Evaluation of The Corrosion Durability of Steel Systems For Automobile Fuel Tanks

INTRODUCTION
The Strategic Alliance for Steel Fuel Tanks (SASFT) was organized in
2000 by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) to bring together
the diverse business disciplines involved in designing, manufacturing
and supplying steel fuel tanks in the automotive market. SASFT has
evolved to become an international alliance of 32 companies having a
common interest in the development, optimization and application of
fuel tanks for automobiles. The full members are shown on the back
page of this report, along with those automobile OEM Associate
members who participate in an advisory capacity.
The corrosion study reported herein was organized, managed and

written by the Corrosion Evaluation Team of SASFT. The
participating companies and individual representatives of the
Corrosion Evaluation Team were as follows:
Arcelor Laurent Dallemagne

Gerd Schwerzel
Michel Luciani
Art Coleman
Corus Terry Burton
Dofasco, Inc. Rick Daley
Harley Davidson Sue Jokela
International Steel Group Steve Jones
Stavros Fountoulakis
JFE Steel Setsuo Mega
Tetsuo Sakiyama
Toshihiro Kikuchi
Martinrea International Ray Sheffield

National Steel Corp. Bruce Hartley
Nippon Steel Shinichi Itonaga
The Magni Group Doug Paul (Chairman)
Greg Tarrance
For More Information on SASFT: ThyssenKrupp Stahl Wilhelm Warnecke
Visit: www.sasft.org
United States Steel Corp. Matt McCosby
Contact: Peter Mould
Program Manager
001 810.225.8250 SASFT's global reach recognizes that different business and
prmould@comcast.net technological issues impact the type of fuel tanks produced in different
geographic regions. By understanding these issues rational, optimized
For More Information on AISI: approaches can be fully deployed for steel fuel tanks.
Visit: www.autosteel.org
Contact: Ronald Krupitzer
Senior Director
001 248.945.4761
krupitzerr@autosteel.org
Evaluation of the Corrosion Durability of Steel Systems for Automobile Fuel Tanks -2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Genesis of the Corrosion Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Historical Assessment of the Corrosion Resistance of Steels for Automobile Fuel Tanks ...................................................... 7
Scope and Objectives of the Corrosion Study ................................................................................................................................ 8
General Considerations of Corrosion Testing for the SASFT Study
Test approach and input from automakers ................................................................................................................................... 9
Exposure times and life equivalencies ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Steel system candidates for corrosion testing ............................................................................................................................. 10
Criterion for failure ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Independent testing ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Experimental Procedures Adopted for the Corrosion Study
Test methods and corrosion evaluation procedures .................................................................................................................. 13
- Neutral Salt Spray (ASTM B117)
- Cyclic Corrosion Resistance Test (SAE J2334)
- Test validation specimens
- Gravelometer
- Fuel Test
Configuration and Preparation of Test specimens ..................................................................................................................... 14
- Specimens for External Testing (Neutral Salt Spray and Cyclic tests)
- Specimens for Internal Testing (Fuel tests)
- Fabrication of Test Specimens
Evaluation Procedures ................................................................................................................................................................... 18
- Neutral Salt Spray test
- Cyclic Corrosion test
- Gravelometer test
- Fuel test
Test materials (steel systems) ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
Results and Discussion
External Neutral Salt Spray test (ASTM B117) ............................................................................................................................ 22
- Qualitative Evaluation after 2000 hours
- Quantitative Evaluation
External Cyclic Corrosion Resistance Test (J2334) ..................................................................................................................... 25
- Qualitative Evaluation after 80, 120 and 160 cycles
Internal Fuel Test ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32
- Qualitative Evaluation
Summary of Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
References and Notes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................................................... 45
List of Attachments ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46
- Photo Library (file names, photo and specimen identifications) .................................................................................... 48
- Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 57
- Listing 1: Neutral Salt Spray ............................................................................................................................................ 48
- Listing 2: Cyclic Corrosion ............................................................................................................................................... 50
- Listing 3: Fuel Test ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
- SASFT Members ..................................................................................................................................................................... 90
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In recent years, automakers have questioned the corrosion durability of steel for automotive fuel tanks. To
address this concern, the Strategic Alliance for Steel Fuel Tanks (SASFT), an international group of 32
companies representing steel fuel tank manufacturers, suppliers and steel companies, and organized by the
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), sponsored a comprehensive study of the corrosion resistance of
several commercially available steel systems.
The objective of the corrosion study was to assess the resistance of selected steels to the severe external
corrosion conditions experienced by automobile fuel tanks and to the potential for internal corrosion (inside
the fuel tank) posed by aggressive alcohol-containing fuels. It was particularly important to assess the
ability of the steels to meet the 15-year durability requirements set by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) for low emission vehicles.
In recent years, various new steel "systems" have been developed by the worldwide steel industry for
automobile fuel tanks. (The term "system" denotes a unique approach for resisting corrosion, such as
special coatings, and/or special steel alloys.) Twelve of these systems were initially selected for this study
by SASFT. However, 2 post-painted systems were subsequently withdrawn because of inadequate paint
film thicknesses. Thus, 10 steel systems completed the testing in this study. The steels selected were
representative of the three principal categories of steel tank manufacturing approaches currently used
throughout the world; these are:
Pre-painted steels: Tanks are manufactured from steel coils which have been pre-painted on
both sides of the steel sheet. The assembled tanks then receive limited, local post-painting on
the outer surfaces at the weld areas.
Post-painted steels: Steel tanks are fabricated from unpainted steel coils. The tanks are then
post-painted completely on the outer tank surfaces.
Bare steels: Bare steels (such as stainless steels) where no pre- or post-painting is used.
Test specimens were specially designed to reflect the unique corrosion conditions of a fuel tank affixed to a
vehicle. The External Corrosion specimens incorporated a scribe line to simulate a scratch exposing the bare
steel, a dome simulating forming strains, a weld flange with a clip to simulate a crevice corrosion site, and an
area exposed to gravel impact which simulates stone chipping conditions.
To assess the External Corrosion resistance, two simulative bench-scale procedures were used: the Neutral
Salt Spray test (ASTM B117) with exposures up to 2000 hours and the Cyclic Corrosion test (SAE J2334) with
exposures up to 120 and 160 cycles. The latter exposures were selected to simulate road lives of 15 years and
20 years, respectively. Perforation was adopted as the criterion for failure. However, the progress of
corrosion was assessed qualitatively by visual observation and photographs, and quantitatively by measuring
pit depths over the entire specimen, assessing coating integrity by creepback at the scribe line and chip ratings
after gravel impact.
To determine the Internal Corrosion resistance, deep drawn cups and flat lids were assembled to contain
an aggressive fuel (CE10A). (This fuel was chosen on the basis of prior experience by automakers and their
recommendations to SASFT.) The fuel- cup assembly was sealed by an inert gasket and clamping rings. The
fuel cup assemblies were held at 45 ± 2°C for 39 weeks to simulate a 15-year tank exposure. The fuel was
changed every four weeks to simulate repeated fuel tank filling and to replenish contaminant ions and
minimize oxygen depletion (per the test fluid specifications of SAE J1747). The extent of corrosion was
evaluated qualitatively by recording the extent and location of corrosion and quantitatively by weight
changes and pit depths.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Cont.)
The following key findings were obtained from the two External Corrosion tests:
No perforation was observed at any location for any of the steel systems. Corrosion pit depths were
observed at isolated locations for only two steels. Additionally, the maximum depths of the pits
were only 0.2 to 0.4mm, representing about 20 to 40 percent of the original steel thickness.
The extent of corrosion (red and white rusting) varied by location on the specimen and from
material to material. For the most part, slight (<15% surface area) or moderate (15-30%) rusting
was observed, and pronounced rusting (>30%) occurred only in a few instances. The variations in
the extent of corrosion were not of such significance to rate one steel system over another.
The integrity of the paint systems, as indicated by resistance to gravel impact and creepback, varied in
proportion to the thickness of the paint films.
Those pre-painted systems having thin organic resin films (about 9µm thick) and one stainless
steel, having an inorganic paint film (about 17µm thick), showed small amounts of paint chip loss
after initial gravel impacts. However, subsequent gravel impacts did not progressively increase
the paint chip loss.
Those post-painted systems having thick coatings (up to 370µm) showed no paint chip loss or
creepback at the scribe line.
Steels with thin post-paint films (20 to 150 m) showed adhesion loss and creepback proportional to
the coating thicknesses. This suggests that the paint integrity of these systems could be increased by
using thicker paint films.
The results for the Internal Corrosion (Fuel) tests showed:

Very minor weight losses (less than 0.13%) for all the specimens after the maximum 39-week
exposure.
Some variations in the extent of a white residue occurred between the samples. The white residue
occurred primarily at the liquid-vapor interface. However, the residue was insufficient to conduct any
post exposure analysis.
No perforation occurred and, in fact, no pits deeper than 0.1mm were observed in any of the cups
or lids.
The results demonstrate that all of the steel systems tested in this bench-scale study will resist external and
internal corrosion (in the severe environments that can be experienced by automotive fuel tanks) for up to 20
years. Thus, it is fully expected that the systems will meet the 15-year durability requirements of CARB. It
is recommended that automakers conduct their own tests (including proving ground tests) to validate the
on-vehicle corrosion durability of the steel systems tested herein.
The selection of one steel system over another will depend on factors other than the corrosion resistance,
such as the manufacturing approach favored by the automaker, material and manufacturing costs,
inherent manufacturability (forming and welding), and available manufacturing equipment. Because these
factors are beyond the scope of this study, it is recommended that automakers contact the suppliers of the
specific steel systems.
The guidance and encouragement received from many automakers during the development of the testing
methodology used in this study is gratefully acknowledged.
GENESIS OF THE CORROSION STUDY
Steel has been the material of choice globally for automobile fuel tanks for the majority of the 20th century.
The steel used primarily has been low carbon steel, coated with a terne alloy (90% lead and 10% tin). The
terne coating was an effective barrier to potential corrosion from the external environment (road salts, stone
chipping, etc.) and the internal environment (gasoline and diesel fuels). Despite the long, successful history of
terne-coated steel fuel tanks, the following business and technical issues have caused a significant change in
fuel tank materials and in the type of steel for the steel option.
Legislative pressures to reduce heavy metals in the manufacturing and recycling streams. This
caused automakers to move away from lead-containing materials including terne-coated sheet steel.
Automaker requirements for increased durability as a result of more severe corrosion environments
such as increased usage of road salts as well as the emergence of flexible fuels.
Emergence and growth of highly durable HDPE plastic fuel tanks.
Legislative regulations on automobile evaporative emissions to reduce air pollution.

Several national government agencies (such as U.S. EPA and equivalent organizations in Europe
and Japan) have set maximum emission levels for light vehicles (cars and light trucks). In the
U.S.A., California's Air Resources Board (CARB) has set very strict emission levels to reduce
California's acute air pollution problems. Because of steel's inherent impermeability to fuels, steel
tanks are well-suited to meeting California's stringent evaporative emission standards. However, an
additional requirement by CARB, for 15-year durability of the exhaust emission system and the
entire fuel system raises the issue of the corrosion resistance of the materials used.
In response to the demand for more durable steels for fuel systems, steel makers worldwide developed a
variety of new steel "systems," where "system" describes a compound approach to achieving good corrosion
resistance while retaining good manufacturability (forming and welding) and tank performance. Such
systems include, metallic coated low carbon steels with sophisticated pre-paints and post-paints, as well as
stainless steels (such as austenitic 304L and ferritic 436L steels), and are commercially available.
The durability of the commercially available steel systems has been assessed by steel companies and users
alike. However, a variety of corrosion tests, sometimes company specific, were used to assess durability.
Additionally, from these tests it was not apparent that the exposure times equated to a 15-year service life.
This situation prompted the need to determine the corrosion resistance of the new steel systems using
standard test protocols that would indicate a 15-year service durability and was the genesis for the corrosion
study conducted by the Strategic Alliance for Steel Fuel Tanks (SASFT).
HISTORICAL ASSESSSMENT
Historically, a three-stage process has been used to assess the corrosion performance of steel for fuel
tanks.
Bench Scale Simulative Corrosion Tests
These tests are conducted by steel suppliers and automakers alike. The tests are used primarily as
screening tests for further evaluation in full scale proving ground tests. Of the many tests that have
been used in the past, three of the most commonly used are a Neutral Salt Spray corrosion test (ASTM
B117) which exposes test strips or coupons to a continuous salt spray for a fixed time at a specified
temperature, a Cyclic corrosion test (SAE J2334) having prescribed cycles of exposure to salt spray and
dry times at specified temperatures for various times (cycles), and various Fuel Resistance tests where
company-preferred tests are used for any fuel of interest. Because of the concern regarding how well
simulative tests relate to actual on-vehicle performance, additional proving ground tests are always
conducted by all automakers.
Automotive Proving Ground Tests

Each automaker has its own prescription for assessing the corrosion resistance of fuel tanks.
Common features are formed tanks or shells and/or panels fixed to a sled or installed on a vehicle,
which is driven over a track while undergoing a 'menu' of exposures to salts, dry periods and
gravel.
Field Surveys of Actual Vehicles

Corrosion surveys of actual in-service vehicles (after 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, etc.) are conducted
regularly in areas of severe corrosion (such as the northeast of U.S.A., Florida or the maritime
provinces of Canada). These surveys evaluate the actual extent of corrosion of fuel systems, body
structures and body panels and validate proving ground tests and, to some extent, bench scale
simulation tests.
From the above assessments automakers are able to establish correlations. However, the predictability of
bench scale simulative tests is not sufficiently accurate to avoid conducting proving ground tests. Thus for
steel fuel tank materials, the durability performance assessment varies according to the assessment method as
follows:
Assessment Method Performance Predictability
Bench scale simulative tests Indication only

Proving ground tests Good measure of performance
Field surveys of corrosion Validation
on vehicles
Because SASFT did not have the capability to conduct proving ground tests and it was premature to
conduct field surveys because of the 'newness' of many steel systems, SASFT decided to conduct bench
scale simulative tests. It was envisioned that these tests, although only indicative of long-term service
durability, would provide encouragement for automakers to conduct their own proving ground tests for
the various new steel systems.
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
Scope - It was regarded as important to adopt a broad scope with respect to the selection of steel systems
for corrosion testing - regardless of the regional origin of the steel systems. Because regionally-developed
steel systems can be migrated to other regions, several steel "options" can be considered by automakers for
15-year-life fuel tanks. The detailed analysis of costs, manufacturability and performance could be
determined subsequently by interaction between the individual steel companies, tank manufacturers and
automakers.
A somewhat narrower scope was adopted in selecting the corrosion tests:

The external tests were of recognized value primarily to North American automakers and suppliers.
But specific unique features were incorporated to reflect actual conditions experienced by an
automobile fuel tank rather than by body panels or body structures.
The internal fuel test selected was uniquely designed by SASFT, based on existing tests in Europe
and in Japan.
Objectives - The following objectives were established for SASFT's corrosion study:
Select suitable steel systems (available from worldwide steel industry) for meeting a 15-year life.
Select suitable bench-scale tests for assessing the durability performance of steels in an automotive
fuel tank environment; specifically external corrosion resistance (resistance to salts, stone
impingement, etc.) and internal corrosion resistance to aggressive fuels.
Obtain feedback from automakers on the value of the SASFT corrosion program before the tests were
started. In this way, the results would be meaningful to automakers.
Conduct the tests at an independent test laboratory (outside of the SASFT and AISI organizations).
Share the results with automakers and encourage their further evaluation of the steel systems using
proving ground or other tests.
To accomplish these objectives, a Corrosion Evaluation Team was formed which organized and managed
the program. The effectiveness of the team was enhanced by the ability of company representatives to draw
from the resource bases of their companies.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Testing Approach
Because of a lack of access to proving grounds and their infrastructure, SASFT decided to use established
accelerated bench scale corrosion tests. Several tests were considered by the Corrosion Evaluation Team;
two external tests and one internal test were selected.
Neutral Salt Spray Test (ASTM B117)

The CET was aware that there is a poor correlation of results from this test with actual perforation
corrosion of fuel tanks or body panels in proving ground tests or field surveys. However, because of
the wide use of the test and the large availability of data from other test programs, it was decided to
include the test. Furthermore, it was seen as valuable to determine whether any correlations could
be made with the results of the preferred external test, i.e. the Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334).
Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334)

Much work has been conducted on this test by the SAE J2334 Committee over the last 20 years.
This has culminated in recent papers indicating the value of the test as a practical means for
assessing perforation corrosion resistance [1 - 4]*. Information on the predictability of the J2334
Cyclic Corrosion test is reproduced from one of the referenced papers in APPENDIX 1. Currently,
the J2334 cyclic corrosion test is generally regarded as a useful simulative bench test for predicting
perforation performance in subsequent proving ground tests or in actual vehicle performance.
Therefore, SASFT selected the base J2334 test for evaluating the various steel systems. However,
modifications to the test procedure were incorporated to better represent the external conditions
experienced by fuel tanks. These include:
- a unique test specimen containing:
- a welded flange
- a plastic clip on the welded flange to provide potential crevice corrosion sites
- a scribe line simulating scratching down to bare steel
- a dome to simulate the formed areas of a fabricated steel tank
- a procedure for simulating gravel impact on a tank by using the standard SAE J400 Gravelometer
Test on a flat portion of the specimen.
Internal (Fuel) Corrosion Test

