CUR //, o ¿g

Commission of the European Communities

energy

ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION TESTING

OF ENERGY CONVERSION COATINGS
A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE DIN 50018 STANDARD

Report
EUR 11039 EN

Blow-up from microfiche original

 Commission of the European Communities

energy

ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION TESTING

OF ENERGY CONVERSION COATINGS
A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE DIN 50018 STANDARD

R. STRAETMANS, W. BOG AERTS, A. VAN HAUTE

Catholic University of Leuven, Chemical Engineering Dept.,
Electrochemistry and Corrosion Laboratories,
Leuven (Belgium)

Contract No. 2732-85-06 EDISPB

W- ' ■ . - tfc.
Directorate-General Science, Research and Development
Joint Research Centre N.C.

1987 I ^UR 1J.

11039 EN Ú
 Published by the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Directorate-General
Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation
Bâtiment Jean Monnet
LUXEMBOURG

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting on behalf
of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following
information

© ECSC—EEC—EAEC Brussels - Luxembourg, 1987

ABSTRACT

The present report gives a survey of the effect of some important factors in the
S02-accelerated atmospheric corrosion process. It also documents the
influence of different experimental variables in the DIN 50018 testing
procedure. The results contained in this report should provide a scientific basis
for a modification of the DIN 50018 standard. This modification should make
it more suitable for atmospheric corrosion testing of various solar energy
conversion systems and materials.

in
Preface.

The bibliographic report presented here is an

intermediate result of a research contract between
the Chemical Engineering Départaient of the Catholic
University of Leuven and the project ESTI (European
Solar Testing Installation) of the Joint Research
Centre, lepra Establishment, of the Commission of
the European Communities.
The risk of atmospheric corrosion of solar
equipment in »any cases depends on the
concentration of sulfur dioxide, which is
particularly aggressive with high relative
humidity. Previous work has shown, that the DIN 50
018, a commonly applied standard procedure for
'Corrosion Testing in Condensation Water
Alternating Atmosphere Containing Sulfur Dioxide'
does not fully meet the requirements of durability
testing of solar equipment.
The experimental work planned in the contract
mentioned above should help us to make the
necessary improvements. The bibliographic report
outlines a scientific basis for it and gives also
critical hints to other workers, who want to apply
the DIN 50 018 standard test procedure.

P.Weisgerber
REVIEW : DIN 50018 BASED TEST PROCEDURES AS A TOOL FOR

ASSESSING ATMOSPHERIC CORROSION RESISTANCE

 Table of Contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Role and effect of S0 2 in atmospheric corrosion 6

2.1. general 6
2.2. mechanisms 6
2.3. corrosion accelerating versus "inhibiting" effect of S0 2 7
2.4. effect of pre-exposure to S0 2 9
2.5. effect of S0 2 supply rate 10

3. Combined effect of S0 2 and other atmospheric factors 12

3.1. relative humidity 12
3.2. periodical wetting 12
3.3. chlorides 13
3.4. particulate matter 13

4. Role and effect of temperature in atmospheric corrosion 14

5. DIN 50018 standard or "Kesternich test" 16

5.1. general 16
5.2. chronological development 16
5.3. application area 17

6. A critical approach of DIN 50018 19

6.1. reproducibility 19
6.2. S0 2 dosage 19
6.2.1. S0 2 concentrations 19
6.2.2. ways of dosage 20
6.3. mutual influence of test samples 21
6.4. cycling atmospheric conditions 21
7. Correlation between laboratory investigations and natural weathering 23
7.1. the definition of natural weathering and generic types of atmospheres 23
7.2. correlations 23

8. Recent research 25

9. Conclusion 26

References 27

Figures 29
67
Appendix 1 : Din 50018 standard
1. Introduction
Extensive investigations over the last few decades have indicated that the
atmospheric sulphur dioxide pollution is one of the main factors determining
the atmospheric corrosion of most metals and alloys used in outdoor
constructions. The relationships between the sulphur dioxide pollution
concentration and the corrosion rate of bare or coated metals is, however, not
a very straight-for-ward one.

Various other climatic factors have a serious impact on the actual behavior of
the material, and the different factors influencing the atmospheric corrosion
processes interact with each other in a very complicated manner.

All this makes it quite difficult to develop an accelerated laboratory test which
simulates the actual atmospheric corrosion behaviour observed during outdoor
exposure.

One of the most widely used accelerated atmospheric corrosion tests is the
so-called "Kesternich test". The test employs a complex combination of
cycling S0 2 concentration, temperature and relative humidity, and has for
instance been standardized in DIN 50018. Although it has not been free from
criticism since its originating, it almost constitutes today's de-facto standard.

For many materials and components, such as used in micro- electronics or,
like in this particular case, is solar energy conversion units, the conditions in
the Kesternich test are too harsh to provide any reasonable simulation of the
actual atmospheric corrosion behavior. Therefore a more moderate testing
procedure should be developed. The present research program is an attempt to
develop such a modified testing procedure.

When modifying the accelerated testing procedure, one should have at least
some qualitative insight into the effect of various atmospheric factors and in
the atmospheric corrosion process itself. The first Sections of this report
provide a survey of literature data related to this subject. In the last Sections of
the report the DIN 50018 standard or Kesternich test itself is addressed and the
effect of various experimental variables is discussed.
2. Role and effect of S02 in atmospheric corrosion

2.1. General
Various investigators, starting with Vernon in 1927 (37), have studied the
stimulation of corrosion by sulphur dioxide.
Many of these researchers have demonstrated that under natural weathering
conditions the corrosion rate becomes higher, the higher the S0 2 pollution is
(9). Others, like Kesternich (3) and Barton (7), concluded however, that
corrosion cannot be reliably accelerated by simply raising the concentration of
sulphur dioxide. They based their findings upon accelerated corrosion tests in
the laboratory.
To understand this fact it is necessary to have an insight in the mechanism of
corrosion processes stimulated by S0 2 (cf. report EUR 9042 EN), the
synergetic effects of S0 2 and the whole chemical environment (i.e. relative
humidity, 0 2 , Cl~, particulate matter and other pollutants), the effect of
physical conditions (light, temperature), as well as the possible influence of
the history (pre-exposure) of the test sample.

2.2. Mechanisms
The mechanism of atmospheric rusting has been explained by various theories
(20) (2) (31) (26) (7) (4). Nevertheless, despite the considerable long-term
effort devoted to atmospheric corrosion research, the pertinent mechanisms
have not been defined completely or precisely.
Skerry (1), who recently surveyed the literature on S0 2 stimulated atmospheric
corrosion processes, argues that the specific adsorption model (SAS) of Duncan
and Spedding (2) explains the initial steps of the corrosion phenomenon. The
discrete areas of S0 2 adsorption, previously reported by the authors for Fe
(19,21,22), could also be identified on Cu, Al and stainless steel. This
chemisorption of S0 2 only occurs at a particular number of sites on the metal
surface exposed to the atmosphere. Duncan and Spedding supported the
hypothesis of a surface phenomenon involving inclusions of a different oxide
type at locations where attact by S0 2 takes place. The surface may become
saturated by blocking all available sites by chemisorbed molecules. Discrete
areas of adsorption were observed as well with S042~ from aqueous solutions
as with S0 2 directly adsorbing from gas phases on steels (22). A higher
relative humidity gives an increase in adsorption. This may be due to an
activation of an increased number of sites due to a higher partial pressure of
water.
Against this model of Duncan and Spedding opposits the electrolyte solution
reaction model in which the reactions are explained to take place in the
electrolyte layer present on the surface. Absorption into an aqueous phase may
be described by the following reactions :

( S 0 2 ) + 1^0 ~ S C - H j O - 1 H + +(HS0 3 " ~ 2 H + + S032")

with : H = Henry Constant,

K, and Kj = dissociation constants.
The acid regeneration cycle, which requires excess oxygen then proceeds :
Fe + S0 2 + 0 2 ~ FeS04
It is a known phenomenon that ironoxide catalyses the oxidation of S0 2 to
sulfate. The ferrosulfate will be oxidized to ferricsulfate that hydrolyses to
hydrated ferric-oxide with release of H2S04.
The overall reaction :
4FeS04 + 0 2 + óHzO ~ 4FeOOH + 4H2S04
which gives again
4H2S04 + 4Fe + 20 2 ~ 4FeS04 + 4H20
As the sulfate builds up, an electrochemical reaction cycle may become
important (galvanic eel : Fe // FeS04//Fe-rust). The cathodic depolarisation
cycle, suggested by Rosenfeld (26), does however not seem likely until
extensive corrosion products have built-up. Barton (7) more over states that
the process of cathodic depolarisation only works for relatively high
concentrations of S0 2 .
Beside its adsorption on the surface, S0 2 may be oxidized in the atmosphere.
Sunlight as well as nitrogen oxides increase the oxidation of S0 2 when relative
humidity > 75% (30). In this case sulphuric acid aerosols can be deposited on
the surface.
This complex chain of possible reaction phenomena impedes a clear definition
of the pertinent mechanisms. Yet, we may conclude that the effects of S0 2 on
corrosion depend upon its adsorption onto a surface, its absorption into a
liquid aqueous phase, its oxidation in the atmosphere and its subsequent
chemical and electrochemical reactions.

