Corrosivity Test Methods for Polymeric Materials. Part 3- Modified DIN Test Method

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
James G. Bennett ◽  
Stephen L. Kessel ◽  
Charles E. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Corrosion Test ◽  
Ammonium Thiocyanate ◽  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Combustion Products ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Gas Dispersion ◽  
Acid Gas ◽  
Combustion Gases ◽  
Corrosive Effect

This is the third in a series of papers to investigate corrosivity test methods published by the Polyolefins Fire Performance Council, an operating unit of The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. In the first paper, 24 polymeric materials were evaluated for smoke corrosivity following the "Stan dard Test Method for Measuring the Corrosive Effect of Smoke from the Burn ing or Decomposition of Materials and Products" proposed by ASTM E05.21.70 which uses a radiant combustion/exposure apparatus. The second paper dis cussed the evaluation of the same 24 materials using the CNET corrosion test method "Plastics-Smoke Generation-Determination of the Corrosivity of Fire Effluents (Static Method)" under consideration by ISO TC61/SC4/WG2 and IEC TC89/WG3 and compared the CNET combustion results with the ASTM E05.21.70 results. In this paper, the 24 polymeric materials were evaluated us ing a modified "Testing of Cables, Wires and Flexible Cords; Corrosivity of Combustion Gases DIN 57 472 Part 813 Standard" acid gas test method and the results are compared to the previous ASTM E05.21.70 and CNET results. These commercially available polymeric materials cover a broad range of com positions used for wire and cable insulation and jacketing. The samples were decomposed in a modified DIN apparatus under dynamic conditions and the combustion gases were absorbed in a water trap where the pH and the conductivity were measured. The DIN apparatus was modified by the addition of gas dispersion frits for improved absorption of the combustion gases in the aqueous solution. The acid content of the aqueous solutions was determined using a silver nitrate/ammonium thiocyanate Volhard titration. The data demonstrate that the modified DIN test method using these indirect determinations of corrosive potential does differentiate polymeric materials, ranking them in a similar order to the ASTM E05.21.70 test method. Little cor relation with the CNET % Corrosivity Factor "COR" was found. Reasons for these differences are discussed. To complete the review of corrosion test methods, studies are under way to evaluate these same 24 materials with the "Fire Response Standard for Deter mining the Corrosive Effect of Combustion Products Using a Cone Corro simeter" proposed by ASTM D09.21.04.

Corrosivity Test Methods for Polymeric Materials. Part 2- CNET Test Method

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles E. Rogers ◽  
James G. Bennett ◽  
Stephen L. Kessel
Keyword(s):  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Circuit Board ◽  
Fire Performance ◽  
Resistance Change ◽  
Acid Gas ◽  
Combustion Gases ◽  
Corrosive Effect ◽  
Lower Temperature

This is the second in a series of papers to investigate smoke corro sivity test methods published by the Polyolefins Fire Performance Council, a unit of The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. In the first paper, 24 polymeric materials were evaluated for smoke corrosion using the ASTM E05.21.70 pro posed method for measuring the corrosive effect of smoke from the burning or thermal decomposition of materials and products with a radiant combus tion/exposure apparatus. This paper presents results on the same 24 materials evaluated with the CNET corrosivity test method under consideration by ISO TC61/SC4/WG2 and IEC TC89/WG3. These commercially available polymeric materials cover a broad range of compositions used for wire and cable insula tion and jacketing. The samples were decomposed in the CNET apparatus which contained a printed copper circuit board as the corrosion target. The target was held at a lower temperature than the chamber to facilitate the condensation of the com bustion gases. After exposure to the condensed combustion gases for one hour, the resistance change of the target was measured and the Corrosivity Factor "COR" was calculated for each material. These results are discussed and com pared with the results of the ASTM E05.21.70 method. To complete the review of corrosion test methods, studies are under way to evaluate the DIN 57 472 Acid Gas test method and the cone calorimeter corro sivity test method under review by the ASTM D09.21.04 using the same 24 materials.