Features and elements of existing fuel corrosion resistance tests developed by Corus (Europe) and
JFE Steel (Japan) were incorporated into a SASFT designed, sealed cup test. The selection of
aggressive fuel CE10A was chosen on the basis of findings from a cooperative survey conducted by
the Big 3 automakers of the 'aggressiveness' of a variety of fuels. From this survey, CE10A was
found to be a very agressive fuel.
To ensure that the results from the SASFT corrosion test program would be valuable to automakers, the
original proposed tests, test specimens, test procedure and steel systems were reviewed with key engineering
personnel at automakers worldwide. As a result of feedback and suggestions, several modifications were
incorporated into the original SASFT test program.
Exposure Times and Life Equivalencies

For the Neutral Salt Spray Test, SASFT was unaware of any correlation between exposure time and equivalent
corrosion in a vehicle. Because North American auto manufacturers generally use exposure times of 1,000 to
2,000 hours, SASFT decided to use a 2,000-hour exposure time. For the Cyclic Corrosion Test, SASFT learned
from various corrosion experts that 80 cycles is generally regarded as being approximately equivalent to 10
years vehicle life on the basis of correlations between cyclic testing, automotive proving ground tests and field
* see references and notes at the end of this report.
surveys. Assuming a linear relationship between the number of cycles and life equivalency, 120 cycles should
represent 15 years. SASFT decided to run the Cyclic Corrosion Test beyond 120 cycles (15 years) and
complete the exposure after 160 cycles (20 years).
For the Fuel Corrosion Test exposures of 26 weeks to various fuels at 45°C are used by some automakers to
represent performance of an actual fuel tank after 10 years. Consequently, the exposure test period was
increased by 50% to simulate 15-year tank exposure.
The exposure times and life equivalency are summarized in EXHIBIT 1.
Exposure Times SASFT Approximate

Typically used by N.A. Exposure, Life Equivalency
Automakers Time (years)
Neutral Salt Spray Test 1000 to 2000 hours ——
(ASTM B117) 2000 hours ——
Cyclic Corrosion Test 80 cycles 10 years
(SAE J2334) 160 cycles 20 years
26 weeks 10 years
Fuel Test
39 weeks 15 years
EXHIBIT 1. Exposure times and life equivalency for various corrosion tests.
Steel System Candidates for Corrosion Testing

The global nature of SASFT's membership, particularly with respect to steel companies, enabled a broad
survey of candidate steel systems for corrosion testing to be conducted. Furthermore, the list of candidate
steel systems reflected the different preferred approaches to steel selection and tank manufacturing in
different geographical regions as shown in EXHIBIT 2.
Geographic region Preferred steel manufacturing approach for automobile fuel tanks
North America
Big Three Pre-painted steel and limited post-painting
Transplants Post-painting of assembled tanks
Europe Bare steels (HD Aluminized* and stainless) and
post-painting of HD Aluminized and stainless
Japan/Korea Post-painting of assembled tanks
*Used largely by DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes) for tanks placed above the
floor pan and not exposed directly to road salts.
EXHIBIT 2. Preferred steel types and manufacturing methods for automobile fuel tanks by
geographical region.
An additional factor in selecting steel materials was a need to evaluate and compare the performance of
materials containing Cr+6 with those that are Cr+6 free. As a result of the above considerations, 12 steel systems
were chosen initially for the corrosion study. However, 2 post-paint systems were subsequently withdrawn
because of incorrect paint thicknesses. The remaining 10 systems and the suppliers of the test materials are
shown in EXHIBIT 3. (More complete details of the steel systems are described under test materials in the
subsequent section entitled “Experimental Procedures Adopted.”)
Evaluation of the Corrosion Durability of Steel Systems for Automobile Fuel Tanks - 10 -
ID Steel System Supplier Presence
Category No. Base steel/Metallic of steel samples‡ Other coating
coating of Cr +6
Pre- 1 Low carbon steel/ ISG Epoxy pre-paint water-based post- Yes
painted Electrogalvanized (Bethlehem) paint at welds
steels Zn-Ni
2 Low carbon steel/ ISG Epoxy pre-paint water-based post- No
Electrogalvanized (Bethlehem) paint at welds
Zn-Ni
3 Low carbon steel/ U.S. Steel Epoxy pre-paint water-based post- No
HD Galvannealed Zn-Fe (National) paint at welds
4 Low carbon steel/ ThyssenKrupp Epoxy pre-paint water-based post- Yes
HD Aluminized Aℓ-Si** Stahl paint at welds
5 Austenitic 304L Arcelor Inorganic coating No
stainless/ (J & L Specialty)*
None
Post- 6 Low carbon steel/ Nippon Steel Acrylic and top coat No
painted HD Terne Pb-Sn Corp. post-paint (external surface only)
steels 7 Low carbon steel/ Nippon Steel Acrylic and top coat No
HD Tin Zinc (Sn-Zn) Corp. post-paint (external surface only)
8 Low carbon steel/ Arcelor Alkyd resin synthetic polymer post- Yes
HD Aluminized Aℓ-Si paint (external surface only)
9 Ferritic 436L stainless/ JFE Steel Zinc-rich paint (external surface only) No
None
Bare 10 Austenitic 304L Arcelor None No
steels stainless/ (J & L Specialty)*
None
‡ The same steels may be available from other steel companies.
* Now part of Allegheny Ludlum.
** Subsequently referred to as HD Aluminized or HDAℓ
EXHIBIT 3. Steel systems selected by SASFT for external and fuel corrosion testing.
Criteria for Failure and Extent of Corrosion
Because the prime function of a fuel tank is to contain fuel, perforation of the test specimen was adopted as
the criterion for failure. Additionally, various qualitative and quantitative assessments of corrosion were
used to indicate the progress of corrosion up to the point at which perforation (failure) occurs. It was
expected that the progress of corrosion might differ from region-to-region on the specimen because of the
different conditions in the specimen such as forming deformation, scratches, weld zones, and gravel impact
zone. Therefore, in the External Tests corrosion assessments were made at several locations of the test
specimens which simulated different tank conditions (described later under Configuration and Preparation
of Specimens in the section Experimental Procedures Adopted).
For the Internal Corrosion Tests the extent of corrosion and pitting was assessed at several locations (liquid
contact, liquid-vapor interface, and vapor contact areas at the cup side walls and lids). In this way, the
specific 'corrosiveness' of the liquid fuel, liquid-vapor interface (including phase separation of the fuel) and
vapor could be determined.
Independent Testing
Although excellent corrosion testing facilities were available in many member companies of SASFT, it was
decided to contract the testing with a reputable testing laboratory whereby the testing and interpretation of
results is entirely independent of SASFT and its members. Accordingly, several testing laboratories with
experience in automotive corrosion testing were surveyed. After careful review, ACT Laboratories,
Hillsdale, Michigan, were contracted to conduct both the external corrosion testing and the fuel testing.
Key factors which merited the selection of ACT Laboratories were:
Excellent capabilities in automotive corrosion testing.

Good reputation with the automotive community (OEMs and suppliers).
Extensive prior involvement with SAE J2334 committee in developing and validating the Cyclic
Corrosion Test.
Accessible laboratories in Hillsdale and Wixom, MI.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ADOPTED
Test Methods
Details of the test procedures are described as follows:
Neutral Salt Spray Test
The test was conducted according to ASTM B117 [5]. Key process parameters were:
- Continual atomized spray (or fog) of 5% salt solution in an enclosed chamber.
- Temperature of chamber: 35ºC.
- Triplicate specimens were spaced from each other and inclined at 15º from vertical.
- Maximum exposure time of 2000 hours.
- Gravel impact was conducted according to SAE J400 at the start of testing and after 500, 1000,
and 1500 hours of salt spray exposure.
Cyclic Corrosion Test
The test was conducted according to SAE J2334 procedures [6]. Key process parameters were:
- One 24-hour cycle in an enclosed chamber included:
- 6 hours exposure in 100% condensing humidity at 50°C (+ 2°C).
- 15 minutes exposure at 25°C to a salt solution consisting of, 0.5% NaCl, 0.1% CaCl2
and 0.075% NaHCO3.
- 17.75 hours exposure in a dry stage (60°C + 2°C, 50% + 5% relative humidity).
A schematic of the daily cycle is shown in EXHIBIT 4.
- Duplicate specimens were spaced from each other and inclined at 15° from vertical.
- Gravel impact was conducted according to SAE J400 at the start of testing and after 20 cycle
intervals. Separate sets of specimens were used for 80-, 120-, and 160-cycle exposures.
- Six coupons of bare cold-rolled steel were included in the Cyclic Corrosion test for the purpose of
assessing weight loss and perforation for an uncoated steel (no metallic coating and no pre- or
post-paint.).
Humid Stage Dry Stage

6 hr. 60 C, 50% RH
50 C, 100% RH
Daily
Salt Dip
25 C, 15 min.
0.5% NaCl + 0.1% Dry Stage Weekends and
CaCl2 + 0.075% 17 hr., 45 min. Holidays
NaHCO3 60 C, 50% RH
EXHIBIT 4. Daily cycle for the Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334).
Test Validation Speciments

To ensure that the test conditions in both the Neutral Salt Spray and Cyclic corrosion tests were
stable within the duration of the tests and consistent with previous tests, test validation specimens
of pure zinc and uncoated steel sheet were incorporated in the test chambers. Weight loss of the
coupons was recorded as follows:
Exposure, time/cycles
Neutral Salt Spray Test 500 hrs. 1000 hrs. 1500 hrs. 2000 hrs.
Cyclic Corrosion Test 80 cycles 120 cycles 160 cycles ——
Gravelometer Test
The test used in both the Neutral Salt Spray Test and the Cyclic Corrosion Test was conducted
according to SAE J400 (Revised 2002-11) [7]. Key process parameters were:
- A QGR gravelometer was used.
- Room temperature and an air pressure of 70 + 3 psi.
- 1 pint of water-worn road gravel that passes through a 16mm (5/8 inch) space screen,
but retained on a 9.5mm (3/8 inch) space screen.
- The gravel was aimed to impinge only on the target area immediately below the weld flange.
Fuel Test
The test fuel used was CE10A and constituted, in accordance with SAE J1681, [8] as follows:
- For 1 liter of Test Fuel (CE10A): 450 milliliters of Toluene
450 milliliters of iso-Octane
100 milliliters of Aggressive Ethanol
- Aggressive Ethanol: 816.0 grams (1.034 liters) of Denatured Ethanol, CDA 20

8.103 grams (8.1 milliliters) of ASTM D 1193 - Type II Water
0.004 grams of Sodium Chloride
0.021 grams (11 microliters) of Sulfuric Acid
0.061 grams (58 microliters) of Glacial Acetic Acid
The test cups and lids (described later in Specimens for Internal Testing) were cleaned with warm
water, dried and weighed before adding 30 ml of the test fuel, which half-filled each cup. The
assembled fuel test cups were placed in a sand bath controlled to 45 ± 2°C according to the test
procedures of SAE J1747 [9]. Total exposure time for the stationary fuel test assemblies was 39
weeks to simulate a 15-year fuel tank exposure. To simulate regular and re-filling of a fuel tank and
to replenish contaminant ions and minimize oxygen depletion (per SAE J1747). Each fuel test
assembly was removed from the sand every four weeks, the fuel was removed and saved, the cup
and lid reweighed, new fuel added and the assembly returned to the sand bath. The spent fuel was
checked for any discoloration.
Configuration and Preparation of Test Specimens

Specimens for External testing (Neutral Salt Spray and Cyclic tests)
Historically, for bench scale corrosion testing of steel, the test specimens have been flat coupons with
some form of edge protection (tape or stop-off paint). In some cases the specimens might contain a
scribe line and a dome to simulate a scratch and forming strains, respectively. The Corrosion
Evaluation Team of SASFT felt that the test specimen for this study ought to represent more fully the
conditions experienced by steel in an assembled fuel tank. Accordingly, the unique test specimen
shown in EXHIBIT 5 was developed for both of the external corrosion tests.
6 inches
Olsen
dome
Weld
Plastic
6 inches Clip
scribe line (applied

at test laboratory)
4 inches
gravel
impact
zone
2 inches max. flange width
EXHIBIT 5. Specimen configuration for both External Corrosion tests
The 4-inch wide test specimen included:

- an Olsen dome to simulate forming strains. The 22.22mm (7/8th inch) diameter dome is formed
to a depth of 7.9mm (0.3 inch). The domes were introduced into the steel specimens according
to ASTM E643-84 (Re-approved 2000). [10]
- a scribe line such that the bare steel is exposed to simulate a severe scratch. The scribing was
conducted according to ASTM D1654 - 00 [11] using a straight shank lathe tool (style E).
- a welded flange area to simulate the electric resistance seam weld of a steel fuel tank.
- a plastic clip to provide potential crevice-corrosion sites.
- a gravel impact zone for simulation of frequent over-the-road stone chipping.
All test specimens were protected at the cut edges by a stop-off paint (Microstop). A photograph of a
test specimen is shown in the inset in EXHIBIT 5.
Specimens for Internal Testing (Fuel tests)

A unique sealed fuel test cup was developed and used for the fuel resistance tests. 50 mm diameter
cups were drawn to a depth of 30 mm with a residual cup flange. The cup was half filled with 30 ml of
the test fuel so that the cup was exposed to the fuel and vapor while the lid was exposed only to the
vapor. To seal the fuel and vapor, a 1/8 inch thick Viton® flange gasket [12] was placed on top of the
flange surface of the cup, the lid positioned and clamped by upper and lower ¼ inch thick steel
clamping rings secured with 4 equally spaced bolts [13]. A torque wrench was used to apply a fixed
torque of 1.1 Newton-meter (10 inch-pounds) to each of the 4 bolts. The fuel test components
(including the torque wrench) are shown in EXHIBIT 6. A schematic representation of the fuel test
assembly and a photograph of the assembly are shown in EXHIBITS 7 and 8, respectively.
EXHIBIT 6. Components of the fuel test unit: torque wrench, fuel-containing cup, Viton® gasket seal,
steel sample lid, bottom clamping ring, top clamping ring and the combined lid plus top clamping ring.
4 Clamping Steel sample for lid

bolts
Viton
Gasket
seal Circular steel
clamping rings
30mm
Fuel Drawn sample cup
50mm
Blank diameter = 98 mm
Punch diameter = 50 mm
Die radius = 3 mm
Clamping torque = 1.1 newton-meter (10 inch pounds)
Draw depth = 30 mm
EXHIBIT 7. Schematic of the fuel test assembly fully immersed in a temperature-controlled sand bath.
To maintain a constant temperature of 45± 2°C, the fuel test assemblies were placed in a controlled
temperature 10 inch (254 mm) deep sand bath. The test assemblies remained stationary for each 4-week
exposure.
EXHIBIT 8. Profile of an assembled test cup unit.
Fabrication of Test Specimens

Flat steel-system sheets were supplied by various steel companies to a target thickness of 1mm (0.0395
inch). For External Corrosion test specimens, the various sheets were welded, either by using a
conventional seam welding technique, or by a Soudronic process using production welding
practices. The welded specimens of pre-painted steels were post-painted at the weld zone. All
welded specimens were gathered at Bethlehem Steel Corporation (now International Steel Group)
where the Olsen domes were formed. All specimens were then shipped to ACT Laboratories where
any forming lubricants were removed by light washing and the scribing and edge painting was
completed before testing. For Internal Corrosion test specimens, all the fuel cups were deep drawn
and the flat lids cut at Bethlehem Steel using the same uniform procedures for each material. The
specimens were then shipped to ACT Laboratories for cleaning, drying and assembly with gaskets.
Evaluation Procedures
External - Neutral Salt Spray Test
The qualitative evaluation of Neutral Salt Spray specimens was conducted at every 500 hours before
and after air drying and cleaning by blowing air at 80 psi at an angle of approximately 45º over the
entire specimen surface. The specimen surface was lightly contacted with the air nozzle to clean
the surface by removing loosely adherent coatings.
Each of the triplicate specimens was visually examined for corrosion and loss of adhesion at the
scribe line, chipped (graveled) area, Olsen dome, flange (including weld and clip locations) and
field area (region above the dome). The extent of corrosion was rated according to the following
scale and assigned a numerical rating as follows:
Corrosion Severity Numerical Rating

N = None: No corrosion 0
S = Slight: Approximately less than 15% corrosion in test area 1
M = Moderate: Approximately 15 - 30% corrosion in test area 2
P = Pronounced: Approximately greater than 30% corrosion in test area 3
The quantitative evaluation of the Neutral Salt Spray specimens was conducted at the completion of
testing (i.e., after 2000 hours) by four methods:
- Weight loss.
- Creepback from scribe line. The distance of the affected paint film (lost or non-adherent) between
the scribe line and the unaffected paint film was reported as:
- Average: The average of 6 measurements of creepback from the scribe at points 10mm apart
centered on the scribe line. Each measurement was an average of the creepback on two
sides of the scribed line.
- Maximum: A measurement of the creepback from the scribe line at the point having the
most extensive amount of affected paint, but discounting those areas less than 1cm from the
ends of the scribe line.
- Minimum: A measurement of the creepback from the scribe at the point with the least
extensive amount of affected paint, but discounting those areas less than 1cm from the ends
of the scribe line.
- Pit depth. Maximum pit depth (greater than 0.1mm, which is approximately 10% of the initial
specimen thickness) was measured for each specimen after 2000 hours.
- Chip rating. The test method and evaluation procedure is described below under the
Gravelometer Test method.
A summary of the qualitative and quantitative assessments for the Neutral Salt Spray test is shown in
EXHIBIT 9.
Exposure time, hours