2.3. Corrosion accelerating versus "inhibiting" effect of S0 2

Report EUR 9042 EN (53) describes the atmospheric corrosion behaviour of
different metals. The penetration is dependent on the type of atmosphere. The
influence of S0 2 concentration on the corrosion of carbon steel, zinc and
aluminium is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
Extensive work in several parts of the world has shown that atmosheric
corrosion is most rapid in those places where the S02-content of the
 atmosphere is high. Back in 1927, Vernon (36) already described the corrosion
accelerating influence of S0 2 and earlier research under natural atmospheric
conditions, as well as in synthetic atmospheres, show a linear relationship
between the corrosion attack and the S02-concentration.
Yet Barton and Beranek (32) pointed out as early as 1959 that smaller
S02-concentrations could cause a higher weightloss than high S0 2 -
concentrations. Also Kesternich in his tests, according to DIN 50018, with
several S02-concentrations determined in 1975 (3) that when 0.2 1 S0 2 was
used the weightloss of the steel plate was twice as high as when a 10 times
larger concentration of 2 1. S0 2 was used! Also with the amount of 0.1 1 the
corrosion is considerably higher than with 2 1. Even with 4 1 and 6 1 S0 2 , the
weight loss of uncoated steel specimens was lower than the value obtained in
the tests with 0.1 and 0.2 litre of S0 2 (Figure 4).
Schikorr (17) on the other hand showed that the corrosion rate could be fully
related to the monthly variations in atmospheric sulfur pollution (Figure 5).
At the Department of Inorganic Chemistry of the University of Göteborg, many
workers have described interesting phenomena concerning adsorption and
mechanisms of S0 2 reactions in atmospheric corrosion tests. Like indicated in
Section 2.2. the adsorption is the "precursor" of the corrosion accelerating role
of S0 2 . Sydberger and Vannerberg (22) pointed out that it must be possible to
relate some of the corrosion sensitivity of different metals towards
S02-polluted atmospheres to the adsorbability of S0 2 on the metal surfaces
(Figures 23, 24 and 25). Duncan and Spedding (20, 21) showed that also
desorption processes of S0 2 occur on Zn and Fe surfaces. Although Sydberger
didn't make allowance for this desorption, the results of both investigations
where equal.
Most of the experiments of the Scandinavian workers were carried out in a
continuous gas flow system in a corrosion chamber that consisted of eight
small compartments. In this way it is possible to keep the concentration of S0 2
in the chamber constant (6).
Under such conditions it has been found by Johansson and Vannerberg (8), as
wel as Barton (7), that the addition of small amounts of S0 2 to humid air,
strongly accelerates the corrosion of steel.
At low levels of S0 2 (<= 1 ppm) and high relative humidity almost all the S0 2
molecules that came into contact with the rusty steel, were adsorbed and for
each S0 2 molecule adsorbed as many as 60 iron atoms were converted into
rust (7,8).
Johansson and Vannerberg, working in an inert gas atmosphere (5), have
shown however that in contrast to the behavior at moderate concentrations of
S0 2 , inhibition may occur if steel is exposed to concentration of S0 2 > 10 ppm.
For concentration of S0 2 of 100 ppm they found that ferrous sulphide and
various forms of ferrous sulphite were present. These products may behave as
a kind of protective coating. Once these sulfide-sulfite coatings are destroyed
however, the ordinary corrosion reactions, i.e. the production of FeOOH, will
be favoured. They concluded that the concentration of 10 ppm is an upper
limit for the ordinary atmospheric corrosion mechanism to take place.

2.4. Effect of pre-exposure to S0 2

With experiments on iron sheet samples Evans (4) confirms in 1972 his earlier
observations that once ferrous sulphate has appeared, the presence of S0 2 in
the gas-phase is not needed for rusting (Figure 6).
This interpretation is confirmed by Figure 7. If the duration of preliminary
exposure to S0 2 exceeds a certain value (time needed to convert all S0 2 to
FeS04) a further lenghtening has no effect on the rust produced.
Figure 8 showed that a second 'ration' of S0 2 produces almost the double
amount of rust.
However Figure 9 where the amount of S0 2 present in the first stage of
two-stage-experiment is varied, shows that the rusting after the total time first
increases with the amount of S0 2 present but that large amounts slightly
depress the amount of rusting.
When atmospheric corrosion is taking place under natural conditions, similar
effects have been observed. Exposure tests starting in winter time with high
S02-concentration and high relative humidity (RH), see m to retain a higher
corrosion rate. This was, for instance, shown by Beranek and Barton (18).
According to the equation: v ■ K t _n
in which ;
v » yearly average corrosion, t = exposure time, K and n are constants,
depending on the steel composition and corrosivity at the exposure site.
Bohnenkamp (16), predicts the atmospheric corrosion of steel over a period of
several years, some results are schematically plotted in Figure 10.
Exposure tests, performed by Sydberger and Ericsson (10, 11) clearly illustrate
how the pre-exposure to S0 2 influences the further corrosion attack in
S02-free atmospheres on C-steel (Figures 11, 12 and 13).
The corrosion of C-steel samples during exposures with and without S0 2 is
shown in Figure 15.
Sydberger and Ericsson found a maximum corrosion rate for samples with a 3
months pre-exposure. Probably, during this time the rust layer has not become
protective enough to retard the corrosion rate.
With increasing lenght of pre-exposure the relative effect of S02-supply
markedly fell off. After a pre-exposure of 12 months this effect appeared
almost negligible (Figure 16).
The same effects of S0 2 were found for low-alloyed steels.
Ericsson and Sydberger formuled the following global conclusion : The
atmospheric concentration of S02, during the initial exposure, does not only
determine the instanteous corrosion rate during this very period of time, but
will also effect the longterm corrosion by determing the density and
distribution of anodic areas (sulphate nests) as well as the chemical
composition and structure (i.e. the protective properties) of the initially formed
rust (10).

2.5. Effect of S0 2 supply-rate

Many laboratory measurements indicated that the atmospheric corrosion of

steel is mainly governed by temperature, relative humidity and the amount of
polluant (S02) presented to a surface. Thus the influence of S0 2 cannot be
related to the atmospheric concentration of S0 2 only, but to the supply rate of
S0 2 per unit area and time, being affected by air velocity and position of a
steel surface in relation to wind direction (10).

Sydberger and Ericsson working with a continuous-flow experimental set-up

(11) in atmospheres containing 1, 10 and 100 ppm S02, and 4 different flow
rates for each S02-concentration, have confirmed that the flow-rate of the
atmosphere has a marked influence on the corrosion rate of steel exposed to
atmospheres containing low concentrations of S0 2 . Only at 100 ppm the
corrosion rate was not markedly affected by the flow rate of the atmospheres
(Figures 11 and 14). This shows how difficult it is to compare results of
different labatory exposure tests based only on their S02-concentrations.
Following Sydberger and Ericsson the corrosion rate should be expressed in
view of the S0 2 supply per unit of time and surface and when performing
laboratory exposure test in S02-containing atmospheres precautions should be
taken to ensure a defineable and reproducible supply of S0 2 to the sample
surface. The importance of flow rate is not the only significant factor in the
presentation of a species to a surface.

Another factor is the angle at which the specimen are positioned during the
test. Walton (12) who developed a testcell assembly which allows continuous
in situ photo-microscopic observations, varied the angle of his samples to the
gas flow and found a reasonable correlation between corrosion rate and
"presentation" rate of sulphur dioxide to the surface. Thus the amount of
polluant coming in contact with surface is determinated by the rate of air flow,
by the angle at which the air flow meets the surface and by the degree of
turbulence within the air flow at the surface. We consider three points
concerning 'turbulence' of the airflow. First, turbulence would increase the
supply of S0 2 to the specimen surface and so increase the amount of

10
corrosion. Second, turbulence would be least where the specimen surface is
parallel to the air flow (angle of 0°) and increase as the specimen angle
increases (angle of 90°). Third, specimen edges would cause turbulence in the
gas flow, thus also structure disign aspects should be considered because they
can tend to cause turbulent flow.

11
3. Combined effect of SO2 and other atmospheric factors
The different atmospheric factors influencing the atmospheric corrosion of
steel obviously interact with each other in a very complicated manner. The
present Section highlights some of the effect and interactions.

3.1. relative humidity

Many authors have shown that the relative humidity is an important variable in
atmospheric corrosion testing.
Vernon, working on iron and zinc, discovered already in 1935 (37) that when
only S0 2 or only humidity is present, the metal is changing hardly. When both
factors are present at the same time, however, the metals are affected strongly.
He introduced the concept of a critical relative humidity (RHcrit ) below which
there would be no significant corrosion.
Many workers since then have confirmed this idea, but RHcrit values reported
range from less than 40% up to 80-85% RH. Obviously, the value of RHcrit
depends strongly on a number of interfering factors, such as the presence and
the nature of particulate matter in the air (cf. Section 3.4), the surface state of
the sample, the presence of corrosion products, etc.
The latter fact, i.e. the lowering of RHcrit once corrosion is established, was
already reported by Vernon (37) and Rozenfeld (26) and is for instance due to
the absorption of water and S0 2 by the corrosion products formed.
Figure 17 from Sydberger and Ericsson (11) illustrates the dependence of the
corrosion rate on the RH of the test atmosphere (data obtained for mild steel
in 10 ppm S0 2 ).
Figure 13 shows how even the RH of an S02-free atmosphere affects the
corrosion rate after a previous exposure of the test samples to an S0 2
containing atmosphere.

Figures 26-31 taken from Sydberger and Vannerberg (22) demonstrate the
influence of the relative humidity on the adsorption rate of S0 2 on polished
samples of Fe, Zn, Cu and Al. Flamm et al (23) analysed in a Teflon chamber
the unreacted fraction of S0 2 versus the relative humidity in the concentration
range of 2-9 ppm. His results are illustrated in Figure 32.

