TRI-SERVICE

CONFERENCE
ON CORROSION

c c
cl
L..1

L-L

21-23 JUNE 1994

SHERATON PLAZA HOTEL

ORLANDO, FLORIDA

PROCEEDINGS

19971028 082
 DRAFT SF 298
1. Report Date (dd-mm-yy) 2. Report Type 3. Dates covered (from... to)

4. Title & subtitle 5a. Contract or Grant #

A Comparison of Alternatives to Chromic Acid Anodizing
Tri-Service Committee on Corrosion Proceedings

5b. Program Element #

6. Author(s) 5c. Project #

Mr. Stephen J. Spadafora
Mr. Frank R. Pepe 5d. Task #

5e. Work Unit #

7. Performing Organization Name & Address 8. Performing Organization Report #

9. Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name & Address 10. Monitor Acronym

Tri-Service Committee on Corrosion
USAF WRIGHT-PATTERSON Air Force Base, Ohio 45433
11. Monitor Report #

12. Distribution/Availability Statement

Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited

13. Supplementary Notes

14. Abstract

15. Subject Terms

Tri-Service Conference on Corrosion

19. Limitation 20. # of 21. Responsible Person

of Abstract Pages (Name and Telephone #)
16. Report 17. Abstract 18. This Page
A comparison of Alternatives to Chromic Acid Anodizing
Mr. Stephen J. Spadafora*
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division Warminster
P.O. Box 5152 (Code 6062)
Warminster, PA 18974-0591

Mr. Frank R. Pepe

NAVMAR Applied Sciences
65 W. Street Road, Suite B104
Warminster, PA 18974

ABSTRACT

Chromic acid anodizing (CAA) is an aluminum surface

pretreatment currently used on military airc'-ft and
equipment. Chromium VI, present ir this process, is a
carcinogen and federal, state and local environmental
agencies have implemented legislation which restricts
the use of this material. The Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division Warminster investigated several
alternatives to CAA including: Sulfuric-Boric Acid
Anodize, Sulfuric Acid Anodizing, and Phosphoric Acid
Anodizing. Physical performance properties of these
processes were characterized and as a result of this
program, the MIL-A-8625 anodize specification was
modified to include some of these alternatives.
INTRODUCTION
Chromic acid anodizing (CAA) is a common surface
pretreatment for aluminum currently used on Navy
aircraft, weapon systems and ground support equipment.
This anodize process forms a thick oxide film which
provides protection against chemical degradation from
the operational environment. idL-A-8625F "Anodic
Coatings, for Aluminum and Al Alloys" Type I covers the
performance requirements of CAA. While this anodize
process offers satisfactory performance, it contains
Chromium VI which is a carcinogen. Recently,
California's South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (AQMD) Rule #1169 governing the hazardous
emissions limits for electrolytic chromium processes
went into effect. A national regulation on emissions

