Post on 15-Jul-2020
EPS END USE AND APPLICATION TEST RESULTS
A COMPILATION OF OUTSIDE LABORATORIES AND MANUFACTURERS’ TESTS OF EPS-PROCESSED
MATERIAL
Rev. 9 - February, 2014
ECO-PICKLED SURFACE
Rev. 9 – February 2014
Purpose Of This Document
The EPS® process is an alternative to traditional acid-pickling as a means to remove the surface oxides formed during the hot-rolling process of producing flat-rolled steel. The surface of EPS-processed steel is generally more uniform in appearance than that of acid-pickled steel and, through control of certain process parameters, the surface characteristics (texture, roughness) of EPS-processed steel can be managed to achieve a particular desired finish. For manufacturers to use EPS-processed steel in their products it must be shown to be interchangeable with acid-pickled steel for fabricating, painting or downstream processes such as galvanizing and cold rolling. Extensive testing of EPS samples has been conducted (and is ongoing) to establish its metallurgical properties and to benchmark its performance in manufacturing processes. The results of these tests are important to users and potential producers of EPS, as they:
(1) validate its conformance to accepted material/process specifications, (2) testify to its performance in common manufacturing processes, (3) demonstrate interchangeability with flat-rolled steel which has undergone
conventional acid-pickling EPS users and licensed producers will continue to independently test EPS in order to prove that it satisfies their specific manufacturing criteria. TMW will compile these tests as they become available and disseminate them as updates to this document. To request additional copies of this document please contact us at:
The Material Works, Ltd. 101 South Main Street Red Bud, Illinois 62278
Tel: 618-282-4200 Fax: 618-282-4201
email: info@thematwks.com
EPS® is a trademark of The Material Works, Ltd. Copyright ©2009 - 2014 The Material Works, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Rev. 9 – February 2014
INDEX OF EPS END USE AND APPLICATION TESTS
Description of Test Page
A. General Motors Paint Appearance/Performance Tests and Resistance Spot Weldability Tests - 2013
1. Introduction
2. GM Paint Appearance Study:
BYK Wavescan Testing Surface Roughness using Profilometer
3. GM Paint Performance Testing: Stone Impact Resistance Corrosion Rating Scale (Salt Spray) Corrosion/Undercutting Scribe Creepback (Salt Spray) Cyclic Corrosion Test (Salt Spray)
4. GM Resistance Spot Weldability – 2.7 mm HSLA Test Panels: Weld Lobe Generation Electrode Life Test Shear Tension Test Cross Tension Test Metallurgical Examination Microhardness Test Cap Life Test
5. GM Resistance Spot Weldability - 2.6mm C1008 Test Panels: Weld Lobe Generation Electrode Life Test Shear Tension Test Cross Tension Test Metallurgical Examination Microhardness Test Cap Life Test
1
2 – 4
5 – 12
13 – 32
33 – 52
B. Chrysler Paint/Paint Pretreatment Performance Tests 2013
1. Introduction 2. Chrysler Phosphate/Pretreatment Tests:
Phosphate Macro-Appearance (visual exam) Phosphate Crystal Size Measurement Phosphate Coating Weight Measurement
3. Chrysler Lubricant/Adhesive Compatibility Tests: Adhesion Testing Shear Testing
53 54 – 57
58 – 62
Rev. 9 – February 2014
C. General Motors Paint Performance Tests, conducted by
Bodycote ACT Laboratories - 2006
1. Introduction
2. Paint Adhesion 1: tape pull test after razor scoring through the paint (GM 9071P, Methods A & B).
3. Paint Adhesion 2: tape pull test after razor scoring of panels exposed to high humidity environment (deionized water fog) for 96 hours (GM 4465P),
4. Paint Chip Resistance: visual inspection after “standard” gravel impinges on test panels that were maintained at a temperature of -25°C for 4 hours prior to test (GM 9508P),
5. Paint Curing Adequacy: visual inspection after solvent (xylene) is double-rubbed across the panels 10 times using firm pressure (GM 9509P),
4. Gasoline Resistance 1: visual inspection after 20 cycles of panel immersion (10 second immersion + 20 second dryoff) in gasoline (GM 9501P & 9507P),
5. Gasoline Resistance 2: visual inspection of panels saturation by gasoline for 3 cycles of 5 minutes each (GM 9500P),
6. Oil Resistance Test: visual inspection of panels after 7 hour bath in motor oil at 70 to 75°C (GM 9507P),
7. Corrosion Resistance: visual inspection for blistering and creep on panels scribed through the paint and exposed to a salt spray (fog) for 336 hours (GM 4298P).
8. Cyclic Corrosion Resistance: comparative visual inspection for blistering and creep on panels of EPS and reference cold rolled steel (CRS) scribed through the paint and exposed to 40 cycles of steam-generated high humidity, followed by cooldown/drying period (GM 9540P).
63
64 – 67 67 – 68
69
70
71
72
73
74 – 78
79 – 83
D. Humidity Test - 500 Hour Exposure of EPS, Hot Roll Black, HRPO and SCS samples E. Salt Spray Test - 1008 Hour Exposure of EPS and SCS F. EPS Roughened Surface Salt Spray and Paint Adhesion Tests: Low Carbon and Stainless Steel G. EPS Surface Texture Analysis and Comparison to Acid
Pickled Surface Texture
84
85
87
91
Rev. 9 – February 2014
H. Laser and Paint Testing Comparing EPS Dry, EPS Oiled, EPS Dry Brushed, EPS Oiled Brushed, and SCS:
H1. Laser Cutting Speed
H2. Salt Spray Test - 1008 Hour
H3. Paint Adhesion Test I. Comparison of Residual Scale After Pickling: EPS VS. Acid Pickling J. Assessment of EPS vs. Acid Pickled in Cold Rolling and Subsequent Galvanizing, Conducted by ACESCO K. Hot Dip Galvanizing Trial: EPS Of Varying Roughness L. Stamping and Rollforming Trials of EPS, conducted by Hutchens Industries, Inc. M. Press Brake Tooling Wear Trials of EPS, conducted by DeJong Manufacturing, Inc.
95
96
98
100
101
104
109
111
112
Page 1
A. GENERAL MOTORS PAINT APPEARANCE/PERFORMANCE TEST AND RESISTANCE SPOT WELDABILITY TESTS - 2013
1.0 Introduction and Discussion An EPS Producer sought to gain approval from General Motors to supply EPS for select automotive applications. This producer coordinated several laboratory tests of EPS samples in the areas of paint appearance and performance, plus spot weldability. The accredited testing laboratory ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan performed the paint-related tests during 2013. ACT prepared the samples and conducted the tests in accordance with appropriate GM standards. The welding research and testing firm Applied Engineering and Integration, Inc. (AET Integration) performed the resistance spot welding tests and analyses in accordance with GM Welding Specification GWS-5A. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT and AET Integration. From the results of these tests, EPS received approval from GM as a replacement of acid pickled for an end use product application.
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
Page 2
ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttespanels.com
GM Paint Appearance Study
Test Substrate: Customer Supplied Hot Rolled Steel
Pretreatment: Henkel Tectalis Ecoat: BASF U32AD800 Primer: BASF U28AW110 Base Coat: BASF E54KW401 Clear Coat: BASF E10CG081
ACT Quote Number: QC19940_020113 ACT Project Number: SO219433A
Material Received: 12/18/12 Test Date: 03/06/13
Prepared By: KWW Date Prepared: 03/06/13 Logbook: KWW-3, p. 52
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Technical Manager
Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Panels LLC
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433A
Page 3 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestpanels.com
Pretreatment Application: Henkel Applied Tectalis. Ecoat Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Ecoat per manufacturers
requirements.
Paint Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Primer and BC/CC per manufacturers requirements.
Evaluation #1: BYK Wavescan
Test Method: ACT WIL-0151 (07/28/08)
Number of Samples: One customer HRS topcoated flat panel. One customer HRS topcoated pie plate. One ACT CRS topcoated flat panel (control).
Number of Readings: Three longitudinal and three transverse per sample; average rating reported for each direction.
Instrument: BYK Gardner Wave-scan Dual Model 4840 (LEQP 0002)
Ratings: du,Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd, We, SW, LW, Rating (R)
Rating Description: du = < 0.1 mm wavelength Wa = 0.1-0.3 mm wavelength Wb = 0.3-1 mm wavelength Wc = 1-3 mm wavelength Wd = 3-10 mm wavelength We = 10-30 mm wavelength SW = 0.3-1.2 mm wavelength LW = 1.2-12 mm wavelength Rating (R) = Orange peel based on ACT Orange Peel Standards
Evaluation #2: Surface Roughness using Profilometer
Test Method: ANSI ASME B46.1 (2002) Section 4
Number of Samples: One customer HRS Ecoated flat panel. One customer HRS Ecoated pie plate. One ACT CRS Ecoated flat panel (control).
Number of Readings: Three longitudinal and three transverse per sample; average Ra reported for each direction.
Instrument (Skidded): Taylor Hobson Model Surtronic 3+
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433A
Page 4 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestpanels.com
Stylus Radius: 10 microns
Filter: Gaussian
Cut-off Length (Lc): 0.80 millimeters
Evaluation Length (Ln): 25.4 millimeters
Ra: Roughness Average in micro inches (µin)
Wavescan and Roughness Average Test Data:
Panel ID
Test Direction
Topcoat BYK Wavescan Parameters Ecoat Roughness, Ra (µin) du Wa Wb Wc Wd We LW SW Rating
Customer HRS Flat Panel
1 Long. 4.0 9.1 30.8 16.6 21.4 15.8 9.1 30.1 7.1 34 Trans. 3.6 8.9 29.9 17.2 19.9 13.4 8.5 27.1 7.2 32
Customer HRS Pie Plate
2 Long. 2.7 8.7 31.2 20.3 43.2 30.6 25.3 30.2 4.8 30 Trans. 5.7 7.6 28.0 20.9 51.8 32.7 34.0 27.1 3.9 29
ACT CRS Flat Panel (Control)
3 Long. 1.0 0.9 3.6 3.3 12.3 10.1 2.9 3.6 9.6 15 Trans. 1.0 1.0 3.6 3.0 9.5 6.0 2.2 3.3 10.2 15
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
Page 5
ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
GM Paint Performance Testing
Test Substrate: Customer Supplied Hot Rolled Steel
Pretreatment: Henkel Tectalis Ecoat: BASF U32AD800 Primer: BASF U28AW110 Base Coat: BASF E54KW401 Clear Coat: BASF E10CG081
ACT Quote Number: QC19940_020113 ACT Project Number: SO219433B
Material Received: 12/18/12
Prepared By: MDC Date Prepared: 04/16/13
Logbook: MDC-15, pp. 28-29
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Technical Manager
Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Services
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 6 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Pretreatment Application: Henkel Applied Tectalis. Ecoat Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Ecoat per manufacturers
requirements.
Paint Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Primer and BC/CC per manufacturers requirements.
ID Matrix: #1 = Flat Hot Rolled Steel #2 = Pie Plate Hot Rolled Steel
Evaluation#1: Stone Impact Resistance
Test Date: 03/08/13
Test Method: GMW14700 (12/09), Methods B and C
Test Conditions: Ambient and -18ºC, Air Pressure 70 ± 5 psi
Gravelometer: Q-Panel Model QGR (LEQP 0007)
Tape: 3M 898 (LEQP 0040)
Examinations: Chip Rating and Frequency for chips reaching down to substrate
Chip Rating Identifications: Number Categories for Chip Rating
Rating # Maximum stone chip diameter (mm) rating
10 No chips and no surface marks 9+ No chips: surface marks only within top coating layer 9 1.0 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 8 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 7 1.5 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 6 2.0 Poor >2.0
Failure Mode
To Substrate
Frequency
Low ( 5 chips) Moderate (5 < chips < 25) Heavy (> 25 chips)
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 7 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Stone Impact Resistance Test Data:
Method B (-18ºC) To Substrate
ID Rating Frequency 1A 9 Low 2A Poor* Moderate
* Rating based on one chip which was >2.0 mm. If this chip was excluded from the evaluation, the next largest chip size is 1.5 mm, which the rating would be a 7.
Method C (Ambient) To Substrate
ID Rating Frequency 1B 9 5 2B 9 Moderate
Evaluation #2: Corrosion Rating Scale
Test Method: GMW15356 (06/09)
GMW15356 Rating Scale: Rating Description
10 No visible corrosion
9 One or two small rust spots
8 Some small rust spots
7 Many small rust spots (approx.10%)
6 Medium sized rust spots (10-40%)
5 Many medium sized rust spots (40-60%)
4 Large rust spot (60-90%)
3 Large corroded area or very large rust spot (100%)
2 Metal loss
1 Perforation
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 8 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Evaluation #3: Corrosion/Undercutting Scribe Creepback
Test Method: GMW15282 (10/12)
Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool with tip angle of 60 ± 15° (Industry code E).
Tape: 3M 898 (LEQP 0040)
Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LEQP 0015)
Scribe Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on each side of the scribed line.
Average (CAverage): The mean of 8 measurements of Scribe Creepback at points 15 millimeters apart centered on the scribed line, discounting the areas less than 10 millimeters from each end of the scribed line.
Max Left (CLeft Max): A measurement of the maximum distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on the left side of the scribed line.
Max Right (CRight Max): A measurement of the maximum distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on the right side of the scribed line.