3.2. periodical wetting

Not only the relative humidity is an important factor in atmospheric corrosion
testing. Exposure tests of samples periodically sprayed with distilled water
have confirmed that also wetting due to rain, fog or dew are playing a most
important role (24). A synergetic effect of atmospheric S0 2 and periodic

12
wetting is obvious in figures from Ericsson (Fig. 18 and 19) (10) showing that
the effect of spraying and immersion sequences was markedly higher in S0 2 -
containing atmosphere than in atmospheres without S0 2 .

3.3. Chloride
The interaction between S02, RH and NaCl is quite complicated. Irregular
variations of corrosion rate with concentration of S0 2 and NaCl for Fe, Cu, Al
and Zn have been found (33). Nevertheless Johnson (25) demonstrated the
synergetic effect of S0 2 and NaCl on pitting corrosion of stainless steels in the
atmosphere. In the absence of either of these two agents little pitting occurs.

3.4. Particulate matter

As is obvious from the discussion in Section 3.1.,particulate matter may be
important in the initial stage of corrosion. Once a ¡ayer of corrosion product
has been formed, however, this corrosion product layer will have a much
greater effect than the presence of particulate matter in the environment (7).
Not only the presence, but predominantly the chemical nature of the particles
is of prime importance in the initiation of the atmospheric corrosion process.
In the case of salt, salt-sand associations and coal mine dusts the
corrosiveness is associated with the presence of chlorides and sulphur species.
Other particulate types such as fly ashes were found to be non- corrosive when
only moisture was present, but in the presence of S0 2 the coal fly ashes did
promote the corrosion whilst oil fly ash remained non corrosive.
The agressive corrosivity towards the ash particles is explained by the fact that
sulphur dioxide would be absorbed by the particles, catalytic oxidation of S0 2
would occur to form sulphates and an agressive electrolyte would be
established. It is shown that manganous and ferrous ions are very effective
catalysts (15).
Ericsson (6) compared the weight increase of samples with and without a thin
layer of activated carbon at constant RH (Figure 20).
The initial corrosion of the sample with a carbon layer is strongly accelerated
probably due to the large capacity for adsorbing water vapor and S0 2 .
The influence of S02, humidity and the presence of different particles on the
weight increase of iron samples is shown in Figure 21 (47).

13
 4. Role and effect of temperature in atmospheric corrosion
Not much information is readily available about the single effect of
temperature on atmospheric corrosion. As all chemical reactions, also
corrosion reaction rates are influenced by temperature. When temperature is
increasing or decreasing, so is the corrosion rate, and corrosion almost stops
completely at very low temperatures.
For steel one can calculate that a rise of temperature of 10°C can give a rise
of 36% of the rate of corrosion.
In fact the temperature is mainly affecting the corrosion process indirectly. For
instance fluctuation of temperature has a direct influence on the relative
humidity. Furthermore the temperature of the environment and the
temperature of the metal surface are determing the life and thickness of the
condensate-water layer or the microscopic thin water film on the surface in
which the corrosion reactions proceeds. There is also the solubility of gases
(e.g. oxygen, sulfur dioxide, etc...) which strongly depends upon temperature.
Temperature increase causes a reduction of the oxygen available for the
corrosion process.
The net result of all these (counteracting) factors is that, in most
circumstances, the overall corrosion rate will raise with temperature, but
competing processes may mean that the increase is quite modest.
This is illustrated by the variety of effects reported in literature:
- the combined influence of temperature, S0 2 and humidity on the corrosion
rate is illustrated in Figure 22 (48).
- Barton (7) predicts, on the basis of his corrosion mechanism model, that
there will be a positive temperature coefficient for the rusting of Fe, that the
corrosion rate drops for Zn and will be temperature independent for Cu in an
atmosphere containing HCl at 80% RH.
- Mikhailovskii (27) investigated the influence of temperature on corrosion
rate in a temperature range from -15 °C till +15 °C. The temperature
coefficients for steel, zinc and cadmium were constant throughout the range of
temperature investigated. On the other hand, he pointed out that cyclic
changes in the temperature and relative air humidity during the tests have a
marked influence on the rate of the corrosion processes. In the variable
temperature and humidity regime the corrosion was 1.3 to 2.1 times slower.
- Shuvakhina (49) studied the corrosion rate of Fe, Zn, Cd and Cu at
temperatures up to 60 °C. This rate increased dramatically for Fe, less for Zn
and by a factor of two or three for Cd and Cu.
- after exposures of Al and Mg over eighteen months in atmospheric
conditions Strekalov (50) concluded that changing the temperature in the range
of -26 °C to +25 °C had little effect on the corrosion rate.
Raising the temperature may also add extra corrosion pathways instead of just
accelerating the existing corrosion processes. Biestek (29) gives a few

14
examples of new corrosion rate determining factors, which may arise as a
result of raising the environmental temperature :
- because of decreased gas solubility, overall corrosion rates dropped.
- under atmospheric circumstances corrosion products forming a protective
surface layer were observed. These were found to be absent at more elevated
testing temperatures.

15
5. DIN 50018 Standard or "Kesternich-test"

5.1. General
As becomes obvious from the previous paragraphs, speeding-up atmospheric
corrosion processes, in order to establish a reliable accelerated corrosion
testing standard that simulates long-term behaviour of materials under natural
exposure, is not at all straight-for-ward. The complex interaction of various
influences as described in the previous Sections has not always been realized.
Simply based on the common observation that air pollution in general and S0 2
more in particular normally intensify the corrosion attack, a number of
accelerated tests have been developed.

The best known accelerated test is the DIN 5018 or so-called Kesternich test.
In this test coated or uncoated metal specimens are alternatingly subjected to
high concentrations S0 2 combined with high RH and increased temperature,
and to "normal" climatic conditions (Appendix 1).

The next Section will briefly discuss the development of this standardized test.

5.2. chronological development

1. Experiments with painted plates in a S02-atmosphere were carried out in
the 1940's, but it would take as long as 1951 before Kesternich described
research with S02-testing cabinets (published in "Stahl und Eisen", 71, p. 11).
From then onwards, Kesternich started to develop a testing cabinet which
allowed the exposure of test samples to S0 2 as well as to permanent
condensation. In these preliminary tests Kesternich simply used a heated plate
as supporting-structure and a bell-jar as upper structure of his testing
"cabinet". The test consisted of two periods and lasted 24 hours. After a
heating- period of 8 hours, the samples were kept in normal atmosphere for a
period of 16 hours.
2. In 1958, Kutzelnigg, for the first time brought up the DIN- 50018-plan in an
article in "Werkstoffe und Korrosion" (51). Arround that time already,
Kutzelnigg pointed out the necessity of an international discussion on
modalities for execution of tests, which simulate industrial atmosphere.
3. In 1963, the DIN 50018 standard was accepted. It was only then that the
work of Kesternich and Kutzelnigg was acknowledged and followed. The
standard prescribed the testing cabinet as used by Kesternich. Its floor and
frame had to be lined with lead. The apparatus was only being opened at the

16
beginning of the second period of the cycle. It was also at that moment that
heating was stopped. The application area of the 50018-standard (1963) was
defined as follows : "The application in this climate is particularly suitable for
a fast recognition of defects in surface layers as well as for a comparison of
the durability of similar protective coatings in air, enriched with S0 2 (for
instance: industrial air).
4. The structural material of the testing cabinet as prescribed by the original
standard (steel- with lead-lining) was rapidly overtaken due to evolution of the
techniques. In 1968, one could already find testing cabinets no longer in steel
but in polymeric materials. Similarly, the usage of the apparatus was being
automated. But is was in fact the formulation of the standard itself, dated
1963, that put the brakes on this evolution.
5. Different Round-Robins with both traditional and new Kesternich-testing
cabinets were organized since 1971. As a result of these investigations, the
lead-lining was no longer an absolute and strict prescription. The "wording" of
the 1975-norm, "Prüfkammer belüftet" finally also took into account the
automation of starting and stopping parts of the test, as well as the aeration
without opening the door.
6. In May 1978, the renewed standard was officially accepted.

5.3. Application area

Initially, Kesternich applied his tests to characterize the corrosion behaviour of

ferrous and non-ferrous alloys. He was able to point out the homogenity as
well as material or construction defects.
Already in 1955 he discovered defects and irregularities in the structure of Al
99.99, by means of experiments that became the basis of the later DIN 50018.
Also particular flaws in materials, such as oxide inclusions in chromium steels
(to be used in the car-industry) were discovered and tested with the
DIN-norm.
Later on, Kesternich started to do tests on steel, coated with nickel,
zincchromate and other inorganic and non-metallic coatings. These tests,
which were very important for e.g. the galvanotechnic industry, gave results
that compared resonably well with observed atmospheric corrosion.
Even with only high humidity and increased temperature it proved to be
possible to determine the durability and defectiveness of an organic coating.
With layers that swell quite easily or are not moisture- retaining, a strikingly
fast corrosion of the substrate is diagnosed in this way. DIN 50017
standardizes the temperature-, humidity- and aeration-conditions for this type
of experiments. A similar but more intense load to quickly recognize defects in

17

s»
surface-coatings, can be obtained with a "Schwitzwasser- Wechselklima" with
S0 2 addition (according to DIN 50018).

18
6. A critical approach of DIN 50018

6.1. Reproducibility
As a prime prerequisite, the "accelerated test" has to come up with some
reproducible results.
Moreover the accelerated test has to reveal the same corrosion tendencies as
the ones observed under natural weathering conditions with comparable
climatic circumstances. The most important point is that an accelerated test
should speed up the normal corrosion reactions; it should not deactivate or add
corrosion pathways.
In reference (3), Kesternich makes reference to Round Robin tests according to
DIN 50018 in 1972 and 1973. They respectively contain 3 or 7 participants.
They did, however, not bring about unequivocal results, also because of the
usage of different testing-cabinets.
Kesternich executed a research himself, which was described in
"Metalloberflache" (1975). He used homogeneous samples in two different
cabinets: one, made of lead-lined steel, the other one constructed from
stainless steel. In both cabinets he observed a gradual diminuation of the
weight of the sample, in which he saw a proof for the accurateness and
representativeness of the DIN 50018 test. The results allowed him to make a
comparison between both test chambers and to study the influence of the S0 2
concentration added (see Section 2.1).