500 1000 1500 2000
Qualitative
Photographs
Before cleaning √ √ √ √
After cleaning √ √ √ √
Visual assessment
After cleaning √ √ √ √
Quantitative
Creepback —— —— —— √
Pit Depth —— —— —— √
Chip rating √ √ √ √
EXHIBIT 9. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of corrosion in the

Neutral Salt Spray test.
External - Cyclic Corrosion Test

A qualitative evaluation was conducted after every 20 cycles by visually assessing, after air blowing
but without cleaning, the extent of corrosion and loss of any coating adhesion at the scribe line,
chipped (graveled) area, Olsen dome, flange (including weld and clip locations) and field area (region
above the dome). The extent of corrosion or adhesion loss was rated the same way for the Neutral
Salt Spray specimens. The specimens were also photographed.
The quantitative evaluation was conducted after 80 cycles, 120 cycles and 160 cycles of exposure. The
specimens were air dried and cleaned using 80 psi air pressure at a 45° angle over the entire specimen
surface. The specimen surface was lightly contacted by the air nozzle to remove loosely adherent
coatings. Weight loss, creepback, pit depth, and chip ratings were assessed in the same way as for the
Neutral Salt Spray test. A summary of the qualitative and quantitative assessments for the Cyclic
Corrosion test is shown in EXHIBIT 10.
No. of Cycles (life equivalency)

60 80 100 120 140 160
(10 years) (15 years) (20 years)
Qualitative Evaluation
Remove specimens temporarily and
without cleaning:
― assess corrosion damage √ √ √ √ √ √
according to ASTM D610
― take photographs √ √ √ √ √ √
Quantitative Evaluation
Remove specimens permanently,* clean
and then:
― weigh —— √ —— √ —— √
― assess creep back —— √ —— √ —— √
― determine pitting location and —— √ —— √ —— √
depth
* Separate sets of specimens were used for 80-, 120-, and 160-cycle exposures.
EXHIBIT 10. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of corrosion in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
Gravelometer Test
The evaluation procedure used was based on visual comparison of the test specimens with SAE J400
pictorial standards. A number-letter combination in which rating numbers 10-0 indicate the
number of chips of each size and rating letter A-D designate the sizes of the corresponding chips.
The codes are described fully with the tabulated results in subsequent EXHIBITS and APPENDIXES.
Additionally, the nature of failure was noted as to whether adhesion loss occured from the metallic
coating to topcoat or from the steel substrate to topcoat.
Internal Fuel Test

The qualitative evaluation was conducted by inspecting the fuel test cups and lids after each fuel
change and assessing of the extent of corrosion. The same visual rating scale was used as for the
external tests. The quantitative evaluation was conducted by measuring the weight loss (change) and
the extent, location and depth of pits.
Test Materials (steel systems)

The steel systems used for External Corrosion testing are shown in EXHIBIT 11, together with a description
of the external surfaces exposed to the corrosion environments.
Coatings on both sheet surfaces Exterior Surface
I.D. Base Metallic Sheet Pre-treatment Pre-paint/ Post-paint
Number Steel Coating/Coating Thick- /thickness thickness thickness
weight per side ness
mm*
Pre-painted steels
1 Low carbon (IF) Electrolytic Zn-Ni 1.07 Bonderite 1303 mixed Magni 331 Weld only Magni W46 /
+6
steel /30 g/m2 oxide with Parcolene with Cr 127µm (both sides of flange)
62 Cr+6 rinse / 9- epoxy
2
10mg/m /9.5 µm
2 Low carbon (IF) Electrolytic Zn-Ni 1.07 Bonderite 1303 mixed Magni 336 Weld only Magni W46 /
+6
steel /30 g/m2 oxide with Parcolene non- Cr 127µm (both sides of flange)
+6
350 non- Cr rinse /9- epoxy
10mg /9.5 µm
2
/m
3 Low carbon (IF) Hot dip 0.8 Bonderite 1303 mixed Magni 336 Weld only Magni W46 /
+6
steel galvannealed oxide with Parcolene non- Cr 127µm (both sides of flange)
+6
(Zn-Fe) /45 g/m2 350 non- Cr rinse /9- epoxy
2
10mg/m /9.5 µm
4 Low carbon (IF) Hot dip 0.88 Bonderite 714 with Magni 369 Weld only Magni W46 /
+6 +6
steel aluminized (Al-Si) Parcolene 62 Cr with Cr 127µm (both sides of flange)
/30 g/m2 rinse epoxy /9µm
5 Austenitic None 0.89 None Neukote None
Stainless (304L) inorganic (Neukote pre-paint only)
coating /
17µm
Post-painted steels
6 Low carbon Hot dip terne (Pb- 0.8 Phosphate /3 mg/m2 None Anti chip acrylic /350µm +
(DQSK) Sn) /40 g/m2 Coverpaint / 20µm
+3 +6
7 Low carbon Hot dip tin-zinc 0.8 Cr & Cr free resin None Anti chip acrylic /350µm +
(DQSK) (Sn-Zn) /40 g/m2 /300 mg/m2 Coverpaint / 20µm
8 Low carbon Hot dip 0.9 Chromate None Anti chip alkyd resin
(DQSK ) aluminized (Al-Si) (i.e., with Cr+6) (Helmebath) /150µm
/55 g/m2
9 Ferritic None 0.8 None None Zinc rich paint/20µm
stainless (436L)
Bare steels
10 Austenitic None 0.8 None None Bare
Stainless (304L)
*Thickness before pre- or post-painting
EXHIBIT 11. Description of the pre-painted, post-painted and bare steels for EXTERNAL CORROSION
resistance testing.
In addition to the 10 materials shown in EXHIBIT 11, two other post-painted steel systems were selected for
external corrosion testing, but were withdrawn after early testing because of incorrect post-paint thicknesses.
Photographs of the initial test specimens for each test material are shown in EXHIBIT 12; the specimens
received an initial gravel impact, but no exposure either to Neutral Salt Spray or to the Cyclic test. The
different colors and textures reflect the different coatings and approaches to resisting external corrosion.
EXHIBIT 12. Photographs of initial test specimens (materials #1-#10) for external corrosion testing.
All of the steel systems used in the SASFT study represented products in commercial production by the
supplying steel companies. Further information on specific steel systems can be obtained from the supplying
steel companies shown in EXHIBIT 4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
External - Neutral Salt Spray Test (ASTM B117)

Qualitative Evaluation after 2000 hours of exposure
Photographs of all test materials after 2000 hours of exposure are shown in EXHIBIT 13. Additional
photographs of initial samples (graveled, but zero exposure time), and after 1000 hours, and 2000
hours exposure are shown in Photo Library - Neutral Salt Spray. The identification of the photos and
test specimens are shown in the Photo Library - LISTING 1 at the end of this report.
Pre-painted steels
#1 #2 #3 #4
#5
Post-painted steels
#6 #7 #8 #9
Bare steels
#10
EXHIBIT 13. Photographs of test materials after 2,000 hours exposure and before cleaning in Neutral Salt
Spray.
Detailed visual ratings of the severity of white and red rust at eight different locations of triplicate
specimens are shown in APPENDIX 2. The overall numerical ratings are displayed in EXHIBIT 14.
EXHIBIT 14. Average corrosion severity display of the visual ratings of white and red rust after 2000
hours of exposure in the Neutral Salt Spray test. White 'rust' for pre-, and post-painted samples may
well be a reaction product with the specific paints. (Numeric Corrosion Severity ratings: 0=None,
1=Slight, 2=Moderate, and 3=Pronounced visible corrosion as described in APPENDIX 2.)
EXHIBIT 14 shows that moderate white rusting at several locations for pre-painted HDGA (#3) and at the
dome for pre-painted HDAl (#4) . For those pre- and post-painted steels which showed slight to moderate
white rusting, the white 'rust' could have been the result of reaction with the paint films. For red
rusting, moderate to pronounced severities were shown by only the post-painted HDAl (#8) test material.
Quantitative Evaluation After 2000 Hours of Exposure

The weight loss data for the test materials and the test validation coupons are shown in APPENDIXES
3 and 4 respectively. The percentage weight losses are shown graphically in EXHIBIT 15. The
percentage weight losses of all specimens were very low (2% maximum) compared with the
bare cold rolled steel test validation sample (12.9% loss), which indicates the effectiveness of the
corrosion resistant mechanisms utilized by the various steel systems. The 2% weight loss of the
post-painted HD Aluminized sample (#8) undoubtedly resulted from the loss of adhesion and
blistering of the thin paint film (150µm) in all areas of the specimen (see Note 4 in APPENDIX 2).
This is confirmed by the extensive creepback observed for the HD Aluminized (#8) material (see
APPENDIX 5). The only severe creepback occurred in the post-painted HD Aluminized steel (#8)
and was probably related to the adhesion loss of the post-paint. APPENDIX 5 also shows that no
pits deeper than 0.1mm were observed in any location in any specimen.
Weight loss, % (validation coupons)
60
Zinc
1500 hrs.
50
Bare
CR steel
40
Weight change % (test materials)
4
30
BARE
STEELS
PRE-PAINTED STEELS POST-PAINTED STEELS
20 2000
hrs. 2
1500
hrs. 1.1 2
10 0.6 0.7
Loss 0.3
0.2 0.2
-0.2 0.05 0.05
0 Zn Bare Stee l
0
Gain
HDGA
HDAl
HDAl
Zn-Ni
Zn-Ni
304L
Sn-Zn
436L
304L
Terne
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
-2
EXHIBIT 15. Percentage weight losses (gains) of test validation samples (left) and steel test specimens
(right) in the Neutral Salt Spray Test after 2000 hours exposure.
The detailed gravelometer chip rating number (denoting the number of chips) and the rating letter
(denoting size of the chips) and loss of adhesion for the steel system specimens after 500, 1000, 1500,
and 2000 hours exposure are shown in APPENDIX 6. The results for 2000 hours exposure are
summarized in EXHIBIT 16.
Chip frequency rating Size rating &
size range of chips
Rating numbers 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C D
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1mm 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm
Pre-painted steels
1
#1 EG Zn-Ni+Cr6 X X
1
#2 EG Zn-Ni- Cr6 X X
1
#3 HDGA- Cr6 X X
1
#4 HDAℓ+ Cr6 X X
#5 304L+Neukote X
Post-painted steels
#6 HD Terne X
#7 HD Tin-Zinc X
#8 HDAℓ No rating due to excessive blistering
#9 Ferritic436L X2 X
Bare steel
#10 Austenitic 304L X
1 denotes loss of adhesion from metallic coating to topcoat
2 denotes loss of adhesion from steel to topcoat.
EXHIBIT 16. Summary of gravelometer chip ratings after 2000 hours exposure in the
The best chipping resistance was shown by those post-painted steels that had very heavy coatings (#6 & #7)
and by the Austenitic 304L steel with inorganic pre-paint (#5).
External - Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334)

Qualitative Evaluations
Photographs of all test materials after 160 cycles exposure prior to cleaning are shown in EXHIBIT
17. Additional photographs of cyclic corrosion test specimens are shown in Photo Library-Cyclic
Test, identification codes for which are shown in Photo Library - LISTING 2 at the end of this
report.
Visual ratings of the severity of white and red rust at eight different locations for duplicate
specimens are shown in APPENDIXES 7, 8 and 9 after exposure times of 80, 120 and 160 cycles,
respectively. (Rust staining was not included in the ratings.)
The numerical corrosion severity ratings of 0, 1, 2, and 3, are charted in EXHIBITS 18 and 19 for 120
cycle and 160 cycle exposures. The displays show moderate to pronounced white rusting only at the
dome location of pre-painted HDGA (#3) and the flange area of post-painted HDAl (#8). For red
rusting, moderate to pronounced severities occurred after 120 and 160 cycles at the weld clip for
pre-painted Zn-Ni (#1), the scribe for pre-painted HDGA (#3), and the weld and flange for the post-
painted HDAl.
Pre-painted steels
#1 #2
#3 #5
#4
Post-painted steels
#6 #7
#8 #9
Bare steel
#10
EXHIBIT 17. Photographs of test materials after 160 cycles exposure and before cleaning in the Cyclic
Corrosion test. (No photograph for before cleaning was available for #3. Hence, the photograph for after
cleaning is shown.)
EXHIBIT 18. Average corrosion severity display from the visual ratings of white and red rust after 120
cycles of exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test. (Numeric corrosion severity ratings: 0=None, 1=Slight,
2=Moderate, and 3=Pronounced visible corrosion shown in APPENDIX 8.)
EXHIBIT 19. Average corrosion severity display from the visual ratings of white and red rust after 160
cycles of exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test. (Numeric corrosion severity ratings: 0=None, 1=Slight, 2=
Moderate, and 3= Pronounced visible corrosion shown in APPENDIX 9.)
Quantitative Evaluations
The detailed weight changes after 80 cycles, 120 cycles and 160 cycles exposure in the Cyclic
Corrosion test are shown in APPENDIXES 10, 11 and 12, respectively. To facilitate a comparison of
the different steel test materials, the weight change data after 160 cycles exposure has been plotted
in EXHIBIT 20. The greatest loss (2.42%) was shown by the post-painted ferritic 436L (#9) and can
be attributed to the loss of the thin paint coating because no evidence of substrate corrosion was
observed.
Weight loss, % (average for bare cold rolled steel controls), after 80 cycles
100
Bare cold rolled
steel control
(80 Cycles)
80 76.0
Weight change, % (test materials) – after 160 cycles

60
4
40
Pre-painted steels Post-painted steels 2.42 Bare
steel
2
20
Loss 0.55
0 0.09 -0.3 -0.15
0 -0.12 -0.12 -0.57 -0.33
Bare Steel 0
Gain
HDGA
HDAl
HDAl
Zn-Ni
Zn-Ni
304L
Sn-Zn
436L
304L
Terne
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
-2
EXHIBIT 20. Average weight loss of cold rolled controls after 80 cycles and weight changes of steel test
materials after 160 cycles exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
In those instances where weight losses occurred, the percentage weight loss was very small (2.42%
maximum) especially when these data are compared with the high weight loss (76%) shown by the
bare cold rolled steel control after only 80 cycles, at which point the remnants of the samples were
removed from the Cyclic Corrosion test cabinet. The substantial weight loss of the bare cold rolled
controls confirms the severity of the Cyclic Corrosion test and the good resistance of the test materials
chosen for this study. (The detailed weight loss data for the cold rolled steel control specimens are
shown in APPENDIX 13.)
Average creepback and average maximum pit depths for 80 cycles, 120 cycles and 160 cycles
exposure to the Cyclic Corrosion test are summarized in EXHIBIT 21. (The detailed measurements are
shown in APPENDIXES 14, 15 and 16.) Moderate to pronounced creepback occurred in only two post-
painted test materials (HDAl #8 and Ferritic 436L #9) due to adhesion loss of the post-paint film. After
80 and 120 cycles of exposure, maximum pit depths of 0.1 and 0.2mm were observed for the two pre-
painted EG Zn-Ni materials (#1 & #2) and 0.4 mm for pre-painted HDAl (#4).
Number of Cyclic Corrosion test cycles
80 120 160 80 120 160
Creepback from scribe Maximum

Pre-painted steels mm pit depth /mm
#1 EG Zn-Ni + Cr6 0 0 0 0 0.2* 0
#2 EG Zn-Ni - Cr6 0 0 0 0.1* 0 0
#3 HDGA - Cr6 0 0 0 0 0 0
#4 HDAℓ + Cr6 0 0 0 0.4* 0.4* 0
#5 304L + Neukote 0 0 0 0 0 0
Post-painted steels
#6 HD Terne 0 0 0 0 0 0
#7 HD Tin-Zinc 0 0 0 0 0 0
#8 HDAℓ 0.6 0.1 0.5 0 0 0
#9 436L 6.9 NR 2.5 0 0 0
Bare steel
#10 304L 0 0 0 0 0 0
NR = no rating due to pronounced adhesion loss
* = max. pit depth occurred in the gravel area
EXHIBIT 21. Average creepback and average maximum pit depths after 80, 120 and 160 cycles exposure
in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
The pitting results for all materials are shown graphically in EXHIBIT 22 (A-C). All of the pits were
observed at the gravel area and the variance associated with gravel impact probably accounts for
the fact that no pits were observed after 160 cycles. It is important to understand that separate sets
of specimens were used for the 80, 120 and 160 cycle specimens, it is not necessary to expect their
occurence in the 160-cycle set of specimens. The origination of the pits was likely more dependent
on the nature of the gravel impact than on exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
EXHIBIT 22(A). Pit depths for the 80-cycle exposure set of specimens in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
EXHIBIT 22(B). Pit depths for the 120-cycle exposure EXHIBIT 22(C). Pit depths for the 160-cycle exposure
set of specimens in the Cyclic Corrosion Test. set of specimens in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
The detailed gravelometer chip ratings are shown in APPENDIXES 17, 18 and 19. A summary of data
after 160 cycles is shown in EXHIBIT 23. The pre-painted steels, in general, had 10 - 74 chips that were
less than 1 mm in size. For the post-painted steels, a higher frequency (50 - 159) of chips of larger size
(3 - 6 mm) were observed for the HDAl (#8) and Ferritic the 436L (#9) steels, which resulted from the
paint adhesion loss. By comparing the 160 exposure data Ferritic (EXHIBIT 23) with data from 20 cycle
exposure (see EXHIBIT 24), it can be seen that there is little change in chip rating and size for the pre-
painted steels. This indicates that the gravel impact determines the chip ratings more than the
corrosion exposure cycles. However, for the post-painted materials (#8 & #9), the chip frequency
increased somewhat as the corrosion exposure (and number of gravel impacts) increased.
Chip frequency rating Size rating &

