thinks of "rocket science" or "high-level" technology of some sort. This column is about measuring the diameter of a drop of water with a magnifying glass and a vernier-not "rocket science!" This column is about assessing the cleanliness of the surface of aircraft frames. It is about proven technology that can be used to measure surface cleanliness of nearly any finished metal (or plastic) surface. This column is about the use of instruments that can be purchased at WalMart. has so much currency of use. Handheld models, shown in Figure 3, cost less than $500, but are not useful for large surfaces-such as aircraft frames.

"WETTABILITY"--NOT JUST FOR BABIES ANYMORE The character of a surface can be partially or completely characterized by observing what happens to a drop of water carefully placed on it. 1'2 There are two general possibilities3: The droplet wets a clean surface

Actual industrial experience is that the drop conformation lies between the images of Figures 1 and 2. That conformation, and surface cleanliness, is evaluated t h r o u g h measurement 4 of the angle the drop makes with the surface-called the contact angle. Low contact angles, relative to the vertical, represent higher levels of cleanliness. Values typically range from 20or 25 o for a clean surface to no more than 100 for a highly soiled one. In other [Drop Diameter] 3 words, the contact angle Drop Volume that a drop of Equation 1 water makes w i t h a surface is taken as a proxy for cleanliness of that surface.

SIMPLICITY, BY J.J. BIKERMAN J. J. Bikerman found, more than 60 years ago, ~ that for water droplets below a certain size, the contact angle could be determined simply by measuring the droplet diameter, if the drop volume was known. 6'7 One uses a micro-pipette or micro-syringe to dispense a selected volume from 1 to 20 microliters. 8 This can be the same equipment that is used to inject liquid samples in gas chromatography (GC).

24 x (s/n0/
x (2 - (3 x c o s o l
+

fcosel')

and spreads out (see Figure 1).

Contact Angle

\\\\\\\, \\\,\\(~~/~\~\\\\,
Figure 1
I I

\\\\\\\\

The same droplet p[aced on a dirty surface does not wet the surface and appears to "float" on the surface (see Figure 2).

MEASUREMENT OF CONTACT ANGLE The device normally used for to make this measurement is called a goniometer. Today, the U.S. and global market for goniometers is served with units whose purchase price is closer to $10,000 U.S. than $100. The former are hard to justify for the management of common cleaning tasks. This author believes that is a major reason why the water break test

A.45""
Figure 3

Figure 2

Equation 1 relates controlled drop volume, measured diameter, and calculated contact angle (0). The best way to measure drop size is Figure4 with magnification, viewed from the top (see Figure 4). A digital camera can record the image within one or two seconds after the drop is deposited on the surface by the syringe. Then the digital image can be examined by whatever software is available, and the diameter estimated. Equipment needed here (a pipette or syringe, a magnifier, and a vernier scale) should be called negligible in the budget of any organization that values cleanliness. Equation 1 is not solved by direct algebra. Iterative solutions are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for drop sizes of 20, 10, 5, and 2 microliters (lal). At the 20-microliter size and
February 20081 metaffinishing 149

/ / I/

www.metaffinishing.com

c[eaningtimes
THE FATE OF A LIQUID DROP
Solution of the Bikermen Equation
'

i
1

and painted. Reference 10 contains a conspicuous and diverse collection of data about evaluations of the quality of cleanliness of various sections of the Lockheed C-130 aircraft assemblies.
MILLER'S TALE

~,. I k\\\
~, \ "%

+!

--

--

\~\\
1 ~,~ ~

\
",,~.+ ~ "~,~

2 4 6 8 Measured Drop Diameter,Mlcrona

I0

- - 20 u L i t e r - - 10 ~ L i t e r - - 50Liter - - 2 OUter

Figure5

5 6 7 8 9 Meuured DropO(~de+, lllclo~

--50L --2uL

10

--200L

--101~L

Figure6
t00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7----[ ......................... T ............ lo0

Miller used a low-power optical microscope with a calibrated reticle to measure drop diameter, and then determined the contact angle by reading the diameter from a graph similar to Figure 5 or 6. Miller began by developing a screening procedure to identify the minimum level of surface cleanliness necessary to meet the specification for 92% paint adhesion. Chromate-clad aluminum panels were cleaned and then deliberately soiled using various quantities of stearic acid, to create a set of samples with contact angles ranging from about 10 to 90% These panels were then coated with the U.S. Navy epoxy-polyamide paint system and, after curing, the adhesion of the paint was tested. (Results are shown in Figure 7.) The minimum acceptable contact angle was found to be about 33 to achieve 92% adhesion. Note in Figure 7 how contact angle is a strong function of cleanliness, and that Miller's goal of 92% adhesion did not require a high level of surface cleanliness.
MANAGEMENT OF SURFACE CLEANLINESS Various portions of an airframe were cleaned with various methods in multiple applications. Then various airframe locations within each portion were tested for cleanliness before paint was applied. In Figure 8, it is clear that for all

side tailptane area of the airframe, a second cleaning step was unnecessary. Here the contact angles measured after both the first (green bar) and second cleaning (yellow bar) are below the goal value (brown bar). Lower contact angles represent better cleaning. In Figure 9, it is dear that for all

Figure 9

three test locations on the port side wheel weU-top area, the first cleaning step was not adequate and a second step of cleaning treatment was necessary to meet paint adhesion goats. Note the substantial reduction in contact angle produced by the second cleaning step. In Figure 10, the reproducibility