Total Max (CMax): CLeft Max + CRight Max
mm: Millimeter
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 9 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Evaluation #4: Cyclic Corrosion Test
Test Start Date: 03/07/13 Test End Date: 04/16/13
Test Method: GMW14872, EXT, All, 4sp, Method 1/2/3, Exposure C (03/10)
Exposure Chamber: Thermotron Model SM-27-8200 (LEQP 0033)
Exposure: 28 Cycles (28 ± 3 Cycle Requirement)
One Cycle: 8.0 hours at 25 ± 3°C/45 ± 10% RH (Apply 4 salt mist applications, one at the beginning of the ambient stage and the others at approximately 1.5 hours apart.) 1.0 hour ramp to 49 ± 2°C/~100% RH 7.0 hours at 49 ± 2°C/~100% RH 3.0 hour ramp to 60 ± 2°C/ 30% RH 5.0 hours at 60 ± 2°C/ 30% RH (Note: On weekends and holidays, leave in the ambient condition of 25 ± 2°C/45 ± 5% RH)
Humidity: Steam generated with water fog assist
Sodium Chloride: Morton Culinox 999 Food grade
Salt Solution: 0.9% Sodium Chloride 0.1% Calcium Chloride (CaCl2·2H2O) 0.075% Sodium Bicarbonate 98.925% Deionized Water
Salt Mist Application: Garden Hand Sprayer (LEQP 0153)
pH Meter: Orion Model 710A with glass electrode and ATC probe (LEQP 0030)
Conductivity Meter: Oakton Model CON11 (LEQP 0018)
Balance: Sartorius Model ED623S (LEQP 0042)
Corrosion Coupons: ACT Test Panels 25.4 mm x 50.8 mm x 3.18 mm SAE 1008 Steel
Evaluations: Corrosion Rating per Evaluation #2. Scribe Creepback per Evaluation #3. Coupon Weight Loss in grams (g).
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 10 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Cyclic Corrosion Test Data: 28 Cycles
Scribe Creepback (mm)
ID GMW15356
Rating Max Left (CLeft
Max)
Max Right (CRight
Max)
Total Max (CMax)
Average (CAverage)
1C 10 1.5 1.4 2.9 1.7 2C 10 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.3
GMW14872 Coupon Weight Loss: 3.18 mm Thick CRS Coupons
ID Cycles Initial Weight (g) Final Weight (g) Weight Loss (g) Ave. Weight Loss (g) 932T L 28 29.813 26.262 3.551 3.749 933T R 29.765 25.818 3.947
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 11 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Photographs:
Ambient Stone Impact
Cold Stone Impact
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B
Page 12 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Photographs (cont.):
28 Cycles GMW14872
Flat HRS 28 Cycles GMW14872
Pie Plate HRS
TEST REPORT
AET-13-0822A
Resistance Spot Weld Evaluation of 2.7 mm 050 HSLA Uncoated Steel Using General Motors Welding Specification GWS-5A
Submitted to: Steel Technologies, LLC
Prepared by:
AET Integration, Inc Wixom, MI 48393
August, 2013 248-420-9451
Page 13
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table of Contents 1. Objective ........................................................................................................................2 2. Test Procedure ..............................................................................................................2 3. Test Results and Analysis ...........................................................................................4 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Tables
Table 1: Weld Schedule Table 2: Weldability Test Data Table 3: Shear Tension Test Data Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data Table 5: Cap Life Test Data
B: Figures
Figure 1: Weld Lobe Figure 2: Microhardness Traverse Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse Figure 4: Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points Figure 5: Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points Figure 6: Button Size vs. Weld Number Figure 7: Electrode Imprints
Page 14
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
1. Objective Evaluate 2.7 mm 050 HSLA uncoated steel provided by Steel Technologies, LLC using General Motors (GM) weld qualification specification GWS-5A dated April 2011.
2. Test Procedure 2.1 General Description Both the weldability and cap life evaluation procedure outlined by GWS-5A were conducted. Welding schedules are shown in Table 1 and were selected using the associated file for GWS-1A welding specifications. Minimum button size for this material was 7.0 mm per GMW 14057. GM Global Standard GMWZ – 19x24 mm electrodes were used. Electrode caps were dressed to the dimensions specified in the associated Cap Dress file for GWS-1A. Equipment used for testing is shown below.
2.2 Weldability procedure The weldability procedure consists of the following 6 components:
Weld lobe generation
Electrode life test
Shear tension test
Cross tension test
Metallurgical examination
Microhardness test
Resistance Spot Welder WSI Pedestal
Weld Control Miyachi ISA-500 AR MFDC
Weld Checker Miyachi MM-370A
Force Gauge Sensor Development Weld Probe
Tensile Test Machine MTS 810 Material Test System
Microscope Nikon SMZ800
Microhardness Tester Leco LM100AT
Page 15
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Electrode caps were installed and aligned. The squeeze time was adjusted to ensure consistent electrode force before welding. Before welding was started, the electrode alignment was verified with carbon paper imprints. Welding begins by finding the current required to produce the minimum nugget diameter at the nominal weld time. Using this setup, 50 conditioning spot welds were produced. The process appeared stable at this point. After electrode conditioning, coupons were welded and peel tested in 100A increments to determine the current that produced point A of the weld lobe diagram (minimum button size at maximum weld time). Three coupons were produced and peel tested using the determined weld current. The weld lobe was generated by establishing the minimum button diameter curve and the expulsion curve. The minimum button diameter curve is composed of points A, B and C. These locations represent the current necessary to produce the minimum button diameter at each of the three different weld times. The three weld times in this case were the maximum weld time (three pulse, 140 ms per pulse), nominal weld time (three pulse, 130 ms per pulse), and minimum weld time (three pulse, 120 ms per pulse). The expulsion curve was established by increasing weld current in 200A increments until expulsion was observed on the second spot weld of the test coupon. The expulsion procedure was also conducted for each of the three weld times resulting in point D, E and F on the weld lobe. For each point of the weld lobe, three shear tension samples and three cross tension samples were produced. One sample was produced at each point for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Shear tension and cross tension tests were performed and the peak loads were recorded using an MTS load frame. An additional coupon was produced at point G of the weld lobe diagram for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Microhardness traverses were made using a Vickers scale diamond indenter with a 500g load. 2.3 Cap Life Test Procedure Weld parameters for point G were used in the cap life test. Welding speed was 30 welds per minute. The cap life test procedure was repeated for groups of 50 welds until 500 acceptable welds were obtained or until the button size dropped below the minimum button size requirement. Each group of 50
Page 16
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
welds consisted of 48 welds on endurance test panels and two welds on a peel test sample. The second weld of the peel test sample was examined for button size and weld characteristics. Cap imprints were taken every 50 welds.
3. Test Results and Analysis
Detailed weldability test data is listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. Shear tension test results are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix A. The average peak tensile load was 29.49 kN (6,630 lbs). Cross tension test results are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix A. The average peak cross tension load was 23.49 kN (5,281 lbs). The weld lobe is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B. The current ranges at all three weld times exceeded the 1.0 kA requirement in GWS-5A. Microhardness traverse results are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix B. The indent pattern is shown in Figure 3. Microhardness tests did not indicate brittle weld structures. Macro photos of metallurgical specimens are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 of Appendix B. Specimens at expulsion points did not exhibit thinning over 30%. As shown in Table 5, 500 acceptable welds were obtained for the cap life evaluation without the button size dropping below 7.0 mm. Figure 6 shows the button size variation throughout the test. Figure 7 shows the electrode imprints.
4. Conclusion The 2.7 mm 050 HSLA uncoated steel evaluated by this test appears to meet the weldability requirements specified in GM welding specification GWS-5A.
Page 17
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Appendix A: Tables Table 1: Weld Schedules
Table 2: Weldability Test Data
(kN) (lbs) Schedule (ms)Total Weld
Time (ms)
Minimum 120 360
Nominal 130 390
Maximum 140 420
Electrodes Hold Time
(ms)
GM Global
Standard GMWZ -
19x24 Dome Nose
7.0 1575
Electrode Force Weld Time
180
Test Date 08/22/2013Test
MachineTaylor Material
2.7 mm 050
HSLA
Uncoated
Electrode
Type
GM
Global
Electrode
Tip Force
(kN)
7 kN
# of
Pulse3
Weld Time
(ms)
140, 130,
120
Cool Time
(ms)40
Hold Time
(ms)
2 12.0 11.8 6.8 6.9 130
3-52 12.0 11.8 130
54 12.2 12.0 7.1 7.1 140
56 12.2 12.0 6.8 7.0 140
58 12.2 12.0 6.8 6.9 140
59-61 12.2 12.0 140
62-64 12.2 12.0 140
66 12.2 12.0 140
68 12.3 12.1 6.9 7.0 130
70 12.3 12.1 7.0 7.1 130
72 12.3 12.1 7.0 7.2 130
73-75 12.3 12.1 130
76-78 12.3 12.1 130
80 12.3 12.1 130
82 12.4 12.2 6.6 6.7 120
84 12.5 12.3 7.3 7.4 120
86 12.5 12.3 6.8 7.0 120
88 12.5 12.3 7.0 7.3 120
89-91 12.5 12.3 120
92-94 12.5 12.3 120
96 12.5 12.3 120
180
Point A
Met., Point A
Point A
COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)
50 Conditioning Welds
Point A
Met., Point C
Point B
Cross Tension, Point C
Point C
Shear Tension, Point C
Sample or
Weld No. Mean.
Dia. (mm)
Max. Dia.
(mm)
Weld Button DataWelding Current DataWeld Time
Per Pulse
(ms)
Programmed
Current
(kA)
Measured
Current
(kA)
Min. Dia.
(mm)
Point C
Met., Point B
Shear Tension, Point B
Cross Tension, Point B
Cross Tension, Point A
Point B
Shear Tension, Point A
Point B
Point C
Page 18
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 2: Weldability Test Data (Continued)
98 12.7 12.5 140
100 12.9 12.7 140
102 13.1 12.9 140
104 13.3 13.1 140
106 13.5 13.3 140
108 13.7 13.5 140
110 13.9 13.7 140
112 14.1 13.9 140
113-115 14.1 13.9 140
116-118 14.1 13.9 140
120 14.1 13.9 140
122 14.3 14.0 130
124 14.5 14.2 130
125-127 14.5 14.2 130
128-130 14.5 14.2 130
132 14.5 14.2 130
134 14.3 14.1 130
136 14.7 14.5 120
138 14.7 14.5 120
139-141 14.7 14.5 120
142-144 14.7 14.5 120
146 14.7 14.5 120
1st Exp.
1st Exp.
Shear Tension, Point E
Met., Point E
Cross Tension, Point E
Cross Tension, Point D
Met., Point D
Met., Point G
Shear Tension, Point F
Cross Tension, Point F
1st and 2nd Exp., Point F
Met., Point F
1st and 2nd Exp., Point D
Shear Tension, Point D
1st Exp.
1st and 2nd Exp., Point E
Page 19
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 3. Shear Tension Test Data
(N) (lbs)
1 A 28,004 6,296
2 A 29,822 6,705
3 A 27,853 6,262
Average A 28,560 6,421
7 B 26,579 5,975
8 B 28,072 6,311
9 B 27,306 6,139
Average B 27,319 6,142
13 C 25,294 5,687
14 C 25,045 5,631
15 C 27,780 6,246
Average C 26,040 5,854
19 D 31,641 7,114
20 D 32,154 7,229
21 D 32,684 7,348
Average D 32,160 7,230
25 E 32,416 7,288
26 E 31,591 7,102
27 E 31,618 7,108
Average E 31,875 7,166
31 F 29,531 6,639
32 F 32,282 7,258
33 F 31,167 7,007
Average F 30,993 6,968
Average All 29,491 6,630
Shear Tension
Weld No.
Weld
Lobe
Position
Peak Load
Page 20
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data
(N) (lbs)
4 A 23,375 5,255
5 A 26,649 5,991
6 A 23,457 5,274
Average A 24,494 5,507
10 B 17,628 3,963
11 B 24,183 5,437
12 B 23,309 5,240
Average B 21,707 4,880
16 C 24,278 5,458
17 C 16,695 3,753
18 C 23,889 5,371
Average C 21,621 4,861
22 D 26,949 6,059
23 D 24,835 5,583
24 D 22,591 5,079
Average D 24,792 5,574
28 E 25,160 5,656
29 E 24,891 5,596
30 E 24,997 5,620
Average E 25,016 5,624
34 F 22,490 5,056
35 F 22,455 5,048
36 F 25,010 5,623
Average F 23,318 5,242
Average All 23,491 5,281
Cross Tension
Weld No.
Weld
Lobe
Position
Peak Load
Page 21
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 5: Cap Life Test Data
Test
Date 08/22/2013 Test Machine Taylor Material
2.7 mm
050 HSLA
Uncoated
Electrode
Type
GM
Global
Electrode
Tip Force
(kN)
7
# of
Pulse3
Weld Time
(ms)130
Cool Time
(ms)40
Hold Time
(ms)
1-48 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
50 14.3 14.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 130
51-98 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
100 14.3 14.2 9.4 9.8 9.6 130
101-148 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
150 14.3 14.2 8.9 9.6 9.3 130
151-198 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
200 14.3 14.2 7.8 8.0 7.9 130
201-248 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
250 14.3 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 130
251-298 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
300 14.3 14.2 7.7 8.4 8.1 130
301-348 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
350 14.3 14.2 7.7 8.6 8.2 130
351-398 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
400 14.3 14.2 7.3 8.6 8.0 130
401-448 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
450 14.3 14.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 130
451-498 14.3 14.2 - - - 130
500 14.3 14.2 8.2 8.5 8.4 130
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
180
Sample
or Weld
No.