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Pre-painted steels
6
#1 EGZn-Ni+Cr X1 X
#2 EGZn-Ni-Cr6 X1 X
6 1
#3 HDGA-Cr X X
6 1
#4 HDAℓ+Cr X X
2
#5 304L+Neukote X X2 X X
Post-painted steels
#6 HD Terne X — — — —
#7 HD Tin-Zinc X — — — —
1
#8 HDAℓ X X
#9 436L X2 X
Bare Steel
#10 304L X — — — —
1 denotes adhesion loss between metallic coating and topcoat

2 denotes adhesion loss between steel and topcoat
EXHIBIT 23. Summary of gravelometer chip ratings after 160 cycle exposure in Cyclic Corrosion Testing.
Chip frequency Size rating &

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Pre-painted steels
6 1
#1 EGZn-Ni+Cr X X
6 1
#2 EGZn-Ni-Cr X X
6 1
#3 HDGA-Cr X X
6 1
#4 HADℓ+Cr X X
#5 304L+Neukote X — — — —
Post-painted steels
#6 HD Terne X — — — —
#7 HD Tin-Zinc X — — — —
1
#8 HADℓ X X
2
#9 436L X X
Bare Steel
#10 304L X — — — —
1 denotes adhesion loss between metallic coating and topcoat
2 denotes adhesion loss between steel and topcoat
EXHIBIT 24. Summary of gravelometer chip ratings after 20 cycles of exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion
Testing (from the set of specimens used for the 160-cycle evaluations shown in EXHIBIT 23).
Internal Fuel Test

The steel systems tested in the fuel test are re-listed in EXHIBIT 25 to show the type of surface exposed to the
fuels. (A more detailed description of the steels and surfaces has already been given in EXHIBIT 11).
Steel
ID Metallic Surface Exposed
Number Bare Steel Coating to the Test Fuel
Pre-painted category of steels
1 Low carbon steel EG Zn-Ni Metallic coating + Magni pre-paint (with Cr+6)
2 Low carbon steel EG Zn-Ni Metallic coating + Magni pre-paint

+6
(without Cr )
3 Low carbon steel Hot dip galvannealed Metallic coating + Magni pre-paint
+6
(without Cr )
+6
4 Low carbon steel Hot dip aluminized Metallic coating + Magni pre-paint (with Cr )
5 Austenitic stainless None Steel + Neukote inorganic coating
Post-painted category of steels

2
6 Low carbon steel Hot dip terne Metallic coating + Phosphate (3mg/m )
2
7 Low carbon steel Hot dip Tin-Zinc Metallic coating + Cr-free resin (300mg/ m )
8 Low carbon steel Hot dip Aluminized Metallic coating + Chromate
9 Ferritic stainless steel None Bare steel
Bare steels category
10 Austenitic stainless None Bare steel
EXHIBIT 25. Summary of steels used for fuel resistance testing showing the nature of the surface exposed
to the test fuel. (For details of the metallic coatings and exterior surface paints, see EXHIBIT 11.)
Qualitative Evaluations
The photographs of initial fuel test specimens after 28 weeks and 39 weeks exposure are shown in
the attached file Photo Library for Fuel Test, for which identity codes are shown in Photo Library –
LISTING 3. The detailed visual observations are shown in APPENDIXES 20 to 29. Except for one
pin-point red rust spot on the lid of one specimen (pre-painted EG Zn-Ni #1) after 20 weeks, the
only surface change observed was the appearance of a white residue. It was unclear whether the
white residue represented corrosion of the steel or a reaction product with the fuel. The extent of
the white residue was recorded according to the same rating scale used in visually rating the
external corrosion test specimens. The numerical visual ratings are shown in EXHIBITS 26, 27
and 28.
EXHIBIT 26. Extent of white residue at the fuel-contact area of the test cups. (Numeric ratings:
0=None, 1=Slight, 2=Moderate, and 3=Pronounced visible residue shown in APPENDIXES 20-29.)
For the fuel-contact area, only one material (Terne, #6) showed moderate to
pronounced white residue after 39 weeks.
EXHIBIT 27. Extent of white residue at the fuel-vapor interface area of the test cups. (Numeric ratings:
0=None, 1=Slight, 2=Moderate, and 3=Pronounced visible corrosion shown in APPENDIXES 20-29.)
In general, the extent of white residue was more severe at the fuel-vapor interface area, EXHIBIT
27. At this location, although there was zero residue for the four pre-painted materials (#1-#4)
after all exposures, moderate to pronounced residue was observed for all other materials starting at
28 weeks of exposure. This might be expected in view of the minimal coating or absence of coatings
in the latter materials.
EXHIBIT 28. Extent of white residue at the vapor area of the test cups. (Numeric ratings: 0=None,
1=Slight, 2=Moderate, and 3=Pronounced visible residue shown in APPENDIXES 20-29.)
At the vapor-contact area, only moderate residues were observed for one material (Terne, #6)
after 32 weeks of exposure. It should be emphasized that, although the moderate and
pronounced ratings refer to the area affected, the depth or thickness of the white residue was so
small that no scrapings could be taken to conduct an analysis of the residue.
Quantitative Evaluation for Fuel Test

The weight changes for the fuel test cups and lids are summarized in EXHIBITS 29 and 30
respectively, after the full 39 weeks exposure. (The detailed actual weights and progressive
weight losses from 0 to 39 weeks for cups and lids are shown in APPENDIXES 30 to 33).
CUPS:
Initial Final (g) Change % Weight loss (Gain)

(g) (g) Actual Rounded
Pre-painted steels
1. EG Zn-Ni 58.7196 58.7143 -0.0053 -0.0090 0.01
6
+Cr 59.5354 59.5312 -0.0042 -0.0071 0.01
59.1027 59.0974 -0.0053 -0.0090 0.01
2. EG Zn-Ni - 61.1080 61.1033 -0.0047 -0.0077 0.01
6
Cr 61.2032 61.1976 -0.0056 -0.0068 0.01
60.2463 60.2422 -0.0041 -0.0068 0.01
6
3. HDGA - Cr 50.1409 50.0802 -0.0607 -0.1211 0.12
50.8337 50.7798 -0.0539 -0.1060 0.11
50.6874 50.6291 -0.0583 -0.1150 0.12
6
4. HDAℓ + Cr 56.1806 56.1725 -0.0081 -0.0144 0.01
56.2672 56.2588 -0.0084 -0.0149 0.01
56.1086 56.0961 -0.0125 -0.0223 0.02
5. 304L 69.8092 69.8172 0.0080 0.0115 0.01
Stainless 69.7561 69.7608 0.0047 0.0067 0.01
+ Neukote 69.4543 69.4563 0.0020 0.0029 0
Post-painted steels
6. HD Terne 51.1515 51.1299 -0.0216 -0.0422 0.04
51.1739 51.1572 -0.0167 -0.0326 0.03
51.1658 51.1552 -0.0106 -0.0207 0.02
7. HD Tin-Zinc 51.3344 51.3294 -0.0050 -0.0097 0.01
51.3981 51.3946 -0.0035 -0.0068 0.01
51.3340 51.3303 -0.0037 -0.0072 0.01
8. HDAℓ 54.6739 54.6732 -0.0007 -0.0013 0
54.7048 54.7047 -0.0001 -0.0002 0
54.5910 54.5829 -0.0081 -0.0148 0.01
9. Ferritic 50.8958 50.8956 -0.0002 -0.0004 0
Stainless 50.8646 50.8663 0.0017 0.0033 0
50.7450 50.7481 0.0031 0.0061 (0.01)
Bare Steel
10. 304L 69.0016 69.0003 -0.0013 -0.0019 0
Stainless 69.0689 69.0702 0.0013 0.0019 0
69.1909 69.1894 -0.0015 -0.0022 0
* No painted surface in contact with fuel.
EXHIBIT 29. Weight changes for the fuel test cups after the maximum exposure to the fuel of 39 weeks.
LIDS:
Initial Final (g) Change % Weight Loss

(g) (g) Actual Rounded
Pre-painted
1. EG Zn-Ni 33.5038 33.4993 -0.0045 -0.0134 0.01
6
+Cr 33.5193 33.5149 -0.0044 -0.0131 0.01
33.4456 33.4413 -0.0043 -0.0129 0.01
2. EG Zn-Ni - 34.4235 34.4089 -0.0146 -0.0424 0.04
6
Cr 34.3345 34.3234 -0.0111 -0.0323 0.03
34.1355 34.1257 -0.0098 -0.0287 0.03
6
3. HDGA - Cr 28.531 28.4939 -0.0371 -0.1300 0.13
29.1547 29.1163 -0.0384 -0.1317 0.13
29.2427 29.2038 -0.0389 -0.1330 0.13
6
4. HDA? + Cr 31.793 31.7728 -0.0202 -0.0635 0.06
31.7794 31.7592 -0.0202 -0.0636 0.06
31.7456 31.7225 -0.0231 -0.0728 0.07
5. 304L 39.4244 39.4241 -0.0003 -0.0008 0
Stainless 39.4167 39.4166 -0.0001 -0.0003 0
+ Neukote 39.3869 39.3869 0.0000 0.0000 0
Post-painted
6. HD Terne 28.9321 28.9327 +0.0006 +0.0021 0
29.0172 29.0174 +0.0002 +0.0007 0
28.9316 28.9318 +0.0002 +0.0007 0
7. HD Tin-Zinc 30.8197 30.8178 -0.0019 -0.0006 +0.01
30.7312 30.7313 +0.0001 +0.0003
30.7848 30.7848 0 0 0
8. HDA? 28.5956 28.5961 +0.0005 +0.0017 0
28.6851 28.6863 +0.0012 +0.0042 0
28.6737 28.6740 +0.0003 +0.0010 0
9. Ferritic 28.7993 28.7958 -0.0035 -0.0122 0
Stainless 28.7165 28.7125 -0.0040 -0.0139 0
28.8122 28.8081 -0.0041 -0.0142 0
Bare Steels
39.079 39.0784 -0.0006 -0.0015 0
38.9524 38.952 -0.0004 -0.0010 0
39.0745 39.0738 -0.0007 -0.0018 0
* No painted surface in contact with fuel.
EXHIBIT 30. Weight changes for the fuel test lids after the maximum exposure to the fuel vapor of 39
weeks.
The weight changes for both cups and lids were extremely small - in general, less than 0.01 percent -
although for the pre-painted HDGA (#3), weight losses were 0.12 and 0.13 percent for the cups and
lids, respectively. The very low weight losses confirm the very slight corrosion observed by visual
inspection. No pits were observed in any material after any exposure.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of external corrosion testing are reviewed in relation to the two specific tests which were
conducted, as follows:
Neutral Salt Spray Test Results

The results obtained from qualitative and quantitative evaluations indicated that the corrosion was variable
across different regions of the specimens and was not severe enough to cause perforation (failure). In fact, no
pits deeper than 0.1mm were observed for any materials. The complete results are best reviewed by category
of the steel systems.
Pre-Painted Steels
For the most part, the steels showed only slight or no corrosion. However, there was modest white
rust at the dome, scribe and chip area of pre-painted HDGA #3 after 2000 hours of exposure.
The weight losses for all the pre-painted steels were low (0.17 to 1.12%) compared with the bare steel
test validation sample (12.9 to 13%). Despite the fact that there was some paint chipping for all pre-
painted samples, (except the inorganic coated stainless (#5)), which exposed the metallic coating, no
corrosion pits deeper than 0.1mm were found. None of the pre-painted samples showed any creepback
at the scribe line.
Post-Painted Steels
Although all of these steels performed satisfactorily in that no perforation occurred (in fact, no pits
deeper than 0.1mm were observed), the relative performance depended on the efficiency of the paint
coatings. For example:
- the thick paints (350-370µm) of the HD Terne and HD Tin-Zinc steels (#6 and #7) showed
excellent resistance to chipping, almost no visible corrosion, very low weight losses (.01 to
0.04%) and no creepback.
- the HD Aluminized steel (#8) showed severe loss of adhesion of the thin paint film (150µm) after
gravel impact and 1500 and 2000 hours exposure. As a result, some pronounced red rusting (as
shown in EXHIBIT 31) occurred at the dome, chip and field areas and extensive creepback was
observed. Despite this, the base material showed only 2% weight loss and no pits deeper than
0.1mm.
- the 436L stainless steel (#9) showed extensive adhesion loss of the thin (20µm) paint after gravel
impact, but no creepback at the scribe line, only a small overall weight loss (0.7%) and no pits
deeper than 0.1mm.
Bare Steel
The bare 304L steel showed some local red rusting, but a low weight loss (0.33% after 2000 hours
exposure). The visual ratings and photographs showed that most of the corrosion occurred on the
flange (top and bottom) near the weld and the gravel area (EXHIBIT 32). However, no pits deeper
than 0.1mm were observed even at the weld area, thus, satisfactory performance was shown even
after 2000 hours exposure.
All results for the above steel categories are summarized in tabular form in EXHIBIT 33.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
EXHIBIT 31. Moderate to pronounced red and EXHIBIT 32. Local red rusting in the 304L stainless
white rusting of HDAl (#8) post-painted with thin steel #10 after 2000 hours of Neutral Salt Spray
paint film - (Photo ID #092000nss aft) after 2000 Exposure (Photo ID #102000nss aft) after 2000 hours
hours Neutral Salt Spray exposure. Neutral Salt Spray exposure.
PRE-PAINTED STEELS POST-PAINTED STEELS BARE STEEL

Visual Evaluation
In general, only slight or no Corrosion and paint adhesion Local red rusting for 304L
corrosion depended on paint film thickness. • flange near weld
• Modest white rust at dome, • For materials with thick paints • gravel area
scribe and chip area of HDGA (HD Terne #6 and HD Tin-Zinc
#3 #7) no visible corrosion and
excellent chip resistance.
• For materials with thin paints
(HDAl #8 & 436L #9) showed
severe paint loss, modest to
pronounced rust for HDAl #8
but no rust for 436L #9.
Weight loss
Low losses Low losses Low loss (0.2%) for 304L
• Max. loss (1.1%) for HDAl #4 • Max. weight losses for 436L #9
(0.7%) and HDAl #8 (2.0%)
likely related to paint loss.
All steel categories showed low losses compared with 3% for bare carbon steel.
Creepback at scribe
None Severe for HDAl #8 ——
Pit depth (deeper than 1mm)

None None None
Chip rating in gravel area

Moderate chipping (10-49 chips, No chipping for thick-paint ——
less than 1mm) and down to the samples (HD Terne #6 & HD Tin-
metallic coating for epoxy pre- Zinc #7)
paints (#1 to #4). Moderate chipping & 1-3mm chip
No chipping of the inorganic size for 436L #9
coated 304L #5 steel. Severe blistering of HDAl #8
EXHIBIT 33. Summary of NEUTRAL SALT SPRAY TEST results (after 2000 hours exposure).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Cyclic Corrosion Test Results

