Reducing Corrosion Costs through Reliability Centered Design

David H. Rose, Quanterion Solutions Inc.

Key Words: corrosion prevention and control, life-cycle costs, cost of corrosion, reliability centered design
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
A Federal Highway Administration study published in
2001 indicated that corrosion costs the US economy
$276B/year, or 3.1% of the U.S. gross domestic product
(GDP). This study was based upon an analysis of twenty-six
individual sectors of the US economy. In response to the
conclusions, Congress directed the DOD, one of the sectors
examined in the study, to implement a focused, Departmentwide program to address the problem. Congress later directed
DOD to sponsor the National Research Council to investigate
the curricula at our Nations institutes of higher learning and
make recommendations to improve the corrosion education
that undergraduate engineering students receive.
Improving engineering education will help reduce the cost
of corrosion. Taking full advantage of improved skills,
however, while enabling the current workforce to effectively
help in the fight, will require the development, promotion, and
institutionalization of practical corrosion analysis tools. To
ensure that potential cost reductions are maximized, the
discipline employing these proposed tools must currently play
an active role in product design and sustainment, and the tools
must be integrated into currently accepted practices.
Since reliability engineers routinely work with designers,
maintainers, and other specialties that support the entire
product life-cycle, they possess an understanding of systemlevel design and aging far exceeding that possessed by
designers and most, if not all, other engineering disciplines.
This perspective, if appropriately focused towards corrosion,
provides the opportunity for the reliability community to
evolve and improve its current analytical processes, thus
helping break down the barriers that have long impeded the
implementation of effective corrosion prevention and control
(CP&C) practices.
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century was signed into law. A provision within this act
directed the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
sponsor a study on the cost of corrosion. This study was
conducted by Dublin, Ohio based CC Technologies in
coordination with NACE International - The Corrosion
Society [1]. Despite being funded by the FHWA, the study
examined corrosion costs that extended far beyond the field of
transportation.
Twenty-six sectors of the US economy were examined
under the study and the annual cost of corrosion for most of

1-4244-1461-X/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

them was estimated (see Figure 1). Inspection of this figure

reveals that several sectors, including two that have long been
application areas supported by the reliability community
(electronics and telecommunications), do not have any
corrosion costs listed. This was due to the fact that the data
for these technology areas could not be obtained. Because
there are also significant indirect costs due to corrosion as well
as routine instances where corrosion-related failure is
attributed to other causes, the $276B annual cost of corrosion
could be considered a conservative estimate.
2 DOD IMPLEMENTS PROGRAM TO REDUCE COSTS
Most of the sectors examined in the FHWAs study
represent broad segments of the US economy, which precludes
the effective implementation of wide-scale and far reaching
corrosion mitigation measures. The one exception was the
Defense sector, which has a hierarchical command structure
that adapts and responds to ever changing requirements.
In response to the studys conclusions, Congress enacted
a law requiring the DOD to implement a Department-wide
program to reduce corrosion costs. The Pentagon responded
by establishing the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight,
which was charged with developing and guiding the new
corrosion program. With the support of this office, DOD has
subsequently taken numerous actions including the
development and implementation of new policies, guidebooks,
and directives, as well as a revision to the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS). Because of
these and many other measures, future DOD system
development efforts will pay far more up-front attention to
designing in corrosion resistance. Thus, this sector of the
economy should experience marked reductions in future
corrosion costs as legacy systems, equipment, and
infrastructure are replaced with more durable items.
2.1 Reducing Corrosion Costs in Other Sectors
Several years after its corrosion program had started; the
DOD was once again directed by Congress to take action on a
related matter. In this instance, the Department was required
to sponsor a National Academies study to investigate whether
the technical content found within existing undergraduate
engineering curricula at our Nations engineering colleges and
universities provides graduates with the skills needed todesign
corrosion resistance into structures, equipment, and systems.
The National Research Council, the investigative arm of the
National Academies, is currently conducting this study.

Summary of Estimated Direct Cost of Corrosion for Industry Sectors Analyzed in this Study
Nuclear Waste Storage

le

rW

te
s

to

Defense
Home Appliances

Electronics
Food Processing

Agricultural
P

Chem., Petrochem., Pharm.