Welding Current Data Weld Button Data Weld Time
Per Pulse
(ms)
COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)Programmed
Current (kA)
Max. Dia.
(mm)
Mean.
Dia.
Measured
Current (kA)
Min.
Dia.
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Page 22
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Appendix B: Figures
Figure 1: Weld Lobe
Point C
Point B
Point A
Point F
Point E
Point D
Point G
110
120
130
140
150
160
11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5
Weld
Tim
e (
ms)
Weld Current (kA)
Weld Time (ms) Weld Current (kA)
120 12.3
130 12.1
140 12.0
120 14.5
130 14.2
140 13.9
Point G 130 14.1
Minimum Button
Diameter
First Instance of
Expulsion on
Second Weld
Weld Lobe
Weld Time Current Range (kA)
Maximum 1.9
Nominal 2.1
Minimum 2.2
Weld Current Range
Page 23
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(a)
(b)
Figure 2 (a,b): Microhardness Traverse for Points A and B
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point A
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point B
Page 24
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(c)
(d)
Figure 2 (c,d): Microhardness Traverse for Points C and D
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point C
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point D
Page 25
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(e)
(f)
Figure 2 (e,f): Microhardness Traverse for Points E and F
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point E
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point F
Page 26
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(g)
Figure 2(g): Microhardness Traverse for Point G
Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point G
Page 27
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(a)
(b)
Figure 4(a,b): Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points A and B
Page 28
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(c)
Figure 4(c): Metallurgical Photo of Minimum Button Size Curve Point C
(a)
Figure 5(a): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point D
Page 29
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(b)
(c)
Figure 5(b,c): Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points E and F
Page 30
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(d)
Figure 5(d): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point G
Figure 6: Cap Life Test Button Size vs. Weld Number
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Bu
tto
n D
iam
ete
r (m
m)
Weld Number
Actual Button Size
Minimum Button Size
Page 31
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Figure 7: Electrode Imprints
Page 32
TEST REPORT
AET-13-0822SB
Resistance Spot Weld Evaluation of 2.6 mm C1008 Uncoated Steel Using General Motors Welding Specification GWS-5A
Submitted to: Steel Technologies, LLC
Prepared by:
AET Integration, Inc Wixom, MI 48393
August, 2013 248-420-9451
Page 33
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table of Contents 1. Objective ........................................................................................................................2 2. Test Procedure ..............................................................................................................2 3. Test Results and Analysis ...........................................................................................4 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Tables
Table 1: Weld Schedule Table 2: Weldability Test Data Table 3: Shear Tension Test Data Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data Table 5: Cap Life Test Data
B: Figures
Figure 1: Weld Lobe Figure 2: Microhardness Traverse Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse Figure 4: Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points Figure 5: Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points Figure 6: Button Size vs. Weld Number Figure 7: Electrode Imprints
Page 34
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
1. Project Objective Evaluate 2.6 mm C1008 uncoated steel provided by Steel Technologies, LLC using General Motors (GM) weld qualification specification GWS-5A dated April 2011.
2. Test Procedure 2.1 General Description Both the weldability and cap life evaluation procedure outlined by GWS-5A were conducted. Welding schedules are shown in Table 1 and were selected using the associated file for GWS-1A welding specifications. Minimum button size for this material was 7.0 mm per GMW 14057. GM Global Standard GMWZ – 19x24 mm electrodes were used. Electrode caps were dressed to the dimensions specified in the associated Cap Dress file for GWS-1A. Equipment used for testing is shown below.
2.2 Weldability procedure The weldability procedure consists of the following 6 components:
Weld lobe generation
Electrode life test
Shear tension test
Cross tension test
Metallurgical examination
Microhardness test
Resistance Spot Welder WSI Pedestal
Weld Control Miyachi ISA-500 AR MFDC
Weld Checker Miyachi MM-370A
Force Gauge Sensor Development Weld Probe
Tensile Test Machine MTS 810 Material Test System
Microscope Nikon SMZ800
Microhardness Tester Leco LM100AT
Page 35
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Electrode caps were installed and aligned. The squeeze time was adjusted to ensure consistent electrode force before welding. Before welding was started, the electrode alignment was verified with carbon paper imprints. Welding begins by finding the current required to produce the minimum nugget diameter at the nominal weld time. Using this setup, 50 conditioning spot welds were produced. The process appeared stable at this point. After electrode conditioning, coupons were welded and peel tested in 100A increments to determine the current that produced point A of the weld lobe diagram (minimum button size at maximum weld time). Three coupons were produced and peel tested using the determined weld current. The weld lobe was generated by establishing the minimum button diameter curve and the expulsion curve. The minimum button diameter curve is composed of points A, B and C. These locations represent the current necessary to produce the minimum button diameter at each of the three different weld times. The three weld times in this case were the maximum weld time (three pulse, 140 ms per pulse), nominal weld time (three pulse, 130 ms per pulse), and minimum weld time (three pulse, 120 ms per pulse). The expulsion curve was established by increasing weld current in 200A increments until expulsion was observed on the second spot weld of the test coupon. The expulsion procedure was also conducted for each of the three weld times resulting in point D, E and F on the weld lobe. For each point of the weld lobe, three shear tension samples and three cross tension samples were produced. One sample was produced for each point for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Shear tension and cross tension tests were performed and the peak loads were recorded using an MTS load frame. An additional coupon was produced at point G of the weld lobe diagram for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Microhardness traverses were made using a Vickers scale diamond indenter with a 500g load. 2.3 Cap Life Test Procedure Weld parameters for point G were used in the cap life test. Welding speed was 30 welds per minute. The cap life test procedure is repeated for groups of 50 welds until 500 acceptable welds are obtained or until the button size drops below the minimum button size requirement. Each group of 50 welds
Page 36
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
consisted of 48 welds on endurance test panels and two welds on a peel test sample. The second weld of the peel test sample was examined for button size and weld characteristics. Cap imprints were taken every 50 welds.
3. Test Results and Analysis
Detailed test data of the weldability test is listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. Shear tension test results are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix A. The average peak tensile load was 26.32 kN (5,917 lbs). Cross tension test results are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix A. The average peak cross tension load was 24.45 kN (5,497 lbs). The weld lobe is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B. The current ranges at all three weld times exceeded the 1.0 kA requirement in GWS-5A. Microhardness traverse results are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix B. The indent pattern is shown in Figure 3. Microhardness tests did not indicate brittle weld structures. Macro photos of metallurgical specimens are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 of Appendix B. Samples at expulsion points did not exhibit thinning over 30%. As shown in Table 5, 500 acceptable welds were obtained for the cap life evaluation without the button size dropping below 7.0mm. Figure 6 shows the button size variation throughout the test. Figure 7 shows the electrode imprints.
4. Conclusion The 2.6 mm C1008 steel evaluated by this test appears to meet the weldability requirements specified in GM welding specification GWS-5A.
Page 37
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Appendix A: Tables
Table 1: Weld Schedules
Table 2: Weldability Test Data
(kN) (lbs) Schedule (ms)Total Weld
Time (ms)
Minimum 120 360
Nominal 130 390
Maximum 140 420
Electrodes Hold Time
(ms)
GM Global
Standard GMWZ -
19x24 Dome Nose
7.0 1575
Electrode Force Weld Time
180
Test Date 08/22/2013Test
MachineTaylor Material
2.6 mm
C1008C
Low
Carbon
Uncoated
Electrode
Type
GM
Global
Electrode
Tip Force
(kN)
7.0
# of
Pulse3
Weld Time
(ms)
140, 130,
120
Cool Time
(ms)40
Hold Time
(ms)
2 10.6 10.2 6.5 6.5 6.5 130
3-52 10.7 10.3 130
54 10.7 10.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 140
56 10.8 10.4 6.4 6.7 6.6 140
58 11.0 10.5 5.8 6.7 6.3
60 11.2 10.8 6.7 6.8 6.8 140
62 11.3 10.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 140
64 11.3 10.9 7.3 7.4 7.4 140
66 11.3 10.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 140
67-69 11.3 10.9 140
70-72 11.3 10.9 140
74 11.3 10.9 140
76 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 130
78 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.2 7.2 130
80 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 130
81-83 11.4 11.3 130
84-86 11.4 11.3 130
88 11.4 11.3 130
90 11.5 11.4 7.2 7.2 7.2 120
92 11.5 11.4 7.1 7.2 7.2 120
94 11.5 11.4 7.0 7.1 7.1 120
95-97 11.5 11.4 120
98-100 11.5 11.4 120
102 11.5 11.4 120
Met., Point B
Shear Tension, Point C
Weld Time
Per Pulse
(ms)
Programmed
Current
(kA)
Measured
Current
(kA)
Min. Dia.
(mm)
Cross Tension, Point B
Point B
Point B
Point A
Cross Tension, Point A
Shear Tension, Point A
Point A
Point B
Shear Tension, Point B
Sample or
Weld No. Mean.
Dia. (mm)
Max. Dia.
(mm)
Weld Button DataWelding Current Data
Point C
Met., Point A
Met., Point C
Point C
Point C
Cross Tension, Point C
180
Point A
COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)
50 Conditioning Welds
Page 38
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 2: Weldability Test Data (Continued)
104 11.7 11.6 140
106 11.9 11.8 140
108 12.1 12.0 140
110 12.3 12.2 140
112 12.5 12.5 140
114 12.7 12.7 140
116 12.9 12.9 140
118 13.1 13.1 140
120 13.3 13.3 140
121-123 13.3 13.3 140
124-126 13.3 13.3 140
128 13.3 13.3 140
130 13.5 13.1 130
132 13.7 13.7 130
133-135 13.7 13.7 130
136-138 13.7 13.7 130
140 13.7 13.7 130
142 13.5 13.5 130
144 13.9 13.8 120
146 14.1 14.0 120
147-149 14.1 14.0 120
150-152 14.1 14.0 120
154 14.1 14.0 120
Met., Point E
Cross Tension, Point D
Met., Point D
Shear Tension, Point F
1st and 2nd Exp., Point F
1st and 2nd Exp., Point E
Met., Point G
Cross Tension, Point E
Cross Tension, Point F
Met., Point F
Shear Tension, Point E
2nd Exp., Point D
Shear Tension, Point D
Page 39
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 3. Shear Tension Test Data
(N) (lbs)
1 A 24,887 5,595
2 A 25,706 5,779
3 A 25,549 5,744
Average A 25,381 5,706
7 B 24,549 5,519
8 B 24,107 5,420
9 B 24,108 5,420
Average B 24,255 5,453
13 C 22,515 5,062
14 C 24,356 5,476
15 C 25,484 5,729
Average C 24,118 5,422
19 D 27,357 6,150
20 D 25,662 5,769
21 D 29,587 6,652
Average D 27,535 6,190
25 E 30,884 6,943
26 E 25,601 5,756
27 E 28,353 6,374
Average E 28,279 6,358
31 F 23,791 5,349
32 F 30,106 6,768
33 F 31,171 7,008
Average F 28,356 6,375
Average All 26,321 5,917
Shear Tension
Weld No.
Weld
Lobe
Position
Peak Load
Page 40
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data
(N) (lbs)
4 A 25,354 5,700
5 A 25,615 5,759
6 A 24,250 5,452
Average A 25,073 5,637
10 B 23,668 5,321
11 B 23,549 5,294
12 B 24,200 5,441
Average B 23,806 5,352
16 C 23,746 5,339
17 C 23,524 5,289
18 C 23,228 5,222
Average C 23,499 5,283
22 D 29,319 6,592
23 D 29,820 6,704
24 D 28,061 6,309
Average D 29,067 6,535
28 E 19,843 4,461
29 E 22,746 5,114
30 E 22,746 5,114
Average E 21,778 4,896
34 F 20,558 4,622
35 F 26,159 5,881
36 F 23,707 5,330
Average F 23,475 5,278
Average All 24,450 5,497
Cross Tension
Weld No.
Weld
Lobe
Position
Peak Load
Page 41
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Table 5: Cap Life Test Data
Test
Date 08/22/2013 Test Machine Taylor Material
2.6 mm
C1008C
Low
Carbon
Uncoated
Steel
Electrode
Type
GM
Global
Electrode
Tip Force
(kN)
7.0
# of
Pulse3
Weld Time
(ms)130
Cool Time
(ms)40
Hold Time
(ms)
1-48 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
50 13.5 13.2 8.4 9.2 8.8 130
51-98 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
100 13.5 13.2 8.0 8.2 8.1 130
101-148 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
150 13.5 13.2 8.0 8.5 8.3 130
151-198 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
200 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.2 8.1 130
201-248 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
250 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.3 8.1 130
251-298 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
300 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.3 8.1 130
301-348 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
350 13.5 13.2 7.3 8.2 7.8 130
351-398 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
400 13.5 13.2 7.6 8.2 7.9 130
401-448 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
450 13.5 13.2 7.2 8.0 7.6 130
451-498 13.5 13.2 - - - 130
500 13.5 13.2 7.2 8.1 7.7 130 Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
180
Sample
or Weld
No.
Welding Current Data Weld Button Data Weld Time
Per Pulse
(ms)
COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)Programmed
Current (kA)
Max. Dia.
(mm)
Mean.
Dia.
Measured
Current (kA)
Min.