6.2. S02-dosage

6.2.1. S02-concentrations

For years on, a discussion went on about the amount of S0 2 that had to be
added in the testing-cabinet and this in relationship to maximum S0 2
concentrations in the atmosphere.
By this time, it had become quite obvious that the test conditions, such as
temperature, S02-concentration and aeration of the samples, were of utmost
importance as far as the results of the accelerated test were concerned.
It should also be borne in mind that the S02-concentration in the
testing-cabinet amounts to thousand times the value of S02-concentration in
the atmosphere of industrial areas.
In contrast with many earlier findings where 2 1 S0 2 was considered as being to
high in relationship to natural weathering conditions, and where lower

19
concentrations of S0 2 produced smaller weight losses, Kesternich-1975 (3)
was able to demonstrate the opposite as stated in Section 2.3., similar results
were already obtained in 1959, by Barton and Beranek (32) where they found a
greater weightloss with a lower S02-concentration. Schmidt (41) drew the
attention to the fact that S0 2 is working scarcely reducing in its natural
concentration. When using higher concentrations, as prescribed in the
DIN-tests, the reducing effect is such that even very resistent chromât layers
can be destroyed.
Opposite to this, it can be stated that S0 2 partly transforms into S0 3 in
atmospheric circumstances. The sulfuric acid, formed from this, is much more
aggressive than the sulfurous acid. That is why, in the last few years, tests
have been carried out in which besides S0 2 also S0 3 is added to the
experimental circuit.
Sydbergen (11), using an atmosphere containing 10 ppm S0 2 , considerably
lower than those used in the accelerated atmospheric corrosion test according
to DIN 50018, demonstrated that, with increasing S0 2 supply, the corrosion
mechanism of mild steel changes, as was mentioned previously (Section 2.5).
This results in the formation of corrosion products with protective properties
that markedly differ from those formed under normal atmospheric conditions.
High S02-supplies should therefore not be used in laboratory exposure tests
aiming to investigate the corrosion performance and corrosion mechanism of
steel in out-door atmospheres.

6.2.2. Ways of dosage

The opinions did not only differ on the S02-concentrations to be applied but
also on the ways of dosage.
DIN 50018 states that dosage has to take place in a periodical way, this is at
fixed time-intervals, determined by the duration of one testing cycle.
The alternative to this procedure is to convey S0 2 through the cabinet in a
continuous way. It was for instance Edwards (44) who put strong impetus on
maintaining the S02-concentration in the apparatus at a constant level. This
method was already described and turned into a standard in BS 1224 since
1959, but because the performance of the test took place in a closed space, the
practical realization was complex as well as it was expensive. As a result,
followers of this method were very hard to find. Sadowski (42), looking for a
cheaper alternative, designed a tube like apparatus in which the samples were
fixed and through which fresh air with a constant S02-concentration would
constantly be blown.
To put this design into practice, Sadowski simply used a reconstructed salt
spray cabinet with a supply of 2 m3 air and 10 litres S0 2 per hour.

20
In general, continuous gas flow systems have only been used to a certain
extent in research on S0 2 adsorption phenomena; e.g. Duncan (19), Walton
(12), Johansson and Vannerberg (5), Ericsson and Sydberger (10).

6.3. Mutual influence of test samples

In 1968, Sadowski (42) reported on the mutual influence of samples in a
Kesternich-testing cabinet. He brought forward 3 potential causes of mutual
influence :
1) the samples are brought too near to each other which gives rise to an
unequal humidifying and action of the atmosphere.
2) a sample releases substances in the atmosphere and these in turn affect the
other samples.
3) 'one sample "consumes" more S0 2 than another and hence weakens the
impact of the atmosphere. This is for instance the case with organic products
having a double binding or a functional group that reacts with the H2S03.This
aspect is of particular interest for the lacquer industry.
Sadowski supported his theoretical considerations by experiments in the
Kesternich testing cabinet, with addition of 2 litres of S0 2 . In these
experiments gas samples of 100 ml maximum were taken out of the cabinet
and were analysed iodometrically.
According to Sadowski, groups of test samples which do not exert any mutual
influence are almost impossible to find. Even the corrosion products generated
selectively consume some of the S0 2 (See Figure 33 and 34).
The same deduction has been formulated by Kutzelnigg (40) in 1965 based on
the work of Sanyar and Bhadwar who already in 1959 found a different
corrosion behaviour when 3 samples of steel, nickel and zinc were jointly put
into a testing cabinet instead of investigating them separately.
Kutzelnigg also noticed significant differences in condensation phenomena on,
for instance, metals and organic coatings. In these results he equally saw an
argument to prevent simultaneous testing of different materials in one and the
same testing cabinet.
A last thing to notice is that Sadowski (42) experimentally demonstrates that
the best way to avoid severe mutual influences of the different samples is to
use a continuous gasflow system.

6.4. Cycling atmospheric conditions

100% relative humidity during the whole testing cycle, as for instance applied
by Barton (32) turns out to be less agressive towards ordinary carbon-steel

21
than the cycling conditions in the DIN 50018 test. A system with alternatively
100% RH and ventilation like in the DIN standard, obviously corresponds
closer with natural atmospheric conditions.

22
7.Correlation between laboratory investigations and natural
weathering

7.1. The definitions of natural weathering and generic types of atmospheres

A "natural atmosphere", as stated by Kesternich (43), cannot be defined the
same as "natural" atmospheric corrosion. Similar statements can be made
about the different generic types of atmospheres that are normally
distinguished in literature. Figure 35, taken from Kesternich (3), indicates that
corrosion rates can vary widely in the same "type" of atmosphere.
Values for the corrosion rate of unalloyed and unprotected steel can vary
between 5 to 50 urn/year in "rural" atmospheres and between 75 and 200
|im/year in city and industrial atmospheres, dependent on the air humidity. A
constant or standardized climate can only be acchieved on a laboratory level.

7.2. Correlations
When introducing the DIN 50018-standard, a lot of research was done on the
correlation between atmospheric testing and the laboratory test according to
DIN 50018.
Kesternich (43) found out in 1964 that there was an identical ranking of the
relative corrosion resistances of Cd- and Zn- coatings in the DIN standard and
in atmospheric testing. These findings violently contrasted with the salt spray
test, for this experiment pointed out a reverse relationship.
The surprisingly striking resemblance between the results of the corrosion test
according to DIN 50018 and those in a city- and industrial climate can only be
explained because of the fact that S0 2 is by far the most important element of
influence in this climate.
Also many other researchers demonstrated a linear relationship between tests
conducted in a natural atmosphere and those conducted according to DIN
50018. Van der Dunk et al. (45), investigating the relative corrosion resistance
of various paint coatings, found similar tendencies in the DIN test and in
natural atmospheric exposure experiments. The same unambiguous tendency
had been described by Kesternich for different steels and aluminium alloys.
Despite these good agreements, investigations in sulphur dioxide atmospheres
cannot be regarded as a universal test that allows to establish a prognosis
about the corrosion resistance of a certain metal, the durability of its protective
cover, as well as their behaviour in a range of natural atmospheres (29). It is
only possible to establish the durability of a certain material or component if

23
comparative results of natural atmospheric corrosion and of research on a
laboratory level are available. These results have to be able to define
correlation coefficients for each metal or coating.
Many research-workers, especially East-European and Scandinavian, have
drawn up empiric relations to predict the atmospheric corrosion. Unfortunally
the available data are still rather site specific.

24
8. Recent research
In a recent article Berke and Townsend (14) describe the experimental
execution of the Kesternich test on Zn-, Al-, and Al-Zn coated steel sheet.
A few striking features of their testing procedures, which should improve
reproducibility and significance of the results, can be noted:
- positions of the pyrex panel racks within the cabinet are changed after each
cycle.
- panel position is determined using a random destribution.
- to enable determination of the galvanic protection offered by the coating,
bare steel at cut edges was left exposed.
- panels are exposed at approximately 30° from the vertical.
Based on the results of their investigation, Berke and Townsend are able to
come up with some important conclusions:
- for the investigated coated steel sheets, the Kesternich test qualitatively ranks
durability and galvanic properties in agreement with long-term atmospheric
tests, conducted in industrial environments.
- the effect of coating thickness on Kesternich test corrosion resistance is
clearly revealed. (Figures 36 and 37).
- because commercially coated steel often shows significant variations in
coating thickness from one sample to another, this must be accounted for
when evaluating performance in the Kesternich test.

25
9. Conclusion

The main conclusions with regard to the scope of the actual research
programme can best be formulated by citing two recent publications.
Berke and Townsend, as a result of their research work published in 1985 (14),
came up with the following conclusion: "The Kesternich test is becoming
increasingly popular as a qualitative tool for evaluating protective coatings for
steel. ASTM is preparing a standard test procedure for the United States".
Johansson (46) formulated his findings as follows:
"Short term tests with lower S0 2 content and tests including cleaning of the
specimen, have yielded more promising results, compared with field
exposures, than tests in which the S0 2 content is higher and no cleaning takes
place."
These two statements make it clear that the Kesternich test with lower S0 2
concentration can become an international standard for the application of both
metal coatings as well as for organic and non-organic coatings. The definition
of such a test is, however, not at all straight-for-ward, especially if not only a
simple ranking of materials, but also a more strict correlation with natural
exposure conditions is attempted. The information contained in this report
might provide a scientific basis for such a definition.

