home about us events media contact us
 
GSA Information
Contract Number
GS-07F-9386S
Click Here
for more information.

Ecofriendly
Envelop Covers are engineered to help
preserve the earth.
...learn more

Envelop Protective Covers
PDF Documents


Envelop Protective Covers have been tested extensively and we're happy to share a sampling of reports that demonstrate the benefits of choosing and using Envelop Covers. The following documents are available for download from this page:

Envelop® Protective Cover Material Specifications
CLICK HERE

Island of Helgoland Testing of Envelop Covers vs. Standard Tarp
CLICK HERE

Topside Cover-ups
CLICK HERE

Advanced Protection Technology Brochure
CLICK HERE

Aerospace Ground Equipment Sheltering, Final Report Summary
CLICK HERE

USMC AAV Envelop Protective Cover Validation Test
CLICK HERE

GAO Report 03-753 "Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase Readiness"
CLICK HERE

USS SWIFT (HSV 2) Visit Report
CLICK HERE

M198 Cover Validation Test, Final Results - Preliminary Report
CLICK HERE

Envelop Field Test on the M777 Lightweight Howitzer
CLICK HERE

LMI Government Consulting Report SKT50T1, "The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Army Ground Vehicles and Navy Ships"
CLICK HERE

Envelop® Protective Cover Material Specifications

PDF To View and/or Download the Envelop® Protective Cover Material Specifications CLICK HERE.

Envelop® Protective Cover Technology is a proven solution in combating degradation caused by exposure to heat, sand, dust, moisture, UV, and corrosion. It was developed in conjunction with the US Navy through a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) grant. Based upon extensive independent testing, validation, and use by the US Navy, US Army, and Marines, it readily surpasses all previous protective cover and anti-corrosion cover solutions. It is the only protective cover technology on the market that was designed in conjunction with the military and possesses the unique characteristics and capabilities described below. The Envelop® technology is protected by Patents (#6,444,595, #6,833,334, and #6,794,317).

to Top to Top


Island of Helgoland Testing of Envelop Covers vs. Standard Tarp

PDF To View and/or Download the Island of Helgoland Testing Report CLICK HERE.

This test was conducted by the German Research Institute (WIWeB) on the Island of Helgoland in the North Sea beginning April 13th 2011 and ending October 12th 2011.

to Top to Top


Topside Cover-ups - Equipment covers have potential to net Navy corrosion-control savings

PDF To View and/or Download the full "Topside Cover-ups" article CLICK HERE.

The Navy estimates an investment of $10 million annually in a product line of protective covers for topside equipment has the potential to save more than $40 million annually - a conservative estimate - in corrosion control on its ships, according to Rear Adm. James P. McManamon, deputy for surface warfare at Naval Sea Systems Command.

McManamon was speaking of Envelop Protective Covers, a series of covers designed and produced by Shield Technologies in Eagan, Minn. Over the last six years, the Navy has been outfitting its surface ships with the covers and expects to complete the outfitting by 2011.

to Top to Top


Advanced Protection Technology Brochure

PDF To View and/or Download the Advanced Protection Technology Brochure CLICK HERE.

Envelop® protective technology is at work on weapons, optics, equipment, and electronic components of all kinds, deployed by all branches of the U.S. military. Envelop protective covers earned this widespread acceptance by providing protection against environmental degradation caused by moisture, sand, salt, heat, and UV. Today, more than 20,000 Envelop protective covers are protecting U.S. military assets in the world's harshest environments.

to Top to Top


Aerospace Ground Equipment Sheltering, Final Report Summary

PDF To View and/or Download the Aerospace Ground Equipment Sheltering, Final Report Summary CLICK HERE.

Shield Technologies Corporation Summary of "Corrosion Prevention Benefits of Sheltering Aerospace Ground Equipment, Final Report, dated May 2008."

The US Air Force Corrosion Prevention and Control (AFCPC) Program command conducted a one year long scientific study from March 2007 through April 2008 with the stated purpose of demonstrating the benefit of storing Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) in sheltered storage versus outside, unprotected storage. Prior to commencement of the study, Shield Technologies Corporation (STC) had the opportunity to brief AFCPC personnel about Envelop Protective Covers technology. AFCPC staff took an immediate interest in the technology and decided to include Envelop Protective Covers and traditional vinyl covers in the study to achieve a more comprehensive look at potential solutions for corrosion prevention.