Dia.
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Electrode Imprints
Page 42
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Appendix B: Figures
Figure 1: Weld Lobe
Point C
Point B
Point A
Point F
Point E
Point D
Point G
110
120
130
140
150
10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0
Weld
Tim
e (
ms)
Weld Current (kA)
Weld Time (ms) Weld Current (kA)
120 11.4
130 11.3
140 10.9
120 14.0
130 13.7
140 13.3
Point G 130 13.5
Minimum Button
Diameter
First Instance of
Expulsion on
Second Weld
Weld Lobe
Weld Time Current Range (kA)
Maximum 2.4
Nominal 2.4
Minimum 2.6
Weld Current Range
Page 43
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(a)
(b)
Figure 2 (a,b): Microhardness Traverse for Points A and B
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point A
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point B
Page 44
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(c)
(d)
Figure 2 (c,d): Microhardness Traverse for Points C and D.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point D
Page 45
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(e)
(f)
Figure 2 (e,f): Microhardness Traverse for Points E and F
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point E
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point F
Page 46
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(g)
Figure 2(g): Microhardness Traverse for Point G
Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Mic
roh
ard
ness (
HV
500g
)
Distance (mm)
Point G
Page 47
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(a)
(b)
Figure 4(a,b): Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points A and B
Page 48
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(c) Figure 4(c): Metallurgical Photo of Minimum Button Size Curve Point C
(a)
Figure 5(a): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point D
Page 49
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(b)
(c)
Figure 5(b,c): Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points E and F
Page 50
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
(d)
Figure 5(d): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point G
Figure 6: Cap Life Test Button Size vs. Weld Number
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Bu
tto
n D
iam
ete
r (m
m)
Weld Number
Actual Button Size
Minimum Button Size
Page 51
50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393
Figure 7: Electrode Imprints
Page 52
Page 53
B. CHRYSLER PAINT/PAINT PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE TESTS - 2013
1.0 Introduction and Discussion An EPS Producer sought to gain approval from Chrysler to supply EPS for select automotive applications. This producer arranged for laboratory tests of EPS samples in the areas of paint performance and phosphate paint pretreatment. The accredited testing laboratory ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan performed the tests, preparing the samples and conducting the tests in accordance with pertinent Chrysler standards. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT. From the results of these tests, EPS received approval from Chrysler as a replacement of acid pickled for an end use product application.
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
Page 54
ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Chrysler Phosphate Testing
Test Material: Customer Supplied Steel Panels
Test Material ID s: HRPO HR EPS
Test Reference: Chrysler PS-7449 (02/07)
ACT Quote Number: QC19940_61513 ACT Project Number: SO223380A
Customer P.O. Number: Wire Transfer
Material Received: 07/19/13 Test Date: 09/07/13
Prepared By: LSC Date Prepared: 09/09/13 Logbook: LSC-10, p. 87
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Technical Manager
Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Services
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380A
Page 55 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Material Identification: A (Control) = Customer Supplied HRPO
B (Test) = Customer Supplied HR EPS
Phosphate Application: ACT Test Panels applied phosphate per manufacturers recommendations
Phosphate: PPG/Chemfil C700 C59 (Batch #30821313)
Evaluation 5.3.1: Phosphate Macro-Appearance
Test Method: ACT WIL-0146 (05/08) Section 5.4
Number of Panels: Three panels of each material
Macro-Appearance: Visual examination for non-uniformity such as void areas, blotchiness, spotting, streaking, and color appearance of phosphate coating using the naked eye.
Evaluation: Compare the uniformity of the test material to that of the control and rate per the appearance rating scale.
Appearance Rating Scale: More (>) uniform as compared to control Equal (=) in uniformity as compared to control Less (<) uniform as compared to control
Evaluation 5.3.2: Phosphate Crystal Size
Test Method: ACT WIL-0146 (05/08) Section 5.5
Number of Panels: Three panels of each material
Microscope: Amray Model 1810D Scanning Electron Microscope (LEQP 0043)
Magnifications: 200 and 1000 X
Crystal Size: The mean of a representative sample of five crystals (predominant) and the maximum as measured on the 1000 X image produced by the SEM.
: Microns
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380A
Page 56 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Evaluation 5.3.3: Phosphate Coating Weight
Test Method: ACT WIL-0144 (05/08)
Number of Panels: Three panels of each material
Instrument: ASOMA Instruments X-ray Fluorescence Model 200/400 (LEQP 0120)
Analysis Cycle: Each sample is irradiated for 60 Seconds
mg/ft²: Milligrams per Square Foot
Phosphateability Test Data: PPG/Chemfil C700 C59
ID Coating Weight (mg/ft²)
Micro-Appearance Macro-Appearance
Crystal Size (µ) Predominant Maximum Appearance Rating* Comments
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B1 247 3 7 = Lighter B2 255 2 5 = Lighter B3 250 4 8 = Lighter
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A1 417 5 11
Control Uniform
A2 481 5 8 Uniform A3 523 5 10 Uniform
* As compared to the customer supplied control material.
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380A
Page 57 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
SEM Photographs: C700 C59 Zinc Phosphate
A1 (Control Material) A2 (Control Material)
A3 (Control Material) B1 (Test Material)
B2 (Test Material)
B3 Test Material)
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
Page 58
ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Chrysler Lubricant/Adhesive Compatibility Testing
Test Material: Customer Supplied Steel Panels
Test Material ID s: HRPO HR EPS
ACT Quote Number: QC19940_61513 ACT Project Number: SO223380B
Customer P.O. Number: Wire Transfer
Material Received: 07/19/13
Prepared By: LSC Date Prepared: 09/12/13 Logbook: LSC-10, p. 93
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Technical Manager
Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Services
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380B
Page 59 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Evaluation #1: Chrysler Shear Adhesion Test
Coupon Prep Date: 09/09/13-09/10/13 Test Date: 09/11/13
Test Method: Chrysler LP-463NB-29-02 (08/08) Section 6.3
Test Material ID s: A (Control) = Customer Supplied HRPO, 1" x 4" B (Test) = Customer Supplied HR EPS, 1" x 4"
Control Mill Oil: Quaker 61AUS, Lot #423884
Coupon Cleaning: Not required
Lubricant Application: Coupons were dipped half way into the mill oil (area where the adhesive will be applied), then placed upside down in a rack and allowed to age vertically for a period of 16 hours. (Oil coating weight to be 175 ± 25 mg/ft2.)
Test Sealer ID s, Bond Gap, and Bond Area:
Test Apparatus: Oven: Blue-M Model DC-136C (LEQP 0006) Shear Test Instrument: Instron/MTS Renew Model 1127 (LEQP 0003) Load Cell: 10000 lb. Instron Model 2511-303 (LEQP 0050)
Digital Thermometer: Omega Model HH2002A w/ Type K Thermocouple (LEQP 0236) Thermocouple: Lap Shear (0.8 mm steel coupons w/ small binder clips) with attached Type K
Thermocouple (LEQP 0233) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Model CD-6"CX Digimatic Caliper (LEQP 0240) Timer: Control Company Model 06-662-3 (LEQP 0273)
Jaw Gap: 4 inch distance between jaws
Jaw Separation Speed: 2 inches per minute
Adhesive Application: Pumpable adhesive is applied so that the material covers the required bond area
Adhesive Dwell Time: Minimum of 4 hours
ID Sealer Description Bond Gap (in.) Bond Area Set 1 MS-CD457F, Henkel TK2400 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 2 MS-CD457C, PPG B7793B 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 3 MS-CD510B, Dow 162OUS 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 4 MS-CD473A, Henkel 0.030 1" x 1" Set 5 MS-CD473H, Henkel 0.030 1" x 1"
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380B
Page 60 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Bake Schedule: 20 minutes at 350
5 F
Bake Recovery Time: Minimum 4 hours after baking
Examinations: After conditioning, the bonded assemblies are evaluated on a tensile test machine. The shear strength and separation mode are recorded. The average shear strength and standard deviation are calculated.
Separation Modes: Adhesive or Cohesive Failure (Including Fine Line) of the adhesive
MPa: Megapascal
Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD457F, Henkel TK2400 (Set 1)
ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B1-1 16.9
15.9 2.4
5 95 B1-2 18.4 5 95 B1-3 13.9 5 95 B1-4 12.8 5 95 B1-5 17.6 5 95
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A1-1 18.4
18.2 0.5
5 95 A1-2 18.0 5 95 A1-3 18.9 5 95 A1-4 17.6 5 95 A1-5 18.1 5 95
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380B
Page 61 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD457C, PPG B7793B (Set 2)
ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B2-1 29.8
27.9 2.9
0 100 B2-2 27.1 0 100 B2-3 25.1 0 100 B2-4 25.5 0 100 B2-5 32.0 5 95
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A2-1 21.0
24.6 3.5
5 95 A2-2 20.9 5 95 A2-3 28.0 10 90 A2-4 25.1 10 90 A2-5 27.8 10 90
Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD510B, Dow 162OUS (Set 3)
ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B3-1 35.2
32.2 2.2
10 90 B3-2 30.2 10 90 B3-3 31.3 10 90 B3-4 33.8 10 90 B3-5 30.5 10 90
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A3-1 33.9
30.2 2.3
10 90 A3-2 31.0 10 90 A3-3 28.4 10 90 A3-4 28.3 10 90 A3-5 29.5 20 80
273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652
LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO223380B
Page 62 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.
www.acttestservices.com
Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD473A, Henkel (Set 4)
ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B4-1 0.9
0.8 0.1
0 100 B4-2 0.8 0 100 B4-3 0.8 0 100 B4-4 0.8 0 100 B4-5 0.9 0 100
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A4-1 0.9
0.9 0.0
0 100 A4-2 0.9 0 100 A4-3 0.9 0 100 A4-4 0.9 0 100 A4-5 0.9 0 100
Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD473H, Henkel (Set 5)
ID Shear Strength (MPa)
Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)
Standard Deviation (MPa)
Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive
Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B5-1 0.2
0.2 0.0
0 100 B5-2 0.2 0 100 B5-3 0.2 0 100 B5-4 0.2 0 100 B5-5 0.2 0 100
Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A5-1 0.2
0.2 0.0
0 100 A5-2 0.2 0 100 A5-3 0.3 0 100 A5-4 0.2 0 100 A5-5 0.2 0 100
Page 63
C. GENERAL MOTORS PAINT PERFORMANCE TESTS CONDUCTED BY BODYCOTE ACT LABORATORIES - 2006
1.0 Introduction and Discussion Early in the development of EPS technology, it was important to ascertain that the EPS surface could be interchangeable with an acid pickled surface and, therefore, acceptable to manufacturers as a replacement for HRPO. An EPS User wanted to evaluate EPS samples against General Motors Paint Performance Standards, and contracted the accredited testing laboratory Bodycote ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan to perform such tests during 2006. NOTE: the EPS User was NOT seeking General Motors approval of EPS. ACT prepared EPS samples provided by TMW and then conducted the tests in accordance with GM standards and documented the results. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT. They are not only useful for the raw data and trends, but they also indicate whether or not the EPS results ‘passed’ the pertinent GM acceptance standards. In all cases, the tested EPS samples met the GM paint performance acceptance criteria; however, the reports were not provided to GM, therefore it should not be inferred that GM ‘approves’ the use of EPS-processed steel based on these test results. GM has since approved the use of EPS-processed steel based on different set of tests conducted in 2013 (See Section A).
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
Page 64
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street Red Bud, IL 62278
ATTN: Laura Berner
GM Paint Performance Testing
Customer Supplied Panels
Material Identification: Non–Zinc Exterior Non “S”
Test Standard: GM 4350M (04/06) Class A336, Table 5
Bodycote Quote Number: AQT 59354 Bodycote Project Number: AIN 174320A
Prepared By: TML
Date Prepared: 11/30/06 Logbook: TML-14, pp. 69-72
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Lab Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 65
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 10/11/06 Process Date: 11/08/06 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN176349 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 542AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148 Evaluation #1: Visual Examination Rating Scales Degree of Change: None: No change Slight: Barely observable with normal examination Moderate: Modest change, Readily noticeable Pronounced: Distinct change, Easily observed with casual examination Evaluation #2: Paint Adhesion Test - Method A AQT 59354: Per Line Item #3 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9071P (08/02) Method A Number of Tests: Three crosshatch tests per sample
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 66
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Scribing Tool: Single edge razor blade - 2.0 mm spacing Tape: 3M Scotch Brand #898 (LCE #284) Evaluations: Rate percentage of paint film remaining after tape pull Rate Level of Failure Evaluation #3: Paint Adhesion Test - Method B AQT 59354: Per Line Item #3 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9071P (08/02) Method B Process: 20 x 75 mm "X" Cut + Tape Adhesion Number of Tests: Three cross cuts per sample Scribing Tool: Single edge razor blade Tape: 3M Scotch Brand #898 (ACT #284) Evaluations: Rate percentage of paint remaining under tape test area, type of removal, and failure mode Type of Removal Rating: A Paint removed along knife cut evenly B Paint removed in the "V" section of the knife cut C Paint removed in a "patch not touching" knife cut D Paint removed in a "patch touching" knife cut
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 67
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Adhesion Test Data: As Received Requirement: Minimum of 99% paint retention in as received condition.