26
References

1 B. Skerry, PhD Thesis, UMIST (1980).

2 J.R. Duncan & D.J. Spedding, Corros. Sci., vol. 14, p.241 (1974).
3 W. Kesternich, Metalloberflache, vol. 29, p. 52 (1975).
4 U.R. Evans & C.A.J. Taylor, Corros. Sci, vol. 12, p. 227 (1972).
5 L.G. Johansson, N.G. Vannerberg, Corros. Sci., vol. 21, p. 863 (1981).
6 R. Ericsson B. Heimler & N.G. Vannerberg, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 24, p. 207
(1973).
7 K. Barton, Protection against atmospheric corrosion, Wiley Chichester (1976).
8 L.G. Johansson & N.G. Vannerberg, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 32, p.265 (1981).
9 G. Schikorr, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 14, p. 69 (1963) and vol. 15, p. 457
(1964).
10 R. Ericsson & T. Sydberger, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 31, p. 455 (1980).
11 R. Ericsson & T. Sydberger, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 28, p. 154 (1977).
12 J.R. Walton, J.B. Johnson &G.C. Wood, Brit. Conor, j . , vol. 17, p. 59
(1982).
13 G.A.M. Sussex, J.D. Scantlebury & J.B. Johnson, 9th Int. Conf. on
Metallic Corrosion, Toronto, vol. 3, p. 192 (1984).
14 N.S. Berke & H.E. Townsend, Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
vol. 13, p. 74 (1985).
15 S. Beilke & G. Gnavenhorst, Atmos. Envir., vol. 12, p. 231 (1978).
16 Bohnenkamp, Stahl u. Eisen, vol. 93, p. 1054 (1973).
17 G. Schikorr, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 18 p. 514 (1967).
18 E. Beranek & K. Barton, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 24, p. 273 (1973).
19 J.R. Duncan & D.J. Spedding, Corros. Sci., vol. 13, p. 69 (1973).
20 J.R. Duncan & D.J. Spedding, Corros. Sci., vol. 13, p. 881 (1973).
21 J.R. Duncan & D.J. Spedding, Corros. Sci, vol. 13, p. 993 (1973).
22 T. Sydberger & N.G. Vannerberg, Corros. Sci., vol. 12, p. 775 (1972).
23 D.L Flamm et al., J. Electrochem. Soc, vol. 128, p. 679(1981).
24 D. Knotkova, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 24, p. 684 (1973).
25 K.E. Johnson, Corros. Sci., vol. 22, p. 175 (1982).
26 I.L.Rozenfeld, Atmospheric corrosion of metals, NACE, (1972).
27 Y.N. Mikhailovskii &N.A. Sokolov, Prot, of Metals, vol. 18, p. 531 (1983).
28 P.V. Strekalov, Prot, of Metals, vol. 14, p. 243 (1978).
29 T. Biestek, Powl. Ochr., vol. 10, p. 48 (1982).
30 B.M. McCormac "Scientific Study of Atmospheric pollution" D. Reidel
Dordrecht 1971.
31 N.G. Vannerberg & T. Sydberger, Corros. Sci., vol. 10, p. 43 (1970).
32 K. Barton & E. Beranek, Werkst, u. Korr., Vol. 6, (1959), cited in Ref (3).
33 J.A. Gonzalez, in press., cited in Ref. (13).

27
34 G. Schikorr, "Atmosphärische Korrosion der Metalle", Verlag Chemie
GmbH, Weinheim, p. 27-34 (1965).
35 W. Kesternich, Galvanotechniek, vol. 8, p. 74 (1983).
36 W.H.J. Vernon, J. Inst. Met., vol. 42, p. 181 (1929).
37 W.H.J. Vernon, Trans. Farad. Soc., vol. 23, p. 159 (1927), vol. 27, p.
255 (1931) and vol. 31, p. 1668 (1935) cited in ref. (4), (13) and (23).
38 W. Kesternich, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 3, p. 193 (1965).
39 W. Kesternich, Bander Bleche Rohre, vol. 8, p. 545 (1967).
40 A. Kutzelnigg, Werkst, u. Korr., vol. 16, p. 750 (1965).
41 H. Schmidt, Metalloberflache, vol. 35, p. 340 (1981).
42 F. Sadowski, Farbe und Lack, vol. 74, P. 970 (1968).
43 W. Kesternich, Metalloberflache, vol. 26, p. 101 (1972).
44 J. Edwards, Trans. Inst. Met. Finish., vol. 35, p. 101 (1968).
45 Von der Dunk, Stahl und Eisen, 1 (1964), cited in Ref (43).
46 E. Johansson, Swedish Corrosion Institute KI Rapport 1985:3.
47 G.V. Akinov & N.D. Tomashov, Théorie et methodes d'essai de la
corrosion des métaux (Dunod, Paris), p. 199 (1957).
48 K. Barton, S. Bartonova &E. Beranek, Werkst, u. Korr., vol 25, p. 659
(1974).
49 L.A. Shuvakhina et al., Prot, of Metals, vol. 13, p. 159 (1977), cited in
ref. (13).
50 P.V. Strekalov et al., Prot, of Metals, vol. 14, p. 243 (1978), cited in
ref. (13).
51 A. Kutzelnigg, Werkst, u. Korr., vol.8, p. 7 (1958), cited in ref. 35.
52 Sanyal and Bhadwar, J. Sci. Industr., vol. 18, p. 69 (1959).
53 W. Bogaerts, A. Van Haute & D. Schouteden, EURATOM Report EUR
9042 EN (1984).

28
 CARBON STEEL 0.50% S 0 2
o 100
«
o
te
te
o
o 80

0.05% SO
0.10 % SO2

A 0.01 % S 0 2

% so,
1 4 32
test timo , days

Figure 1 : Influence of S0 2 concentration on the corrosion of carbon steel.

(Report EUR 9042 EN)

29
E
X
ZINC n 0.50% S 0 2
c 25
o
S
0
o 20
u ' M 0.10 % S 0 2

15

10
^^sj 0.05% S 0 2

5
»1 0 0 1 % SOr,
0 r* 0 % SOn
-J—L i i I
1 4 8 16 32
test time , days

Figure 2 : Influence of S0 2 concentration on the corrosion of zinc.

(Report EUR 9042 EN)

30
 E
a
7-
corrosion

— ALUMINUM
o»

n 0.50 % S 0 2
Ul

4-

3
ţ 0.10 % S 0 2
2—
«7 0.05% S 0 2
1- ^^^^^ 0.01 % s o 2

O
i i i i .
8 16 32
test time , days

Figure 3 : Influence of S0 2 concentration on the corrosion of aluminum.

(Report EUR 9042 EN)

31
 » OJ I so,

0.11 SO i

} * Ml S0¿

) 2JÛIS0,

0.0 t SO,

5 5 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 K
ArvoN der ftvfrunöen —

Figure 4 : Weight loss of sheet steel ST1404 samples after corrosion

testing according to DIN 50018 at two different S0 2 concentrations in two
different testing cabinets (lead lined steel/stainles steel) (3).

32
 mlí
Anzahl der Tao« DuraSichniftsfemperarur unter O4 C
9 9915 61/. 9 610¿

NOJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASON
1957 1958 I 1959 I 1960

Figure 5 : Monthly variations of corrosion rates of Fe in Stuttgart in the

period 1985-1960 (after results from Schikorr) (42).

33
 —
90 0

675
_ - 4hr 1st stage
• C •
B * 2
450 • ^^ -* •
Zy
225
E
0-
A
■
0
Y}} « ■ > ! ■ ■1
2 2 0
-- ■ 3
— »i~ - V
A
\z2 2 D O
4) 2
1 2
o> -22 5 \
O
.C
o -45 0 „ ^v
7t^ s»,«
••
Ol -675 • -r B ^_C
'õ> 2 • •
-900 é

-1125

1 1 i 1 i ,, 1 1
1 2 4 8 16 1 2 4 8 16

T me , days- Time • days

Figure 6 : Experiments showing influence of S0 2 . Curves A relate to iron

exposed to moist air without S02, and curves B to iron in moist air with S02;
both gain and loss of weight are much greater when S0 2 is present. Curves C
represent two-stage experiments; after 4 h in moist air containing S0 2 , the
specimens were moved to moist air without S02; yet the weight-change is
similar to B, showing that when once FeS04 has been formed, S0 2 in the
gas-phase is not neccesary. Curve D represents three-stage experiments;
after 4 h in moist air with S02, the specimens are placed in water for 1 d and
then in moist air without S02; the weight-change is small, because the
FeS04 has been removed (4).

34
 Duration of 1st stage, hr

Figure 7 : Experiments with variation of time in moist air containing

S0 2 . Curves G represent specimens exposed for different times to moist
air containing a standard quantity of S02, and then to moist air without S0 2
for a period making a total of 48 h. The weight-change becomes constant
when the first stage exceeds about 2 h-presumably the time needed to use up
the S0 2 in forming FeS04 (4).

35
 90 0 -

67 5 -

450

22 5

O» -22 b
c
o
.c
o 45 0
en
-675 ■

-900

-112 5

-1350

Time, days

Figure 8 : Experiments with replenishment of S0 2 . Curves E represent

specimens exposed for 4 h to moist air with S02, and then moved to a tube
containing fresh moist air with S02; thus they receive a double ration of
S0 2 . Curve B, in which the specimen receives a single ration, is reproduced
for comparison. The final effect of the double ration is nearly to double
the weight-change, although the initial effect of the extra S0 2 is slight
retardation (4).