.,P

tro

Petroleum Refining

p
l

ro
t

e
l

fe

lia

c
i

ro

in
s

ric

,P
.

ltu

fin

la
i

E
s

p
x

a
l

Hazardous Materials Transport

H

za

rd

M
s

o
r

te

ria

ls
T

a
r

Railroad Cars

io
t

Telecommunications

e
l

Electrical Utilities

e
l

to

V
r

tric

n
i

$0.1

$0.9
C

Ships
o

$3.7

n
i

$1.7

tr

Aircraft

Motor Vehicles

$6.0

$1.4

ilro

$1.1

s
p

$2.1

in

Oil and Gas Expl and Production

$0.0

rm

$1.5

a
r

$20.0

s
e

tro

Mining
O

$0.1
n

e
l

Pulp and Paper

a
r

ic

lU

irc

ra

ft

p
i

ic

tile

$0.5

rs

le

tio

$2.2
$2.7

$23.4

$0.0

$6.9

Drinking Water, and Sewer Systems

D

rin

n
i

e
t

r,a

Gas Distribution

S
r

te
s
y

D
s

is
trb

Railroads

io
t

ilro

za

rd

M
s

Waterways and Ports

te

ria

e
t

ls
T

a
r

rw

s
p

a
s
y

a
s

q
i

d
i

a
r

s
m

ig

ip

Gas and Liquid Transm Pipelines

Highway Bridges

irp

ts
r

$0.0
0
$7.0

B
y

tr

in
l

$5.0

Airports
Hazardous Materials Transport

$36.0

ts
r

$0.3
$7.0

rid

$8.3

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

$40.0

Cost of Corrosion Per Analyzed Economic Sector ($ x billion)

Figure 1 - Results from the Cost of Corrosion Study [1]

study and upon its conclusion, will make specific
recommendations for curricular improvement.
Because the remaining twenty-five sectors of the US
economy are diverse and scattered, have no centralized
leadership or oversight, and largely fall outside the control of
the Federal government, Congress has little power to enact
measures to reduce their corrosion costs. It is for this reason
that improved education of engineering students is so
important since its the common thread among all sectors.
Improved
educational
practices
alone
wont
comprehensively reduce overall corrosion costs but it will
provide the foundation for more effective implementation of
CP&C. Fully benefiting from educational improvements so
that the costs in all twenty-six sectors are reduced to the
maximum extent possible can be assured if the engineering
specialties currently supporting product design and
sustainment evolve their existing processes to consider
corrosion during routine analyses.

3 PRODUCT DESIGN: CORROSION STARTS HERE!

Decisions made during design such as what materials to
use and what preventive measures to employ largely dictate
how resistant a product will later be to corrosion.
Thecorollary to this statement is that the point in the life-cycle
where corrosion-related decisions are first made combined
with the amount of effort that went into making them
determines how much it will later cost to control or mitigate
corrosion once an item is fielded.
Figure 2 relates to the DOD acquisition life-cycle but in
general, the concepts described apply to all development
efforts. The series of lines on this figure indicate where
CP&C is first considered by the design team. If planning
begins during the pre-acquisition process, optimal decisions
can be made when and where necessary to assure that future
corrosion costs are minimized. If corrosion planning doesnt
begin until product design; a system, structure, or component
can still obtain adequate corrosion resistance if its considered

Corrosion Cost ($$$$)

(or Difficulty to Remediate)

Where the Impact of Design

Decisions Appear

Earlier Consideration of Corrosion

Offers Greater Return on Investment

Product Design
Including
Materials Selection and
Specification of Initial
CP&C Technologies
Concept and Technology
Development
Pre-Systems
Acquisition

System Development
and Demonstration

Implementation of
Corrosion Mitigation
Practices
Production and
Deployment

Systems Acquisition (Engineering, Development,

Demonstration, LRIP, & Production)

Support
Sustainment and
Maintenance

Acquisition Life Cycle

Figure 2 Decisions Made Early in the Product Life-Cycle Have Enormous Implications Later
early in the cycle. However, if corrosion isnt considered until
late in the design process, or not at all, there will likely be
serious financial repercussions. Correcting design deficiencies
late in the development phase or after a product has been
fielded can be an enormously expensive proposition.
3.1 Considering Corrosion During Product Design
There are many technical considerations that must be
made in order to develop products that resist corrosion. One
of the most important is materials selection, which designers
typically conduct by matching the designs performance
requirements (e.g. strength, stiffness, conductivity, etc.) to
those of the candidate materials. In some cases theyll select a
material from an approved list that was developed from either
past experience or material availability. In other cases, they
may select a few candidate materials and then choose one
based upon how well it meets the performance requirements or
perhaps even more importantly, on how much it costs.
In a perfect world, the most suitable corrosion resistant
material will always be selected for each application. Because
these materials are typically more expensive than their
corrodible counterparts, their use will always remain limited.
However, this doesnt mean that a product constructed from
cheaper materials is doomed to experience high corrosion
rates. There are many other ways that a design can be
protected from a corrosive environment. These include the
application of protective materials including platings, primers,