"I iI -
from chromium electroplating operations was also issue.
by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean
Air Act Amendment of 1990 with limits similar to the
SCAQMD Rule #1169. Finally, the Department of Defense
(DoD) has determined that Chromium is one of the major
components in the waste generated by its maintenance
depots and operations (Ref 1). Therefore, Chromium
must be eliminated or minimized from the emissions of
this process.
Two approaches are available to attain this goal.
One approach is through the incorporation of process
emission controls. The other approach is to eliminate
the source of the hazardous material (i.e. CAA) througt
the use of alternative technologies. While both of
these methods reduce the amount of hazardous material
released, the latter also solves Chromium disposal and
handling concerns and eliminates the need for expensive
control equipment required by 1994 under current AQMD
laws. Control equipment for each Navy Depot has been
initially estimated at $500K-1,OOOK for capital costs
and $250K-600K for annual operating and disposal costs.
An adequate replacement to provide protection against
environmental degradation is particularly important to
the Navy, considering the severe environment in which
it operates, as well as the cost of the aircraft,
weapon systems and ground support equipment. The Naval
Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Warminster
(NAWCADWAR) has an extensive environmental materials
program aimed at the elimination of hazardous materials
from Navy aerospace processes (Ref 2 & 3). An effort
under these programs was established to evaluate
alternative technologies to CAA. The foll wing is a
description of this program.
DESCRIPTION OF PREPARATION AND ANODIZE PROCESSES
Surface preparation is an essential step in the
prc'ess of forming protective pretreatments for
aluminum. Surface preparation consists of several
steps: cleaning, etching (optional) and deoxidizing.
Alkaline cleaners, etchants and deoxidizers were used
to remove organic contaminates and any remaining
surface oxides prior to chemical treating. The
materials used in the preparation of the test specimens
were non-silicated, non-chromated alternatives which
are described in reference 4. The CAA control process
used in this investigation is covered by MIL-A-8625F
Type I. Specific details on CAA of aluminum are
provided in references 5-6.
 Several potential alternatives have been
identified for replacement of chromic acid anodizing.
These alternatives are: Sulfuric Acid Anodize (SAA),
Sulfuric Boric Acid Anodize (SBAA), and Phosphoric Acid
Anodize (PAA). Descriptions of these processes are
provided in References 6 - 10. Thin Film Sulfuric Acid
Anodizing is another alternative currently being
investigated and will be reported on at a later date.
To evaluate these alternatives, laboratory scale
process lines were set up at NAWCADWAR. These
operations were used to analyze the performance
properties of the different anodizing processes in
comparison to CAA, both sealed and unsealed on various
substrates. These films were examined as pretreatments
for standard Navy coatings using the procedures
described below. The results from this evaluation were
used to determine the effectiveness uf these ncn-chrome
alternatives to provide equivalent corrosion resistance
and paint adhesion to that provided by CAA. The
fatigue characteristics of these processes were not
evaluated as part of this study and would have to be
evaluated prior to use of any of these alternatives. A
previous study examined the fatigue properties of SBAA
and found them to be comparable to CAA (Ref 12).
EXPERIMENTAL
The performance properties of the anodize
processes were evaluated on common aluminum alloys and
with standard Navy coating systems. Physical
performance tests (i.e. bare and painted corrosion
resistance, coating adhesion, coating weights, etc.)
were used to evaluate the anodize films. The following
is a description of the substrates, coatings, and
experimental procedures used in this investigation.
Materials - The substrates used in this study were
bare 2024 T-3 and 7075 T-6 aluminum alloys. Table 1
lists the coatings applied to these substrates in this
investigation. Sets of test specimens were prepared at
NAWCADWAR following the manufacturers' recommended
Procedures. A non-silicated, non-chromated alkaline
cleaner and non-chromated deoxidizer were used in the
Preparation of all specimens (Turco's 4215-NC-LT and
Slut-Go-NCB produ:ts, respectively).
Anodize Seals - The chromic and sulfuric acid
anodized specimens were sealed using the standard 5%
dichromate seal at 93 0 C for 15 minutes as specified in
MIL-A-8625E. The sulfuric/boric and thin film sulfuric
acid anodize specimens were sealed with a dilute
chromic acid seal which is described in reference 7.
The Phosphoric Acid Anodize specimens were not sealed.
Coatinq WeiQht Determination - Anodize film
coating weights were obtained using the test procedure
outlined in MIL-A-8625E. Weights for sealed and
unsealed films were determined on the test alloys. The
2
weights were recorded in mg/ft .
Adhesion and Water Resistance - Adhesion of
organic coating systems to the anodize films was
evaluated using two methods: wet tape adhesion and
scrape adhesion. The wet tape test is a modified
version of the American Society for Testing and
Materials ASTM D 3359, method A. This test was
performed by immersing a specimen in distilled water
for a period of time at a specific temperature. Three
immersion conditions were used for this tes•: 24 hours
0 0 0
at 23 C, 96 hours at 49 C, and 168 hours at 65 C. Upon
removal, two parallel scribes, 3/4 inch apart, were cut
through the coating and into the substrate. An "X" was
subsequently scribed through the coating between the
two initial scribes. A strip of 3M 250 masking tape
was applied firmly to the coating surface perpendicular
to the scribe lines and immediately removed with one
quick motion. The specimens were examined for removal
and uplifting of the coating from the substrate and the
adhesion rating was recorded. Table 2 gives the
performance description for these adhesion ratings. In
addition, the water resistance of the pretreatment and
coating systems was characterized by examining the test
panels for softening, uplifting, blistering, and other
coating defects and substrate corrosion which may have
resulted from the exposure.
The scrape test was performed in accordance with ASTM D
2197, method A on specimens with a section of the
substrata sL.:face exposed. The instrument us-d to
perfrrm this test was a SG-1605 Scrape Adhesion Test
Apparatus manufactured by Gardner Laboratory. The test
was performed by guiding a weighted stylus at a 450
angle to the specimen along the exposed substrate into