STC designed and produced a cover to be employed in the sheltering study, specifically for the USAF New Generation Heater (NGH). The cover was delivered to Travis Field ANGB, Savannah, GA in March 2007 and installed on a NGH for testing, to be stored outdoors. Corrosion sensors, environmental monitors and bare metal coupons were placed with each test asset. The end result of the study demonstrated scientifically that Envelop Protective Covers are more than ten times as effective in reducing corrosion than the next best solution (vinyl covers) and nearly twenty times as effective as storage in simple shelters.

Aerospace Ground Equipment Sheltering Test Panels

to Top to Top


USMC AAV Envelop Protective Cover Validation Test

PDF To View and/or Download the USMC AAV Envelop Protective Cover Validation Test CLICK HERE.

The USMC has experienced substantial corrosion on the turret on the AAV (amphibious assault vehicle) resulting in continual maintenance on the turret and components attached to it. This has resulted in significant ongoing maintenance expense for the operating units, reconditioning and component replacement costs and an adverse impact on readiness.

At the request of the USMC, Shield Technologies performed a test on the AAV turrets to validate the corrosion resistance ability of the custom-sewn Envelop protective cover. The Envelop cover is a custom fabricated cover designed to fit over the turret. It is easily installed and has an integrated storage "bag" for easy storage when not in use.

The test was conducted at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe for 30 days beginning July 11, 2005, and concluding on August 11, 2005. The test involved 2 AAV units with Envelop covers and one control unit.

The test validated the severe corrosion climate in Hawaii and the extent of damage caused by corrosion on the control unit. The 2 units covered with the Envelop turret covers confirmed a reduction of 90-95% of the normal corrosion, which will result in reduced maintenance requirements, lower maintenance costs, and improved readiness.

The report available here highlights specifics of the test. All inquiries and questions should be forwarded to Shield Technologies Corporation.

to Top to Top


GAO Report 03-753 "Opportunities to Reduce Corrosion Costs and Increase Readiness"

PDF To View and/or Download the GAO Report CLICK HERE.

WHY GAO DID THIS STUDY:

The Department of Defense (DOD) maintains equipment and infrastructure worth billions of dollars in many environments where corrosion is causing military assets to deteriorate, shortening their useful life. The resulting increase in required repairs and replacements drives up costs and takes critical systems out of action, reducing mission readiness. GAO was asked to review military activities related to corrosion control. Specifically, this report examines the extent of the impact of corrosion on DOD and the military services and the extent of the effectiveness of DOD's and the services' approach to preventing and mitigating corrosion.

WHAT GAO FOUND:

Although the full impact of corrosion cannot be quantified due to the limited amount of reliable data captured by DOD and the military services, current cost estimates, readiness, and safety data indicate that corrosion has a substantial impact on military equipment and infrastructure. In 2001, a government-sponsored study estimated the costs of corrosion for military systems and infrastructure at about $20 billion annually and found corrosion to be one of the largest components of life-cycle costs for weapon systems. Corrosion also reduces readiness because the need to repair or replace corrosion damage increases the downtime of critical military assets. For example, a recent study concluded that corrective maintenance of corrosionrelated faults has degraded the readiness of all of the Army's approximately 2,450 force modernization helicopters. Finally, a number of serious safety concerns have also been associated with corrosion, including Navy F-14 and F-18 landing gear failures during carrier operations and crashes of several Air Force F-16 aircraft due to the corrosion of electrical contacts that control fuel valves.

DOD and the military services do not have an effective approach to prevent and mitigate corrosion. They have had some successes in addressing corrosion problems on individual programs, but several weaknesses are preventing DOD and the military services from achieving much greater benefits, including potentially billions of dollars in additional net savings annually. Each service has multiple corrosion offices, and their different policies, procedures, and funding channels limit coordination. Also, the goals and incentives that guide these offices sometimes conflict with those of the operational commands that they rely on to fund project implementation. As a result, proposed projects are often assigned a lower priority compared to efforts offering more immediate results. Together, these problems reduce the effectiveness of DOD corrosion prevention. While DOD is in the process of establishing a central corrosion control activity and strategy, it remains to be seen whether these efforts will effectively address these weaknesses.