Corrosivity Test Methods for Polymeric Materials. Part 4- Cone Corrosimeter Test Method

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-195
Author(s):  
James G. Bennett ◽  
Stephen L. Kessel ◽  
Charles E. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Heat Flux ◽  
Mass Loss ◽  
Corrosion Test ◽  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Combustion Products ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Heat Fluxes ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Test Protocol

This is the fourth in a series of papers to investigate corrosivity test methods published by the Polyolefins Fire Performance Council, an operating unit of The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. In the first paper, 24 polymeric materials were evaluated for smoke corro sivity following the test method proposed by ASTM E05.21.70 which uses a ra diant combustion/exposure apparatus. The second paper discussed the evalua tion of the same materials using the CNET corrosion test method under consideration by ISO TC61/SC4/WG2 and IEC TC89/WG3 and compared the CNET results with the ASTM E05.21.70 results. In the third paper, the 24 poly meric materials were evaluated using a modified DIN acid gas test method and the results were compared to both the previous ASTM E05.21.70 and CNET results. These commercially available polymeric materials cover a broad range of compositions used for wire and cable insulation and jacketing. In this paper, the same polymeric materials were evaluated following the "Fire Response Standard for Determining the Corrosive Effect of Combustion Products Using a Cone Corrosimeter" proposed by ASTM D09.21.04. In this test method, a specimen is subjected to radiant heat at the recommended heat flux using a spark igniter to ignite combustible vapors. A portion of the pro ducts of decomposition or combustion are channeled in a dynamic mode through an exposure chamber in which corrosion targets are placed until the specimen has lost 70% of its total available mass loss. The mass loss is deter mined from previous experiments at the recommended heat flux. When the specimen has lost 70% of its mass loss, the exposure chamber is sealed and iso lated. The corrosion of the target is determined by exposing the target to the now static combustion products for one hour measured from the start of the test. The target is then placed in an environmental chamber at 75% relative humidity at 23°C for 24 hours. The test method measures the increase in elec trical resistance of a metallic circuit. This increase is related to the decrease in conductive cross-sectional area resulting from metal loss due to corrosion. The increase in electrical resistance of each target is determined throughout the test and correlated to its metal loss. The 24 hour corrosion value is reported as metal loss in angstroms. In this study, heat fluxes of 25 and 50 kW/m2 were used to simulate two dif ferent fire scenarios. All of the materials were run at 50 kW/m2 and 12 materials were run at 25 kW/m 2. Two targets, one with a span of 2,500 Å and the second with a span of 45,000 A were used during each test at each heat flux. The results of this study indicate that the measured corrosivity of materials: (1) does not correlate consistent with the expectations based upon the known chemis try of their compositions (2) varies numerically with the heat flux under which the tests are run and on the target used to obtain the corrosion data and (3) although numerically different, loosely ranks the corrosive potentials of the materials in a consistent manner at both heat fluxes and with both targets. The test protocol does not specify either the heat flux or the targets to be used recommending both in the appendix. As corrosion values are numerically de pendent on the conditions and target used to obtain the data, it is questionable how this test method can be used as a standard for determining and comparing the corrosion potentials of materials without requiring that both the specific heat flux and the target be specified in the test protocol as well as be reported with the results. To complete the review of corrosion test methods, a comparison of the corro sive potentials of the 24 materials using the four test methods will be made and one test method recommended for use as a global standard.

Corrosivity Test Methods for Polymeric Materials. Part 1- Radiant Furnace Test Method [1]

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Kessel ◽  
James G. Bennett ◽  
Charles E. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Fire Performance ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Acid Gas ◽  
Combustion Gases ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Other Test Methods

This is the first in a series of papers published by the Polyolefins Fire Performance Council, a unit of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., to investigate corrosivity test methods. In this paper, 25 polymeric materials were evaluated for smoke corrosion using the proposed ASTM E05.21.70 test stan dard. These commercially available polymeric materials cover a broad range of compositions used for wire and cable insulation and jacketing. The samples were decomposed in the proposed ASTM apparatus and a copper probe was subsequently exposed to the combustion gases. The corrosive poten tial, as defined by metal loss in angstroms, was determined for each material. The data demonstrate that the ASTM E05.21.70 test protocol does differentiate corrosive potentials of polymeric materials. Some refinement in this test method is warranted to better develop it as a standard for measuring corrosiv ity. Further work is under way to evaluate other test methods as standardized corrosivity methods. This future work will focus on the proposed CNET ISO IC61/SC4/WG2 test, the DIN 57472 acid gas test, and the cone calorimeter (DyGST) corrosivity test under review by ASTM DO9.21.04.