36
 40

30

20

10 /

E t
0)
o»
c
o -10
•C
u
'£ -20

5
-30

-40

J L
001 002 006 oie

K 2 S 2 0 5 i n 1st stage, M

Figure 9 : Experiments with variation of the amount of S0 2 . Curves F

represent specimens exposed to moist air containing different quantities of
S0 2 for 4 h, and then to moist air without S02, for 44 h. The final weight-
change increases with increasing S0 2 up to a point, and then decreases (4).

37
 • exposure started In winter
100 o exposure started In aummar

so

* 3 i 8 Time (years)

highSOj-
poRutlon lavai
200

low S 0 2 "
too V pollutlon lavai
I

i i i i i t i i i i i i • »
Doc March Juna Sapt Tima (month)

daw
rain • sunshine dew rain
,, sunshine! * ♦ ■
w T \ i—\ *
100

10
/^N

12 24 ~5~ 12 Time (hour)

24
0 12

Figure 10 : Schematic representation of time-dependence of the atmospheric

corrosion of steel (10).

38
 11 »«(iti

Figure 11 : Weight increase of steel samples exposed at 90% relative

humidity. S02-supply interrupted after 300 h of exposure. S02-supply
(mg S0 2 cm-2 h-1) : 0.4 (1 ppm S02), 2.5 (1 ppm S02), 4 (10 ppm S02),
25 (10 ppm S02), 40 (100 ppm S02), 250 (100 ppm S02) (11).

39
 IO,'"PP** tflMlftf f*« • •*••«»••

soo Hm« H

Figure 12 : Weight increase of steel samples after 300 h of pre-exposure in

S02-containing atmospheres. S02-supplies during pre-exposure are given in
the figure, Relative Humidity : 96%. S02-concentration during pre-
exposure : 1 ppm, 10 ppm. (11)

40
 tooo IM»^

Figure 13 : Weight increase of steel samples during and after pre-exposure

(300 h) to S02-containing atmospheres. Relative humidity during pre-
exposure : 90%. S02-supply during pre-exposure: 0.4 mg S0 2 cm"2 h~'
(1 ppm S02, open symbols), 40 mg S0 2 cm^h -1 (10 ppm S02, filled
symbols). Relative humidity after pre-exposure (no S02) : 96%, 90%,
85%, 80% (11).

41
 SOj-iitppl,

300
n.. H

Figure 14 : Weight increase of steel samples exposed to 1 ppm S0 2 at

different flow rates of the atmosphere. S02-supplies are given in the figure.
Relative humidity: 96% (11).

42
 ^(/ug.cmV 1 )

Tim« of
pr«-«xpotur«
(months)

Figure 15 : Weight gain rate of carbon steel samples after 90-330 h of

exposure : D ■ =• periodically sprayed samples; A J^ = periodically
immersed samples; O • - samples exposed without wetting sequences;
filled symbols = exposure with S02; open symbols ■ exposure without S0 2
(10).

43
 ¿W(S02)
AWfnoSOj)

12
Tim« o»
pr«-*xpoMir*
(months)

Figure 16 : Relative effect of SO2 on weight gain of carbon steel samples.

Mean values 0-330 h of exposure: D = periodically sprayed samples; A =
periodically immersed samples; O = samples exposed without wetting
sequences (10).

44
 (-..-'I

100 200 300 II.. M

Figure 17 : Weight increase of steel samples exposed to a S0 2 - containing

atmosphere at different relative humidities. S0 2 - supply: 4 mg S0 2 cm"^
h""' (10 ppm S0 2 ). Relative humidity : 96%, 90%, 85%, 80% (11).

45
 AW(tprayd)
AW (nol wetted)

4-

-i 1-
1 3 12 Tim« of
pr«-«xposur*
(months)

Figure 18 : Relative effect of spraying on weight gain. M ean values 0-330 h

of exposure: O • = carbon steel; D B = low-alloy steel; filled symbols
= exposure with S02; open symbols ■ exposure without S0 2 (10).

46
 AW (sprayed ) -A w(not walled )
(mg cm )

Tim« of
pr«-«xposur«
(months)

Figure 19 : Absolute effect of spraying on weight gain, mean values 90-330

h of exposure. Symbols : see Fig. 18 (10).

47
 increasing weight
[ mg/cm'J

04
- • RH=75%.with carbon
03
02 - • RH=657o;with carbon

jr .« RH=55 % with carbon

RH= 7570; without carbon

12 24 36 48 60 72
time of exposure [ h ]

Figure 20 : Increase in weight of iron samples exposed to a S0 2 - containing

atmosphere at different relative humidities % S0 2 = 0.015; temp. = 22.0°C;
amount of carbon = 0.07 +/- 0.01 mg/cm* (6).

48
 test tim« .days
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
240
I I I I I I l^f I
E
■o
o < ^
E 2 0 0 -•
Fe
o«\W
W ' 0 . o ^
•
t»
o
5
160
1 cp^y^
"i 1 ^Y
/ ^ / *O.OA^322
S 120
o»
c
/ / ^^rtz
1 / ?2^L_-—■
'««
M
3
80
/ / /£*
is
//4i4lzl£â-£^' cl "
// noS0 2
40-

I LL , , put* air .. 1
0 30 60 90 99 99
successively increasing relative humidity

Figure 21 : Influence of sulphur dioxide, humidity and the presence of

different particles on the corrosion of iron samples (47).

49
cuini

a.

sf^ 1 /í _
/'<¡ < /i ï
III \ / X w
yTií li i / i i i
JIM//! !/ 'i/
M/ / i/ 1 / •
•z. y
«>l

Figure 22 : Corrosion rate of carbon steel as a function of S0 2 dosage

(mg/m2/day) and temperature (°C). VK - weight gain (mg/cntf/hr); 1.69 x VK
corresponds with the effective corrosion (weight loss) 5.
Fig. a. : RH - 86% (HaO - 0.001 g/m*)
b. : RH = 96% {JA20 - 0.1 g/m*)
c. : RH - 100% (H20 » 1 g/m*)
d. : H 2 0 =10 g/m2 ( covered by dew)
e. : H 2 0 = 100 g/m* ( wet from rain)
f. : H20 = 200 g/m* (48)

50
 2 3 4 3 6
Exposure tim«, h

Figure 23 : Adsorption rate of sulfur dioxide on polished samples of iron,

zinc, copper and aluminium as a function of the time and RH (22).

51
Figure 24 : Adsorption rate on polished and pre-exposed samples after an
exposure of 200 min as a function of the RH (22).

52
Figure 25. As Fig. 24 (22).

53
 — 98
93

9
M

o.
o
M
•a
<

I 2 3
Exposure time, h

Figure 26 : Adsorption rate of sulfur dioxide on polished samples of iron,

zinc, copper and aluminium as a function of the time and RH (22).

54
Figure 27 : As Fig. 26. (22)

55
 % r. h.

3
. 2
Exposure tim«, h

Figure 28 : As Fig. 26. (22)

56
 V. r.h.

2 3

Exposure time, h

Figure 29 : As Fig. 26. (22)

57
 Fe
V. th.
— 95
— 90
• ■80

o. IO

N
O
■ 75

¡os
13
<

— 60
01

I 2 3
Expoturt tim«, h

Figure 30 : Adsorption rate of sulfur dioxide on pre-exposed samples of

iron as a function of the time and RH (22).

58
 o
"5 % r.h.

E - 93-90
IO

O
(A

a
§05
•o
<

Ol

2 3
Exposura tim«, h

Figure 31 : Adsorption rate of sulfur dioxide on pre-exposed samples of

zinc as a function of the time and RH (22).

59
 \. \* ^ ^ »— . , ■—i- *v«

^—^^ «re

""" ■■ IQ'C |

«s-e • t

1 i i i
40 60
RCLMIVE tmMIOlTT | % )

Figure 32 : Unreacted fraction of S0 2 vs. relative humidity at 100 slpm and

various temperatures. S0 2 concentrations were 5-7 ppm (23).

60
 ■ • Glat
O a Alumi ni um
• • Pi ati i t»!
»t Zi nktné
O* Zi nkchr&not
* « £uøn
m * Zinkttouh
• m Zink
o. Ron

450 Hui

Figure 33 : Decrease with time of the amount of SO2 in Kesternich cabinet in

the presence of different "acceptors" (42).

61
 ppm g/m*

6000 15.720

5500 li tio

5000 lì. 100. 1. 2. Rondt

O • s Aluminium
tsoo II. 7S0. O M * PtììliiOi

i 000 tono.

3500 9 nel

3000 ?.aso.

2S00 6 550.

3000 SUO

ISOO 3 9Ì0.

WOO 2 620.

$00 1310

30 50 90 150

Figure 34 : Decrease with time of the amount of S0 2 present after the 1st and
Jnd cycle of a Kesternich test on aluminium and PVC coatings (42).

62
Figure 35 : Results of corrosion tests on steel samples ST37 ( 5 x 1 0 cm)
A) natural exposure (Freibewitterung) at different sites
B) accelerated tests according to DIN 50018, 0.2 1 S0 2

63
 ? *0

Number ol Cycl*«

Figure 36 : Coating thickness effect on Kesternich test corrosion resistance of

zinc-coated steel sheet (14).

64
 Numb«f ol CycUt

Figure 37 : Coating thickness effect on Kesternich test corrosion resistance of

aluminum-coated steel sheet (14).