WHAT GAO RECOMMENDS:

The departmentwide strategic plan currently being developed should contain clearly defined goals; measurable, outcome-oriented objectives; and performance measures. The strategy should also identify standardized methods for evaluating project proposals, estimating resource needs, and coordinating projects in an interservice and servicewide context. The military services should develop overarching strategic plans consistent with the departmentwide plan. In written comments, DOD agreed with all of these recommendations.

to Top to Top


USS SWIFT (HSV 2) Visit Report

A full copy of this report (PDF) is available for your review.

PDF To View and/or Download the USS SWIFT (HSV 2) Visit Report CLICK HERE.

Following is an excerpt from the USS SWIFT (HSV 2) Visit Report:

The USS SWIFT is a 321 foot high speed wave-piercing catamaran constructed of aluminum and is capable of speeds in excess of 45 knots (53 MPH). She is manned by a crew of 42 persons operating in a Blue & Gold rotation. At this time she is assigned as a Mine Warfare Support Ship, however she also participates in various other assignments in support of various military missions. Recent operations have included Tsunami relief in Southeast Asia, counter drug operations in the Caribbean, and the recent joint forces training in Panama. The weapons systems on the vessel are maintained by a single First Class Gunners Mate (E-6) supervised by the ship's Bos'n.

The USS SWIFT purchased one MK19 40MM cover
(P/N: 113064) directly from Shield Technologies Corp. in May 2005 and placed it on their MK45/EX-45 40MM gun mount on the after port side of the flight deck. In June 2005 the ship was provided with two Twin .50 Cal covers (P/N: 113050) as part of the Navy wide delivery contract. The ship is on the list to receive four single .50 Cal. Covers (P/N: 113046) in the next several weeks and has also expressed a strong desire to purchase a MK96 25MM cover when they go into production.

The SWIFT has various gun mounts around the exterior of the ship...

FULL DETAILS are included in the downloadable report (link provided above).

Rave Reviews:

From: Pelon, Steve A CWO4 BOSN (Blue Crew)
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:49 PK
To: James Oaks, Envelop Covers

Subject: HSV 2 SWIFT 50 Cal Gun Cover/MK45 (EX45)Gun Cover

Jim,

I am writing in regards to our 50 Cal Gun Covers and their shown durability aboard HSV 2. We average 40 knots of relative wind on a daily basis when we are transiting from oparea to oparea and your covers have held up to the challenge. During our latest deployment to the Panama Ops area we encountered winds in excess of 60 knots on two occasions with rain, and seas hitting the covers very hard. Still no damage. They recently were up and in position for 19 consecutive underway days. During this time it rained on a daily basis (heavily), reached winds exceeding 40 knots once again, sea spray, humidity, and heat index temps of over 105 degrees. The covers have held with "Zero" damage since we received them in May of this year as well as lowering/making pms requirements on an easier level.

On our MK 45/EX-45 we asked for a cover that could withstand high winds, salt water, rain, heat from our stacks, and continual soot spray. Once again your cover met the challenge. This cover takes more abuse then any cover we have on board and has not given in the slightest. It is up during flight operations, underway, and in port but has yet to show a stitch of give. This cover also went through a 30 day dry docking availability where sand blasting, painting, and weather (i.e. humidity, heat index over 100, etc.) were huge factors daily. Cleaning the cover is as easy as described using soap and water.

We on board SWIFT want to thank you for providing us with a product which is living up to what it has advertised. We look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you.

v/r

CWO4 Steve Pelon
Ship's Bosn
HSV-2 SWIFT INGLECREW

All inquiries and questions should be forwarded to Shield Technologies Corporation.

to Top to Top


M198 Cover Validation Test, Final Results - Preliminary Report

A full copy of this report (PDF) is available for your review.

PDF To View and/or Download the M198 Cover Validation Test CLICK HERE.

Following is an excerpt from the M198 Cover Validation Test, Final Results - Preliminary Report:

  • On 30 August 2005, a 30-day test was initiated at Camp LeJeune, NC, to validate the performance of the Envelop Protective Cover on the M198 Howitzer. Howitzer 1573 was designated the test howitzer and had an Envelop Cover placed on it. Howitzer 1095 was designated the control howitzer with no protective covering.

  • On 30 September 2005, the cover of the test howitzer was removed and a comparison was completed between the test howitzer and the control howitzer.