Adhesion Method A Method B Requirement ID Retention (%) Level of Failure Retention (%) Failure Mode Type of Removal Met/Did not Meet
100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 1 100 None 100 None None Met
100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 2 100 None 100 None None Met
100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 3 100 None 100 None None Met
Evaluation #4: Humidity Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #4 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Start Date: 11/16/06 Test End Date: 11/20/06 Test Method: GM 4465P (07/95) Exposure: 96 Hours Deionized Water Fog Humidity Chamber: Singleton Model 24 (LCE #87) Evaluations: Visual Examination for Blistering or other Surface Defects per Evaluation #1
Adhesion Test per Evaluations #2 and #3 within 10-15 minutes after removal
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 68
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Humidity Test Data: 96 Hours Requirement: No evidence of blistering or other appearance changes at the end of the hours indicated
and a minimum of 99% paint retention.
Blister Rating Requirement
ID Size Frequency Pattern Other Defects Met/Did not Meet 4 10 None None None Met 5 10 None None None Met 6 10 None None None Met
Final Adhesion Method A Method B Requirement
ID Retention (%) Level of Failure Retention (%) Failure Mode Type of Removal Met/Did not Meet 100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 4 100 None 100 None None Met
100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 5 100 None 100 None None Met
100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 6 100 None 100 None None Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 69
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #5: Chip Resistance of Coating AQT 59354: Per Line Item #8 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/16/06 Test Method: GM 9508P (06/02) Method A Preconditioning: Minimum of 4 hours at -25 ± 2°C Temperature: Temperature -25 ± 2°C Air Pressure: 70 ± 3 psi Test Apparatus: Q-Panel Model QGR Gravelometer (LCE #98) Gravel: 1 pint water worn alluvial road gravel which passes through a 16 mm space
screen, but is retained on a 9.5 mm space screen. Exposure Chamber: Walk-In Freezer KOLPAK (LCE #15) Tape: 3M Scotch Brand 202-2 (LCE #287) Examinations: Visual comparison with General Motors Standards mm: Millimeter Chip Resistance Test Data: -25 ± 2°C Requirement: Minimum rating of 6 (metallic substrates).
Chip Resistance Requirement ID Rating Level of Failure Type of Failure Met / Did not Meet 13 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met 14 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met 15 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 70
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #6: Adequacy of Cure Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #10 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9509P (07/95) Process: Solvent Rub, Ten Double Rubs with Firm Pressure Solvent: Xylene Examination: Observation of Painted Surface for Changes Observation of Rubbing Cloth for Residue Rating Scale: Rating Paint Surface Residue on Cloth 0 No Change None 1 Slight-Barely Observable Trace Amount 3 Moderate-Readily Noticeable Readily Noticeable 5 Severe-Very Obvious Saturated with Color Cure Test Data: Xylene Requirement: Rating of 0 or 1.
Painted Surface Cloth Requirement ID Rating Description Rating Description Met / Did not Meet 16 0 No Change 0 None Met 17 0 No Change 0 None Met 18 0 No Change 0 None Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 71
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #7: Gasoline Dip Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #11 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Methods: GM 9501P (03/97) Method A GM 9507P (09/88) Thumbnail Hardness Process: 20 Cycles (10 Second Immersion + 20 Second Dry-Off) tested every Fifth Cycle
for Thumbnail Hardness per GM 9507P Fuel: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Evaluations: Visual examination for color change or paint removal to previous surface or lifting or peeling of paint film and other surface changes per Evaluation #1 Gasoline Dip Test Data: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Requirement: No color change, paint removal to previous surface, lifting, peeling or visible defect in
paint film.
Requirement ID 5th Cycle 10th Cycle 15th Cycle 20th Cycle Met / Did not Meet 19 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met 20 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met 21 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 72
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #8: Gasoline Puddle Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #12 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/15/06 Test Method: GM 9500P (11/88) Process: The panel is saturated for five minutes and inspected. The process is done a total
of three times. Fuel: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Evaluations: Visual examination for color change or paint removal to previous surface or
lifting or peeling of paint film or other surface changes per Evaluation #1 Gasoline Puddle Test Data: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Requirement: No color change, paint removal to previous surface, lifting, peeling or visible defect in
paint film.
Requirement ID 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle Met / Did not Meet 22 Pass Pass Pass Met 23 Pass Pass Pass Met 24 Pass Pass Pass Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A
Page 73
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #9: Oil Immersion Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #13 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/16/06 Test Method: GM 9507P (09/88) Test Container: 1 Gallon metal pail Oil: GM Goodwrench 5W30 Exposure Chamber: Despatch Oven LDB 2-27-4 (LCE #92) Immersion: 7 Hours immersion in 70-75°C hot oil bath Examinations: Thumbnail Hardness per GM 9507P after Exposure Visual examination for marring, paint removal and change in appearance per
Evaluation #1 Oil Immersion Test Data: 7 Hours Requirement: No marring or paint removal of the surface (i.e., no paint removal or change in
appearance).
Requirement ID Marring Paint Removal Visual Examination Met / Did not Meet 25 None None None Met 26 None None None Met 27 None None None Met
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
Page 74
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street Red Bud, IL 62278
ATTN: Laura Berner
GM Neutral Salt Spray Testing
Customer Supplied Panels
Material Identification: Non–Zinc Exterior Non “S”
Test Standard: GM 4350M (04/06) Class A336, Table 5
Bodycote Quote Number: AQT 59354 Bodycote Project Number: AIN 174320B (Rev. 1)
Prepared By: TML
Date Prepared: 09/21/07 Logbook: TML-14, pp. 69-72
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Lab Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320B (Rev. 1)
Page 75
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 10/11/06 Process Date: 11/08/06 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN176349 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 542AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148 Evaluation #1: Visual Examination Rating Scales Test Methods: ASTM D 714-02 Blister Ratings ASTM D 610-01 Degree of Rusting Blister Size Scale: 10 No Blistering 8 Blisters Easily Seen by Unaided Eye 6,4,2 See Photographic Standards in ASTM D 714 Blister Frequency: N=None, F=Few, M=Medium, MD=Medium Dense, D=Dense Blister Pattern: Uniform, Streaks, Scattered, Patches, Edges, Along Scribe, etc. Rust Grade Rating Scale: 10 Less than or equal to 0.01% 9 Greater than 0.01% and up to 0.03% 8 Greater than 0.03% and up to 0.1% 7 Greater than 0.1% and up to 0.3% 6 Greater than 0.3% and up to 1.0% 5 Greater than 1.0% and up to 3.0% 4 Greater than 3.0% and up to 10.0% 3 Greater than 10.0% and up to 16.0% 2 Greater than 16.0% and up to 33.0% 1 Greater than 33.0% and up to 50.0% 0 Greater than 50.0%
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320B (Rev. 1)
Page 76
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Rust Distribution Rating: S: Spot Rusting – Spot Rusting occurs when the bulk of the rusting is concentrated in a few localized areas of the painted surface G: General Rusting – General Rusting occurs when various size rust spots are randomly distributed across the surface P: Pinpoint Rusting – Pinpoint Rusting occurs when the rust is distributed across the surface as very small individual specks of rust H: Hybrid Rusting – An actual rusting surface may be a hybrid of the types of rust distribution depicted in the visual examples (Spot, General, and Pinpoint Rusting) Degree of Change: None: No change Slight: Barely observable with normal examination Moderate: Modest change, Readily noticeable Pronounced: Distinct change, Easily observed with casual examination Evaluation #2: Corrosion Creepback Test Test Method: GM 9102P (09/97) Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool (Industry code E) Air Blow-Off Apparatus: Air Blow-Off, 80 psi using a 3.0 mm round orifice (LCE #134) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LCE #115) Total Width Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film in millimeters,
on each side of the scribed line. Average: The mean of 12 measurements of Total Width Creepback at points 10 mm apart
centered on the scribed line. Each measurement is an average of the creepback on two sides of the scribed line.
Maximum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the most
extensive amount of affected paint, discounting the areas less than two centimeters from the ends of the scribed line.
Minimum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the least
extensive amount of affected paint, discounting the areas less than two centimeters from the ends of the scribed line.
mm: Millimeter
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320B (Rev. 1)
Page 77
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #3: Neutral Salt Spray Exposure AQT 59354: Per Line Item #5 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Start Date: 11/15/06 Test End Date: 11/29/06 Test Method: GM4298P (06/97) Neutral Salt Spray Exposure: 336 hours Salt Spray Chamber: Singleton Model 24 (LCE #575) Salt: Morton® Reagent Grade Sodium Chloride Examinations: Visual Examination per Evaluation #1 Total Width Creepback per Evaluation #2
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320B (Rev. 1)
Page 78
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Neutral Salt Spray Test Data: 336 Hours Requirement: No evidence of blistering or other appearance changes at the end of the hours indicated.
Maximum allowable creepback is 6 mm on bare steel. Less than 10% of the surface shall be corroded (exclusive of scribes and/or within 3 mm of sharp edges).
Blister Rating Requirement
ID Size Frequency Pattern Visual Met / Did not Meet 7 10 None None None Met 8 10 None None None Met 9 10 None None None Met
Corrosion Rating Total Width Creepback (mm) Requirement ID Grade Distribution Average Maximum Minimum Met / Did not Meet 7 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met 8 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met 9 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met
* Rating pertains to areas away from the scribe line
Original Report Date: 11/30/06 Revision #1 Report Date: 09/21/07 Reason for Revision #1: Added note to data table on p.5.
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM
Page 79
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street
Red Bud, IL 62278
ATTN: Alan Mueth
GM Cyclic Corrosion Testing
Samples CRS and EPS85
Standard: GM4350M (04/06) Class A336
Bodycote Quote Number: NRA-163 Bodycote Lab Number: 001621B (Rev. 3)
Customer P.O. Number: 0025278
Prepared By: JAL and TML Date Prepared: 09/21/07
Logbook: TML-16, pp. 64-65
APPROVED BY:
Kevin Wendt Laboratory Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT LAB #001621B (Rev.3)
Page 80
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 05/04/07 Process Date: 06/27/07 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN178475 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 270AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148
Evaluation #1: Corrosion Creepback Test Test Method: GM 9102P (09/97) Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool (Industry code E) Air Blow-Off Apparatus: Air Blow-Off, 80 psi using a 3.0 mm round orifice (LCE #134) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LCE #115) Total Width Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film in millimeters,
on each side of the scribed line. Average: The mean of 10 measurements of Total Width Creepback at points 10 mm apart
centered on the scribed line. Each measurement is an average of the creepback on two sides of the scribed line.
Maximum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the most
extensive amount of affected paint, discounting the areas less than two centimeters from the ends of the scribed line.
Minimum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the least
extensive amount of affected paint, discounting the areas less than two centimeters from the ends of the scribed line.
mm: Millimeter
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT LAB #001621B (Rev.3)
Page 81
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Evaluation #2: Cyclic Corrosion Test Material Received: 05/04/07 06/27/07 – Panels received from ACT test Panels Test Start Date: 07/02/07 Test End Date: 08/27/07 Test Methods: GM 9540P (12/97) GM 8101G (12/98) Exposure: 40 Cycles Exposure Chamber: Thermotron SM-32C (LCE #270) Humidity: Steam generated with water fog assist Evaluations: Visual examination for Corrosion per GM 8101G Rating Scale Total Width Creepback per Evaluation #1 GM8101G Rating Scale: Rating Description 10 No Visible Corrosion 9 One or two small red rust spots 8 Some small red rust spots 7 Many small red rust spots (approx.10%) 6 Medium sized red rust spots (10-40%) 5 Many medium sized red rust spots (40-60%) 4 Large red rust spot (60-90%) 3 Large corroded area or very large red rust spot (100%) 2 Metal Loss 1 Perforation Note: This rating scale pertains to areas away from the scribe line
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT LAB #001621B (Rev.3)
Page 82
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
GM 9540P Test Data: 40 Cycles Requirement: Duration C – Corrosion rating of 8 or better per GM8101G and maximum allowable
creepback is 6 mm on bare steel.
Total Width Creepback (mm) Requirement ID Average Maximum Minimum
GM 8101G Rating Met / Did not Meet
1 CRS 4.9 7.2 2.7 10* Did not Meet 2 CRS 5.9 7.3 2.9 10* Did not Meet 3 CRS 4.3 7.6 2.3 10* Did not Meet
1 EPS85 3.7 5.7 1.6 10* Met 2 EPS85 2.8 4.2 1.8 10* Met 3 EPS85 3.1 4.2 2.1 10* Met
* Rating pertains to areas away from the scribe line
Original Report Date: 08/29/07 Revision #1 Report Date: 09/06/07 Revision #2 Report Date: 09/17/07 Revision #3 Report Date: 09/21/07 Reason for Revision #1: Split the CRS and EPS85 data into 1 report. Reason for Revision #2: Added panel preparation Added test requirements and whether samples met those requirements Reason for Revision #3: Added note to rating scale on p.3 and to data table on p.4.
TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM
LABORATORY TEST REPORT LAB #001621B (Rev.3)
Page 83
The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.
