SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
SSPC: The Society for Protective Coatings
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE NO. 5
Accelerated Testing of Industrial Protective Coatings
1. Scope
1.1 This document describes only laboratory experiments.
In an industrial setting protective coatings are used for a variety
of reasons. Service environments for protective coatings may
range from a mild atmospheric exposure condition to a severe
chemical or immersion setting.
2. Introduction
2.1 APPLICATION OF ACCELERATED TESTING:
The application of accelerated testing differs from user to
user. Some typical users are described below. The length of
exposure of a coating system in any given test depends on
the expected durability of the system and on the severity of
the testing environment.
2.1.1 Formulators: Formulators use accelerated testing as
a method to screen and compare the behavior of test formula-
tions. The general goal is to optimize the formulation through
experimental design or the typical ladder series. Formulators
often employ ladder series in which one or more components
in the coating formulation is changed in a controlled fashion.
2.1.2 Manufacturers: Manufacturers use accelerated
testing in the same manner as a formulator. In addition manu-
facturers use accelerated testing for drawing comparisons
between different products, to follow the results of shifts in raw
material supply, and to show conformance with the performance
requirements of procurement specifications.
2.1.3 End Users: The desire of end-users is to use
accelerated testing as a reliable means of predicting long-term
performance, but the goal of predicting performance is not
achievable at this time, and it may never be achievable.
Currently most end-users therefore employ accelerated testing
to rank relative performance of competitive products or to screen
coating systems for inclusion on qualified products lists.
Coating manufacturers and specifiers frequently use
test exposures of coating materials in an attempt to assess
the service life of various candidate coating systems before
recommending their use. Test exposures are recognized to
be a relevant predictor of coating system performance but
can take a very long time to complete. Short term accelerated
testing is often used to help provide early indications of coating
system performance.
Predicting actual performance of a coating system, based
solely on short term testing, can be misleading. A typical short
term test may not impose on a coating system the unique
1
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
combination or frequency of stresses that lead to failure in
actual use.
2.2 INTENDED USE: This document is addressed to users
and specifiers of protective coatings in an industrial setting.
It is intended to provide information on the state-of-the-art in
the technology of short term, accelerated testing of coatings.
This technology update begins with a discussion of the envi-
ronment in which coating systems are expected to perform.
The specifier may use this update to assist in interpreting the
results of certain accelerated tests. A qualitative analysis of
the attributes of typical test methods and their relevance to
actual exposures is also provided.
3. Referenced Standards
3.1 SSPC AND JOINT STANDARDS:
SP 11 Power Tool Cleaning to Bare
Metal
SP 5/NACE No. 1 White Metal Blast Cleaning
SP 6/NACE No. 3 Commercial Blast Cleaning
SP 7/NACE No. 4 Brush-Off Blast Cleaning
SP 10/NACE No. 2 Near-White Blast Cleaning
SP 12/NACE No. 5 Surface Preparation and
Cleaning of Steel and Other
Hard Materials by High- and
Ultrahigh-Pressure Water
Jetting Prior to Recoating
3.2 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND
MATERIALS (ASTM) STANDARDS:
B 117 Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog)
Apparatus
B 287 Standard Method of Acetic Acid-Salt Spray (Fog)
Testing (Withdrawn 1997)
C 868 Standard Test Method for Chemical Resistance
of Protective Linings
D 609 Standard Practice for Preparation of Cold-Rolled
Steel Panels for Testing Paint, Varnish, Conver-
sion Coatings, and Related Coating Products
D 870 Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance
of Coatings Using Water Immersion
D 1654 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted
or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive
Environments
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
D 2246 Standard Test Method for Finishes on Primed
Metallic Substrates for Humidity-Thermal Cycle
Cracking (Withdrawn 1992)
D 2247 Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance
of Coatings in 100% Relative Humidity
