Salt spray tests chromate conversion coatings

Figure 32.3 shows the scanned images of SO2 salt spray-tested IVD Al-coated 7075-T6 panels one control, and two E-coated panels. The direct application of E-coat to IVD-coated panels (with no plasma treatment) did not provide corrosion protection as good as that of the chromate conversion oated control panel more corrosion creep from the scribed lines was observed on [7I]/E panels than on the [7pI]CC/E... 

Figure 32.12 Scanned images of (a) SO2 salt spray tested and (b) Prohesion salt spray-tested chromate-free plasma coating systems of IVD 2024-T3 ([21]) and their chromated control panels, left column some blisters were observed on chromate conversion coatings after the paints were removed.

Chromate conversion coatings perform poorly in environments containing acidified chloride. In salt/S02 spray tests the substrate metal is heavily pitted after three to four days of exposure. In this work, a new coating was developed which itiproved the corrosion resistance of the conventional chromate coating remarkably. 

Salt Spray Test Panels coated with the standard chromate conversion coating and CMT were compared with each other in their corrosion resistant properties in several ways. The conventional 5% NaCl/S02 fog chamber tests showed excessive corrosion and pitting within one week on chromate conversion coated (COC) 7075-T6 A1 alloy panels. The CMT coated panels were almost uncorroded and without any pits. The plates in Figure 1 show the conditions of the panels after 7 and 14 days exposure in this environment. Even after 14 days exposure the CMT panels were still far better than COC panels. 

Figure 28.2 shows the typical images of three Alclad panels (an aluminum alloy clad with nearly pure aluminum) tested with SO2 salt spray. The panels are (1) chromate conversion coated followed by priming with E-coat (2) chromate conversion coated followed by priming with Deft (chromated spray paint) and (3) plasma coated followed by priming with E-coat. The corroded area and corrosion width are also given in the figure. 

Figure 28.2 Alclad 2024 SO2 Salt Spray Tested Panels (4 Weeks) A—chromate conversion coat with E-coat primer, B—chromate conversion coat with Deft primer, C— plasma polymer coat with E-coat primer total scanned area is 27 cm. ...

The corrosion widths of Prohesion salt spray-tested alloys are calculated and summarized in Figure 32.14. E-coated IVD controls (CC/E), i.e., the combination coating systems of chromate conversion coating with nonchromated E-coat, showed very large corrosion widths for all the IVD Al-coated aluminum alloys. This combination did not provide good corrosion protection, which could be taken as proof that the two completely different approaches (electrochemical corrosion protection and corrosion protection by barrier adhesion principle) should not be mixed. 

On zinc phosphate conversion coatings, the "Mannich" derivatives of poly-4-vinylphenol have demonstrated performance equivalent to chromic chromate systems in salt spray, humidity, and physical testing. In addition. Table III illustrates results observed with automotive body paint systems evaluated by the "scab" or "cycle" test which causes failure more typical of actual end use conditions than do salt spray evaluations. Again, results equivalent to chromic-chromate post-treatments were obtained. In addition, the humidity resistance and adhesion tests were essentially equivalent to the chromium controls. 

---