coatings, and corrosion preventive compounds. Specific

design details such as proper joining methods or drainage are
also needed to control corrosion. These are but a few of the
measures that can be applied to control corrosion.
Very few design engineers have much experience with
corrosion. As a result, the phenomenon is typically addressed
at a cursory level, at best, during product design. This
statement isnt universally true since many industries pay a
great deal of attention to corrosion. Their motivations for
doing so are as varied as the applications themselves. In some
cases, these corrosion-conscious industries are driven by
customer expectations for long product life and low
maintenance costs. This example is particularly reflective of
todays aircraft industry. In other situations such as oil or
chemical processing; structures, piping systems, and related
equipment must be durable enough to provide for continuous
operation, thus ensuring profitability. Still other industries
such as automotive may pay increased attention to corrosion to
provide competitive advantages within the marketplace or to
address warranty, safety or product liability concerns. For
applications such as these, materials engineers will often work
with designers in order to select the optimum materials.
The industries and companies that have primary concerns
with corrosion are a small subset of the entire economy. For
the vast majority of design efforts, corrosion is either not
considered during the pre-acquisition/early design phases of
the product life-cycle or it is given minimal attention. The net

result can be seen in the massive corrosion costs that were

estimated in FHWAs study. It should be noted that corrosion
is not an issue confined solely to the structural design. The
practices and materials used to minimize and control corrosion
during operations and maintenance must also be considered
early in the product lifecycle.
3.2 Finding a New CP&C Stakeholder Community
A major factor that limits effective implementation of
CP&C is that materials/corrosion engineers are rarely involved
in the process. Having these specialists routinely conduct and
support materials selection and maintenance process planning
is the optimum solution for minimizing corrosion as well as
other degradation mechanisms. In some cases such as the
applications noted above, these disciplines currently do
support development efforts. However, in most instances,
program managers are reluctant to use their limited resources
to pay for a function they think should be done by their own
design and development team. The solution to this quandary
can be found by analyzing the engineering specialties that
traditionally support design teams and determine whether one
of them could evolve their current practices to consider
CP&C.
In todays environment, complex products are developed
by interdisciplinary teams using the process known as Systems
Engineering. The teams that implement this process employ
numerous analyses to ensure that the design meets the
products performance requirements and specifications. The
analysis methods they employ are shown in Table 1.
Deployment
Design*
Electromagnetic Comp./Radio Freq. Mgmt.
Environmental Impact
Human Systems Engineering
Life Cycle Cost*
Manufacturing and Producability
Mission Operations
Reliability, Maintainability and Availability*
Safety and Health Hazard
Supportability and Integrated Logistics Support*
Survivability
System Cost/Effectiveness
System Modeling
System Security
Trade Studies*
Training
Verification
Disposal
Table 1 INCOSE Recommended Analyses [4]
Even though Systems Engineering is traditionally
employed during the development of technically complex
products, many of the individual analyses associated with the
process are also used during the design of less complex
products by teams employing integrated product development
or concurrent engineering approaches.
Therefore, an

assessment of the analyses listed in Table 1 can help identify

which technical specialty could take on the role of
implementing more effective CP&C.
At least five Systems Engineering analyses could address
corrosion. These include Design; Life-Cycle Cost; Reliability,
Maintainability, and Availability; Supportability and
Integrated Logistics Support; and Trade Studies.
An
interesting thing to note is that the Reliability,
Maintainability, and Availability as well as Supportability
and Integrated Logistics Support analyses are conducted
entirely or in-part by the Reliability community.
Furthermore, reliability engineers also support Life Cycle
Cost and Trade Study analyses.
When considering the fact that reliability engineers
actively support those Systems Engineering analyses that
could address corrosion, it seems reasonable to conclude that
the community should play an important role with respect to
implementing more effective CP&C. The argument becomes
even more compelling when considering that reliability
engineers also routinely support the sustainment community
after a product has been fielded. Because of its perspective on
both system design and aging, the Reliability Engineering
discipline possesses the attributes needed to develop the
models that would enable recommendations on how best to
reduce corrosion costs on both new designs and fielded
products. The major issue, though, is whether anyone would
listen to these recommendations.
A critical factor that often limits the implementation of
technology involves poor communications. Engineers are
overwhelmed with information, which makes it difficult for a
specialty with a narrow technical scope to get other
engineering communities interested in their technologies,
unless of course they provide a solution to an immediate
problem. This paradigm is sometimes referred to as vertical
integration or being stuck in a stove-pipe and the
phenomenon is historically responsible for hindering effective
implementation of technology. This is largely the reason why
CP&C remains a poorly implemented discipline. Even if a
new approach to corrosion analysis such as proposed here is
developed, it will ultimately fail if the implementing
community has poor communications with other technical
communities.
Reliability engineers have extensive existing relationships
with a variety of technical specialties that span the entire
product life-cycle. These relationships stem not only from the
communitys routine participation on interdisciplinary design
and development teams, but also from the extensive support it
provides to the sustainment community later in the system
life-cycle.
These relationships provide the clear lines of
communications that are needed to overcome the barriers that
hinder stove-piped communities.
The reliability community possesses the ideal mix of
existing analytical methodologies, which could form the basis
for practical analysis methods that consider the effects of
corrosion, and established relationships with other technical
specialties, that will facilitate acceptance of recommendations
derived from using these models. The challenge, of course, is