D 2933 Standard Test Method for Corrosion Resistance
of Coated Steel Specimens (Cyclic Method)
(Withdrawn 1990)
D 4585 Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance
of Coatings Using Controlled Condensation
D 4587 Standard Practice for Conducting Tests on Paint
and Related Coatings and Materials Using a
Fluorescent UV-Condensation Light- and Water-
Exposure Apparatus
D 5894 Standard Practice for Cyclic Salt Fog/
UV Exposure of Painted Metal, (Alternating
Exposures in a Fog/Dry Cabinet and a UV/
Condensation Cabinet)
G 8 Standard Test Methods for Cathodic Disbonding
of Pipeline Coatings
G 23 Standard Practice for Operating Light-Exposure
Apparatus (Carbon-Arc Type) With and Without
Water for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials.
(Withdrawn 2000; Replaced with G 152 to G
153)
G 26 Standard Practice for Operating Light-Exposure
Apparatus (Xenon-Arc Type) With and Without
Water for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials
(Withdrawn 2000; Replaced with G 155)
G 53 Standard Practice for Operating Light- and Water-
Exposure Apparatus (Fluorescent UV-Condensa-
tion Type) for Exposure of Non-metallic Materials
Withdrawn 2000; Replaced with G 153)
G 85 Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog)
Testing
G 87 Standard Practice for Conducting Moist SO2
Tests
3.3 NACE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS:
TM0174 Laboratory Methods for the Evaluation of
Protective Coatings and Lining Materials
in Immersion Service
4. Characteristics of the Service Environment
4.1 TYPICAL SERVICE ENVIRONMENT DESCRIP-
TIONS: The specifier should always remember that coating
systems subjected to short term testing are applied, and are
expected to provide protection, in a real environment. A wide
range of service conditions or environments can be defined
under which industrial maintenance protective coatings are
expected to perform. A description of environmental zones is
given in Appendix A. This is taken from Table 3 of Chapter 1,
“How to Use SSPC Specifications and Guides,” in the SSPC
Painting Manual, Vol. 2 Systems and Specifications. Many
2
service environments under which a coating system shall per-
form are described by the classification system. To be of value,
short-term accelerated tests should reproduce and accentuate
the stresses imposed on a coating system by the actual service
environment. There are some special use categories which are
not covered in the environmental zone concept; these include
abrasion resistance, marine fouling, graffiti control, mildew
resistance, skidding, or high temperature service. Specially
designed tests may be needed for such exposures.
4.2 VARIABILITY OF THE SERVICE ENVIRONMENT:
With the sole exception of Zone 0 - Dry Interior (Appendix A),
none of the environmental zones present a uniform, invariable
service environment. All the service environments in Appendix
A for which painting is recommended show variations in one
or more of the following stresses:
• Temperature - e.g., daily changes, or freezing and
thawing
• Humidity - e.g., morning formation of dew
• Time-of-wetness - e.g., periodic immersion, or rainfall
• Ultraviolet light intensity and exposure time
• Atmospheric pollutants - e.g., SO2/NO2, smog, salt or
particulate deposition
• Chemical attack - e.g., exposure to deicing salts, splash
and spillage of acids or alkaline agents
• Mechanical Stresses - e.g., chipping by stones, freeze/
thaw cycling.
Natural service environments are as changeable as the
weather. To help better replicate the type and frequency of coat-
ing failure found in actual use, many accelerated test methods
incorporate controlled variations in test conditions.
4.3 DESIRED OUTCOME OF EXPERIMENT: The purpose
of the program dictates the scale and nature of tests used to
establish the performance of coatings. For example, a coating
to be used in submersion would not be tested in the desert sun.
Defining the intended service is important in determining the
type of test to use in coating evaluation. This entire process
is known as experimental design.
5. Experimental Design Parameters
5.1 Although the experimental design follows from the
desired outcome, there are a wide variety of options available
for consideration. The primary intent of experimental design is
to reduce the number of independent variables which might
affect and skew the results of the test program.
5.2 VARIABLES CONTROLLED BY EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN
5.2.1 Choice of Substrate: This should be identical with
the substrate upon which the coating shall be applied; i.e., if
the structure is ASTM A 36 steel, use A 36 steel panels for