65
DK 620.193.25:546.224-31:551.574 DEUTSCHE NORMEN Mai 1978
Korrosionsprüfungen

Beanspruchung ¡m Kondenswasser-Wechselklima DIN

mit schwefeldioxidhaltiger Atmosphäre 50 018
Testing of corrosion; methods of test In condensation water alternating atmosphere containing sulphur dioxide
Essais de la corrosion; essai dans une atmosphère saturée en présence de l'anhydride sulfureux

1 Zweck und Anwendungsbereich

Diese Norm beschreibt die allgemeinen Bedingungen, die bei der Beanspruchung von Proben in Kondens-
wasserklimaten mit schwefeldioxidhaltiger Atmosphäre eingehalten werden müssen, damit bei der
Prüfung in verschiedenen Laboratorien vergleichbare Ergebnisse erhalten werden.
Die Prüfung gestattet das schnelle Erkennen von Fehlern in Korrosionsschutzsystemen. Die Bean-
spruchung in diesen Prüfklimaten ermöglicht keine unmittelbaren Aussagen über die Lebensdauer der
geprüften Teile unter den Bedingungen des praktischen Einsatzes. Dies schließt aber nicht aus, daB bei
ausreichenden Erfahrungen über das Langzeitverhalten spezieller Systeme im Industrieklima eine Be-
ziehung zwischen dem Verhalten im praktischen Einsatz und dem Verhalten, insbesondere im Klima
DIN 50018 - SFW0.2S. hergestellt werden kann.
Es ist zweckmäßig, gleichzeitig nur gleiche Korrosionsschutzsysteme in ein- und derselben Prüfeinrichtung
zu prüfen, da eine Wechselwirkung zwischen Proben verschiedener Systeme nicht ausgeschlossen
werden kann.
Bei gleichzeitiger Prüfung verschiedener Korrosionsschutzsysteme und Vorhandensein verschiedener
Werkstoffe ist zu berücksichtigen, daB die Beeinflussung durch Schwefeldioxid häufig unterschiedlich ist
Ein Vergleich der Ergebnisse von Prüfungen an verschiedenen Kombinationen von Korrosionsschutz-
systemen bzw. Werkstoffen ist daher nicht ohne weiteres zulässig.
Probenform, Probenvorbereitung, Prüfdauer, Auswertung der Prüfung und Beurteilung der Ergebnisse sind
nicht Gegenstand dieser Norm. Angaben hierüber sind den entsprechenden Normen bzw. spezieilen Vor-
schriften zu entnehmen oder von Fall zu Fall zu vereinbaren. Insbesondere sind bei der Durchführung dieser
Prüfung die in DIN 50905 Teil 1 bis Teil 3 gegebenen Hinweise zu beachten.

2 Mitgeltende Normen
DIN 50900 Teil 1 Korrosion der Metalle; Begriffe, Allgemeine Begriffe
DIN 50900 Teil 2 Korrosion der Metalle; Begriffe, Elektrochemische Begriffe
DIN 50905 Teil 1 Korrosion der Metalle; Chemische Korrosionsuntersuchungen, Allgemeines
DIN 50905 Teil 2 Korrosion der Metalle; Chemische Korrosionsuntersuchungen, Korrosionsgrößen bei
gleichmäßiger Flächenkorrosion
DIN 50905 Teil 3 Korrosion der Metalle; Chemische Korrosionsuntersuchungen, Korrosionsgrößen bei
ungleichmäßiger Korrosion und zusätzliche mechanische Beanspruchung

3 Begriffe
Nach DIN 50 900 Teil 1 und Teil 2.

Fortsetzung Seite 2 bis 4

Erläuterungen Seite 4

Fachnormenausschuß Materialprüfung (FNM) im DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.

Aiieinvtrkaut dar Normen durch Baulh Verlag GmbH. Barilo 30 und Köln 1 DIN SO Of 8 Mai 1978 Prelsgr. 4
05 7» Vartr.-Nr. 0004
67
 Seite 2 DIN 50018

4 Prüfbedingungen
Zu Beginn des ersten Prüfabschnittes eines jeden Zyklus erfolgt in einer Zeitspanne von etwa 1V? Stunden das Anwärmen
der Prüfkammer auf (40 ± 3)°C Dabei bildet sich auf den Proben Kondenswasser. Die Betauung muB im weiteren Verlauf
des ersten Prüfabschnittes anhalten Durch die gleichzeitige Einwirkung von Schwefeldioxid findet wahrend dieses Prüf-
abschnittes die Hauptbeanspruchung statt.
Anmerkung: Das am Anfang des ersten PrUlabschnittes zugesetzte Schwefeldioxid löst sich rasch zu einem großen Teil in
dem Bodenwasser der Prüfkammer. Die effektive Schwefeldioxidkonzentration im Gasraum beträgt daher zu Beginn der
Prüfung nur noch etwa 'A der theoretischen Konzentration. Diese Antangskonzentratton bleibt während des ersten Prüfabschnitts
nicht konstant, sondern sinkt zunächst rasch, später langsamer.
Der zweite Prüfabschnitt beginnt mit dem Ausschalten der Heizung und dem öffnen bzw. Belüften der Prüfkammer, wobei
nach etwa 1 </i Stunden die Prüfbedingungen nach der Tabelle erfüllt werden müssen.

Theoretische S02-Konzentration zu Beginn

eines Zyklus
Art der Prüfbedingung Vol.-%

0,067 ') 0,33 ') 0.67 ')

Kondenswasserklima OIN 50018-SFW0,2S DIN 50 018 - SFW 1,0 S DIN SO 018 - SFW 2.0 S

1. Prüfabschnitt 8 einschließlich Anwärmen

16 einschließlich Abkühlen
Zyklus 2. Prüfabschnitt
(Prüfkammer geöffnet bzw. belüftet)
í

Gesamt h 24

Temperatur °C (40 ± 3)
1. Prüfabschnitt
rel. Luftfeuchte etwa 100 (Betauung der Prüflinge)
Verhältnisse
im Prüfraum
Temperatur °C 18 bis 28
2. Prüfabschnitt
rel. Luftfeuchte max. 75

Wassermenge im Prüfraum Vol.-% 0,67»)

<) Die theoretische S02-Konzentration entspricht bei einer Prüfeinrichtung mit einer Prüfkammer von 3001 Volumen einer
SOj-Zugabe je Zyklus von 0.21,1,01 bzw. 2,01.
*) Diese Konzentration entspricht bei einer Prüfeinrichtung mit einem Volumen von 3001 einer Menge von 2 (.

5 Prüfeinrichtung
S.1 Prüfkammer
Für eine Prüfung in feucht-warmer schwefeldioxidhaltiger
Atmosphäre ist eine allseits abgeschlossene und abge-
dichtete Prüf kammer von mindestens 3001 Volumen mit
Wänden aus einem korrosionsbeständigen Material erfor-
derlich, das darüber hinaus die Korrosion nicht beeinflussen
darf. Die Prüfkammer muß eine beheizbare Bodenwanne
zur Aufnahme der in der Tabelle vorgeschriebenen Was-
sermenge enthalten. Die Erwärmung der Prüfkammer er-
folgt nur über dieses Wasserbad.
In der Prüfkammer muß eine geeignete Temperatur-Meß-
und -Regelvorrichtung verfügbar sein. Die Temperatur wird
dabei in unmittelbarer Nähe der Proben gemessen. Die für
den Druckausgleich erforderlichen Ventile und die Gaszu-
führung müssen über der Wasseroberfläche angeordnet
sein. Die Decke der Prüfkammer muß so beschaffen sein,
daß ein Herabtropfen von Kondensat auf die Proben ver-
mieden wird. Form und Größe der Prüfkammer können
beliebig gewählt werden, sofern die Anforderungen nach
den Abschnitten 5 und 7 erfüllt werden. Eine Prüfeinrich-
tung mit einem Prüfkammervolumen von 3001 ist im Bild
dargestellt
Die Prüf kammer ist in einem Raum ohne korrosive Atmo-
sphäre bei Raumtemperatur und einer relativen Luftfeuchte
bis höchstens 75% so aufzustellen, daß sie vor Zugluft
und Sonneneinstrahlung geschützt ist.
5.2 Vorrichtung zur Aufnahm« der Proben
Die Vorrichtung zur Aufnahme der Proben muß aus einem
korrosionsbeständigen Material bestehen, das darüber
hinaus die Korrosion der Proben nicht beeinflussen darf.
Sie muß so beschaffen sein, daß die Proben entsprechend
den Anforderungen des Abschnitts 6.2 angeordnet werden
können.
6 Durchführung
6.1 Proben
Es sind jeweils solche Proben gemeinsam zu prüfen, die
sich nicht gegenseitig beeinflussen.
6.2 Anordnung der Proben
Die Proben sind in der Prüfkammer so anzuordnen, daß
folgende Abstände eingehalten werden:

