Guidance Required for Examining 168 Hour Salt Spray Test Samples

Browny

Registered
We have a critical Proficiency Testing Program (PTP) Salt Spray test going on and tomorrow we must evaluate the results to maintain our approval. Our end customer is Airbus. The Airbus AIPI and AIPS 02-05-001 spec does not give guidance. So i have spent this evening researching. The only other specs on this topic are ASTM B117 and Mil-Std-810G. Neither of which give guidance on the subject.

I need to know:
1. what i am looking for once the samples are removed from the salt spray machine?
2. Will magnifying equipment help or will it be a hinderance?
3. Are there any visual aids similar to the Table 1 of ISO 2409:2013(E) for the Cross Cut Test Standard which shows helpful examples of what is good and not so good?

The PTP technical definition document simply says 'count the pits' but we did that last year and failed. The PTP people are negative, just tell you you have failed and never give any advice which may help you improve your process.

I would be grateful for any responses to my 3 questions please.

Many Thanks
 

Al Rosen

Leader
Super Moderator
I need to know:
1. what i am looking for once the samples are removed from the salt spray machine?
2. Will magnifying equipment help or will it be a hinderance?
3. Are there any visual aids similar to the Table 1 of ISO 2409:2013(E) for the Cross Cut Test Standard which shows helpful examples of what is good and not so good?

I would be grateful for any responses to my 3 questions please.

Many Thanks
According to ASTM B117:
5.1 The type and number of test specimens to be used, as
well as the criteria for the evaluation of the test results, shall be
defined in the specifications covering the material or product
being exposed or shall be mutually agreed upon between the
purchaser and the seller
The purpose of the test is to evaluate the protective coatings. Inspect for corrosion. Magnification would help. There are no reference visual aids as far as I know. What has your customer specified?


According to ISO 9227

11 Evaluation of results
Many different criteria for the evaluation of the test results may be applied to meet particular requirements, for
example:
a) appearance after the test;
b) appearance after removing superficial corrosion products;
c) number and distribution or corrosion defects, i.e. pits, cracks, blisters, rusting or creep from scratches in
the case of organic coatings, etc.; these may be assessed by methods described in ISO 8993 or
ISO 10289, and for organic coatings in ISO 4628, parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 (see Annex D);
d) the time elapsing before the appearance of the first signs of corrosion;
e) change in mass;
f) alteration revealed by micrographic examination;
g) change in mechanical properties.
NOTE It is good engineering practice to define the appropriate criteria in the specification for a coating or a product to
be tested.
 
Last edited:

Browny

Registered
Thank you for this advice.

My problem is that the customer specs just refers to ISO 9227 and say to count the "PITS".

ISO 9227 11c) states:
c) number and distribution or corrosion defects, i.e. pits, cracks, blisters, rusting or creep from scratches in the case of organic coatings, etc.;

But does not define what they look like (One mans creep is another mans crack)

I am looking at the samples and need to differentiate between a pit a crack and creep from scratches and so on.

I was hoping that some visual reference standard existed some marked up photographs or something which would at least give us a means of visual discernment.
 
Top Bottom