testing. On certain occasions, special panels may be required
that mimic common structural shapes or commonly encountered
design or fabrication flaws.
5.2.2 Choice of Surface Preparation: Unless surface
preparation is a variable under study in the experiment, the type
of preparation should be identical with the type of preparation
required for real application. Typical specifications for surface
preparation for industrial maintenance coatings are given by
SSPC-SP 5/NACE No. 1, SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 2, SSPC-SP
7/NACE No.4, SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 3, SSPC-SP 11, and
SSPC-SP 12/NACE No 5. Typical preparation requirements
for sheet metal products are given in ASTM D 609.
5.2.3 Profile: This should be the profile recommended
for use with the coating system unless it is a parameter to be
examined in the test program.
5.2.4 Choice of Coating Systems: A valid control coating
system or set of controls should be employed. Controls are
those systems for which well-defined performance expecta-
tions are known, both in actual use and preferably within the
tests used in the program. Control coating systems spanning
a range of performance from poor-moderate through excel-
lent should be used. This will help in subsequent ranking of
candidate coating performance.
5.2.5 Application: This should be the type of application to
be employed in actual use and that recommended by the paint
manufacturer. Results obtained from use of ideal application
methods, producing a defect-free film, will be of less use in
assessing how a coating will perform in actual service.
5.2.6 Types of Experimental Design: If each factor in
the design is given equal weight, then the design is called full
factorial. Full factorial designs can dramatically increase the
number of replicate specimens prepared. One can reduce the
scope of the experimental design by careful selection of the
points within a design at which maximum replication will occur.
Such an approach is called a composite or mixture design.
When screening coating formulations, a third approach is often
taken which provides replication on only one point.
5.2.7 Number of Test Replicates: Replicate specimens
are essential. The number of test replicates is governed in part
by the type of experimental design. There are a number of
operator dependent variations in applied system characteris-
tics. To accommodate these uncontrollable variations, multiple
specimens are needed for each factor in the experimental
design. With very large replicate sets, 20 or more, it can be
demonstrated that failures do not all occur at the same time.
Dubbed lifetime analysis, this also reflects actual paint per-
formance where failures on a large coated surface occur in a
sporadic manner. For many comparative studies, a minimum
of five to six replicates is appropriate to improve the validity of
the data. (Almost all existing performance based specifications
3
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
call for no more than two replicates.)
6. Characteristics of Controlled Accelerated
Tests
6.1 CLASSIFICATION OF ACCELERATED TEST
METHODS: Accelerated test methods can be classified in
accordance with the following criteria:
1. Constant stress or cyclic/variable test
2. Industry standard test or non-standardized test
3. Multi-component stresses or single component
stress
Appendix B summarizes the characteristics of many ac-
celerated test methods typically used in evaluating industrial
maintenance coatings.
6.2 COMMON ACCELERATED TEST METHODS: An
ideal accelerated test would expose new coatings to the
stresses expected in real exposure, would induce exactly the
type of failures observed in real use, and would do so quickly.
In reality, this ideal is difficult to achieve.
6.2.1 Salt Spray Testing (ASTM B 117, ASTM B 287):
Salt spray testing in accordance with ASTM B 117 and ASTM
B 287 exposes panels to constant stresses of temperature
(95°F), humidity (100%) and a corrosive salt solution (for ASTM
B 117 testing, 5% NaCI is used). Panels are commonly scribed
and evaluated for rust, blister, and scribe undercut failure.
Typical test durations can run anywhere from 500 hours to
5,000 hours or more. Originally developed for use in testing
metallic coatings, ASTM B 117 testing became the method of
