Abstract: Marketplace corrosion protection requirements are increasingly demanding. During the 20th century ASTM B117 Salt Spray (Fog) was the go-to corrosion test, and typical Salt Fog requirements for components ranged from 72 to 480 hrs without corrosion. Two decades into the 21st century, corrosion protection methods are expected to provide as much as 1500 hrs of Salt Fog, or 60, 120, or even 180 cycles of Cyclic Accelerated Corrosion Resistance with no corrosion. Various laboratory Cyclic Accelerated Corrosion test protocols debuted starting in the 1980s and are replacing Salt Fog as the exposure methods of choice, due to evidence that Cyclic Corrosion Testing is more indicative of “real world” corrosion experience. This presentation compares results of Salt Fog, Cyclic Corrosion, and newer exposure techniques such as Corrosive Mud Spray on steel mass loss panels and coupons, providing data for comparative correlation of laboratory corrosive exposure methods evaluated.
Authors: Mason Schloder and Brian Smith
Keywords: Salt Spray, Corrosion Testing, Cyclic Accelerated Corrosion Resistance, Mass Loss