Test Photographs:
CRS GM9540 EPS85 GM9540
EPS85 GM9540
Page 84
D. HUMIDITY TEST – 500 HOUR EXPOSURE OF EPS DRY, HOT ROLL BLACK, HRPO AND SCS SAMPLES
A single coil of low carbon flat rolled steel was the source of smaller samples that were acid pickled then oiled, SCS processed and EPS processed. It was important that all of the samples came from the same source coil in order to isolate the differences in results of humidity tests. TEST PROCEDURE:
Testing Laboratory:
Test Start Date:
Test Method:
Test Chamber Humidity:
Test Chamber Temp:
Water Specification:
Test Duration:
St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. (A2LA Accredited)
April 24, 2008
ASTM D 2247-02: Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance of Coatings in 100% Relative Humidity
98% Relative Humidity
38 C (104 F)
Type IV (Ion Exchange) ASTM D 1193-99E
500 hours, no interruptions
TEST RESULTS:
SAMPLE ID
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
500 HOUR VISUAL OBSERVATION
TBUS10 Hot Roll Black, Untreated (reference) Moderate Corrosion
TBUS10P HRPO (acid pickled with heavy coat of oil) Slight Corrosion
TBUS10SCS SCS processed, single pass Moderate Corrosion
TBUS105 EPS processed, single pass, dry surface Slight Corrosion
TBUS1012 EPS processed, double pass, dry surface Slight Corrosion
CONCLUSIONS:
The EPS samples’ humidity results were comparable to the HRPO with heavy oil at the 500 hour completion of the test, whereas the untreated hot rolled black and SCS samples showed more corrosion. The EPS “second pass” sample showed no meaningful difference from the EPS “single pass” sample.
Page 85
E. SALT SPRAY TEST – 1008 HOUR EXPOSURE OF EPS AND SCS
A single coil of low carbon flat rolled steel was the source of smaller samples that were SCS processed and EPS processed. It was important that all of the samples came from the same source coil in order to isolate the differences in results of salt spray testing of the painted samples. All samples were painted using a powdercoat process. The paint thickness was subsequently measured at 5 different locations on each sample (center and close to each of the 4 corners). All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. TEST PROCEDURE:
Testing Laboratory:
Test Methods:
Test Chamber Conditions:
Water Specification:
Test Duration:
St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. (A2LA Accredited)
ASTM B117-07: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments
5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at between 93 F and 98 F
Type IV (Ion Exchange) ASTM D 1193-99E
1008 hours
TEST RESULTS:
The amount by which the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is quantified according to the following index:
10 = 0 inch 9 = 0 to 1/64th inch 8 = 1/64th to 1/32nd inch 7 = 1/32nd to 1/16th inch
6 = 1/16th to 1/8th inch 5 = 1/8th to 3/16th inch 4 = 3/16th to 1/4th inch 3 = 1/4th to 3/8th inch
Page 86
EPS
SAMPLE
RANGE OF PAINT
THICKNESS (mils)
CREEP AT
504 HOURS
CREEP AT
840 HOURS
CREEP AT
1080 HOURS
1 3.2 – 4.6 9 9 9
2 4.6 – 5.2 9 9 9
3 2.1 – 3.9 8 8 7
4 3.1 – 3.9 9 9 7
5 2.7 – 3.5 9 9 8
6 2.4 – 4.4 9 9 7
7 3.9 – 5.3 9 9 8
8 3.3 – 5.0 8 8 8
9 4.1 – 6.1 10 10 9
10 2.8 – 3.9 9 9 9
11 3.4 – 4.0 9 9 8
12 3.6 – 5.5 9 9 9
SCS
SAMPLE
RANGE OF PAINT
THICKNESS (mils)
CREEP AT
504 HOURS
CREEP AT
840 HOURS
CREEP AT
1080 HOURS
13 3.1 – 4.2 8 8 7
14 3.3 – 4.2 8 8 1
15 3.7 – 5.6 9 9 8
16 3.0 – 5.1 8 8 2
17 2.9 – 5.6 9 9 9
18 3.2 – 4.4 9 7 7
19 3.7 – 4.6 8 8 6
20 2.6 – 5.4 4 4 4
21 3.4 – 5.3 7 7 3
22 5.1 – 7.0 9 9 9
23 3.2 – 4.3 5 5 3
24 3.2 – 4.4 5 5 3
Page 87
F. EPS ROUGHENED SURFACE SALT SPRAY AND PAINT ADHESION TESTS: LOW CARBON & STAINLESS STEEL A manufacturer of electrical transformer panels sought to achieve improved paint adhesion for both its low carbon mild steel products and its stainless steel products. The manufacturer decided to evaluate EPS processing wherein a rougher surface texture was produced (130 to 160 Ra), based on the understanding that a uniform, but rougher surface of “jagged” micro peaks and valleys would offer superior paint adhesion. EPS samples were provided as two populations:
- average roughness of 130 Ra for low carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409
- average roughness of 160 Ra for low carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409 The 3” x 6” samples underwent a pretreatment customary for each of the manufacturer’s two painting processes, were painted, and the paint thickness measured at the center and near each of the four corners to characterize the average paint thickness. SALT FOG TEST PROCEDURE:
All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting (in the case of the low carbon steel) and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. The panels were placed in a salt fog chamber for continuous exposure for 1500 hours.
Test Methods:
Test Chamber Conditions:
Water Specification:
Test Start Date:
Test Duration:
ASTM B117-07: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments
5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at an average 95 F
Type IV (Ion Exchange) ASTM D 1193-99E
June 23, 2008
1500 hours
SALT FOG TEST RESULTS:
Page 88
The amount by which the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is quantified according to the following index:
10 = 0 inch 9 = 0 to 1/64th inch 8 = 1/64th to 1/32nd inch 7 = 1/32nd to 1/16th inch
MATERIAL
SURFACE
Ra
PRETREATAND PAINT
AVERAGE PAINT
THICKNESS
1500 HR. CREEP INDEX
1500 HOUR
OBSERVATION
Mild Steel 130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.04 mils 10 large blisters at scribe
Mild Steel 130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
3.29 mils 8 small, dense blisters over entire panel
Mild Steel 160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.52 mils 10 large blisters at scribe
Mild Steel 160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
3.62 mils 9 small, dense blisters over entire panel
409 Stainless
130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
3.92 mils 10
409 Stainless
130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.21 mils 10 tiny blisters along scribe
409 Stainless
160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.36 mils 10
409 Stainless
160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.62 mils 10 tiny blisters along scribe
304 Stainless
130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.87 mils 10
304 Stainless
130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.13 mils 10
304 Stainless
160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.77 mils 10
304 Stainless
160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.85 mils 10
Page 89
PAINT ADHESION TEST PROCEDURE: EPS samples were provided as two populations:
- average roughness of 130 Ra for carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409
- average roughness of 160 Ra for carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409 The 3” x 6” samples underwent a pretreatment customary for each of the manufacturer’s two painting processes, were painted, and the paint thickness measured at the center and near each of the four corners to characterize the average paint thickness. A total of 11 parallel cuts were made with a razor blade, 1 mm apart in both a vertical and horizontal direction forming a grid. One inch wide pressure-sensitive tape was then firmly applied to the scribed surface and rapidly removed with the pull strength measured using an adhesion tester.
Test Methods: ASTM D3359-02: Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test
ASTM D 4541-02 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers
PAINT ADHESION TEST RESULTS:
Paint adhesion is quantified according to the following index characterizing the amount of paint coating removed (present on the tape):
5B = No removal of paint. The edges of the cuts are completely smooth; none of the cross hatch squares or the lattice are detached. 4B = Small flakes of coating are detached at intersections; less than 5% of the area is affected. 3B = Small flakes of coating are detached along edges and at intersections of cuts. The area affected is 5 to 15% of the lattice.
Page 90
MATERIAL
SURFACE
Ra
PRETREAT AND PAINT
AVERAGE PAINT
THICKNESS
PULL OFF FORCE (lbs/in2)
PASS/FAIL
INDEX 5B
Mild Steel 130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
3.39 mils >1000 * PASS
Mild Steel 130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
3.79 mils 500 PASS
Mild Steel 160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.05 mils 300 ** PASS
Mild Steel 160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.62 mils >1000 * PASS
409 Stainless
130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
3.80 mils 500 ** PASS
409 Stainless
130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.66 mils >1000 * PASS
409 Stainless
160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
4.04 mils 350 ** PASS
409 Stainless
160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.70 mils >1000 * PASS
304 Stainless
130 5 stage wash, powdercoat
5.26 mils 700 ** PASS
304 Stainless
130 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.05 mils 600 PASS
304 Stainless
160 5 stage wash, powdercoat
5.29 mils 800 PASS
304 Stainless
160 2 stage wash, urethane over
epoxy
4.50 mils 700 PASS
* a Pull Force >1000 means the force required to remove the tape was beyond the scale of the Pull Force measurement device, which has a maximum reading of 1000 lbs/in2.
** The adhesive tape failed (ripped, instead of clean removal) at the indicated pull force in these cases, hence the true upper limit of force required to remove the paint is unknown.
Page 91
G. EPS SURFACE TEXTURE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO ACID PICKLED SURFACE TEXTURE In October 2011, detailed surface profile evaluations were performed on samples of conventional acid-pickled sheet steel and EPS processed sheet steel in their bare (no coating) state and in chromated (prepaint process) and chromated plus painted states. The purpose was to characterize surface texture of steel that had been pickled by these two very different methods in all three states. The evaluations employed a sophisticated Wyko non-contact optical profilometer* to scan the samples. This device uses the phase change of light reflecting from various heights of the material to measure the uniformity of a flat surface. It is capable of characterizing surface roughness at the sub-nanometer level. Below is a profile resulting from one of the scans of a bare acid pickled surface: The surface scans of both acid pickled and EPS samples computed the following indicators of surface variance: Ra, Rq and Rt. Ra is the most familiar of these terms, often referred to as “average roughness” because it measures the average absolute value of peaks and values from the arithmetic mean of the profile.
Page 92
While Ra is useful, it is not a conclusive measure of surface roughness, as all of the profiles shown below have the same Ra value: Rq is the “root mean square” measurement of Ra and varies from Ra by a constant factor. In this case Rq is not different enough from Ra to discuss in any detail. Rt characterizes the “total” height profile as illustrated below:
Roughness measurements for the bare, chromated and painted (by e-coating) scans were as follows:
Note that the Ra of the bare EPS surface is greater than that of the acid pickled surface, as is expected (EPS processing is intended to produce a higher Ra, but more uniform surface than acid pickling). Chromating and then E-Coat painting the surface has the expected effect of ‘smoothing out’ surface roughness for both the
side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2
Rq 2.11 3.12 5.34 4.67 2.66 1.8 4.67 5.5 0.857 0.589 1.04 0.95
Ra 1.65 2.47 4.18 3.65 2.09 1.43 3.61 4.27 0.66 0.458 0.814 0.744
Rt 79.66 28.42 72.86 42.71 114.2 56.56 158.8 183.15 9.7 7.21 10.09 9.89
(microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns)
BARE SURFACE CHROMATED SURFACE E‐COATED SURFACE
ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS
Page 93
acid pickled and the EPS samples so that final Ra and Rt values are comparable for acid pickled and EPS samples.
However, these pure roughness measurements are not the entire story. The Wyko profilometer has the ability to filter raw roughness data to determine the “waviness” of a surface. How is surface waviness different from roughness? The profiles below illustrate these two distinct concepts:
Waviness is a long wavelength shape which averages out local roughness data to characterize the overall contours of a surface. The surface’s waviness can be quantified by Wa, Wq and Wt, which are calculated for a waviness profile the way that Ra, Rq and Rt are for a roughness profile.
Waviness measurements for the bare, chromated and painted (by e-coating) scans were as follows:
The average waviness, Wa, of the bare EPS sample is comparable to the acid-pickled sample, as is the total wave height profile, Wt. However, as successive layers of coating are applied – first chromate and then paint – both Wa and Wt of the EPS sample drops to roughly half the level of the acid pickled sample, indicating an overall smoother surface finish for the EPS samples.
side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2
Wq 0.841 1.87 1.11 1.63 1.76 0.883 1.2 1 2.06 1.29 0.855 0.943
Wa 0.622 1.55 0.869 1.32 1.43 0.716 0.984 0.815 1.67 1.04 0.693 0.726
Wt 4.97 9.26 7.04 10.02 9.92 4.88 5.81 5.3 10.6 6.89 4.16 5.24
(microns)
BARE SURFACE CHROMATED SURFACE E‐COATED SURFACE
ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS
(microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns)
Page 94
Why does this occur? It is because the EPS surface exhibits a more uniform distribution of ‘jagged’ peaks and valleys across its surface, whereas the acid pickled surface is characterized by rather coarse, ‘long wavelength’ peaks and valleys. A coating placed on the EPS surface tends to fill up its uniformly distributed valleys to the same depth which smooths out the surface considerably. Much less smoothing can occur on the coarser acid pickled surface, as is shown in the side-by-side scan profiles below:
In summary, while the EPS surface might be considered to have higher roughness (as indicated by Ra value) than a typical acid-pickled surface, the very uniform topography of the EPS surface peaks and valleys promotes a better, more consistent paint (e-coat) appearance.
Measurement by Severstal Dearborn, LLC.