choice for evaluation of coatings on metal products because
of the lack of other suitable test methods.
Salt fog testing in accordance with ASTM B 117 is the
most widely used method for screening coating performance.
Many specifications include the use of this test. Modes of failure
observed are blistering, rusting on the panel face, and scribe
undercutting. The rust product created by this test is unlike that
found in most atmospheric exposures. Blistering failure is far
higher than found in most atmospheric exposures.
Studies have shown that the rankings of coatings in salt
fog testing often bear little correlation to rankings from expo-
sure in any real atmospheric service. In part this is because
the failures are different. The type of reactions occurring on
the sample panel are unique to the test chamber; this also
causes the discrepancy in results between salt fog testing
and real exposure. Table 1 depicts the correlation between
salt fog exposures and some typical exposure sites. The data
is taken from two studies, SSPC’s Performance of Alternate
Coatings in the Environment (PACE), and a study of the relative
merits of constant or cyclic salt spray exposures by the Paint
Research Association (PRA).1, 2 The PACE results, Table 1A,
show that, with one exception, for subclasses of the full set of
coatings tested, poor or low correlation is observed between
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
time to failures by rusting at the marine site, and preliminary
screening in ASTM B 117 salt spray. The study at the PRA,
Table 1B, used a lower number of coating samples, and also
indicates poor correlation between exterior exposure and salt
spray exposure. The poor correlation observed is quite typical;
note that even the marine site results do not correlate well
with ASTM B 117 exposures, especially when waterborne or
lead-free coatings were examined.
In some coatings, the high concentration of salt present can
induce saponification reactions that contribute to the observed
undercutting and blistering failures. Coatings are being tested
for their resistance to this unique test environment. Coatings
may perform poorly in this test and yet provide good service in
outdoor exposures. Despite this anomaly, ASTM B 117 testing
continues to be specified and used.
6.2.2 Cyclic Salt Spray Testing (ASTM G 85 Appendix
A5): Cyclic salt spray testing involves periodic drying of the panel
surfaces following exposure to a salt fog. Unlike ASTM B 117,
the salt used is a weak mixture of ammonium sulphate 0.325%
and sodium chloride 0.05% and the salt fog exposure takes
place under ambient conditions.4 The rapid drying of panels is
accomplished by panel heaters and forced air coming into the
cabinet. Panel heaters are present in the walls of the cabinet.
During the dry cycle the panel heaters are turned on and the
temperature in the cabinet rises to 35°C. Ratings and panel
preparation are similar to that for ASTM B 117 testing.
This test is claimed to better reproduce macroscopic visual
degradation typical of field failures such as rusting and scribe
undercutting. It reduces the incidence of underfilm blistering
noted in many other test methods. As blistering is little seen
in most real exposures, the test is claimed to be more repre-
sentative of actual coating performance.
The chemical make up of the rust product is believed
to be closer to that found in real exposures. The rust is less
crystalline in nature, i.e., more amorphous. The change in
character of rust from the ASTM B 117 test is attributed to the
constituents and concentrations of the electrolyte and the use
of a cyclic exposure. Table 2A depicts the relative performance
of a set of ten coatings in cyclic salt spray, salt spray testing in
accordance with ASTM B 117, and normal industrial exposure.
Accelerated tests were conducted for 1,500 hours and exterior
exposures were conducted for 40 months.
The performance of the coating systems was assessed on
the basis of undercutting at a deliberately placed scribe defect
(see Figure 1 and Table 2B). Scribe undercutting was measured
in units of 1 mm in accordance with ASTM D 1654. There are
a number of clear discrepancies in the scribe undercutting
recorded in the ASTM B 117 exposure when compared with
real performance from the field exposure site. The incidence of