68

Abstand von den Wänden min. 100 mm
Abstand der Probenunterkante
von der Wasseroberfläche min. 200 mm
Abstand zwischen den Proben min. 20 mm
Wenn keine anderen Vereinbarungen getroffen werden,
muß die Gesamtoberfläche der eingehängten Proben
0,5 m 2 ± 0,1 m 2 je 3001 Prüfkammervolumen betragen. Bei
Prüflingen, deren Oberfläche nicht zu bestimmen ist, sind
besondere Vereinbarungen zu treffen.
Es ist darauf zu achten, daß bei der Lagerung kein Konden-
sat auf die Proben tropfen kann. Da bei jedem Zyklus immer
die gleiche Schwefeldioxidmenge einwirkt, ist das Ergeb-
nis von der G röße und der Art der insgesamt eingebrachten
Probenoberfläche abhängig. Bei Vergleichsversuchen ist
es daher unerläßlich, stets mit gleicher Gesamtproben-
oberfläche und gleichartigen Proben zu arbeiten.
Dabei Ist zu beachten, daß zum Abdecken von nicht zu
beanspruchenden Oberflächen nur Material verwendet
wird, das mit Schwefeldioxid nicht reagiert und darüber
hinaus das Prüfergebnis nicht anderweitig beeinflußt.
6.3 Füllen dar Bodenwann«
Die Bodenwanne ist mit der in der Tabelle angegebenen
Menge destillierten oder entionisierten Wassers zu füllen.
Das Wasser ist vor jedem Zyklus zu erneuern und gegebe-
nenfalls die Prüfkammer zu reinigen.
Überdruckventil
Unterdruckventñ und
OaseinleitungssMzen
femperaturregeleinrkhtung
Überdruckventil
69
DIN 5001B Saite 3
6.4 Gasbeschickung
Vor dem Beschicken mit Schwefeldioxid ist die Prüf kammer
zu schließen.
6.4.1 Entnahme von Schwefeldioxid aus Stahlflaschen
Zum genauen Abmessen der einzuleitenden Schwefel-
dioxidmenge können handelsübliche Volumenmeßgeräte
für Gas (Gasuhr) oder Behälter mit Verdrängungsflussig-
keit (Paraffinöl) verwendet werden.
6.4.2 Entwickeln von Schwefeldioxid
Innerhalb der Prüfeinrichtung
Es ist auch zulässig, Schwefeldioxid innerhalb der Prüf ein-
richtung in geeigneter Weise (z. B. NaHS03 + verdünnte
Schwefelsäure) zu entwickeln.
6.5 Beheizung
Unmittelbar nach dem Beschicken mit Schwefeldioxid wird
die Heizung eingeschaltet und die Prüfkammer innerhalb
von etwa 1tøStunden auf 4 0 % erwärmt. Diese Tem-
peratur muß an der Meßstelle auf ±3°C gehalten werden.
6.6 Prüfdauer
Falls in speziellen Prüfnormen keine Prüfdauer festgelegt
ist, sollten vorzugsweise 1, 2, 5,10,15 oder 20 Zyklen an-
gewendet werden. Die Prüfung kann abgebrochen werden,
wenn eine unzulässige Beeinträchtigung des Aussehens
bzw. der Funktion der Proben eingetreten oder ein be-
stimmter Korrosionsgrad erreicht ist.
6.7 Versuchsablauf
Jeder Zyklus umfaßt zwei Prüfabschnitte entsprechend der
Tabelle, also Insgesamt 24 Stunden. Am Ende des ersten
Prüfabschnittes (8 Ctunden) wird die Heizung abgeschaltet
und die Prüfkammer geöffnet bzw. belüftet
Nach dem zweiten Prüfabschnitt (16 Stunden) wird die Bo-
denwanne entleert, gegebenenfalls gereinigt, mit frischem
destillierten oder entionisierten Wasser gefüllt, die Prüf-
kammer geschlossen und mit Schwefeldioxid beschickt.
Mit dem Einschalten der Heizung beginnt ein neuer Zyklus.
6.8 Unterbrechungen der Prüfung
Versuchsunterbrechungen sind durch Verlängerung des
zweiten Prüfabschnittes zu überbrücken und im Prüfbericht
anzugeben. Für Prüflinge, die nun bis 2Zyklen beansprucht
werden, sollte die Prüf einrichtung zuvor mindestens 1 Zyklus
in Betrieb gewesen sein.
7 Funktionsprüfung der Prüfeinrichtung
Um die Reproduzierbarkeit der Versuchsergebnisse einer
Prüfeinrichtung bzw. die gleicher Prüfeinrichtungen an
verschiedenen Orten zu kontrollieren, ist es erforderlich,
in angemessenen Zeitabständen eine Funktionsprütung
durchzuführen. Für eine Prüfeinrichtung mit einer Prüf-
kammer von 3001 Volumen gelten die Festlegungen in den
Abschnitten 7.1 bis 7.6.
7.1 Versuchsmaterial
7.1.1 Fünf Proben von jeweils 50 mm Breite, 100 mm Länge
und 0,6 bis 1,5 mm Dicke aus den Stahlsorten St 37 (walz-
blank) nach DIN 17100 oder St 1405') (walzblank) nach
DIN 1623 Teil 1 mit einer Keramikscheibe des Härtegrades
Jot und der Körnung 46 geschliffen.
7.1.2 Zwei Blindproben von jeweils 250 mm Breite,
400 mm Länge und 1 mm Dicke aus den Stahlsorten St 37
(walzblank) nach DIN 17100 oder St 1405') (walzblank)
nach DIN 1623 Teil 1.
*) Im Ausland ist noch die alte Bezeichnung RRSH405
gebräuchlich.
Seite 4 DIN 50018
7.2 Probenvorbereitung
Vor Beginn der Funktionsprüfung wird das Versuchsmaterial
nach Abschnitt 7.1 mit Testbenzin oder einem anderen
geeigneten Lösemittel unter Zuhilfenahme eines weichen
nicht fasernden Lappens oder eines Pinsels entfettet und
die Proben nach Abschnitt 7.1.1 anschlieBend auf 1mg
gewogen. Kann die Wägung nicht unmittelbar nach dem
Entfetten erfolgen, werden die Proben bis zum Wägen in
einem Exsikkator gelagert.
7.3 Durchführung der Funktionsprüfung
Oie fünf Proben nach Abschnitt 7.1.1 werden senkrecht in
der Prüfkammer angeordnet. Die Blindproben nach Ab-
schnitt 7.1.2 werden beiderseits der fünf Proben nach
Abschnitt 7.1.1 ebenfalls senkrecht angebracht. Die Bean-
spruchung der Proben erfolgt über fünf Zyklen entspre-
chend den Prüfbedingungen SFW0.2S nach Abschnitt 6.
7.4 Entfernung der Korrosionsprodukte
Nach AbschluB der Funktionsprüfung werden die Korro-
sionsprodukte von den Proben mit einer etwa 10%igen
Weitere Normen
DIN 1623 Teil 1 Flachzeug aus Stahl; Kaltgewalztes Band und Blech aus weichen unlegierten Stählen; Gütevorschriften
DIN 17100 Allgemeine Baustähle; Gütenorm (Folgeausgabe z. Z. noch Entwurf)
Erläuterungen
Die vorliegende Norm wurde von einem Arbeitskreis aus
Fachleuten der beiden FNM-Arbeitsausschüsse D 5 .Korro-
sion und Korrosionsschutz" und D 13.4 .Prüfverfahren für
Klimate ohne Fremdstoffe" ausgearbeitet.
Eine Überarbeitung von DIN 50018, Ausgabe Dezember 1963,
war erforderlich geworden, weil einmal das Bedürfnis nach
größeren Prüf raumvolumina bestand und zum anderen die
Entwicklung auf dem Prüfgerätesektor soweit vorange-
schritten war, daß eine Anpassung von DIN 50018 an den
Stand der Technik erfolgen mußte.
Die in DIN 50018, Ausgabe Dezember 1963, noch nicht vor-
handene Prüfung .1,0 S" wurde in die vorliegende Norm neu
übernommen, um eine Angleichung an ISO 3231-1974,
Paints and varnishes — Determination of resistance to humid
atmospheres containing sulphur dioxide. Peintures et
vernis — Détermination de la résistance aux atmosphères
humides contenant du dioxyde de soufre, zu erreichen.
Die in DIN 50 018, Ausgabe Dezember 1963, erhobene For-
derung nach einer Bleiauskleidung der Prüfkammer wurde
Salzsäure (230 ml HCl chemisch rein p 20 - 1,18 g/ml und
730ml destilliertes oder entionisiertes Wasser), der 0,1%
' Propargylalkohol zugesetzt worden sind, bei Raumtempe-
ratur entfernt. Nach Entfernen der Korrosionsprodukte
werden die Proben in destilliertem oder entionisiertem
Wasser gut gespult, getrocknet und anschlieBend bei
Raumtemperatur von 18 bis 28°C bis zum Wägen im Ex-
sikkator gelagert.
7.5 Auswägen der Proben
Die Proben werden auf 1 mg gewogen.
7.6 Auswertung der Ergebnisse
Die ermittelten Massenverluste werden in g/m 2 umge-
rechnet. Liegt der gefundene Mittelwert zwischen 100 und
150 g/m 2 und beträgt die Abweichung der Einzelwerte vom
Mittelwert nicht mehr als ±20%, so ist die Prüfung norm-
gerecht.
nicht mehr übernommen, weil umfangreiche Ringversuche
ergeben haben, daß die Versuchsergebnisse, die In Geräten
mit und ohne Bleiauskleidung erzielt wurden, nur geringe
Unterschiede aufwiesen.
Der neu aufgenommene Abschnitt .Funktionsprüfung der
Prüfeinrichtung" stellt im Hinblick auf eine bessere Repro-
duzierbarkeit der Ergebnisse eine wesentliche Verbesse-
rung gegenüber der Ausgabe Dezember 1963 dar.
Im Zusammenhang mit den oben angeführten Ringver-
suchen hat sich gezeigt, daß die an verschiedenen Stellen
in verschiedenen Geräten ermittelten flächenbezogenen
Massenverluste zwischen 100 und 150g/m2 streuen, wenn-
gleich die mit einem Gerät gefundene Abweichung der
Werte geringer ist. Aufgrund der verhältnismäßig großen
Streubreite dieses Prüfverfahrens sind die mit verschie-
denen Prüfeinrichtungen erzielten Ergebnisse nur dann
vergleichbar, wenn die Mittelwerte der Prüfung nach Ab-
schnitt 7 etwa gleich groB sind.
70