As with the Neutral Salt Spray results, the Cyclic Corrosion test results showed that corrosion was variable
across the different regions of the individual specimens and not serious enough to cause failure (perforation).
Of interest is the comparison of weight losses for bare steel control coupons after exposure in the the Cyclic
test (after 80 cycles) and in the Neutral Salt Spray test (2000 hours). The former showed a loss of 76%,
whereas, the later was 12.9%. This indicates the greater corrosion severity of the Cyclic test.
For the test materials, it was difficult to see definitive trends in any of the weight change data (EXHIBIT 20)
because in many cases there were gains (up to 2.49% for the bare Austenitic 304L steel) and losses (up to
2.42% for the Ferritic 436L steel, which was likely due to paint loss and not due to steel corrosion). The fact
that these changes were small compared with a reference weight loss of 76% for bare steel after only 80
cycles, indicates that very little steel corrosion weight loss occurred for all test materials. The significance of
the results is best discussed by the category of steel systems.
Pre-Painted Steels
The visual ratings of corrosion (EXHIBITS 18 and 19) for the most part showed either none, slight or
moderate corrosion for most locations of the pre-painted materials. However, the EG Zn-Ni #1
material showed moderate to pronounced red rust at the weld area after 160 cycles (see EXHIBIT 34).
All materials showed zero creepback at the scribe line, but some pits were observed after 80 and 120
cycles for the EG Zn-Ni + Cr6 (#1) and the HD Aluminized steels. However, the pits in the gravel
impact area were well below the perforation level.
The fact that some materials showed no pits after 160 cycles exposure indicates that pitting may
have been more dependent on the variability of the gravel impact than on the length of cyclic
corrosion exposure. The gravelometer results showed some paint chipping for all pre-painted
samples, but the frequency of the chips was moderate (10 - 49) and the size of chips was, in general,
low (<1mm to 3mm). For the epoxy pre-painted materials (#1-#4), the chipping occurred early
(after 20 cycles) but did not change significantly after longer cycle exposures.
EXHIBIT 34. Moderate to pronounced red rusting at the weld area of pre-painted EG Zn-Ni #1 after
160 cycles in the Cyclic Corrosion Test (Photo ID #01 J2334-160bef.2)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Post-Painted Steels
Those materials having thick post-paint films, i.e., HD Terne (#6), HD Tin-Zinc (#7) had no visual
corrosion at any location for all exposures. The thinner paint coating (150µm) on the HD
Aluminized steel (#8) had red rusting at the flange and weld after 160 cycles (see EXHIBIT 35) but
almost no rusting at other areas. For the Ferritic 436L material, no corrosion was observed despite a
pronounced adhesion loss of the zinc-rich paint.
The extent of creepback at the scribe line generally paralleled the visual observations - no
creepback for the heavily painted materials (#6 and #7), small amounts for the HD Aluminized (#8)
and significant amounts for the Ferritic 436L (#9), which had substantial paint adhesion loss. The
variations in paint adhesion performance accounted for the difference in the gravelometer chip
ratings:
- no chips for the HD Terne and HD Tin-Zinc materials (up to 370µm thick paint films)
- some chipping for the HD Aluminized steel (150µm paint)
- extensive chipping for the Ferritic 436L steel (20µm paint)
No pits (deeper than 0.1mm) were observed for any post-painted material at any location for
exposures through 160 cycles.
Bare Steel
For the most part, very minor visual
ratings of corrosion (none to slight) were
shown by the Austenitic 304L (#10) for
exposures through 160 cycles. Some
moderate red rusting was observed at
the weld area after 160 cycles (see
EXHIBIT 36).
The Cyclic Corrosion Test results are summarized

in EXHIBIT 37.
EXHIBIT 35. Moderate to pronounced red

rusting at the flange and weld area of thin
(150µm) post-painted HDAl #8 steel after
160 cycles in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
(Photo ID #09 J2334-160bef.2)
EXHIBIT 36. Localized red rusting at the

weld of the 304L stainless steel (#10)
after 160 cycles in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
(Photo ID #10 J2334-160bef.2)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Visual Evaluation
In general, none to moderate Corrosion performance varied None to slight variable red rust in
corrosion observed according to thickness and adhesion most locations and moderate rust at
• Moderate to pronounced red of paint films weld for 304L #10
rust occurred at weld for EG • None to slight red rust (scribe)
Zn-Ni #1 and at scribe for EG for thick paints (HD Terne #6 &
Zn-Ni #2 HD Tin-Zinc #7)
• Moderate to pronounced red
rust at flange & weld for thin-
paint HDAl#8
• No rust for 436L #9
Weight loss
Very low weight losses Max. weight loss (2.42%) shown by No weight loss
(0 – 0.55%) 436L #9, but probably due to paint
loss
The weight losses of all materials after 160 cycles was very low compared
with 76% loss for bare carbon steel after only 80 cycles exposure.
Creepback at scribe
None None for materials having thick paint ——
films (HD Terne #6 & HD Sn-Zn #7)
Moderate to severe for thin paint
films (HDAl #8 * 436L #9)
Pit depth (deeper than 0.1mm)
0.1 to 0.2mm single pits observed in None None
gravel area of EG Zn-Ni #1 & #2 (after
80 & 120 cycles)
0.4mm single pits observed in gravel
area of HDAl #4 (after 80 & 120
cycles)
No pits observed for 160 cycle
exposure specimens.
Chip rating in gravel area

Moderate chipping (10-49 chips, less No chipping for HD Terne #6 & HD ——
than 1mm) and down to metallic Tin-Zinc #7
coating for epoxy pre-painted steels Moderate chipping (50-74 chips, 3-
(#1 to #4). 6mm) for HDAl #8
Moderate chipping (10-74 chips, Severe chipping (100-159 chips, 3-
<1mm to 3mm) for inorganic painted 6mm) for 436L #9
304L #5.
* The un-painted surface was in contact with the fuel (See EXHIBIT 25)
EXHIBIT 37. Summary of CYCLIC CORROSION TEST results (after 160 cycles exposure).
Internal (Fuel) Corrosion Test Results

The visual ratings of cups and lids (shown in EXHIBITS 26-28) showed pronounced white residue only
at the fuel- vapor interface for the post-painted and bare steel categories. For all steels in these categories, the
fuel and vapor impinged on either a treated metallic coating or the bare steel surfaces (430L Ferritic
stainless #9 and 340L Austenitic stainless #10). As a consequence, a ring of attack occurred at the fuel-
vapor interface - in some cases it appeared as an 'etched' surface and in others a 'film-like' deposit. For the
pre-painted materials where the pre-paint was in contact with the fuel and vapor, no ring or concentrated
attack was observed at the fuel-vapor interface. Either visual ratings of 'none,' 'slight' or 'moderate' were
observed for all specimens that contacted either the fuel (base of cups) or vapor (cup walls and lids).
The very small weight losses (less than 0.12% for cups and 0.13% for lids) after 39 weeks of exposure confirm
that only minor corrosion, cosmetic in nature, took place. A photograph of the pre-painted HDGA #3 which
had the largest weight loss (0.12 to 0.13%) is shown in EXHIBIT 38. In fact, where some corrosion products
were observed, they were so slight that no scrapings could be procured for a chemical analysis. No pits
(deeper than 0.1mm depth) were observed in any of the materials.
The results of the Internal (Fuel) Corrosion tests are summarized in EXHIBIT 39.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
EXHIBIT 38. Fuel cups and lids of pre-painted HDGA #3 after 39 weeks exposure to aggressive CE10A
fuel.

Visual Evaluation
For all materials, there was no evidence of ‘corrosion’ except a white residue was observed to varying extents,
but largely at the fuel-vapor interface. (The extent of the residue was insufficient to conduct an analysis.)
No white residue in fuel and Slight to moderate white residue No residue in fuel and vapor
interface areas. in fuel and vapor areas. areas.
Slight residue in vapor area Pronounced residue at fuel-vapor Pronounced residue at fuel-vapor
interface. interface for 304L #10.
Weight loss
Very minor losses generally for Very minor weight losses No weight loss.
cups & lids generally for cups and lids
• Max. weight loss of 0.13%) for • Max. weight loss of <0.04% for
HDAGl #3 HD Terne #6
Pit depths (deeper than 0.1mm)
None None None
** The un-paid surface was in contact with the fuel (See EXHIBIT 25)
EXHIBIT 39. Summary of INTERNAL (FUEL) CORROSION TEST results (after 39 weeks exposure).
CONCLUSIONS
Simulative External Corrosion Testing, by Neutral Salt Spray and Cyclic Corrosion tests, of 10 different
steel systems has shown that:
- No perforation (failure) was observed, either after 2000 hours Salt Spray exposure or 160 cycles of
Cyclic exposure (simulating 20 years of fuel tank life), in any of the steel systems.
- The extent of corrosion varied according to the location on the specimen (dome, scribe line, weld,
and gravel impact area) and from steel to steel. However, these variations did not threaten
perforation (failure) in any of the systems. (The maximum pit depths were 20 to 40% of steel
thickness.) Furthermore, these variations were not of such significance to be able to rate one
steel system over another.
- The integrity of the paint systems varied according to the thickness of the paint.
- Those steels (EG Zn-Ni and HD Aluminized) pre-painted with thin epoxy films (9µm) and the
Austenitic 304L steel + Neukote inorganic film (17µm) showed small amounts of paint chip loss after
initial gravel impacts, but did not deteriorate after additional gravel impacts and exposures. Those
post-painted steels (HD Terne and HD Tin-Zinc) having thick acrylic and top coat paints (up to 370
µm) showed no paint loss by chipping or creepback at the scribe line. Those steels post-painted with
thinner films (i.e., the 150µm alkyd paint on HD Aluminized steel and the 20µm zinc-rich paint on
Ferritic 436L steel) had adhesion losses (after gravel impact and from creepback at the scribe line)
proportional to their coating thicknesses. This suggests that the thickness of these paint films could
be increased to further improve paint integrity which depends on the combination of coating and
paint system.
- The early withdrawal of two additional steel systems from external corrosion testing, because of
inadequate paint film thicknesses, indicates the severity of the external corrosion tests employed.
Simulative Internal Corrosion Testing of sealed cups assembled from the 10 steel systems and exposed to
an aggressive alcohol-containing gasoline (CE10A) showed only minor corrosion even after exposures of 39
weeks (representing 15-year fuel tank life). Where some corrosion occurred, there was insufficient reaction
product to enable an analysis to be conducted. No pitting (deeper than 0.1mm depth) was observed in any of
the steel systems regardless of different locations in the cups which allowed either full contact with the fuel,
contact at the fuel-vapor interface or full vapor contact.
As a result of the above specific conclusions, it is expected that all of the special steel systems tested in this
study will resist perforation corrosion (in the severe external environments experienced by automobile fuel
tanks) for up to 20 years. Additionally, it is expected that all of the steel systems tested in this study will resist
corrosion from an aggressive fuel such as CE10A for at least 15 years. Thus, it is fully anticipated that all of
the systems will meet the 15-year durability requirements of California's Air Resources Board.
All of the steel systems tested in this work are commercially available from the worldwide steel industry. The
selection of one steel system over another will depend on factors beyond corrosion resistance. These may
include:
- the manufacturing approach favored by the automakers (i.e., use of pre-painted steels, post-painting
or use of bare steels)
- material and manufacturing costs
- inherent formability and weldability of the steels
- forming and welding equipment available
The above factors are beyond the scope of this report and specific selection and application criteria should
be discussed with steel suppliers.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
[1] F.W. Lutze, D.C. McCune, J.R. Schaffer, K.A. Smith, L.S. Thompson, and H.E. Townsend,
“Interlaboratory Testing to Evaluate improvements in the precision of the SAE J2334 Cyclic
Corrosion Test,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Zinc and Zinc Alloy Coated
Steel Sheet, Centre for Research in Metallurgy, Brussels, Belgium, (June 2001)
[2] F.W. Lutze, D.C. McCune, H.E. Townsend, K.A. Smith, R.J. Shaffer, L.S. Thompson, and H.D.
Hilton,“The Effects of Temperature and Salt Concentration on the Speed of the SAE J2334 Cyclic
Corrosion Test,” Proceedings of the European Corrosion Congress, London, (2000)
[3] R.J. Shaffer, “Practical Test Results Using the SAE J2334 Accelerated Corrosion Test,” Proceedings of the
European Corrosion Congress, London, (2000)
[4] Dennis Davidson, et al, “Perforation Corrosion Performance of Autobody Steel Sheet in On-Vehicle
and Accelerated Tests,” SAE 2003-01-1238
[5] “Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus,” ASTM Designation: B117-02
[6] “Cosmetic Corrosion Lab Test,” SAE J2334 (Revised October 2002)
[7] “Test for Chip Resistance of Surface Coatings,” SAE J400 (Revised 2002-11)
[8] “Gasoline, Alcohol and Diesel Fuel Surrogates for Materials Testing,” SAE J1681 (Rev. Jan. 2000)
[9] “Recommended Methods for Conducting Corrosion Tests in Gasoline/Methanol Fuel Mixtures,”
SAE &1747 (Dec. 1994)
[10] “Standard Test Method for Ball Punch Deformation of Metallic Sheet Material,” ASTM Designation:
E653-84 (Re-approved 2000)
[11] “Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive
Environments,” ASTM Designation: D1654-00
[12] For the first 4-week exposure to fuel, Viton A was used for the gasket and some slight degradation of
the gasket was observed. Subsequently, for the remaining exposures (4 to 39 weeks) Viton F was used
and no degradation occurred.
[13] A pre-trial of 2 months (2 fuel loadings) indicated no loss of fuel after each of the 2 four-week exposures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The guidance and input received from several automakers (General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor
Company, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Nissan, Toyota, FHI-Subaru, Fiat, Jaguar, and VW) concerning
the corrosion tests, methodology, specimen configuration, and materials is greatly appreciated. In
particular, the assistance from Martin Stephens and Trevor Enge (DaimlerChrysler), Jola Lott, Li Hussain
and Jim Oldfield (Ford), Peter Nguyen (GM), and Jon Sussman (Nissan) is gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks are due to Frank Topolovec (Ford) for welding many of the External Test specimens and to
James Layland and Elmer Wendell of Homer Research Laboratories, Bethlehem Steel (now International Steel
Group) for forming the domes of the specimens, as well as for forming the cups and cutting the lids for the
Internal Fuel Test assemblies and coordinating the supply of all samples to ACT Laboratories.
Significant technical contributions, as part of early participation in the Corrosion Evaluation Team by
Stavros Fountoulakis and Steve Jones of Bethlehem Steel (now International Steel Group), Bruce Hartley
(then of National Steel), Laurent Dallemagne (Arcelor), Art Coleman (then of J & L Specialty Steel), and
Juergen Froeber (TKS) are acknowledged and appreciated.
The Corrosion Evaluation Team of SASFT is grateful to ACT Laboratories for their diligent testing and
communications. In particular, Julie Piper, Frank Lutze and Kevin Wendt were of key help in conducting
this program.
Finally, those special experts and technicians within the steel companies who provided valuable
information and guidance is greatly appreciated.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
PHOTO LIBRARY
Listing 1: Neutral Salt Spray – photo identification codes
Listing 2: Cyclic Corrosion – photo identification codes
Listing 3: Fuel Test – photo identification codes
APPENDIXES
Number Description
1. Reference information supporting the value of the J2334 Cyclic Test
2. Visual ratings of rust after 2000 hours in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
3. Weight change of steel materials after 2000 hours exposure in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
4. Weight loss of test validation coupons in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
5. Creepback from scribe line and maximum pit depths for steels after exposure of 2000 hours in the
Neutral Salt Spray Test.
6. Gravelometer chip ratings of steel test materials after 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 hours exposure in
the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
7. Visual ratings of corrosion severity after 80 cycles in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
10. Weight-change data for steel test materials and bare cold-rolled steel samples after 80 cycles
exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
13. Weight loss of bare cold-rolled steel control samples after 80 cycles exposure In the Cyclic
Corrosion Test.
14. Creepback and maximum pit depths for steel test materials after 80 cycles exposure in the Cyclic
Corrosion Test.
Corrosion Test.
Corrosion Test.
46
17. Gravelometer chip ratings for the 80-cycle exposure set of steel test materials.
20. Extent of corrosion (white residue) and observations after 4 weeks in the Fuel Test.
30. Actual weights of fuel test cups after 0 to 39 weeks exposure in the Fuel Test.
31. Weight changes of fuel test cups after 4 to 39 weeks exposure in the Fuel Test.
32. Actual weights of lids after 0 to 39 weeks exposure in the Fuel Test.
33. Weight changes of lids after 4 to 39 weeks exposure in the Fuel Test.
47
PHOTO LIBRARY – LISTING 1
Neutral Salt Spray Test Specimens.

(for photos see file: Photo Library-Neutral Salt Spray)
1-A Pre-painted steels
ID# Material Photo Code Exposure Condition

(hrs)
1 EG Zinc-Nickel #01 NSSi 0 After gravel
(with Cr6) #01 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
#01 1000 NSS F 1000 After gravel
#01 2000 NSS BEFORE 2000 Before cleaning
#01 2000 NSS AFTER 2000 After cleaning
2 EG Zinc-Nickel #02 NSS i 0 After gravel
(no Cr6) #02 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
#02 2000 nss aft 2000 After cleaning
3 HDGA (Zn-Fe) #03 NSSi 0 After gravel
(no Cr6) #03 1000 NSS i 1000 Before gravel
#03 2000 hr. NSS bef 2000 Before cleaning
#03 2000 hr. NSS aft 2000 After cleaning
4 HD Aluminized #04 NSSi 0 After gravel
(no Cr6) #04 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
5 Austenitic 304L with #11 NSSi 0 After gravel
Neukote #11 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
48
(continued)
Neutral Salt Spray Test Specimens.

(for photos see file: Photo Library-Neutral Salt Spray)
1-B Post-painted steels
ID#
in
Report Material Photo ID Code Exposure Condition
(hrs)
6 HD Terne #05 NSSi 0 After gravel
#05 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
7 HD Tin-Zinc #06 NSSi 0 After gravel
8 HD Aluminized #09 NSSi 0 After gravel
9 Ferritic 436L #13 NSSi 0 After gravel
Stainless #13 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel
1-C
Bare steels
ID#
in
Report Material Photo ID Code Exposure Condition
(hrs)
10 Austenitic 304L #10 NSSi 0 After gravel
Stainless #10 1000 NSS I 1000 Before gravel

(continued)
49
Cyclic Corrosion Test Specimens.

