Click to Purchase and Download this Standard or Test Method
Revision Date: January 27, 2011
Updated On: February 02, 2011
The outdoor corrosion of painted metals is influenced by many factors, including: corrosive atmospheres, rain, condensed dew, UV light, wet/dry cycling, and temperature cycling. These factors frequently have a synergistic effect on one another. This practice is intended to provide a more realistic simulation of the interaction of these factors than is found in traditional tests with continuous exposure to a static set of corrosive conditions.
Results obtained from this practice can be used to compare the relative durability of materials subjected to the specific test cycle used.
No single exposure test can be specified as a complete simulation of actual use conditions in outdoor environments. Results obtained from exposures conducted according to this practice can be considered as representative of actual outdoor exposures only when the degree of rank correlation has been established for the specific materials being tested. The relative durability of materials in actual outdoor service can be very different in different locations because of differences in UV radiation, time of wetness, temperature, pollutants, and other factors. Therefore, even if results from a specific artificial test condition are found to be useful for comparing the relative durability of materials exposed in a particular exterior environment, it cannot be assumed that they will be useful for determining relative durability for a different environment.
Even though it is very tempting, it is not recommended to calculate an “acceleration factor” relating xhours of laboratory exposure to y months of exterior exposure. Different materials and different formulations of the same material can have significantly different acceleration factors. The acceleration factor also varies depending on the variability in rate of degradation in the laboratory test and in actual outdoor exposure.
This practice is best used to compare the relative performance of materials tested at the same time in the same exposure device. Because of possible variability between the same type of exposure devices, it is not recommended to compare the amount of degradation in materials exposed for the same duration at separate times, or in separate devices running the same test condition. This practice should not be used to establish a “pass/fail” approval of materials after a specific period of exposure unless performance comparisons are made relative to a control material exposed simultaneously, or the variability in the test is rigorously quantified so that statistically significant pass/fail judgments can be made.
This practice has been found useful for air-dry industrial maintenance paints on steel and zinc-rich primers but its applicability has not yet been assessed for galvanized substrates.
Blast with 92% less dust.
Graco EcoQuip Vapor Blast equipment performs as well as dry blasting, but reduces airborne dust up to 92%! Use less media, save money in material and cleanup. See our FREE shipping offer!