Page 95
H. LASER AND PAINT TESTING COMPARING EPS DRY, EPS OILED, EPS DRY BRUSHED, EPS OILED BRUSHED, AND SCS In March through May 2010, we conducted the following tests:
Laser Cutting: Test Details found at E1 on pages 29, 30
Corrosion Resistance (Salt Spray Test): Test Details found at E2 on pages 31, 32
Paint Adhesion: Test Details found at E3 on page 33
We compared the following samples:
EPS OILED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ra = 130.6
EPS DRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 120.8
EPS OILED BRUSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 82.6
EPS Dry BRUSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 76.6
SCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 26.8
All of the samples came from a single coil of 14 gauge hot roll black, low carbon steel, therefore, they all had shared a common chemistry and handling/storage history prior to EPS processing. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:
Laser Test: EPS Dry and EPS Dry Brushed produced the fastest laser speeds. We found that the consistent (low Rz), dry EPS surface improved laser speeds while the oil and remaining scale (as found on SCS) reduced the laser speeds. The smoother surface found on EPS brushed and SCS samples did not positively or negatively affect laser speeds. Both EPS and SCS lasered much faster than the HRPO which has an inconsistent (high Rz) and oiled surface. Corrosion Test: The EPS results were significantly better than the SCS results. We found that smoother and oiled surfaces resulted in no significant affect. It can be noted that a leaner paint prep would show improved results with a dry surface but this leaner paint prep variable was not included in this test. Adhesion Test: The EPS results were significantly better than the SCS results. We also found that the oil had no affect but the smoother brushed EPS surface produced 20% worse adhesion than EPS without brushing. For the best combination of laser speeds, paint corrosion and adhesion test results, EPS Dry (without brushing) is the best material.
Page 96
H1. LASER CUTTING SPEED
The trial objectives were to:
1. Assess the sensitivity of maximum achievable laser cutting speed to surface roughness and presence/absence of an oil coating.
2. Compare the laser cutting performance of the EPS-processed material with previously established cutting performance of commercial-quality acid-pickled HRPO of the same thickness.
3. Determine a systematic procedure for improving laser cutting speed with no attendant loss of cut quality.
The trials were performed by a contract laser cutting firm, Precision Laser Manufacturing (PLM) of East Peoria, Illinois on March 16, 2010. All sample sheet sizes were 48” x 48”.
The surface roughness of each sample sheet was measured in five separate locations (near the center and near each of the four corners) using a stylus profilometer. The measurements were taken after EPS processing and again after subsequent SCS brushing for those sheets receiving brushing.
The table laser unit for the trials used a 4000 watt Rofin-Sinar DC040 head operating with oxygen assist gas. Optimum parameters for lasering 14 gauge HRPO had been established on this unit through experience. The maximum speed at which parts could be cut from HRPO at consistently good quality was determined to be 138 inches per minute.
The standards settings applied for HRPO (focal length, focal point, power and assist gas pressure) were used to make initial part cuts on each of the five sample sheets. The resulting parts were all of excellent quality. Cutting speed was increased until part quality began to deteriorate, then individual laser settings were varied to restore cut quality. Speed was then increased further until cut quality deteriorated and the cycle repeated until further increases in cutting speed were not obtained without losing part quality.
Page 97
The final laser settings** and maximum cutting speeds for the samples were:
# - Description
Ra
Power
Assist Gas Pressure
Maximum Speed
% Increase Over HRPO
0 – HRPO Reference - - 32% 17.4 psi 138 in./min NA
1 – EPS OILED 130.6 40% 24.7 psi 189 in./min 37%
2 – EPS DRY 120.8 45% 29.0 psi 224 in./min 62%
3 – EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 44% 26.1 psi 213 in./min 54%
4 – EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 44% 29.0 psi 224 in./min 62%
5 – SCS 26.8 44% 30.5 psi 181 in./min 31%
** Focal length was 7.5 inches. Focal point was varied but the same value of 2.0 proved to be optimum for all samples. The same nozzle and oxygen assist gas were used for all trials.
Ideally, a portion of the original coil would have been acid-pickled to yield samples of acid-pickled dry and acid-pickled oiled sheets to use in the tests. This was not practical; however, the SCS reference point is germane here. Multiple laser speed tests of light gauge SCS against acid-pickled and oiled have shown that a laser speed increase of 30% for SCS over the P&O samples is typical. That lends credence to the SCS result and, therefore, to the EPS speed increase results observed here.
Relative speed performance is the important result from these tests, rather than absolute speed performance. Laser systems with a more (or less) advanced laser head carriage/indexing system might achieve a greater (or lesser) absolute speed with acceptable part quality. What is apparent from this testing is the overall cleanliness and uniformity of the EPS surface, especially EPS dry, yielded substantial laser cutting speed increases relative to acid-pickled sheets, whether dry or oiled.
Page 98
H2. SALT SPRAY TEST - 1008 HOUR The various samples were painted using a commercial powder coat painting system after a 5-stage pretreatment. Average paint coating thickness was measured at eight locations on each sample.
SALT FOG TEST PROCEDURE:
All sample preparation and testing was performed at St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation) accredited laboratory. All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. The panels were placed in a salt fog chamber for continuous exposure beginning April 7, 2010. The standards for sample preparation, operation of the salt fog chamber and measurement of results are:
Test Methods:
Test Chamber Conditions:
Water Specification:
Test Start Date:
Test Duration:
ASTM B117-09: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus
ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments
5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at an average 95 F
Type IV (Ion Exchange) ASTM D 1193-99E
April 7, 2010 at 8:00 am
1008 hours continuous
The amount by which the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is quantified according to the following index:
10 = 0 inch 9 = 0 to 1/64th inch 8 = 1/64th to 1/32nd inch 7 = 1/32nd to 1/16th inch
6 = 1/16th to 1/8th inch 5 = 1/8th to 3/16th inch 4 = 3/16th to 1/4th inch 3 = 1/4th to 3/8th inch
Page 99
1008
h
ou
rs
7 8 7 8 7 7 8 9 2 3
840
ho
urs
8 8 7 8 8 7 9 9 6 5
672
ho
urs
8 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 6 6
504
ho
urs
9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 6 7
384
ho
urs
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9
192
ho
urs
10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 9
Pai
nt
Th
ickn
ess
2.9
mils
2.9
mils
2.9
mils
2.9
mils
2.1
mils
2.1
mils
3.1
mils
3.0
mils
3.3
mils
3.2
mils
Ra
130.
6
130.
6
120.
8
120.
8
82.6
82.6
76.6
76.6
26.8
26.8
Des
crip
tio
n
EP
S O
ILE
D
EP
S O
ILE
D
EP
S D
RY
EP
S D
RY
EP
S O
ILE
D B
RU
SH
ED
EP
S O
ILE
D B
RU
SH
ED
EP
S D
RY
BR
US
HE
D
EP
S D
RY
BR
US
HE
D
SC
S
SC
S
Sam
ple
1-1
1-5
2-2
2-5
3-2
3-6
4-2
4-6
5-1
5-2
Cre
ep In
dex
SA
LT
SP
RA
Y T
ES
T R
ES
UL
TS
Page 100
H3. PAINT ADHESION TEST
The various samples were painted using a commercial powder coat painting system after a 5-stage pretreatment. Average paint coating thickness was measured at eight locations on each sample.
PAINT ADHESION TEST PROCEDURE:
Two samples of each of the EPS and SCS populations were selected for testing at St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation) accredited laboratory. A hydraulic coating adhesion tester was used to gradually increase the pulling force on a 20 millimeter diameter circular patch on the sample. Three tests were performed on each sample following the standard ASTM D 4541-02 “Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers.”
If the coating remains intact up to a pull tension of 1000 psi, the coating is considered “PASSED”; however, pulling tension was increased on all tests until the coating failed and the methods of failure recorded. The possible methods of failure are:
Adhesive - coating separates from the substrate
Cohesive - top layer(s) of coating separate from lower layers
Tests conducted at 72° F and 50% relative humidity yielded the following results.
Sample
Description
Ra
Paint Thickness
Tension At Failure
Failure Mode
1-3 EPS OILED 130.6 2.4 mils 1312 psi cohesive
1-6 EPS OILED 130.6 3.1 mils 1945 psi cohesive
2-1 EPS DRY 120.8 3.0 mils 1920 psi cohesive
2-6 EPS DRY 120.8 2.6 mils 1606 psi cohesive
3-1 EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 2.2 mils 1369 psi cohesive
3-3 EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 1.9 mils 1440 psi cohesive
4-3 EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 3.2 mils 1289 psi cohesive
4-5 EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 2.7 mils 1547 psi cohesive
5-3 SCS 26.8 3.3 mils 788 psi adhesive
5-5 SCS 26.8 2.4 mils 1101 psi adhesive
Page 101
I. COMPARISON OF RESIDUAL SCALE AFTER PICKLING: EPS VS. ACID PICKLING .
The EPS process performs a ‘mechanical pickling’ of hot rolled steel, very different than traditional acid pickling, yet capable of achieving the level of scale (oxide) removal customary for acid pickling. This was established through analysis of a number of samples of EPS-processed and acid-pickled material in March 2011.
To characterize EPS scale removal over a range of material thickness, samples were obtained from two different coils:
- a ‘thin’ strip having thickness 0.106” (12 gauge) - a ’thick’ strip having thickness 0.242”
Sections of both the thick and thin strips were run through the EPS process at different speeds – a ‘normal’ production speed and a considerably slower speed (the EPS processing was performed on a single EPS cell that is 26’-10” long). This was done to see if the greater exposure to the slurry stream that accompanies a slower speed would show measurably different extent of scale removal.
In addition, the EPS samples were taken from both the center of the strip and near the edge of the strip in order to rule out variation in scale removal across the width of the strip as a factor.
The comparison group of acid pickled strip samples covered a range of thickness comparable to the EPS samples. The acid pickled samples originated from a variety of different picklers, as indicated in the table below.
TEST PROCEDURE:
First, surface roughness testing was performed on the samples using a Mitutoyo Surftest 201 profilometer. Average of the measured Ra values is reported below.
Next, a cross section was removed from each sample, then encapsulated in bakelite which was hardened to rigidly fix the cross section in place. These samples were then ground and polished in accordance with ASTM E 3-0. Each sample was then examined under high magnification and the thickness of any observed scale layer measured in accordance with ASTM B 487-85, cross sectional measurement by optical microscopy.
All sample preparation and measurement was performed by St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an independent metallurgical testing lab accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation.
Test Methods:
ASTM E 3-01 (2007)e1: Standard Guide for Preparation of Metallographic Specimens
ASTM 487-85 (2007): Standard Test Method for Measurement of Metal and Oxide Coating Thickness by Microscopical Examination of a Cross Section
Page 102
SCALE THICKNESS MEASUREMENT RESULTS:
Avg
. S
urf
ace
Ro
ug
hn
ess,
R
A
(mic
ro in
che
s)
64.3
71.8
63.2
75.4
68.7
83.9
70.6
71.7
56.3
45.8
80.8
75.5
84.9
Avg
. S
cale
T
hic
knes
s
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
Min
. S
cale
T
hic
knes
s
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
< 0
.000
1"
Max
. S
cale
T
hic
knes
s
0.00
02"
0.00
04"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
02"
0.00
01"
0.00
01"
0.00
02"
0.00
03"
0.00
02"
0.00
02"
0.00
02"
Per
cen
t S
urf
ace
Are
a W
ith
Sca
le
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
min
imal
Tak
en
Fro
m
cent
er
edge
cent
er
edge
cent
er
edge
cent
er
edge
EP
S L
ine
S
pee
d
(ft/
min
)
45 45 20 20 25 25 12 12
Str
ip
Th
ickn
ess
0.10
6"
0.10
6"
0.10
6"
0.10
6"
0.24
2"
0.24
2"
0.24
2"
0.24
2"
0.09
7"
0.10
0"
0.10
6"
0.13
8"
0.24
5"
Sam
ple
EP
S-1
EP
S-2
EP
S-3
EP
S-4
EP
S-5
EP
S-6
EP
S-7
EP
S-8
AP
-1
AP
-2
AP
-3
AP
-4
AP
-5
acid
pic
kled
at
st
eel m
ill #
1
acid
pic
kled
at
a
tol
l pic
kler
acid
pic
kled
at
st
eel m
ill #
2
acid
pic
kled
at
a
serv
ice
cent
er
acid
pick
led
at
stee
l mill
#3
Page 103
SCALE THICKNESS MEASUREMENT CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the various scale thickness measurements shows that EPS processed strip run at its normal production leaves a residual scale amount comparable to that of acid pickling:
- average max. thickness of 4 EPS normal speed samples = 0.000225”
- average max. thickness of the 5 acid pickled samples = 0.000220”
Slowing the EPS line speed such that exposure to the slurry stream is roughly doubled has the effect of halving the residual scale thickness:
- average max. thickness of the 4 EPS half speed samples = 0.0001”
Page 104
J. ASSESSMENT OF EPS vs. ACID PICKLED IN COLD ROLLING AND SUBSEQUENT GALVANIZING, CONDUCTED BY ACESCO In the second half of 2010, an extensive evaluation was performed on a coil of SAE 1008 hot rolled steel that underwent EPS processing and subsequent cold rolling and galvanizing. The same cold reduction and galvanizing were performed on a coil of comparable material that had been acid pickled, to afford a ‘side-by-side’ comparison of the EPS pickled steel and acid pickled steel. The cold reduction and galvanizing, as well as all metallurgical evaluations, were performed by Acesco, a leading flat rolled steel processor and supplier of metal building products in Columbia, South America. The following report is a direct translation of Acesco’s summary report, authored by Jairo Gómez, Paolo Puccini, Carlos Barrios, Franco Rachello, Fredy Leal, and Manuel Muñoz:
“ASSESSMENT OF THE “ECO PICKLED SURFACE (EPS)” PROCESS AS A CLEAN ALTERNATIVE FOR SUBSTITUTING PICKLING WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID
As part of the assessment process of a viable and clean alternative that displaces the use of hydrochloric acid for pickling hot rolled steel destined for cold rolling, a hot rolled SAE 1008 steel coil was pickled at the TMW plant using acid free slurry blasting. This coil was then sent to Colombia for reducing its thickness in a reversible mill and continuous galvanizing by hot immersion. This report explains the entire test, beginning with the pickling (EPS) of the coil, moving on to rolling the material, and finally the galvanizing process. Study for confirming the chemical composition of the steel and determining surface roughness and appearance were performed in Acesco's laboratories. 1. EPS PICKLING
On 26 July 2010 pickling was performed on a SAE 1008 hot rolled coil using EPS “slurry blasting”. Coil specifications were: thickness 2.89 mm, width 1524 mm and weight 21.8 Ton. EPS pickling was performed in the TMW processing center located in the city of Red Bud, Illinois, United States.