  • Present were representatives from Shield Technologies, MARCORSYSCOM and 10th Marine Regiment including:
    • MSgt Santivasci, MSgt Martin, MSgt Lewis - 10th Marines Artillery Training School and Field Artillery Chiefs.
    • GySgt Hoffart - MARCORSYSCOM
    • Capt Chorzelewski 3/10, 1st Lt. Lash 10thMarines S-4A
    • Jeff Vold and Tom Nelson - Shield Technologies

  • As the following photographs indicate, in the 30-day side-by-side comparison, the Envelop Cover dramatically reduced corrosion.

Conclusion:
After documented use of only 30 days, the Envelop Protective Cover substantially reduced corrosion on the M198 howitzer. The test validated the conclusion that persistent, long-term use of Envelop Covers will minimize corrosion, thus reducing maintenance, increasing readiness, and extending the life-cycle of these expensive weapons.

All inquiries and questions should be forwarded to Shield Technologies Corporation.

to Top to Top


Envelop Field Test on the M777 Lightweight Howitzer

A full copy of this report (PDF) is available for your review.

PDF To View and/or Download the Envelop Test M777 Fort Sill CLICK HERE.

Following is an excerpt from the Envelop Field Test on the M777 Lightweight Howitzer:

  1. The joint artillery training team at Fort Sill OK, tested the Envelop protective cover on a M777 155 mm howitzer to evaluate the effectiveness of the cover over an extended storage period.

  2. The cover was installed on the M777 in November, 2005. The weapon was parked outside and was not "opened" nor was any maintenance performed on the weapon for 5 months.

  3. The cover was removed on April 18 and the weapon was found to be in the same state as when it was covered in November. This is in contrast to ferrous metal lifting/tie down shackles that were outside of the cover and had substantial rust and corrosion.
Following is a quote from the uniformed staff at Fort Sill:

"The envelope proved to be reliable. It was put on a M777 in November 2005. This weapon had no lubricant or rust inhibitor on it prior to placing it inside the envelope cover. The envelope cover was removed April 18, 2006.

There was no new rust on the weapon system that was under the envelope cover. It rained approximately 5 times and snowed twice. We did not remove the cover at all during this period. The cover itself retained water on the outside but did not allow it to reach the weapon. The weapon was inside the envelope cover from temperature ranges in the low teens to 105 degrees. No condensation was built up on the inside of the cover.

All components of the cover worked properly and held the cover in place during high winds.

The New Equipment Training Team would recommend this cover for the fleet forces."

All inquiries and questions should be forwarded to Shield Technologies Corporation.

to Top to Top


LMI Government Consulting Report SKT50T1,
"The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Army Ground Vehicles and Navy Ships"

A full copy of this report (PDF) is available for your review.

PDF To View and/or Download the Cost of Corrosion Report CLICK HERE.

Following is an excerpt from the Envelop Field Test on the M777 Lightweight Howitzer:

We know from earlier studies that the annual cost of corrosion for Department of Defense infrastructure and equipment is between $9 billion and $20 billion. Although the spread between these estimates is large, both figures confirm that corrosion costs are substantial. Congress, concerned with the high cost of corrosion and its negative effect on military equipment and infrastructure, enacted legislation in December 2002 that endowed the office of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (PDUSD[AT&L]) with the overall responsibility of preventing and mitigating the effects of corrosion on military equipment and infrastructure. Under the leadership and sponsorship of the PDUSD(AT&L), LMI measured the cost of corrosion for Army ground vehicles and Navy ships, with FY2004 as a measurement baseline.

Using a method approved by the Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team (CPCIPT), we estimated the annual corrosion costs for Army ground vehicles and Navy ships (see Table ES-1).

Table ES-1. Army Ground Vehicle and Navy Ships Corrosion Cost

Cost Element FY2004 Cost
Total Army ground vehicle corrosion cost $2,019 million
Total Navy ships corrosion cost $2,438 million
Combined Army ground vehicle and Navy ships corrosion cost $4,457 million

Download and read the full report to learn more. All inquiries and questions should be forwarded to Shield Technologies Corporation.

to Top to Top


See also Envelop Covers Videos for your viewing enjoyment. CLICK HERE

   

Copyright © 2012 - Shield Technologies Corporation - All Rights Reserved