(for photos see file: Photo Library-Cyclic Test)
2-A Pre-painted steels
ID#
in Test Exposure,
Report Material Photo ID Code cycles Condition
1 EG Zinc- #01 J2334-160i 0 After gravel
Nickel
+ Cr6 #01 J2334-120 bef 120 After gravel, before cleaning
#01 J2334-120 bef-2 120 After gravel, before cleaning
(flange view)
#01 J2334-120 aft 120 After cleaning
#01 J2334-160 bef 160 After gravel, before cleaning
(flange view)
2 EG Zinc- #02 J2334-160i 0 After gravel
Nickel
- Cr6 #02 J2334-120 bef 120 After gravel, before cleaning
(flange view)
(flange view)
3 HDGA (Zn- #03 160A&B @ Initial 0 After gravel
Fe)
- Cr6 #03 120A&B @120+J400 120 After gravel, before cleaning
#03 120A&B @ 120 cycles final 120 After cleaning
(flange view)
#03 120A&B @ 120 cycles final 2 120 After cleaning
(flange view)
#03 160A&B @160 cycles final 160 After cleaning (flange view)
#03 160A&B @160 cycles final 2 160 After cleaning (flange view)
50
2-A Pre-painted steels (continued)
ID#
in Test Exposure,
4 HD #04 J2334-160i 0 After gravel
Aluminized
- Cr6 #04 J2334-120 bef 120 After gravel, before cleaning
(flange view)
(flange view)
5 Austenitic #11 J2334-160i 0 After gravel

Stainless
and #11 J2334-120 bef 120 After gravel, before cleaning
Neukote #11 J2334-120 bef-2 120 After gravel, before cleaning
(flange view)
(flange view)

(continued)
51
PHOTO LIBRARY – LISTING 2 (continued)

ID#
in Test Exposure,
6 HD Terne #05 J2334-160i 0 After gravel

(flange view)
(flange view)
7 HD Tin-Zinc #06 J2334-160i 0 After gravel

(flange view)
(flange view)
8 HD Aluminized #09 J2334-160i 0 After gravel

(flange view)
(flange view)

(continued)
52

2-B
Post-painted steels (continued)
ID#
in Test Exposure,
9 Ferritic #13 J2334-160i 0 After gravel
Stainless
(flange view)
(flange view)
2-C Bare steels
ID#
in Test Exposure,
10 Austenitic #10 J2334-160i 0 After gravel
Stainless
(flange view)
(flange view)

(continued)
53
Fuel Test Specimens.

(for photos see file: Photo Library-Fuel Test)
3A Pre-painted steels
ID#
in Fuel Exposure
Report Test Material Photo ID Code Time, weeks
1 EG Zinc-Nickel #01 Initial 0
+ Cr6
#01 @ 28 weeks 28
#01 @ 39 weeks 39
2 EG Zinc-Nickel #02 Initial 0

- Cr6
#02 @ 28 weeks 28
#02 @ 39 weeks 39
3 HDGA (Zinc-Iron) #03 Initial 0

- Cr6
#03 @ 28 weeks 28
#03 @39 weeks 39
4 HD Aluminized #04 Initial 0

+ Cr6
#04 @ 28 weeks 28
#04 @ 39 weeks 39
5 Austenitic 304L #11 Initial 0

Stainless with
Neukote #11 @ 28 weeks 28
#11 @ 39 weeks 39
54
Fuel Test Specimens.

(for photos see file: Photo Library-Fuel Test)
ID#
in Fuel Exposure
6 HD Terne #05 Initial 0
#05 @ 28 weeks 28
#05 @ 39 weeks 39
7 HD Tin-Zinc #06 Initial 0
#06 @ 28 weeks 28
#06 @ 39 weeks 39
8 HD Aluminized #09 Initial 0
#09 @ 28 weeks 28
#09 @ 39 weeks 39
9 Ferritic 436L #13 Initial 0

Stainless
#13 @ 28 weeks 28
#13 @ 39 weeks 39
3C Bare steels
ID#
in Fuel Exposure
10 Austenitic 304L #10 Initial 0
Stainless
#10 @ 28 weeks 28
#10 @ 39 weeks 39
55
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 1. Published data concerning the practical use and predictability of the Cyclic Corrosion test for
automobile corrosion resistance were selected data from:
“Perforation Corrosion Performance of Auto Body Steel Sheet in On-Vehicle and Accelerated Tests,”
Dennis Davidson, Larry Thompson, Frank Lutze, Butch Tiburcio, Kevin Smith, Cindy Meade, Tom Mackie,
Duncan McCune, Herb Townsend, Rebecca Tuszynski, and Martin Stephens, SAE 2003-01-1238
56
APPENDIX 1 (cont.)
57
APPENDIX 2
Region of Specimen
Dome Scribe Chip Field Flange Flange (Under Clip) Weld Weld (Under Clip)
ID White Red White Red White Red White Red White Red White Red White Red White Red Loss of Adhesion
Pre-painted Steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel S N S N S N S N N N N N N N N N Note 1
with Cr6 S N S N S N S N N N N N N N N N
S N S N S N S N N N N N N N N N
2- EG Zinc-Nickel M S S N S N S N N N N N N N N N Note 1
without Cr6 M N S N S N S N N N N N N N N N Note 2
M S S N S N S N N N N N N N N N Note 2
3 HDGA without Cr6 P S P N P S P S S N S N N N N N Notes A,C,D
P S P N P S P S S N N N N N N N Notes A,B,D
S S P N P S P S S N N N N N N N Notes A,B,D
4- HDAl M P S N S N S S N N N N N N N N Note 3
with Cr6 M S S N S N S N N N S S S S S S Note 3
M S S N S N S N N N N N S S S N Note 3
5- Austenitic N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
304L + N N N N N N N N N N N N N N S N
Neukote N N N N N N N N N N N N N S N N
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne N N N S N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N S N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N S N N N N N N N N N N N S
7- HD Tin-Zinc N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
8- HD Aℓ S P N P S P S P S M S M S S S S Note 4
M P N P S P S P S M S M S S S S Note 4
S P N S S P S P S M S M S S S N Note 4
9- Ferritic M N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N Note 5
436L M N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N Notes 5 & 6
M N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N Note 5
Bare steel
10- Austenitic N N N N N N N N N N N S N S N S
304L N N N N N N N N N N N S N S N S
N N N N N N N N N N N S N S N S
Key
Notes
N = None: no corrosion
S = Slight: Less than approximately 15% corrosion 1. Moderate loss of adhesion in flange area A: Slight adhesion loss at dome
M = Moderate: Approximately 15 – 30% corrosion 2. Pronounced adhesion loss in flange area B: Slight adhesion loss at flange/clip
P = Pronounced: Greater than approximately 30% corrosion 3. Pronounced adhesion loss in flange area C: Moderate adhesion loss at flange/clip
4. Pronounced loss of adhesion/blistering in all areas D: Pronounced blistering at flange/clip
APPENDIX 2. Visual ratings of rust after 2000 hours exposure in the Neutral Salt 5. Pronounced loss of adhesion on flange underside and moderate loss of adhesion at scribe 58
Spray Test. (Rust staining is not included in the ratings) 6. Moderate loss of adhesion at chip area
APPENDIX 3
Weight loss (gain), g Average Weight Loss
ID Initial Weight Final Weight Specific Average (Gain) %
Pre-painted steels
1- Eg Zinc-Nickel 338.4 g 337.7 g 0.7
1- + Cr6 338.4 337.8 0.6 0.6 0.2
1- 339.3 338.9 0.4
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel 347.7 347.6 0.1

2- - Cr6 348.3 347.0 1.3 0.9 0.3
2- 349.2 348.0 1.2
3- HDGA 258.8 259.3 (0.5) (0.5) (0.2)

3- - Cr6 266.3 267.0 (0.7)
3- 264.0 264.2 (0.2)
4- HDAl 295.2 291.0 4.2

4- + Cr6 290.0 287.9 2.1 3.3 1.1
4- 291.8 288.3 3.5
5- Austenitic 294.4 292.8 1.6

5- 304L 297.3 295.6 1.7 1.7 0.6
5- + Neukote 298.2 296.3 1.9
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 314.9 314.9 0.0
6- 313.6 313.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
6- 319.6 319.5 0.1
7- HD Tin-Zinc 320.3 320.5 0.2

7- 326.3 326.2 0.1 0.1 0.0
7- 322.8 322.9 0.1
8- HD Aluminum 288.6 281.8 6.8

8- 287.8 283.2 4.6 5.8+ 2.0
8- 290.6 284.6 6.0
9- Ferritic 265.6 264.1 1.5

9- 436L 265.2 262.6 2.6 1.9+ 0.7
9- 271.2 269.7 1.5
Bare Steel
10- Austenitic 290.5 289.8 0.7
10- 304L 293.0 292.3 0.7 0.7 0.2
10- 292.7 291.9 0.8
+
Weight losses were likely the result of paint loss.
APPENDIX 3. Weight change of steel materials after 2000 hours exposure in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
59
APPENDIX 4
Exposures
500 1000 1500 2000

g % g % g % g %
Steel 1 0.9000 2.94 1.9058 6.22 2.8908 9.43 3.8758 12.6
Steel 2 0.8197 2.68 1.9323 6.33 2.9708 9.68 4.0157 13.1
Zinc 1 2.1446 30.97 2.2287 32.08 3.3118 47.88 * *
Zinc 2 3.2567 46.65 3.3146 47.83 3.6249 52.10 * *
* Coupon disintegrated and could not be weighed.
APPENDIX 4. Weight loss of test validation coupons in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
60
APPENDIX 5
Creepback from Scribe, mm Maximum Pit Depth

ID Average Minimum Maximum (deeper than 0.1mm)
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zn-Ni + Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
- 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
2- Eg Zn-Ni - Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

3- HDGA - Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

4- HDAl + Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

5- Austenitic 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

- 304L + 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
- Neukote 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
7- HD Tin-Zinc 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

8- HD Aluminum Full* Full* Full* None Observed

- Full* Full* Full* None Observed
9- Ferritic 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed

- 436L 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
Bare steel
- 304L 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
* Loss of adhesion extended to edge of specimen
APPENDIX 5. Creepback from scribe line and maximum pit depth for steels after exposure of 2000 hours in the
61
APPENDIX 6
500 Hours 1000 Hours 1500 Hours 2000 Hours
Loss of Loss of Loss of Loss of
ID Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zn-Ni 5A MC/T* 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
- 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
2- EG Zn-Ni 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC*/T 6A MC/T
- 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC*/T 6A MC/T
3A- HDGA 6A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC*/T 5A MC/T
4- HD Alum. 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC*/T 6A MC/T
5- Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
- 304L + 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
- Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
- 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
7- HD Tin-Zinc 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
8- HD Alum. 4A MC/T 4A MC/T No rating due to excessive blistering
- 4A MC/T 4A MC/T " " " "
- 4A MC/T 4A MC/T " " " "
9- Ferritic 5A S/T** 4A S/T 5B S/T 5B S/T
- 436L 5A S/T 4A S/T 5B S/T 5B S/T
- 5A S/T 4A S/T 5B S/T 5B S/T
Bare steel
- 304L 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Loss of *MC/T denotes Metallic Coating to topcoat / **S/T denotes Substrate steel to
adhesion topcoat
APPENDIX 6. Gravelometer chip ratings of steel system specimens after 500 hours, 1000 hours, 1500 hours, and
2000 hours exposure in the Neutral Salt Spray Test.
62
APPENDIX 7
Region of Specimen
Pre-painted Steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel S S S N S S S N N N N N N S N M
- S S S N S S S N N N N N N S N P
2- EG Zinc-Nickel S N S S S S S N N N N N N N N N
- S N S S S S S N N N N N N N N N
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) M S S P M S M S N S N N M M S S
- M S S P M S M S N S N N S S S S
4- HDAl S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N Note 1
- S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N Note 1
5- Austenitic N N N N N S N N N S N S N S N S
- 304L + Neukote N N N S N S N N N S N N N S N N
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
- N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
7- HD Tin-Zinc N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
8- HD Aluminized N N N N N N N N M P N N S S N N Note 2
- N N N N N N N N M M N N S S S S Note 2
9- Ferritic N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Note 3
- 436L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Note 3
Bare steel
10-Austenitic N N N S N S N N N S N S N M N S
-304L N N N S N S N N N S N S N M N S
N = None: no corrosion Note 1: Moderate blistering in flange area

S = Slight: Less than approximately 15% corrosion Note 2: Moderate adhesion loss in chip area and slight loss of adhesion
M = Moderate: Approximately 15 – 30% corrosion in scribe area
P = Pronounced: Greater than approximately 30% corrosion Note 3: Moderate to Pronounced adhesion loss in all areas
APPENDIX 7. Visual ratings of corrosion severity after 80 cycles exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion Test.
63
APPENDIX 8
Region of Specimen
Pre-painted Steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel S S S S S S S N N N N N N M N P
- Cr6 S S S S S S S N N N N N N M N P
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel S S S S S S S N N N N N N S N N
- Cr6 S S S S S S S N N N N N S N N N
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) M S S P M S M S S S S S M M S M
- M S S P M S M S S S S S S S S S
4- HDAl S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N Note 1
- Cr6 S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N Note 1
5- Austenitic N N N S N S N N N S N S N S N S
- 304L + Neukote N N N S N S N N N S N S N S N S
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne N S N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
8- HD Aluminized N N N N N N N N M P S N S P S S Note 2
- N N N N N N N N M P S N S P S S Note 2
Bare steel
10-Austenitic N N N S N S N N N S N S N S N S
N = None: no corrosion
Note 1: Moderate blistering in flange area
S = Slight: Less than approximately 15% corrosion
M = Moderate: Approximately 15 – 30% corrosion Note 2: Moderate adhesion loss in chip area and slight loss of
P = Pronounced: Greater than approximately 30% corrosion adhesion in scribe area
Note 3: Moderate to Pronounced adhesion loss in all areas
64
APPENDIX 9
Region of Specimen
Pre-painted Steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel S S S S S S S N N N N N N P N N
- Cr6 S S S S S S S N N N N N N M N N
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel S N S S S S S N N N N N N S N N
- Cr6 S S S S S S S N N N N N N S N M
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) M S S P M S M S S M N S S P S P
- M S S P M S M S S S S S S S S S
4- HDAl S M S S S N N N N N N N N S N N Note 1
- Cr6 S M S S S N N N N S N N N N N N Note 1
5- Austenitic N N N S N S N N N S N S N M N S
- 304L + Neukote N N N S N S N S N S N N N S N S
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne N N N M N N N N N N N N N N N N
8- HD Aluminized N N N N N N N N M P S N S P N N Note 2
- N N N N N N N N M P S S S P S S Note 2
Bare steel
10-Austenitic N S N S N S N N N S N S N M N S
N = None: no corrosion Note 1: Moderate blistering in flange area

S = Slight: Less than approximately 15% corrosion Note 2: Moderate adhesion loss in chip area and slight loss of adhesion in
M = Moderate: Approximately 15 – 30% corrosion
scribe area
P = Pronounced: Greater than approximately 30% corrosion
Note 3: Moderate to Pronounced adhesion loss in all areas
65
APPENDIX 10
ID Initial Weight Final Weight Change, g Average % Change
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 336.3 336.1 -0.2 -0.15 -0.04
- 338.4 338.3 -0.1
2- EG Zinc-Nickel 345.7 345.6 -0.1 -0.15 -0.04
- 348.5 348.3 -0.2
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 258.1 258.7 0.6 0.5 0.2
- 261.3 261.6 0.3
4- HDAl 286.9 286.9 0.0 0.05 0.02
- 286.6 286.7 0.1
5- Austenitic 297.1 295.9 -1.2 -1.2 -0.4
- 304L + Neukote 295.9 294.7 -1.2
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 311.7 312.1 0.4 0.45 0.14
- 321.7 322.2 0.5
7- HD Tin-Zinc 323.7 324.0 0.3 0.4 0.12
- 330.0 330.5 0.5
8- HD Aluminum 290.4 290.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.03
- 290.1 290.0 -0.1
+
9- Ferritic 263.1 270.6 7.5 6.35 2.41+
- 436L 264.4 269.6 5.2
Bare Steel
10- Austenitic 289.9 297.0 7.1 7.2+ 2.48+
- 304L 289.7 297.0 7.3
Control (CRS) 175.2 42.1 1 33.1 76.0
(6 specimens)
+
The reason for the weight increases is unclear.
APPENDIX 10. Weight change data for steel specimens and bare cold rolled steel (CRS)
control after 80-cycle exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
66
APPENDIX 11
ID Initial Weight Final Weight Change, g Average % Change
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 338.6 338.9 0.3 0.35 0.10
6
- Cr 339.5 339.9 0.4
2- EG Zinc-Nickel 348.7 348.7 0.0 0.10 0.03
6
- - Cr 345.7 345.9 0.2
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 258.0 258.9 0.9* 0.7 0.27
- 262.9 263.4 0.5*
4- HDAl 286.4 286.9 0.5 0.65 0.23
- + Cr6 286.9 287.7 0.8
5- Austenitic 298.1 297.2 -0.9 -0.90 -0.30
- 304L + Neukote 298.6 297.7 -0.9
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 325.4 326.4 1.0 0.95 0.30
- 316.2 317.1 0.9
7- HD Tin-Zinc 337.2 338.3 1.1 0.95 0.29
- 328.5 329.3 0.8
8- HD Aluminized 287.6 288.1 0.5 0.40 0.14
- 287.1 287.4 0.3
+
9- Ferritic 260.1 264.8 4.7 4.30 1.64+
- 436L 264.5 268.4 3.9
Bare Steel
10-Austenitic 294.1 301.5 7.4 7.3+ 2.49+
-304L 291.6 298.8 7.2
Control (CRS) Coupons removed after 80 cycles