to develop the new methods so that the time needed to employ

them is not substantially longer than the conventional methods
they replace. If the reliability community takes advantage of
the opportunity described here, and cooperatively develops the
necessary methodologies, then a new paradigm in design will
result. This will help reduce the severity and extent of
corrosion across all twenty-six sectors of the US economy.
4 A ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Implementing a strategic program to evolve current
reliability practices will take a three-step approach. To start,
an initial suite of corrosion-centric methodologies based upon
existing reliability analyses must be developed. These
methods will then need to be promoted to the community so
that reliability engineers can employ them and see what works
and what doesnt, thus allowing the nascent methods to evolve
and mature. Finally, in order for this initiative to fully
succeed, the resultant methodologies will need to be
institutionalized into commonly accepted reliability practice.
4.1 Develop Initial Methodologies
The first step towards realizing this opportunity is for the
reliability community to cooperatively examine its portfolio of
analysis methods and determine which ones can be expanded
so that they not only continue to perform their historical
functions but can also be used to predict the effects that
corrosion will have on reliability, maintainability, availability,
and supportability. Computerized tools will likely be needed
so that these enhanced methods can be performed without
excessive cost increases in comparison to traditional analyses
they replace.
As described earlier, there are five different Systems
Engineering analyses that are supported by reliability
engineers and each of them could form the basis for enhanced
methodologies. One of these analyses concerns product
design, which reliability engineers support in many ways
such as conducting failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)
and failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA).
These specific reliability methodologies could be expanded to
evaluate materials selection, corrosion preventive measures,
and design details in order to propose actions to help minimize
corrosion and improve product reliability.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to propose specific
ways to expand FMEA and FMECA procedures to consider
corrosion. Rather, the point being made here is that these
methodologies are candidates that could be expanded to
integrate and employ corrosion-related technologies developed
by the materials community. Ultimately, it will be up to
reliability engineers to propose, debate, and evolve the
specific measures needed to expand these methodologies.
The reliability community can do far more than revise the
way that FMEA and FMECAs are conducted. The tools and
techniques used to support the four other relevant Systems
Engineering analysis areas should each be evaluated to
determine whether any of them could similarly be expanded to
consider corrosion. By implementing multiple methodologies
that examine corrosion from a variety of perspectives, a

comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to reducing

corrosion costs will result.
As far as determining which existing materials/corrosion
analysis methods and technologies are appropriate for
inclusion into existing reliability analyses, there are two
obvious areas to consider: materials selection (including both
materials of construction and corrosion preventive materials)
and design rules of thumb (i.e., lessons learned). Review of
materials selection decisions is already recommended as a
reliability practice in the literature [2-4] but this function,
especially as it relates to the specifics of corrosion, is typically
given little attention. Effectively analyzing design details to
reduce corrosion will require an analysis of lessons learned
in order to preclude repeating mistakes from the past.
4.2 Promote the Methods and Evolve Them
Developing and maintaining the momentum needed for
the community to begin to consider corrosion as a routine
action within the reliability discipline can be achieved if a well
coordinated effort is undertaken to initiate and promote the
development of new methodologies. This current paper is
specifically designed to start the process by articulating the
opportunity in order to begin the discussion.
Because its the premiere conference for the reliability
community, the Reliability and Maintainability Symposium
(RAMS) is the logical entity to promote the development of
new corrosion-related reliability practices.
If corrosion
analysis methods were to become the focus of a dedicated
session at RAMS for the next few years (or longer), and
papers were actively sought that addressed the subject from
broad-based perspectives (pre-acquisition, design and
sustainment), then reliability-centric corrosion analysis
methods such as those proposed here would have the
opportunity to be developed and mature into accepted practice.
RAMS organizers could also seek out individuals to present
corrosion-related tutorials at upcoming symposiums to help
the community evolve and grow.
Making this vision a reality would be easier if the
professional societies that sponsor RAMS also endorse the
proposed efforts and promote them to their memberships.
Getting the ball rolling and maintaining the momentum
needed to truly influence a transformation and expansion of
existing reliability practices will certainly be facilitated if
these societies, and others as appropriate, initiate related
dialog and activities within their own communities.
4.3 Institutionalizing the Methods
If RAMS becomes the venue for promoting corrosionrelated reliability practices by sponsoring annual sessions for a
period of time, this will help to institutionalize the subject
within reliability practice. In addition, should the RAMS
sponsoring societies likewise embark on cooperative strategic
initiatives aimed towards their memberships; the amount of
engineering talent applied towards the corrosion problem will
grow and thus help reduce its extent. Perhaps the best way to
institutionalize any new reliability practices designed
specifically to reduce corrosion would be to have this area