Table 1
Chemical composition and hardness of the coil pickled for Acesco
Coil C Mn P S Si Al N Hardnes
SAE 1008 0.07 0.38 0.011 0.008 0.007 0.036 0.0050 70 HRB
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the line where EPS pickling was performed, which consisted of running the material through a push-pull EPS line, comprised of two pickling cells, each equipped with four 125 horsepower ‘slurry turbines’ - two on the upper face and two on the lower face for directing the slurry towards the surface of the steel. The two cells have a recirculation system that controls the temperature of the slurry, filters it and separates fine and coarse grit, as well as the scale removed from the surface of the hot rolled steel that has been pickled.
Page 105
Figure 2: Coil After EPS Processing
After pickling the steel with EPS, the 1524 mm wide coil was slit and converted into a 1220 mm wide coil with a weight of 17400 Kg. and two 268 mm wide mults with a weight of 4400 Kg.
The material was shipped back to Acesco, where it was cold rolled and reduced to 1.12 mm and then galvanized to a final thickness of 1.15 mm.
The 268 mm mults will be formed into 150 mm purlins.
2. CHARACTERIZATION OF EPS HOT ROLLED COIL
Characterization of the surface of the material was performed for the purpose of comparing this surface with one obtained through acid pickling. A rougher and more uniform surface was apparent in the material pickled with EPS, as shown in Figure 3 below:
FIGURE 1: Diagram of the EPS Process
Average roughness (Ra) (m)
EPS Sheet Acid sheet
CS CI CS CI
1.95 1.90 1.30 1.24 2.04 2.02 1.25 1.33 2.21 1.76 1.50 1.37 2.17 1.89 1.42 1.30 1.90 1.66 1.33 1.24
Figure 3: Surface Appearance and Roughness of Materials at 50X Magnification
EPS Pickled Acid Pickled
Page 106
3. COLD REDUCING THE EPS COIL
On November 30, four months after being EPS pickled, the coil was cold reduced to bring the material from 2.896 mm to 1.12 mm thickness. As a relevant observation, no surface oxidation was detected when the material was being reduced, despite the fact that this steel was not oiled after being pickled by EPS. See figure 4.
Figure 4: Surface conditions of EPS material on first pass through the reversible mill. Left photo shows coil prior to first pass (note no oxidation). Right photo is after first pass. The steel was reduced to 1.12 mm in 5 passes with mill forces reaching up to 1000 tons, but it is necessary to note that this steel was SAE 1008 with hardness between 70 and 72 HRB.
Table 2
Summary of cold reduction loads, thickness, % reduction and speed
Pass Thicknessmm
Reduction%
ForceTon
Speed mpm
1 2.632 9 531 892 2.132 19 757 3003 1.727 19 882 2084 1.399 19 944 2355 1.120 20 962 206
With respect to the roughness of the EPS material after cold reduction, we can state that no difference was observed between the cold reduced EPS and cold reduced material from pickling in an acid medium. Table 3 shows the measured roughness values for both the EPS and the acid pickled materials.
Page 107
Table 3
Comparative, roughness of cold rolled steel coming from EPS and acid pickling
Average roughness (Ra) (m)
EPS Sheet Acid sheet
0.44 0.49 0.51 0.590.50 0.54 0.52 0.550.49 0.51
4. EPS COIL GALVANIZING
During the hot immersion galvanizing process for the EPS coil, the material did not present any issues and was processed at 25 tons hour. The spangle obtained in this steel was uniform and compared to the acid pickled material galvanized coils of the same thickness (1.15 mm) that preceded it, the EPS coil spangle smaller and more homogeneous, as shown in See Figure 6.
Figure 5: Photographs of the galvanizing process for the EPS coil. Left photo is the cold rolled EPS steel entering the galvanizing line. Right photo is the material after the exit accumulator.
Figure 6: Photographs of the appearance of galvanized spangle
EPS Acid Pickled
5 mm 5 mm
Page 108
5. CONCLUSIONS
a) The EPS process ensures, just as pickling with acid does, surface cleaning of hot rolled steel.
b) Steel pickled with the EPS process presents greater surface roughness and homogeneity compared to material pickled with acid.
c) For this test, steel that was pickled with the EPS process, was cold reduced and galvanized without problems.
d) Galvanizing spangle in the material pickled with the EPS process, was smaller and more homogeneous than the galvanizing spangle in the material coming from acid pickling.
e) A door has been opened to alternatives that reduce impact on the environment by not using acid, because the EPS pickling process is clean and its by-products are easily recyclable.
f) An EPS pickling line for our production is 70 meters shorter than the process for pickling with acid and services for an EPS pickling line are less complex and dangerous.
END OF REPORT”
Regarding the rust resistance of the EPS coil which was the subject of this trial, it is noteworthy that the coil was transported via ocean-going container with no special packaging and experienced practically no rusting at all. The exact chronology of the material is as follows:
Coil was originally processed as EPS DRY on 07/26/2010
Coil was full paper wrapped in TMW standard white packaging paper. No shrink wrap or VCI film used.
Coil stored in TMW inventory.
Coil was slit and broke in half on 08/31/2010
Slit coils were full paper wrapped in TMW standard white packaging paper. No shrink wrap or VCI film used.
Coils stored in TMW inventory.
Coils were loaded into the container and left TMW 10/07/2010.
Coils were taken to New York to be loaded onto Ocean Vessel by 10/13/2010.
Booking confirmation we received estimates ETA in Colombia was 11/5/2010.
Coils stored in Acesco inventory.
Coils processed by Acesco on cold mill on 11/30/2010.
After 127 days of storage and overseas transportation the EPS Dry coils remained rust free. A few small patches of rust were observed on the outside wrap where there had been contact with water. The remainder of the coils were rust free.
Page 109
K. HOT DIP GALVANIZING TRIAL: EPS OF VARYING ROUGHNESS
SMS SIEMAG of Hilden, Germany, working closely with a European galvanizer, sponsored a trial in which an EPS-processed coil was hot dip galvanized and the characteristics of the galvanized coating evaluated. The trials were conducted in 2013, with the coil being EPS-processed in the US in April, arriving in Europe in July and being galvanized in August. Material specs are as follows:
- Grade: European Standard S355 - min. yield 355 MPa (51,500 psi)
- Strip size: 1106 mm X 1.99 mm (43.5” x 0.0783”)
- Average Ra: 2.45 µm (96 microinches) after EPS processing
- Coil kept dry – no oil or coating after EPS processing
After the dry EPS coil arrived at the European galvanizer, the EPS’d coil was slit into 5 mults. 4 of the 5 mults were then dry reduced in a skin pass mill leaving only 1 mult having the original EPS surface (this one mult having the original EPS surface roughness is designated as ‘mult 5’ in the table below). All five mults were then run through the galvanizing line with zinc coating thickness set to Z275, which corresponds to 137.5 g/m2 per side (equivalent to US spec G90). The strip cleaning section before the zinc bath consisted of a spray degreasing section followed by an electrolytic degreasing section followed by a water rinse followed by a pre-treatment of a dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution. The zinc bath had an aluminum content of 0.18% (by weight). The average incoming strip temperature was 475 °C (887 °F) which closely matched the average zinc bath temperature of 464 °C (867 °F). The average process speed of galvanizing was 62 m/min (200 ft/min.) The measured characteristics of the mults, before and after galvanizing, are as follows:
Mult
Skin Pass
Rolling Force,
kN (lbs.)
Avg. Thickness After
Skin Pass
Average Ra
Prior to Galvanizing
Galvanized Coating Appearance
1 160 kN (36,000 lbs.) 1.97 mm (0.078”) 1.88 µm (74 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’
2 350 kN (78,700 lbs) 1.91 mm (0.075”) 1.53 µm (60 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’
3 265 kN (59,600 lbs.) 1.92 mm (0.076”) 1.09 µm (43 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’
4 340 kN (76,400 lbs.) 1.88 mm (0.074”) 1.04 µm (41 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’
5 NA 1.99 mm (0.078”) 2.45 µm (96 µin) uniform, more dull
Page 110
It was also observed that the appearance of the galvanized finish of the mult with the original (higher Ra) EPS surface was slightly more dull than the mults that had undergone a skin pass surface smoothing. A ‘punch ball’ impact test was performed on galvanized samples taken from all 5 mults. In this test, a special apparatus is used to drop a large bearing ball onto the sample in a controlled, repeatable manner. The impact of the ball makes a pronounced protrusion in the sample as shown below. After reviewing all test results, SMS-SIEMAG offered the following conclusions:
1. “EPS-processed steel offers very good performance for hot dip galvanizing.”
2. “It presents a very uniform, ‘tight’ finish with excellent adhesion.”
3. “There is no indication that EPS-processed steel is susceptible to Iron-Zinc-
alloying (similar to a Galvannealed surface).”
4. “The EPS descaling process can be combined with a hot strip galvanizing line
in place of an acid pickling section.”
This test determines how well the zinc coating adheres to the surface of the protrusion where the material has been stretch-deformed by the impact, and some ‘flaking off’ of the zinc coating is likely. Optical evaluation of the zinc coating on samples from the ‘smoothed’ (skin passed) mults were all evaluated as ‘excellent’, and from the original EPS (higher Ra) mult as ‘good’. (The test standard rating scale is “excellent”, “good”, “acceptable”, “unacceptable” and “poor”.)
Page 111
L. STAMPING/ROLLFORMING TRIALS OF EPS, CONDUCTED BY HUTCHENS INDUSTRIES, INC.
In early 2008, 14 coils totaling 537,000 lbs. of hot rolled strip were EPS-processed for use by Hutchens Industries, Incorporated in their Seymour, Missouri facility. Hutchens manufactures over-the-road trailer suspensions, subframes and slider systems. Two particular parts – a long, channel shaped body rail and a rocker side plate – were produced using the EPS-processed material, whereas these parts are normally produced from acid-pickled and oiled strip (HRPO). The EPS strip supplied to Hutchens included six (6) coils 52.125” wide and eight (8) coils 40.375” wide, all 0.232” thick. The coils were slit at the Seymour plant for use in the subsequent operations. Six (6) coils were run through a rollformer to produce the body rails. The remaining eight (8) coils were run through an 800 ton stamping press to produce the rocker side plates. Both the stamping press and the rollformer employed a water-based synthetic lubricant. After their operations, the parts were cleaned in a paint pre-treatment system to remove all contaminants from the fabricating processes, as well as the oil applied as the final step of the EPS processing. The parts were then primed using a water-based primer. Hutchens Industries concluded that EPS-processed material was completely interchangeable with the HRPO they normally use. The Hutchen’s Corporate Quality Manager stated:
“In talking with the production managers from the Die Shop to Finish, no one sees any problems using this material. Also, the surface texture seems to accommodate our primer processes well. We did not see any problems with the application or have heard any negative feedback of the parts we have shipped to this date. Therefore, Productivity/Quality would accept the EPS material in the usages as we are currently using P&O.”
Page 112
M. PRESS BRAKE TOOLING WEAR TRIALS OF EPS, CONDUCTED BY DEJONG MANUFACTURING, INC.
In October 2008, DeJong Manufacturing, Inc., a contract manufacturer from Sharon, Iowa conducted side-by-side forming trials of these three materials:
- EPS-processed mild steel with a completely clean surface - EPS-processed mild steel with a moderate coating of oil - Hot Roll Black mild steel with an untreated surface
The objective was to form approximately 4000 of the same part from each of these materials on a DeJong press brake. The blanks used were all 4.0” x 7.7” and 0.250” thick. There were two 90 bends to be made in each blank, so the total number of bends for each material would be approximately 8000. Three identical tool steel bottom dies were obtained for the trial - a different die to use with each of the three different materials. After the 4000 parts (8000 bends) were made using EPS dry, the forming die was replaced with a new die to use for the 4000 parts from EPS oiled, and so on. When all the parts were run, the three dies were set side-by-side for inspection. Matt DeJong describes his observations on die wear as follows:
“As far as EPS dry vs. EPS oiled, believe it or not we could not tell a difference in tool wear. I would have thought the EPS oiled would have looked better after 8000 strokes (two bends per part), but it didn’t. The most surprising result was the HR Black (nice smooth USX hr black finish) as it had significantly more tooling wear than the EPS product. I would have thought the rougher (higher Ra) EPS surface would have been harsher on the tool. All in all, I’m very much impressed with what EPS we’ve used and have NO CONCERSN OR ISSUES. All is positive, no negatives.”
The following page shows high magnification photos of the primary wear surfaces of the three separate bottom dies. The additional wear on the dies used for bending hot roll black is evident, compared to the dies used for EPS dry and EPS oiled parts.
Page 113
EPS Dry
EPS w/ Oil
Hot Roll Black