Published: 01 January 1957
| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|PDF (1.3M)||18||$25||  ADD TO CART|
|Complete Source PDF (5.4M)||136||$55||  ADD TO CART|
Cite this document
In 1947, Subcommittee II of ASTM Committee B-8 on Electrodeposited Metallic Coatings initiated a program of atmospheric exposure tests, the primary objective of which was to determine the relative durability of decorative copper-nickel-chromium versus nickel-chromium coatings on steel of bumper bar grade. The original program, now referred to as Program No. 1, was supplemented by the subsequent exposure of two additional sets of plated panels currently designated as Programs Nos. 2 and 3. In addition, but not as an official part of any of the programs, three lots of panels consisting of 0.01-mil chromium on (1) buffed wrought “A” nickel, (2) buffed Watts nickel applied to wrought “A” nickel, and (3) “bright” nickel applied to the same material were placed on exposure for reference purposes at New York, about 1 yr after the start of the Program No. 1 exposure. Also about the same time, 5 panels of each of lots 1 and 3 above, were exposed at Kure Beach, N. C., for the same purpose. Inspection data for these panels have never been included in reports of the committee. While the panels of programs Nos. 1, 2, and 3 now appear to have served their usefulness insofar as providing additional information is concerned, a few lots of each program are still on the racks at some of the exposure sites. Reports on the progress of all of these tests, together with such conclusions as the committee felt were warranted at the time the reports were written have appeared in the Proceedings from time to time. In addition to these reports, H. A. Pray, then chairman of Subcommittee II, summarized the early results of the initial series of tests in a paper presented at the June, 1949, meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers (1). The purpose of the present paper is to (a) summarize the objectives of the three programs and the conclusions which the committee has considered justified, (b) draw such additional conclusions as appear warranted in the opinion of the author, and (c) emphasize the importance of the rating system employed in such tests, especially in respect to reporting and interpreting inspection results. A few previously unpublished photographs of representative test panels are included for illustrative purposes.
Sample, C. H.
In Charge, The International Nickel Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.