covered in the American Society for Qualitys (ASQs)

Certified Reliability Engineering (CRE) program. If ASQ
were to incorporate corrosion as a technical area to be covered
in their CRE exams, then the new focus area would truly
become part of acknowledged reliability practice. As a result,
the community would take a leading role in reducing an
enormous problem of national concern.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Corrosion is an insidious process that costs our Nation,
and indeed the world, an exorbitant amount of money each
year. The subject is complex and difficult to address,
especially since the relevant technologies and information are
typically developed by one community, materials engineering,
and pushed towards another, the design community. A
technology push is seldom effective, so its not surprising
that corrosion remains such a big problem. If a means could
be devised to create a technology pull, whereby CP&C
technology is drawn towards the design process by people
who recognize its value and understand how to use it, then the
instances and extent of corrosion will obviously be reduced.
The only way for this to occur is by implementing a new
paradigm in product design.
Because its extensive disciplinary focus spans and
supports all phases of the system lifecycle, the Reliability
Engineering community has a unique view into system
performance and aging that greatly exceeds that of most, if not
all other engineering specialties. It is specifically this insight
that enables the creation of a new paradigm in design. The
purpose of this current paper is not to identify or propose the
specific processes needed to transform current reliability
practices so they can become the basis for improved designs.
Rather, the intent is to inform reliability engineers about the
opportunity and to provide the reasoning as for why this
community is the best candidate for incorporating CP&C
analyses into current disciplinary practices.
Establishing and maintaining the momentum needed to
get the process underway will require more than a one-shot
infusion of ideas or technologies. Successfully implementing
the disciplinary transformation envisioned here requires a
strategic approach that involves cooperation from reliabilityrelated technical conferences and societies along with
contributions from many individuals. If implemented, nascent
CP&C-related reliability methodologies could soon begin to

appear and then continue to evolve as they become accepted

practices within the reliability discipline.
By developing and implementing new qualitative and
numerical CP&C-related analysis methods that directly
complement the statistical processes already used to evaluate
designs, a new process, Reliability Centered Design, could
result. With the backing and support of the reliability
community, this process could become the mechanism needed
to break down the barriers responsible for the enormous
corrosion costs that were estimated in the Federal Highway
Administrations study.
REFERENCES
1.

2.
3.
4.

G. H. Koch, M. P.H. Brongers, N. G. Thompson, Y. P.

Virmani, J. H. Payer, Corrosion Cost and Preventive
Strategies in the United States, Federal Highway
Administration Report FHWA-RD-01-156, 2001.
OConnor, P.D.T., Practical Reliability Engineering,
Third Edition Revised, John Wyle & Sons, 1992.
Blueprints for Product Reliability: Designing for Product
Reliability, Reliability Information Analysis Center, 1996.
Systems Engineering Handbook v2a, International
Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2004.
BIOGRAPHY

David H. Rose
Quanterion Solutions Inc.
811 Court Street
Utica, NY 13502-4096 USA
e-mail: drose@quanterion.com
David Rose is the Manager of Advanced Programs for
Quanterion Solutions, a small business located in Utica, NY.
His current responsibilities include strategic planning and
execution of new initiatives for both Quanterion and the
DODs Reliability Information Analysis Center (RIAC),
which Quanterion helps operate. Prior to joining Quanterion
in November of 2006, Mr. Rose spent over eight years as the
director of a DOD center similar to RIAC, the Advanced
Materials, Manufacturing and Testing Information Analysis
Center (AMMTIAC) and its predecessor AMPTIAC. He
holds a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from the
University of Washington, a masters degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Dayton, and is currently
pursuing a Doctor of Engineering (DE) in Materials
Engineering, also from the University of Dayton.