+
The reason for the weight increases is unclear.
*Unable to remove all corrosion products with air blow-off
APPENDIX 11. Weight change data for steel specimens after 120-cycle exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
67
APPENDIX 12
ID Initial Weight Final Weight Change, g Average % Loss (Gain)
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 340.3 340.0 -0.3 0 0
- 339.8 340.0 0.2
2- EG Zinc-Nickel 346.6 347.2 0.6 -0.3 0.09
- 346.9 346.0 -0.9
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 264.2 265.7 1.5 0.9 (0.3)
- 260.6 260.9 0.3
4- HDAl 287.0 287.4 0.4 0.35 (0.12)
- 287.0 287.3 0.3
5- Austenitic 297.4 296.1 -1.3 -1.3 0.55
- 304L + Neukote 297.8 296.5 -1.3
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 325.4 325.9 0.5 0.5 (0.15)
- 326.7 327.2 0.5
7- HD Tin-Zinc 334.9 335.3 0.4 0.4 (0.12)
- 318.0 318.4 0.4
8- HD Aluminum 290.0 291.0 1.0 1.65 (0.57)
- 289.2 291.5 2.3
+
9- Ferritic 261.7 256.6 -5.1 -6.4 2.42
- 436L 266.7 259.0 -7.7
Bare Steel
10-Austenitic 289.5 290.4 0.9 0.95 (0.33)
-304L 288.2 289.2 1.0
Control (CRS) Coupons removed after 80 cycles

+
Weight loss is attributed to loss of the paint film.
APPENDIX 12. Weight change data for steel specimens after 160-cycle exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
68
APPENDIX 13
Control Initial Final Loss
Specimen* Weight, g Weight, g In Weight, g
1 176.4 32.7 143.7
2 173.1 37.3 135.8
3 175.4 46.8 128.6
4 174.7 47.4 127.3
5 175.9 50.5 125.4
6 175.7 37.9 137.8
Average 175.2 42.1 133.1 (76%)
APPENDIX 13. Weight loss of bare cold rolled steel control samples after 80 cycles
exposure in the Cyclic Corrosion test.
69
APPENDIX 14
Creepback from Scribe, mm
Maximum Pit Depth,mm
ID Average Minimum Maximum (above 0.1mm) Location of Pit
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
- 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Gravel area
- 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed Other areas
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
4- HDAl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Gravel area

None observed
- 304L + Neukote 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
Post-painted steels
8- HD Aluminum 0.6 0.4 1.7 None Observed
- 436L 6.5 0.1 36.4 None Observed
Bare steel
10-Austenitic 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
-304L 0.0 0.0 0.0 None Observed
APPENDIX 14. Creepback and maximum pit depths for steel test materials exposed for 80 cycles in the
Cyclic Corrosion test.
70
APPENDIX 15
Creepback from Scribe, mm Pit Depth and Location
ID Average Minimum Maximum (above 0.1mm) Location of Pit
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Gravel area
None observed Other areas
- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Gravel area
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
4- HDAl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Gravel area

- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Gravel area
Post-painted steels
9- Ferritic No rating* No rating* No rating* None Observed
- 436L No rating* No rating* No rating* None Observed
Bare steel
* Unable to rate due to pronounced adhesion loss.
APPENDIX 15. Creepback and maximum pit depths for steel test materials exposed for 120 cycles
71
APPENDIX 16
Creepback from Scribe, mm
ID Average Minimum Maximum (deeper than 0.1mm)
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
6
- + Cr 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
2- Eg Zinc-Nickel 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed

- - Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
4- HDAl 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
- + Cr6 0.0 0.0 0.0 None observed
Post-painted steels
- 436L No rating* No rating* No rating* None Observed
Bare steel
* Unable to rate due to pronounced adhesion loss.
APPENDIX 16. Creepback and maximum pit depths for steel test materials exposed for 160 cycles
72
APPENDIX 17
20 Cycles 40 Cycles 60 Cycles 80 Cycles

Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 5A MC/T* 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
6
- + Cr 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
2- EG Zinc-Nickel 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
6
- - Cr 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 6A MC/T 5A MC/T 4A MC/T 4A MC/T
4- HD Alum. 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC/T
6
5- Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None 8A S/T**
- 304L+Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 None 6A S/T
Post-painted steels
8- HD Alum. 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 5C MC/T
- 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 5C MC/T
9- Ferritic 6B S/T 6B S/T 4C S/T 4C S/T
- 436L 6B S/T 6B S/T 4C S/T 4C S/T
Bare steel
10-Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
-304L 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Loss of *MC/T denotes Metallic Coating to topcoat / **S/T denotes steel to topcoat
adhesion
APPENDIX 17. Gravelometer chip ratings for the 80 cycles exposure set of all steel specimens
73
APPENDIX 18
20 Cycles 40 Cycles 60 Cycles
Loss of Loss of Loss of
ID Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 5A MC/T* 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
6
- + Cr 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
2- EG Zinc-Nickel 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
6
- - Cr 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 6A MC/T 5A MC/T 4A MC/T
- 6A MC/T 5A MC/T 4A MC/T
4- HD Alum. 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC/T
6
5- Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None
- 304L+Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 None
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 10 None 10 None 10 None
- 10 None 10 None 10 None
7- HD Tin-Zinc 10 None 10 None 10 None
8- HD Alum. 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T
- 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T
9- Ferritic 6B S/T** 6B S/T 4C S/T
- 436L 6B S/T 6B S/T 4C S/T
Bare steel
10-Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None
-304L 10 None 10 None 10 None
80 Cycles 100 Cycles 120 Cycles

Loss of Loss of Loss of
ID Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion
Pre-painted steels
6
6
- - Cr 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
3- HDGA (Zn-Fe) 4A MC/T 4A MC/T 4A MC/T
- 4A MC/T 4A MC/T 4A MC/T
4- HD Alum. 6A MC/T 6A MC/T 6A MC/T
6
5- Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 S/T
- 304L+Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 S/T
Post-painted steels
6- HD Terne 10 None 10 None 10 None
7- HD Tin-Zinc 10 None 10 None 10 None
8- HD Alum. 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 4C MC/T
- 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 5C MC/T
9- Ferritic 4C S/T 4C S/T 2C S/T
- 436L 4C S/T 4C S/T 2C S/T
Bare steel
10-Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None
-304L 10 None 10 None 10 None

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Loss of adhesion *MC/Tdenotes Metallic Coating to topcoat / **S/T denotes steel to topcoat
74
APPENDIX 19
ID Rating Adhesion Rating Failure Rating Adhesion Rating Adhesion
Pre-painted steels
1- EG Zinc-Nickel 5A MC/T* 5A MC/T 5A MC/T 5A MC/T
6
6
6
- 304L+Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
Post-painted steels
8- HD Alum. 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T
- 5A MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 6B MC/T
**
9- Ferritic 6B S/T 6B S/T 4C S/T 4C S/T
- 436L 6B S/T 6B S/T 4C S/T 4C S/T
Bare steel
- 304L 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None

Pre-painted steels
6
6
6
5- Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None 6B S/T
- 304L+Neukote 10 None 10 None 10 None 4A S/T
Post-painted steels
8- HD Alum. 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 4B MC/T 4C MC/T
- 6B MC/T 6B MC/T 4B MC/T 4C MC/T
9- Ferritic 2C S/T 2C S/T 2C S/T 2C S/T
- 436L 2C S/T 2C S/T 2C S/T 2C S/T
Bare steel
10-Austenitic 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None
-304L 10 None 10 None 10 None 10 None

size range of chips
Number of chips >250 150- 100- 75- 50- 25- 10- 5-9 2-4 1 0 <1 1-3 3-6 >6
250 159 99 74 49 24 mm mm mm mm
Loss of adhesion *MC/T denotes Metallic Coating to topcoat / **S/T denotes steel to topcoat
75
APPENDIX 20
Extent of white residue

Steel ID Lid Cup
(Vapor Area) Vapor area Interface Area Fuel Area
Pre-painted steel category
+6
1 – EG Zinc-Nickel (with Cr ) N N N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
2 – EG Zinc-Nickel (without Cr+6) N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
3 – HDGA Zn-Fe (without Cr+6) N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
4 – HDAℓ (with Cr+6) N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
Post-painted steel category
6 – HD Terne N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
7 – HD Tin-Zinc N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
8 – HD Aluminized N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
9 – Ferritic 436L Stainless N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
Bare steel category
10 – Austenitic 304L Stainless N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
N = None; S = Slight (<15% of area); M = Moderate (15-30% of area); P = Pronounced (>30% of area)
APPENDIX 20. Extent of white residue and observations after 4 weeks.
76
APPENDIX 21
Steel ID Lid Cup
1 – EG Zinc-Nickel (with Cr+6) N N N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
3 – HDGA Zn-Fe (without Cr+6) N S N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
9 – Ferritic 436LStainless N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
Bare steel category
10 – Austenitic 304L Stainless N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
77
APPENDIX 22
Steel ID Lid Cup
+6
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
9 – Ferritic 436L Stainless N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
Bare steel category
10 – Austenitic 304L Stainless N N N Slight darkening
– N N N Slight darkening
– N N N Slight darkening
78
APPENDIX 23
Steel ID Lid Cup
+6
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless Neukote) N N N N
– N N M N
– N N M N
6 – HD Terne N N M N
– S S M N
– S S P N
7 – HD Tin-Zinc N N M N
– N N M N
– N N M N
8 – HD Aluminized N N P N
– N N M N
– N N M N
9 – Ferritic 436L Stainless N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
10 – Austenitic 304L Stainless N N M Slight darkening
– N N M Slight darkening
– N N M Slight darkening
79
APPENDIX 24
Steel ID Lid Cup
+6
– N (1 red point) S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
– N N M N
– N N P N
6 – HD Terne N N P N
– S M P N
– S M P N
7 – HD Tin-Zinc N N P S
– S N M S
– S N M S
– N N M N
– N N M N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
– N N P Slight darkening
80
APPENDIX 25
Steel ID Lid Cup
– N (1 red point) S N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) N S M N
– N S M N
– S S P P
6 – HD Terne N S P S
– S M P S
– S M P S
7 – HD Tin-Zinc P N M S
– M N M S
– M N M S
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
81
APPENDIX 26
Steel ID Lid Cup
– N (1 red S N N
– point) S N N
N
2 – EG Zinc-Nickel (without Cr+6) N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) N S M N
– N S P N
– S S P P
6 – HD Terne S S P S
– S M P S
– S M P S
7 – HD Tin-Zinc P N P S
– M N P S
– M N P S
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
10 – Austenitic 304L Stainless N N P Slight darkening
82
APPENDIX 27