TABLE 1A - CORRELATIONS OF TIME TO RUST FAILURES

ASTM B 117 SALT FOG VS. KURE BEACH

Number of
Specimens Correlation Degree of
Paint Systems Tested Coefficient Significance

All Systems 56 0.53 >99%

Lead and Chromate in Oil 15 0.63 <95%
Lead and Chromate, Oil-Free 25 0.57 <95%
TT-P-86G, Type II 8 0.95 >99%
Proprietary Pigment #10 in Oil 6 0.334 low
Acrylic 6 0.308 low

Data taken from references 1 and 8 (SSPC).

TABLE 1B - PRA TEST

SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATIONS1

Comparison Mode Correlation Coefficient

Exterior vs. Salt Spray 0.18

Exterior vs. Cyclic Salt Spray 0.68
Salt Spray vs. Cyclic Salt Spray 0.65

1
Minimum correlation or 95% confidence requires a correlation coefficient of at least 0.87.
Data taken from reference 2 (PRA).

4

anomalous poor performance is lower in the cyclic salt spray
exposure. When the scribe values from the field data are plot-
ted against those from the two accelerated tests, regression
line fits can be derived between the two sets of data. These
indicate the degree of correlation between the artificial test
environment and the actual exposure. While the ASTM B 117
test has a lack of correlation with actual exposure, the cyclic salt
spray test shows a strong positive correlation to performance
at the industrial site, as shown in Figure 1.
The cyclic salt spray test described in ASTM G 85,
Appendix 5 is used in combination with ASTM D 4587 expo-
sure to create a multi-component exposure defined in ASTM
D 5894 (see Section 6.2.3.1).
6.2.3 Combination Cyclic Exposures: An approach to
producing a cyclic exposure entails combining exposure within
different cabinet environments. These combination experiments
are similar to the humidity freeze-thaw cycling discussed later.
They can be customized experiments with any desired degree
of complexity deemed appropriate to mimic actual service.
6.2.3.1 Combined Cyclic Salt Spray UV/Condensation
(ASTM D 5894): One recent example of a combination cycle
experiment involves both a cyclic salt spray exposure (as
defined in ASTM G 85, Appendix A5) and ultraviolet condensa-
tion apparatus exposure. Marked improvements in correlation
with outdoor exposure are claimed for this experiment. The
test developers stress that ultraviolet light exposure is critical
to the success of the experiment. Polymer degradation is
induced by the UV light, weakening the coating and making it
more susceptible to undercutting and blister formation at the
scribe. Table 3 and Figure 2 depict the results from this ex-
periment. Again scribe undercutting measured in accordance
TABLE 2A
SCRIBE DATA FROM FIELD AND LAB
Scribe Field 1 Salt Spray2
Paint System mm/40 months
1 14.0
2 3.5
3 2.0
4 3.0
5 3.0
6 2.0
7 1.0
8 0.0
9 3.5
10 3.5
1
Reflects the average of four replicates.
2
Reflects the average of four replicates.
3
Reflects the average of three replicates.
Data taken from SSPC internal research project on Advances in the Performance Evaluation of Coatings (APEC).
5
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
with ASTM D 1654 is used as the measure of coating system
performance. Results are shown for three coating systems
exposed in five environments: two natural exposures and
three accelerated tests. In addition to the combination cyclic
salt spray with ultraviolet condensation, panels were exposed
to the previously described cyclic salt spray test and salt
spray testing in accordance with ASTM B 117. The exterior
exposures consisted of an industrial site and a coastal marine
site. Data is presented from ratings after 27 months exposure
at the exterior test sites, and the accelerated tests were con-
ducted for 2,000 hours.5 NOTE: Durations of exposure for high
performance coatings may be longer than those used in the
referenced test program.
The data shown in Table 3 have been converted to a deci-
mal scale in which a ten indicates no scribe undercutting and
a zero indicates 16 mm creepage from the scribe; the scale
is defined in ASTM D 1654. Simple examination of the data
in Table 3 shows that only the combination cycle experiment,
UV/Wet/Dry Test, exhibits a close relationship with the data
from the marine exposure site. The relationship between the
combination cycle experiment and both marine and industrial
exposure is shown in Figure 2; the small data set contributes
to the high degree of correlation.
Other early indicators of coating failure suggested by this
test include loss of gloss and increase in coating surface rough-
ness. The visual appearance of the blisters formed near the
scribe is nearly identical with that of the samples exposed in
an industrial environment. The relative ranking of four generic
coatings was remarkably similar in both the test and actual
exposures. (The use of ASTM D 5894 and the independent
cyclic salt fog exposure component is only recommended for
organic coatings, or coating systems in which inorganic zinc
is topcoated with organic topcoats. Direct comparisons of the
Scribe Cyclic Scribe ASTM B 117
Salt Spray3
mm/1500 Hours mm/1500 Hours
16.0 4.0
2.0 0.0
12.3 32.0
8.3 18.7
7.5 8.0
4.3 4.0
2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
5.8 3.3
6.4 8.8
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
 FIGURE 1
COMPARISON OF ASTM B 117 SALT SPRAY AND CYCLIC SALT SPRAY
35
WITH EXTERIOR PERFORMANCE -- INDUSTRIAL SITE

n
u Scribe-Cyclic Salt Spray
30

n Scribe-ASTM B 117 Salt Spray

Scribe Rating (mm) from Salt Spray and Cyclic Test Spray

Linear (Scribe-Cyclic Salt Spray)

Linear (Scribe-ASTM B 117 Salt Spray)
25
20

u
15

Cyclic Salt Spray—strong positive correlation

y = 0.9509x + 3.0685
u
R2 = 0.5605
R = 0.75
10

u
n n
u
u
u ASTM B 117 Salt Spray—no correlation
5

u
n y = 1.3421x - 4.5
n
n R2 = 0.8775
n
u u R = 0.93
0

n
u n
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Scribe Rating (mm) from Field Exposure

This figure reflects the data in Table 2A.