,41,~

Angle

mGoal

Figure 10

Figure 7

above, gravitational forces may distort the one-dimensional description of Equation 1. Figure 5 is for larger contact angles (less clean surfaces). Figure 6 is for smaller contact angles (more clean surfaces). These solutions are easily generated by any spreadsheet with an optimization function.
APPLICATION TO AIRFRAMES Bikerman's ideas seem to have lain fallow until the 1970s, when Miller, 9 at Lockheed, revived them and demonstrated their use in a major aircraft paint shop where fuselages and other components were cleaned

is good. However, at all three locations of the front part of the starboard side wing panel, the cleaning quality is not adequate. The contact angles are all above goal! APPLICATION TO CLEANING OF AIRFRAMES Consider at least two aspects of Miller's work: The parts being cleaned were Large (airframe components), as opposed to small components such as connectors or lenses, which are the type of parts upon which wettabiLity measurements are normally made. The part surface being tested was

Figure8 three test locations on the port

February2008 1meta[finishing 150

www.meta[finishing.com

c[eaningtimes
too large to fit within a goniomter. Because the surface being evaluated was large, workers evaluated various portions of it in place by measuring the diameter of applied drops. Miller plainly showed that in highliability situations, legitimate and valuable cleaning work can be tested without complex and expensive facilities. Lockheed management were so impressed with the utility, simplicity, and cost of this method of cleanliness management, they believed other firms would be attracted by those values. In the 1970s, Lockheed sold a kit of a microscope and the associated calibration graphs under the trade name "Surf-Scope." The product is no longer commercially offered.
SUMMARY Cleanliness can be characterized in industrial applications via "simple" wettability measurements, and has been successfully done so in situations involving aircraft parts. A problem in much of general manufacturing and maintenance industries is not that more sophisticated measurement and evaluation technology is necessary to provide value, but it is that technology developed generations ago has not been more widely and profitably used.

(May);103(5):72-9. 2. Kuhn A. Determining whether a metal surface is really clean: two testing methods offer an inexpensive yet accurate means for measuring cleanliness. Metal Finishing 2005 (Sept);103(9):16-21. 3. This differentiation is at the basis of the unfortunately popular Water Break Test. The author's disparagement, and that of many others, is that this test is poorly reproducible. Commonly used, yes. Simple, yes. Low cost, yes. But practically useless. 4. Durkee JB, Kuhn A. Wettability measurements and cleanliness evaluation without substantial

cost. In: Mittal K, editor. Contact Angle, Wettability and Adhesion. Vol. 5, 2008 (in press). $. Bikerman JJ. Transactions of the Faraday Society 1940;36:412. 6. Bikerman JJ. Ind Eng Chem 1941;13:443-4. 7. Mack GL. J Phys Chem 1936;40:159-6Z The author reports his observation that the formula is applicable only for small hemispherical drops (less than 10 lam in diameter), which are not distorted by gravitational effects. 8. Herzberg WJ, Marian JE. J Colloid Interface Sci 1970;33:161-3. 9. Miller RN. Material Protection Performance 1973;12(5):31-6.

A Wodd of Solvents for Cleaning, Degreasing and...

Peace of Mind.

The largest and most trusted name in mPropyl Bromide (nPB) Solvents for the 8th straight year.

BIO John Durkee is the author of the book "Management of Industrial Cleaning Technology and Processes,"published by Elsevier (ISBN 0-0804-48887). He is an independent consultant specializing in metal and critical cleaning. You can contact him at P.O. Box 847, Hunt, TX78024 or 122 t6"dgeRoad West, Hunt, TX 78024; (830) 238-7610; Fax (612) 677-3170; or jdurleee@precisioncleaning.com.
NOTES 1. Kuhn A. Starting off with a clean slate: using dyne liquids is one of the easiest and most cost-effective means of assessing surface cleanliness. Metal Finishing 2005
www.metalfinishing.com

k, Environmentally friendly
www, solvon.com

Precisioncleaning Non-flammable Non-aqueous Highsolvency Non-residue Low cost

S~von solvents,fr~ll Po[ySystemsLISA,Inc., are gqepreferredno.aqueous and norfllammablesolvents used in precisionindbsOial~ e a ~ l , coaling d e ~ and aero~l f o r ~ s . Solv~ PB and So~il @ IP are stabilizedblendsef nPBltlat are widely all;opted fo~"prlcizto~ ~dusOief cleaningduring ~ ~ ~ I I ~ for elecl~nic a~ambly soMerfl~ ~ , SOW~ AE8is fon11ulal~ll~veclfically~/aero~Is formuleflon,pagllcularly~ e ~ . , a l coplact c l e ~ , In a ~ o ~ So, on B serie~blen~ exl~it super~ weting propertiesin a rapid drying solventthat m~e it ideal for fine film silic~e depos~on ~ ~ well as I~ flu~ing lin~ in cri~a] reffigerali~ a l ~ , For more i ~ ( x l ~ Co(itactLI~at:

38 Averm C byeMe, NJ O'R~ Tef: (201) 437-il800 E-rod: S ~ A W ~ S e k ~

Circle 038 on reader information

card or go to www.metaifinishing.com/advertisers

February 2008 1metalfinishing 151