Corrosivity Test Methods for Polymeric Materials. Part 5- A Comparison of Four Test Methods

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Kessel ◽  
Charles E. Rogers ◽  
James G. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Standard Test ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Resistance Change ◽  
Acid Gas ◽  
Combustion Gases ◽  
Standard Test Method ◽  
Resis Tance

This is the fifth in a series of papers published by the Polyolefins Fire Performance Council, a unit of The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. In this paper, four test methods are compared for their ability to evaluate smoke corrosivity of polymeric materials: 1) the proposed ASTM E05.21.70 radiant combustion/exposure standard test method, 2) the CNET corrosivity test stan dard being reviewed by ISO (DIS 11907-2), 3) the DIN 57 472 acid gas test stan dard, and 4) the proposed ASTM D09.21.04 cone corrosimeter standard test method. The ASTM E05.21.70, CNET, and ASTM D09.21.04 test methods directly de termine the corrosive effects of combustion gases, as they measure the resis tance changes in copper circuit targets exposed to the gases. The ASTM tests report the resistance change in terms of metal loss and the CNET test reports the resistance change in terms of % corrosivity factor. The DIN test standard determines the conductivity and pH changes of aqueous solutions through which combustion gases are passed. Twenty-four polymeric materials were evaluated for smoke corrosivity by these four test methods, so that the test methods could be reliably compared based on results from many types of polymeric materials. The polymeric materials evaluated are commercially available and they cover a broad range of compositions used for wire and cable insulation and jacketing. The ASTM E05.21.70, CNET, DIN and ASTM D09.21.04 tests are evaluated based on several criteria. Each test is evaluated on the basis of precision, or whether the test is repeatable, and accuracy, or whether the test differentiates corrosive potentials consistent with the expectations based on the known chem istry of the material compositions. To also determine accuracy, the ASTM E05.21.70, CNET, and D09.21.04 test methods are compared to the DIN 57 472 test method, as this test and similar acid gas tests are accepted standards that have been historically used to measure corrosive potential. Recommendations are made for improving the proposed test methods.

Ultra-Pure Viscoelastic Damping Polymers and Associated Low Outgassing Materials

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff W. McCutcheon
Keyword(s):  
Functional Materials ◽  
Polymeric Materials ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Viscoelastic Damping ◽  
Passive Damping ◽  
Static Headspace Gas Chromatography ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Passive Materials ◽  
Optimum Application

Abstract The key to successful multifunctional materials applications for vibration, shock and acoustic control is often the proper selection of materials, geometric design and optimum application. Much work has been done in the areas of geometric designs and optimum application of the multi-functional materials. The next step is improvements in the passive damping materials themselves. The improvement in the passive materials in the past has often focused on the areas of improved damping performance (loss factor, storage modulus), material performance (acrylics, silicones, etc.) and enhanced features (thermally conductive, electrically conductive, etc). One of the newest requirements for passive damping polymers is in the area of ultra-pure viscoelastic damping polymers. This new generation of materials is finding growing use because the sensitive environment where the passive material is used require a material that will not negatively impact the components in that environment. This new generation of passive materials needs to be ultra-pure with respect to organic material outgassing, anions, catalysts and siloxanes. In addition to the viscoelastic damping polymer requirements for high purity, the associated polymeric materials (epoxies, laminating adhesives and tapes) used in the same environment must also be of a similar low outgassing, ultra-pure, ultra-clean, electronics grade or clean room performance designation. If this is not done, the environment could become contaminated and negate a portion of the benefit of using the clean damping material. This also requires an understanding of the test method used to determine each product’s cleanliness performance, as all test methods are not equal and can give significantly different test results. An example is comparing a polymer sample tested for organic outgassing and using a static headspace gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) and a dynamic headspace GC/MS.

Research of Accelerated Corrosion Test Method of 7A04 Aluminium Alloy in Xisha Atmospheric Environment

2013 ◽  
Vol 850-851 ◽  
pp. 111-114
Author(s):  
Shi Bo Xing ◽  
Li Li ◽  
Xiang Min Wang
Keyword(s):  
Corrosion Test ◽  
Test Methods ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Environmental Data ◽  
Atmospheric Environment ◽  
Determination Method ◽  
Accelerated Corrosion ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Accelerated Corrosion Test ◽  
Indoor And Outdoor

The marine atmospheric environment spectrum of Xisha was compiled by using the environmental data of Xisha atmosphere test station. The determination method of the parameters of every process and the equivalent relationship between the accelerated spectrum and the actual use environment were presented by the equivalent conversion method. The accelerated corrosion test methods were composed of ultraviolet radiation and periodic soakage, and carried out verification tests of indoor and outdoor corrosion. The accelerated corrosion test methods provide a reference for the study on corrosion behavior of 7A04 aluminum alloy in the typical oceanic and atmospheric environment of Xisha.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document