Exposure times were 40 months for the field exposure and 1,500 hours for the two accelerated exposures.
Scribe measurements are the maximum rusting or undercutting measured in mm from the center of the scribe at any p o i n t
along the scribe.
Field and cyclic salt spray measurements reflect the average of 4 replicates; ASTM B 117 salt spray measurements reflect
the average of 3 replicates.

results of exposure of untopcoated inorganic zinc-rich prim- • Humidity testing - ASTM D 2247, ASTM D 4585
ers with systems based on organic coatings, or with organic • Light, Heat and Condensation Exposures - ASTM D 4587,
topcoats, are misleading.) ASTM G 53
• Artificial Weathering - ASTM G 23, ASTM G 26
6.3 OTHER STANDARD METHODS: Tests other than • SO2/Moisture Exposure - ASTM G 87
ASTM B 117, ASTM D 5894, and ASTM G 85 are also used • Immersion Testing - ASTM C 868, ASTM D 870, NACE
for testing of coatings intended for atmospheric or other ser- TM0174
vice environments. From surveys which SSPC conducted for • Cathodic Disbondment - ASTM G 8
the Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory and The Federation of • Humidity Freeze-Thaw Cycling - ASTM D 2246
Societies for Coatings Technology, a list of these tests was (discontinued)
produced. All the tests listed below are currently used, but
less frequently than ASTM B 117 testing.3

6
 SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

TABLE 2B
CORRELATION OF SCRIBE RESULTS BETWEEN FIELD AND ACCELERATED TESTS
SPEARMAN CORRELATION MATRIX1

Exposure
Environment Field Cyclic ASTM B 117

Field 1000 --- ---

Cyclic 0.749 1.00 ---

ASTM B 117 -0.999 0.553 1.000

Coefficient numbers in matrix cells reflect degree of regression fit between data sets.
1

Data taken from SSPC internal research project on Advances in the Performance Evaluation of Coatings (APEC).

TABLE 3
SCRIBE UNDERCUTTING RATING FOR THREE SYSTEMS IN FIVE EXPOSURES1

UV/Wet/Dry
Paint System Wet/Dry Test2 Test2 Marine3 Industrial3 Salt Fog2

1 7 6 5 10 7

2 7 9 7 10 7

3 7 4 0 8 8

1
Scribe undercutting ratings are recorded in accordance with ASTM D 1654. 10 indicates no creepage at the scribe,0
indicates complete failure [16 mm (0.6 in) scribe creepage].
2
2,000 hours.
3
27 months.
Data taken from reference 5 (Simpson et al.)

Humidity freeze-thaw cycling has been used in combina-
tion exposures that cycle panels between different exposure
chambers. One example involved the ASTM D 2246 (discon-
tinued) testing used in combination with ASTM B 117 and
ASTM D 4587 exposures. With the exception of ASTM B 117
testing, this regimen is asserted to inflict upon a coating all
the stresses expected in northern climates.
6.4 CYCLIC/COMBINATION TESTS: New cyclic/com-
bination exposure apparatuses have been developed by
the automotive industry which put panels through complex
multi-step cycles with light, controlled humidity, humidity with
condensation, and electrolyte exposure.
6.4.1 Cyclic Immersion with Exposure to Light and
Heat: Recently, a cabinet test was submitted to ASTM for
consideration which entails an immersion cycle in an electrolyte
of the tester’s choosing along with humidity and UV exposure.
The method was devised to test performance of industrial
maintenance coatings. This multi-component cyclic immersion
test is currently being evaluated by both ASTM and SSPC.
6.5 IMMERSION TESTING: The procedures described
in ASTM D 870 include either partial or full immersion in dis-
tilled or de-mineralized water at atmospheric pressure. The
temperature and the duration of the test can vary. Ratings are
based on blistering, color change, loss of adhesion, softening,
or embrittlement.
6.6 INFLUENCE OF COATING CHARACTERISTICS ON
ACCELERATED TESTING: The results from accelerated tests
depend on the behavior of the coating film under the stresses
imposed by the test protocol. This behavior is related to funda-
mental characteristics of the coating system. Length of exposure
for any test method discussed in this document depends on the
types of coatings being tested, the expected outcome of the
experiment, and other experimental design factors. The lengths
of exposure referenced in this document are not intended to

7
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
 FIGURE 2
PERFORMANCE CORRELATION OF 27 MONTHS FIELD EXPOSURE VERSUS 2,000 HOURS CYCLIC TEST

12
Scribe Performance (ASTM D 1654) in Marine and Industrial Field Exposures
10

y = 0.3684x + 7 n n
R2 = 0.6447
R = 0.80
8

u
6

u
4

y = 1.3421x - 4.5
R2 = 0.8775
u Marine
R = 0.93 n Industrial
2

Linear (Marine)
Linear (Industrial)

u
0

0 2 4 6 8 10
Scribe Performance (ASTM D 1654) in UV/Wet/Dry Test
-2

This figure reflects the data in Table 3 (reference 5, Simpson et al.).
Scribe undercutting ratings are recorded in accordance with ASTM D 1654. 10 indicates no creepage at the scribe;
0 indicates complete failure [16 mm (0.6 in) scribe creepage].

indicate minimum or maximum duration of expsoure for any 6.6.1.2 Cracking Resistance: Another example of system
of the methods referenced in this document. behavior influenced by film thickness is cracking resistance.
Particularly in freeze-thaw exposures, overly thick films may
6.6.1 Coating Thickness show a greater tendency to crack.