Steel ID Lid Cup
+6
1 – EG Zinc-Nickel (with Cr ) N S N N
– N (1 red S N N
– point) S N N
N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) S S M N
– S S P N
– S S P P
– S P P S
– S P P S
7 – HD Tin-Zinc P S P S
– M S P S
– M S P S
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
83
APPENDIX 28
Steel ID Lid Cup
(Vapor Vapor area Interface Area Fuel Area
Area)
+6
– N (1 red S N N
– point) S N N
N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) S S M N
– S S P N
– S S P P
– S P P S
– S P P S
– M S P S
– M S P S
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
84
APPENDIX 29
Steel ID Lid Cup
+6
1 – EG Zinc-Nickel (with Cr ) N S N N
– N (1 red S N N
– point) S N N
N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N S N N
– N N N N
– N N N N
5 – Austenitic 304L Stainless (Neukote) S S P N
– S S P N
– S S P P
ost-painted steel category
– S P P P
– M P P P
– M S P S
– M S P S
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
– N N P N
Bare steel category
85
ID Exposure time, weeks
APPENDIX 30
INITIAL 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 39
Pre-
paint 1-1 EG Zn-Ni 58.7196 58.7273 58.7222 58.72 58.7178 58.7182 58.7173 58.7169 58.7182 58.7172 58.7143
1-2 +Cr6 59.5354 59.5435 59.5401 59.5362 59.5349 59.5354 59.5346 59.5339 59.5362 59.534 59.5312
1-3 59.1027 59.1068 59.1045 59.103 59.1008 59.1025 59.1023 59.1016 59.1033 59.1012 59.0974
2-1 EG Zn-Ni 61.108 61.1135 61.1103 61.1095 61.1081 61.1095 61.1076 61.1073 61.1094 61.1074 61.1033
2-2 -Cr6 61.2032 61.2064 61.2056 61.2043 61.2025 61.2036 61.2033 61.2027 61.2031 61.2025 61.1976
2-3 60.2463 60.2552 60.251 60.2481 60.2463 60.2479 60.247 60.2461 60.246 60.2461 60.2422
3-1 HDGA 50.1409 50.1062 50.0978 50.0946 50.0905 50.091 50.0919 50.0866 50.0875 50.0858 50.0802
3-2 -Cr6 50.8337 50.8008 50.794 50.7936 50.7891 50.7915 50.7891 50.7876 50.7877 50.7859 50.7798
3-3 50.6874 50.6536 50.6453 50.6413 50.6401 50.6397 50.6376 50.6377 50.639 50.6344 50.6291
4-1 HDAℓ 56.1806 56.185 56.179 56.1755 56.174 56.1765 56.1765 56.1762 56.1764 56.1766 56.1725
4-2 +Cr6 56.2672 56.2745 56.2671 56.2655 56.2632 56.2639 56.2638 56.2627 56.2652 56.2636 56.2588
4-3 56.1086 56.1078 56.1022 56.1008 56.0999 56.1011 56.1012 56.0993 56.1016 56.1004 56.0961
5-1 Stainless 69.8092 69.8256 69.8222 69.8204 69.82 69.8187 69.8193 69.8181 69.8186 69.8194 69.8172
5-2 69.7561 69.7669 69.7632 69.7628 69.7625 69.7617 69.7621 69.7611 69.7618 69.7608 69.7608
5-3 69.4543 69.4563 69.4569 69.4569 69.4555 69.4555 69.4566 69.4561 69.4567 69.4563 69.4563
Post-
paint 6-1 HD Terne 51.1515 51.1531 51.149 51.147 51.1466 51.1454 51.1429 51.1363 51.1349 51.1318 51.1299
6-2 51.1739 51.1704 51.1696 51.1686 51.1672 51.1674 51.1682 51.1655 51.1625 51.1601 51.1572
6-3 51.1658 51.1641 51.1632 51.1626 51.1622 51.1608 51.1601 51.16 51.1595 51.157 51.1552
7-1 HDSn-Zn 51.3344 51.3329 51.3327 51.333 51.3314 51.3309 51.3307 51.3308 51.3302 51.329 51.3294
7-2 51.3981 51.4003 51.398 51.398 51.3978 51.3973 51.3971 51.3965 51.3959 51.3949 51.3946
7-3 51.334 51.3361 51.3332 51.3339 51.3317 51.3322 51.3316 51.331 51.3309 51.3313 51.3303
8-1 HDAℓ 54.6739 54.6734 54.6727 54.6731 54.6719 54.6716 54.6728 54.6721 54.6726 54.6728 54.6732
8-2 54.7048 54.7061 54.7038 54.703 54.7038 54.7034 54.7039 54.7037 54.7038 54.7038 54.7047
8-2 54.591 54.5897 54.5831 54.5833 54.5823 54.5823 54.5821 54.5828 54.5828 54.5824 54.5829
9-1 Fe Stain 50.8958 50.8946 50.8931 50.892 50.8955 50.893 50.8959 50.8949 50.8944 50.8953 50.8956
9-2 50.8646 50.8674 50.8654 50.8656 50.8651 50.8661 50.8653 50.8662 50.8645 50.8645 50.8663
9-3 50.745 50.7452 50.7457 50.7454 50.7459 50.744 50.7451 50.7452 50.7447 50.7458 50.7481
Bare 10-1 304L Stain 69.0016 69.0002 68.9998 68.9983 68.9991 68.9996 68.9995 69.0002 69.0006 69.0018 69.0003
10-2 69.0689 69.0727 69.0714 69.0704 69.0707 69.0697 69.0705 69.0698 69.0704 69.0709 69.0702
10-3 69.1909 69.1884 69.1892 69.1881 69.1893 69.1889 69.1892 69.1892 69.189 69.1906 69.1894
APPENDIX 30. Actual weights of fuel test cups after fuel exposures from zero (initial) to 39 weeks.
86
APPENDIX 31
Exposure time, weeks
ID 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 39
Pre-paint 1-1 EG Zn-Ni -0.0077 -0.0026 -0.0004 0.0018 0.0014 0.0023 0.0027 0.0014 0.0024 0.0053
1-2 +Cr6 -0.0081 -0.0047 -0.0008 0.0005 0.0000 0.0008 0.0015 -0.0008 0.0014 0.0042
1-3 -0.0041 -0.0018 -0.0003 0.0019 0.0002 0.0004 0.0011 -0.0006 0.0015 0.0053
2-1 EG Zn-Ni -0.0055 -0.0023 -0.0015 -0.0001 -0.0015 0.0004 0.0007 -0.0014 0.0006 0.0047
2-2 -Cr6 -0.0032 -0.0024 -0.0011 0.0007 -0.0004 -0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0007 0.0056
2-3 -0.0089 -0.0047 -0.0018 0.0000 -0.0016 -0.0007 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0041
3-1 HDGA 0.0347 0.0431 0.0463 0.0504 0.0499 0.0490 0.0543 0.0534 0.0551 0.0607
3-2 -Cr6 0.0329 0.0397 0.0401 0.0446 0.0422 0.0446 0.0461 0.0460 0.0478 0.0539
3-3 0.0338 0.0421 0.0461 0.0473 0.0477 0.0498 0.0497 0.0484 0.0530 0.0583
4-1 HDAℓ -0.0044 0.0016 0.0051 0.0066 0.0041 0.0041 0.0044 0.0042 0.0040 0.0081
4-2 +Cr6 -0.0073 0.0001 0.0017 0.0040 0.0033 0.0034 0.0045 0.0020 0.0036 0.0084
4-3 0.0008 0.0064 0.0078 0.0087 0.0075 0.0074 0.0093 0.0070 0.0082 0.0125
5-1 Stainless -0.0164 -0.0130 -0.0112 -0.0108 -0.0095 -0.0101 -0.0089 -0.0094 -0.0102 -0.0080
5-2 -0.0108 -0.0071 -0.0067 -0.0064 -0.0056 -0.0060 -0.0050 -0.0057 -0.0047 -0.0047
5-3 -0.0020 -0.0026 -0.0026 -0.0012 -0.0012 -0.0023 -0.0018 -0.0024 -0.0020 -0.0020
Post-
paint 6-1 HD Terne -0.0016 0.0025 0.0045 0.0049 0.0061 0.0086 0.0152 0.0166 0.0197 0.0216
6-2 0.0035 0.0043 0.0053 0.0067 0.0065 0.0057 0.0084 0.0114 0.0138 0.0167
6-3 0.0017 0.0026 0.0032 0.0036 0.0050 0.0057 0.0058 0.0063 0.0088 0.0106
7-1 HDSn-Zn 0.0015 0.0017 0.0014 0.0030 0.0035 0.0037 0.0036 0.0042 0.0054 0.0050
7-2 -0.0022 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0008 0.0010 0.0016 0.0022 0.0032 0.0035
7-3 -0.0021 0.0008 0.0001 0.0023 0.0018 0.0024 0.0030 0.0031 0.0027 0.0037
8-1 HDAℓ 0.0005 0.0012 0.0008 0.0020 0.0023 0.0011 0.0018 0.0013 0.0011 0.0007
8-2 -0.0013 0.0010 0.0018 0.0010 0.0014 0.0009 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0001
8-2 0.0013 0.0079 0.0077 0.0087 0.0087 0.0089 0.0082 0.0082 0.0086 0.0081
9-1 Fe Stain 0.0012 0.0027 0.0038 0.0003 0.0028 -0.0001 0.0009 0.0014 0.0005 0.0002
9-2 -0.0028 -0.0008 -0.0010 -0.0005 -0.0015 -0.0007 -0.0016 0.0001 0.0001 -0.0017
9-3 -0.0002 -0.0007 -0.0004 -0.0009 0.0010 -0.0001 -0.0002 0.0003 -0.0008 -0.0031
Bare 10-1 304L Stain 0.0014 0.0018 0.0033 0.0025 0.0020 0.0021 0.0014 0.0010 -0.0002 0.0013
10-2 -0.0038 -0.0025 -0.0015 -0.0018 -0.0008 -0.0016 -0.0009 -0.0015 -0.0020 -0.0013
10-3 0.0025 0.0017 0.0028 0.0016 0.0020 0.0017 0.0017 0.0019 0.0003 0.0015
APPENDIX 31. Changes in weight of fuel test cups after fuel exposures from 4 to 39 weeks (positive = weight loss).
87
APPENDIX 32
ID INITIAL 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 39
Pre-
paint 1-1 EG Zn-Ni 33.5038 33.5035 33.5031 33.5019 33.5006 33.5015 33.5013 33.5008 33.5015 33.5009 33.4993
1-2 +Cr6 33.5193 33.5207 33.5188 33.518 33.516 33.5173 33.5172 33.5167 33.5176 33.5168 33.5149
1-3 33.4456 33.4467 33.4453 33.444 33.4426 33.4438 33.443 33.4422 33.4431 33.4428 33.4413
2-1 EG Zn-Ni 34.4235 34.4206 34.4132 34.4127 34.4111 34.4116 34.4115 34.4105 34.4117 34.4113 34.4089
2-2 -Cr6 34.3345 34.3342 34.3283 34.3267 34.3251 34.3255 34.3259 34.3251 34.3258 34.3263 34.3234
2-3 34.1355 34.1382 34.1312 34.13 34.1276 34.1284 34.1278 34.1273 34.1285 34.1283 34.1257
3-1 HDGA 28.531 28.5086 28.5038 28.5016 28.4986 28.4989 28.498 28.4964 28.499 28.4974 28.4939
3-2 -Cr6 29.1547 29.1321 29.1265 29.123 29.1208 29.121 29.1204 29.1188 29.1219 29.1194 29.1163
3-3 29.2427 29.2217 29.2154 29.2133 29.2107 29.2109 29.211 29.2074 29.2097 29.2072 29.2038
4-1 HDAℓ 31.793 31.7817 31.7768 31.7761 31.7754 31.7744 31.7746 31.7732 31.776 31.7742 31.7728
4-2 +Cr6 31.7794 31.7693 31.7625 31.7618 31.7605 31.7607 31.7616 31.7603 31.7622 31.7614 31.7592
4-3 31.7456 31.7329 31.7281 31.7274 31.7244 31.7247 31.7255 31.7236 31.7245 31.725 31.7225
5-1 Stainless 39.4244 39.4262 39.4258 39.429 39.425 39.4248 39.4251 39.4243 39.4246 39.4255 39.4241
5-2 39.4167 39.4196 39.4182 39.4177 39.4176 39.4172 39.4177 39.4171 39.4169 39.418 39.4166
5-3 39.3869 39.388 39.388 39.3871 39.3873 39.3872 39.3879 39.3872 39.3872 39.3869 39.3869
Post-
paint 6-1 HD Terne 28.7993 28.7988 28.7983 28.7976 28.7972 28.7973 28.7979 28.7967 28.7972 28.7961 28.7958
6-2 28.7165 28.7164 28.7159 28.7153 28.7149 28.7146 28.7153 28.7139 28.7138 28.7135 28.7125
6-3 28.8122 28.8128 28.8124 28.8116 28.8106 28.8105 28.8093 28.8096 28.8088 28.8087 28.8081
7-1 HDSn-Zn 28.9321 28.9323 28.9322 28.9323 28.9318 28.9325 28.9323 28.9325 28.9325 28.9326 28.9327
7-2 29.0172 29.018 29.0177 29.0129 29.0171 29.0173 29.0172 29.0174 29.0173 29.0179 29.0174
7-3 28.9316 28.9323 28.9318 28.9315 28.9314 28.9309 28.9308 28.9314 28.9312 28.9318 28.9318
8-1 HDAℓ 30.8197 30.8192 30.8183 30.8191 30.8177 30.8173 30.8178 30.8176 30.8172 30.8173 30.8178
8-2 30.7312 30.7317 30.7315 30.7309 30.7308 30.7308 30.7312 30.7309 30.7308 30.7306 30.7313
8-3 30.7848 30.7861 30.7849 30.7838 30.7846 30.7841 30.7845 30.7842 30.7845 30.7838 30.7848
9-1 Fe Stain 28.5956 28.5962 28.5958 28.5953 28.5955 28.5953 28.5956 28.5956 28.5955 28.5948 28.5961
9-2 28.6851 28.6864 28.6865 28.6868 28.6857 28.6856 28.6865 28.6867 28.6855 28.6853 28.6863
9-3 28.6737 28.6743 28.6741 28.6748 28.6736 28.6738 28.6742 28.674 28.6737 28.6726 28.674
Bare 10-1 304L Stain 39.079 39.0787 39.079 39.0782 39.0782 39.0783 39.0781 39.0784 39.0785 39.0796 39.0784
10-2 38.9524 38.953 38.9524 38.9525 38.9523 38.952 38.9527 38.9521 38.9522 38.9533 38.952
10-3 39.0745 39.0739 39.074 39.0727 39.0738 39.0737 39.0743 39.0735 39.0738 39.0745 39.0738
APPENDIX 32. Actual weights of fuel test lids after fuel exposures from zero (initial) to 39 weeks.
88
APPENDIX 33
ID 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 39
Pre-paint 1-1 EG Zn-Ni 0.0003 0.0007 0.0019 0.0032 0.0023 0.0025 0.0030 0.0023 0.0029 0.0045
1-2 +Cr6 -0.0014 0.0005 0.0013 0.0033 0.0020 0.0021 0.0026 0.0017 0.0025 0.0044
1-3 -0.0011 0.0003 0.0016 0.0030 0.0018 0.0026 0.0034 0.0025 0.0028 0.0043
2-1 EG Zn-Ni 0.0029 0.0103 0.0108 0.0124 0.0119 0.0120 0.0130 0.0118 0.0122 0.0146
2-2 -Cr6 0.0003 0.0062 0.0078 0.0094 0.0090 0.0086 0.0094 0.0087 0.0082 0.0111
2-3 -0.0027 0.0043 0.0055 0.0079 0.0071 0.0077 0.0082 0.0070 0.0072 0.0098
3-1 HDGA 0.0224 0.0272 0.0294 0.0324 0.0321 0.0330 0.0346 0.0320 0.0336 0.0371
3-2 -Cr6 0.0226 0.0282 0.0317 0.0339 0.0337 0.0343 0.0359 0.0328 0.0353 0.0384
3-3 0.0210 0.0273 0.0294 0.0320 0.0318 0.0317 0.0353 0.0330 0.0355 0.0389
4-1 HDAℓ 0.0113 0.0162 0.0169 0.0176 0.0186 0.0184 0.0198 0.0170 0.0188 0.0202
4-2 +Cr6 0.0101 0.0169 0.0176 0.0189 0.0187 0.0178 0.0191 0.0172 0.0180 0.0202
4-3 0.0127 0.0175 0.0182 0.0212 0.0209 0.0201 0.0220 0.0211 0.0206 0.0231
5-1 Stainless -0.0018 -0.0014 -0.0046 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0007 0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0011 0.0003
5-2 -0.0029 -0.0015 -0.0010 -0.0009 -0.0005 -0.0010 -0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0013 0.0001
5-3 -0.0011 -0.0011 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0003 -0.0010 -0.0003 -0.0003 0.0000 0.0000
Post-
paint 6-1 HD Terne 0.0005 0.0010 0.0017 0.0021 0.0020 0.0014 0.0026 0.0021 0.0032 0.0035
6-2 0.0001 0.0006 0.0012 0.0016 0.0019 0.0012 0.0026 0.0027 0.0030 0.0040
6-3 -0.0006 -0.0002 0.0006 0.0016 0.0017 0.0029 0.0026 0.0034 0.0035 0.0041
7-1 HDSn-Zn -0.0002 -0.0001 -0.0002 0.0003 -0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0004 -0.0004 -0.0005 -0.0006
7-2 -0.0008 -0.0005 0.0043 0.0001 -0.0001 0.0000 -0.0002 -0.0001 -0.0007 -0.0002
7-3 -0.0007 -0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007 0.0008 0.0002 0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0002
8-1 HDAℓ 0.0005 0.0014 0.0006 0.0020 0.0024 0.0019 0.0021 0.0025 0.0024 0.0019
8-2 -0.0005 -0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.0004 0.0006 -0.0001
8-3 -0.0013 -0.0001 0.0010 0.0002 0.0007 0.0003 0.0006 0.0003 0.0010 0.0000
9-1 Fe Stain -0.0006 -0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0008 -0.0005
9-2 -0.0013 -0.0014 -0.0017 -0.0006 -0.0005 -0.0014 -0.0016 -0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0012
9-3 -0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0011 0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0005 -0.0003 0.0000 0.0011 -0.0003
Bare 10-1 304L Stain 0.0003 0.0000 0.0008 0.0008 0.0007 0.0009 0.0006 0.0005 -0.0006 0.0006
10-2 -0.0006 0.0000 -0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 -0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 -0.0009 0.0004
10-3 0.0006 0.0005 0.0018 0.0007 0.0008 0.0002 0.0010 0.0007 0.0000 0.0007
APPENDIX 33. Changes in weight of fuel test lids after fuel exposures from 4 to 39 weeks (positive = weight loss).
89
The Strategic Alliance for Steel Fuel Tanks Membership (SASFT):
Steel Companies - North America Material/Equipment Suppliers - North America

AK Steel Corporation Comau-Pico
Allegheny Ludlum / Rodney Harley Davidson Engineering
Dofasco Inc. The Magni Group, Inc.
Mittal Steel Company
North American Stainless
Nucor Corporation
Severstal North America Inc.
United States Steel Corporation Material/Equipment Suppliers - Europe
Soudronic Automotive NAFTA
Steel Companies - Europe
Arcelor Associate Members (Auto Manufacturers)
Corus DaimlerChrysler Corporation
ThyssenKrupp Stahl Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
Steel Companies – Asia Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
JFE Steel
Nippon Steel Corporation
Nisshin Steel
Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.
Tata Steel
Fuel System Manufacturers - North America

Elsa LLC
Fuel Systems LLC
ITT Industries
Martinrea International
Metalsa
Spectra Premium Industries
Fuel System Manufacturers - Europe

Kautex Textron
Inergy Automotive Systems
Unipart Eberspacher
For More Information on SASFT:
Fuel System Manufacturers - Asia Visit: www.sasft.org
Dong Hee Industrial Co. Ltd. Contact: Peter Mould
Horie Metal Co., Ltd. Program Manager
Unipres Corporation 001 810.225.8250
prmould@comcast.net
Fuel System Manufacturers – South America
Aethra Componentes Automotivos For More Information on AISI:
Visit: www.autosteel.org
Contact: Ronald Krupitzer
Senior Director
001 248.945.4761
krupitzerr@autosteel.org
90

Evaluation of The Corrosion Durability of Steel Systems For Automobile Fuel Tanks

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Evaluation of The Corrosion Durability of Steel Systems For Automobile Fuel Tanks

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

INTRODUCTION

The corrosion study reported herein was organized, managed and

Arcelor Laurent Dallemagne

Martinrea International Ray Sheffield

The results for the Internal Corrosion (Fuel) tests showed:

 Emergence and growth of highly durable HDPE plastic fuel tanks.

 Legislative regulations on automobile evaporative emissions to reduce air pollution.

 Automotive Proving Ground Tests

 Field Surveys of Actual Vehicles

Assessment Method Performance Predictability

Bench scale simulative tests Indication only

A somewhat narrower scope was adopted in selecting the corrosion tests:

 Neutral Salt Spray Test (ASTM B117)

 Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334)

 Internal (Fuel) Corrosion Test

Exposure Times and Life Equivalencies

* see references and notes at the end of this report.

The exposure times and life equivalency are summarized in EXHIBIT 1.

Exposure Times SASFT Approximate

Steel System Candidates for Corrosion Testing

 Excellent capabilities in automotive corrosion testing.

Humid Stage Dry Stage

 Test Validation Speciments

Cyclic Corrosion Test 80 cycles 120 cycles 160 cycles ——

- Aggressive Ethanol: 816.0 grams (1.034 liters) of Denatured Ethanol, CDA 20

Configuration and Preparation of Test Specimens

scribe line (applied

2 inches max. flange width

EXHIBIT 5. Specimen configuration for both External Corrosion tests

The 4-inch wide test specimen included:

 Specimens for Internal Testing (Fuel tests)

4 Clamping Steel sample for lid

Fuel Drawn sample cup

EXHIBIT 8. Profile of an assembled test cup unit.

 Fabrication of Test Specimens

Corrosion Severity Numerical Rating

Exposure time, hours

EXHIBIT 9. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of corrosion in the

 External - Cyclic Corrosion Test

No. of Cycles (life equivalency)

 Internal Fuel Test

Test Materials (steel systems)

External - Neutral Salt Spray Test (ASTM B117)

 Quantitative Evaluation After 2000 Hours of Exposure

Weight loss, % (validation coupons)

External - Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334)

Weight change, % (test materials) – after 160 cycles

Creepback from scribe Maximum

Chip frequency rating Size rating &

1 denotes adhesion loss between metallic coating and topcoat

Chip frequency Size rating &

Internal Fuel Test

Pre-painted category of steels

2 Low carbon steel EG Zn-Ni Metallic coating + Magni pre-paint

5 Austenitic stainless None Steel + Neukote inorganic coating

Post-painted category of steels

8 Low carbon steel Hot dip Aluminized Metallic coating + Chromate

9 Ferritic stainless steel None Bare steel

Bare steels category

10 Austenitic stainless None Bare steel

 Quantitative Evaluation for Fuel Test

Initial Final (g) Change % Weight loss (Gain)

Initial Final (g) Change % Weight Loss

Emergence and growth of highly durable HDPE plastic fuel tanks.

Legislative regulations on automobile evaporative emissions to reduce air pollution.

Automotive Proving Ground Tests

Field Surveys of Actual Vehicles

Neutral Salt Spray Test (ASTM B117)

Cyclic Corrosion Test (SAE J2334)

Internal (Fuel) Corrosion Test

Excellent capabilities in automotive corrosion testing.

Test Validation Speciments

Specimens for Internal Testing (Fuel tests)

Fabrication of Test Specimens

External - Cyclic Corrosion Test

Internal Fuel Test

Quantitative Evaluation After 2000 Hours of Exposure

Quantitative Evaluation for Fuel Test