6.6.1.1 Permeability: In many accelerated corrosion tests 6.6.2 Pigmentation: The type of pigmentation present
the coating system is subjected to high humidity or direct contact in a coating film influences the behavior of that system in real
with water. The permeability of the coating film will influence exposures. This also holds true for the behavior of the coating
the degree to which water transports to the substrate. In gen- system under certain accelerated tests, though the behavior
eral, a thicker film coating system will have slower transport exhibited may not be that found in nature. For instance, in salt
of water to the substrate. fog exposure (ASTM B 117), an anti-corrosive pigment may
rapidly deplete from a primer. Conversely, under the same

8

exposure conditions, a zinc-rich inorganic primer will show
high resistance to rusting. In part this is because the zinc metal
pigment forms a reaction product with the salt that serves to
seal pores in the coating.
By way of contrast, in cyclic salt fog exposure in accor-
dance with ASTM G 85 - Appendix 5, untopcoated zinc-rich
primers show surprisingly poor performance. The reaction
product of the zinc in this experiment is soluble and washes
from the surface. Thus, the zinc-rich primer never seals and
will show early corrosion. This behavior is unlike that found
in normal atmospheric performance. As a result, ASTM G 85
- Appendix 5 cyclic salt spray is not recommended for use in
evaluating untopcoated zinc-rich primers.
6.6.2.1 Barrier Pigments: Barrier pigments can influence
behavior in accelerated tests in several ways. Barrier pigments
such as aluminum flake or micaceous iron oxide improve per-
meability resistance to water; they may also serve to improve
chalking resistance. Flexibility and cracking resistance are also
modified or enhanced in a coating material which incorporates
barrier pigmentation.
6.6.2.2 Color Pigments: For a given proprietary product,
different pigment blends may be used to achieve a particular
color. As a result, different colors of the “same” coating may
exhibit different performance characteristics (permeability,
gloss and color retention, etc.) in accelerated tests.
6.6.3 Resin Type: The type of resin will play a role in coat-
ing system behavior in accelerated testing. Examples include
high resistance to chalking by acrylics and urethanes when
exposed to ultraviolet light, and saponification of alkyd resins
in salt fog (ASTM B 117) exposure. Degree of permeability
is also directly related to resin type and coating chemistry.
For example, alkyds are more permeable than epoxies; and
depending on formulation, one epoxy can be more permeable
than another epoxy.
9
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004
7. Disclaimer
7.1 This technology update is for information purposes
only. It is neither a standard nor a recommended practice.
While every precaution is taken to ensure that all informa-
tion furnished in SSPC technology updates is as accurate,
complete, and useful as possible, SSPC cannot assume
responsibility nor incur any obligation resulting from the use
of any materials, coatings, or methods specified herein, or of
the technology update itself.
7.2 This technology update does not attempt to address
problems concerning safety associated with its use. The user
of this specification, as well as the user of all products or prac-
tices described herein, is responsible for instituting appropriate
health and safety practices and for ensuring compliance with
all governmental regulations.
8. References
1. Performance of Alternate Coatings in the Environment,
SSPC reports 89-03, 89-11, 89-12 (1989).
2. A. F. Sherwood, The Protection of Steel Work Against
Atmospheric Pollution: Part II - Natural Weathering
and Laboratory Tests, Paint Research Association
Technical Report 8-87, December 1987.
3. B. R. Appleman, “Survey of Accelerated Test Methods
for Anti-Corrosion Coating Performance,” Journal of
Coating Technology, 62, 787 (1990): p. 57.
4. F. D. Timmins, “Avoiding Paint Failures by Prohesion,”
Journal of the Oil and Colour Chemists Association,
62, 4 (1979): p. 131.
5. C. H. Simpson, C.J. Ray, B.S. Skerry, “Accelerated
Corrosion Testing of Industrial Maintenance Paints
Using a Cyclic Corrosion Weathering Method,”Journal
of Protective Coatings and Linings, 8, 5 (1991):
p. 28.
6. Performance Testing of Marine Coatings, SSPC report
90-02 (1990).
7. M. E. McKnight, J. D. Martin, “Quantitative Evalua-
tion of Blistering and Corrosion in Organic Coating
Systems,” in New Concepts for Coating Protection
of Steel Structures, ASTM STP-841 (1984), p. 13.
8. Advances in Accelerated Testing and Coating
Characteristics, SSPC 91-15 (1991).
SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

APPENDIX A

SSPC ENVIRONMENTAL ZONES

0 Dry interiors where structural steel is imbedded in concrete, encased in masonry or protected by membrane
or non-corrosive contact type fireproofing.
1A Interior, normally dry (or temporary protection). Very mild (oil base paints now last six years or more).
1B Exteriors, normally dry (includes most areas where oil base paints now last six years or more).
2A Frequently wet by fresh water. Involves condensation, splash, spray or frequent immersion. (Oil base paints
now last five years or less.)
2B Frequently wet by salt water. Involves condensation, splash, spray or frequent immersion. (Oil base paints
now last three years or less.)
2C Fresh water immersion
2D Salt water immersion
3A Chemical atmospheric exposure, acidic (pH 2.0 to 5.0)
3B Chemical atmospheric exposure, neutral (pH 5.0 to 10.0)
3C Chemical atmospheric exposure, alkaline (pH 10.0 to 12.0)
3D Chemical atmospheric exposure, presence of mild solvents. Intermittent contact with aliphatic hydrocarbons
(mineral spirits, lower alcohols, glycols, etc.)
3E Chemical atmospheric exposure, severe. Includes oxidizing chemicals, strong solvents, extreme pH’s or
combinations of these with high temperatures.

10
 SSPC-TU 5
May 1, 1999
Editorial Revisions November 1, 2004

APPENDIX B
Characteristics of Common Accelerated Test Methods
STRESS APPLIED
TEST METHOD Heat Salt Humidity Light CYCLIC STANDARD COMMENTS
Developed to mimic marine
Salt Fog Yes Yes Yes No Constant ASTM B 117
exposure

Humidity Testing Yes No Yes No Constant ASTM D 2247 Test water resistance

Includes drying period using

Humidity Testing Yes No Yes No Constant ASTM D 4585
dry forced air
ASTM D 4587,
Light/Condensation Yes No Yes Yes Cyclic Care in selection of UV bulbs
ASTM G 153
ASTM G 23,
Carbon Arc; Shielding if light source
Artificial Weathering Yes No Yes Yes Cyclic
ASTM G 26, required
Xenon Arc
ASTM G 26, Shielding if light source
Weathering ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Xenon Arc required
Intended for testing of coil
SO2/Moisture Exposure Yes Yes Yes No Cyclic ASTM G 87
coatings, alloys
Yes,
Immersion Testing No No No Constant ASTM D 870
Optional
Yes, Chemical Yes, Above ASTM D 868,
Immersion, Chemical No Constant Testing of linings
Optional Exposure Fluid Line NACE TM 0174
High Temperature/High Yes, Yes, Proposed Accelerates blistering failure,
No No Constant
Pressure Immersion Optional Optional Standard used by marine
Forced air drying of coatings,
Cyclic Salt Spray Yes Yes Yes No Cyclic ASTM G 85
constant temperature
Cathodic No Yes No No Constant ASTM G 8
Uses special weak salt
solution, drying of panels
ASTM G 85,
Cyclic Salt Spray Yes Yes Yes No Cyclic by heating of chamber and
Appendix A5
passage of dry air; salt fog at
25OC, drying at 35OC
Combined Cyclic Salt
Spray and UV/ Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyclic ASTM D 5894
Condensation
Used in conjunction with UV
Freeze-Thaw Humidity Yes No Yes No Cyclic ASTM D 2246
exposure as an option
Freeze-Thaw, Salt Fog,
Yes Yes Yes No Cyclic None
Humidity Testing
Light, Immersion,
Yes, Cyclic with Standard in
Humidity Exposure Yes Yes Yes
Optional Immersion Preparation
“Envirotest”
Natural
Accelerated Outdoor Yes No Ambient Yes ASTM D 4141
cycle
Panels sprayed with salt
Natural
Acclerated Outdoor Yes Yes Ambient Yes None or acid solution at regular
Cycle
intervals

11