the coating system. The scrape adhesion was recorded
as the heaviest weight used without shearing the
coating from the substrate.
Corrosion Resistance - Five aluminum specimens
3"x10" of each anodize process were exposed in 5% salt
spray (ASTM B 117) for 336 hours. Upon removal, the
panels were inspected for evidence of corrosion. In
addition, four aluminum specimens of e-:n unsealed
anodize film/coating system were scribed with a figure
 "X" through the coating into the substrate. Two
specimens were exposed in 5% salt spray (ASTM B 117)
for 2000 hours and two were exposed in S0 2 /salt spray
(ASTM G 85) for 500 hours. The panels were then
inspected for corrosion in the scribe area and
blistering of the coating. Subsequently, one panel
from each exposure was chemically treated to remove the
organic coating without disturbing the substrate and
the specimen was examined for corrosion.
.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Test panels were processed with non-chromate
cleaners and deoxidizers, and then anodized with the
subject processes. Coating adhesion, water resistance,
& corrosion tests were performed using MIL-P-23377
epoxy primer, MIL-P-85582 epoxy/waterborne primer, and
TT-P-2760 polyurethane/elastomeric primer. Also,
specimens primed with MIL-P-23377 and topcoated with
MIL-C-85285 high solids polyurethane were tested.
These coatings are described in references 13-16. The
following is a summary and discussion of the results.
Table 3 shows coating weights for the anodize
processes on the two different aluminum alloys.
Coating weight gives an indication of oxide film
thickness and is determined by processing variables
such as amps/ft 2 , time, etc. Both sealed and unsealed
weights were obtained for each process except for PAA.
Sealed PAA specimens were not evaluated since the
morphology of PAA is not the same as the other anodize
films and sealing is not applicable to this process.
The relative coating weights for unsealed specimens
ranged from 40 mg/ft 2 for PAA, to 300-600 mg/ft 2 for
CAA & SBAA, to greater than 1000 mg/ft 2 for SAA.
Enhanced coating adhesion is one of the primary
function of a surface pretreatment. These coating
adhesion tests were performed on unsealed anodize films
immediately after the 7 day cure time for the coatings.
With further aging of the finishing system, adhesion
normally improves, so these results are considered the
minimum values. The results of the adhesion/water
resistance tests are provided in Tables 4 to 6.
The results from the 24 hour tape tests performed
on these processes showed adhesion values of 5A (one 4A
result) for all coating systems tested (Table 4).
These results indicate virtually no susceptibility to
coating-substrate disbondment upon exposure to water.
Most aerospace coatings use this adhesion requirement.
In the expanded adhesion tests (4 & 7 day), all of the
anodize processes, with various coating systems,
continued to exhibit good to excellent adhesion & water
resistance (Tables 5 & 6). The SBAA and CAA processes
were consistently the best performing. This is
evidenced by the tape test 5A results after extended
immersion in water.
A standard aerospace requirement for scrape
adhesion is 3 kg. The overall scrape adhesion results
for all processes tested ranged from 0.5 kg to 10.5 kg.
(Table 7). This indicated that other factors (such as
the coating edge effects, pretreatment thickness, pre-
paint surface cleanliness, etc.) affected the outcome
of the tests. The results from the sulfuric/boric acid
anodized process ranged from 2.0 kg to 7.0 kg. and was
the process most cornarable to chror - acid anodizing.
Sealed, unpainted specimens from all of the
processes were exposed to 5% salt spray (ASTM B117) on
60 racks and examined at 24 hour intervals for evidence
of corrosion. Total exposure time was 336 hours.
These results are summarized in Table 8. The PAA
panels failed in less than 72 hours indicating poor
bare corrosion resistance. This is not unexpected
considering the stalagmite structure of this oxide.
All of the remaining anodic processes passed 336 hours
of exposure on all alloy specimens without any evidence
of surface corrosion, indicating excellent anodic
coating performance.
Corrosion resistance is an important property for
Navy aircraft coatings due to the severe operational
environment in which the aircraft are deployed.
Therefore, most aircraft primer specifications have a
minimum of 1000 hours exposure to salt spray as the
corrosion resistance requirement. The anodic coating
plays an integral role in meeting this requirement by
maint.ining the integrity of the coating/substrate
interface. To evaluate this property, painted
specimens for all anodize processes were exposed to 5%
salt spray (ASTM B117) and examined for corrosion in
the scribe area and blistering of the coating. These
results are summarized in Tables 9 & 10. All of the
anodize processes, with all coating systems, passed
1000 hours of exposure. There was little to no
corrosion products in the scribe and no blistering of
any of the coatings.
Since all processes performed well for over 1000
hours on both substrates, the test was continued for
another 2500 hours. At 3500 hours, there was still
virtually no corrosion products in the scribe or
6
 bistering~ of the coating on any of the specimens.
Subsequently, the coatings were carefully removed from
without
th.e surface with a chemical stripper, Upon further
substrate.
disturbing the underlying evidence
examination, there was no of underlying
of
corrosion on these panels. At 3500 hours, while all
the primed and primed/topcoated specimens performed
the least
wel, the SBAA and CAA specimens showed area.
amount of corrosion products in the scribe
Painted specimens exposed to S02 /salt spray (ASTM
and
G85) were also examined for damage to the coating these
corrosion in and away from the scribe, and
results are summarized in Tables 11 & 12. The S0 2 /salt
spray environment simulates industrial exhaust gases,
such as those found on aircraft carriers from engine
exhausts, and it is an extremely aggressive
environment. Most aircraft coating specifications do
not have exposure to S0 2 /salt spray as a corrosion
resistance requirement. Therefore, the exposure
periods selected were based on differences in finishing
system performance.
Primed panels, after being exposed for 168 hours,
were examined for signs of corrosion. As seen in Table
11, the results for this test were mixed between the
alloys, primers and anodize films. In these tests, the
SBAA appeared to show the weakest performance.
However, the diversity of these results (from passing
to complete failure) made drawing specific conclusions
difficult and is partially the reason why coating
specifications do not call out this test. The primed
and topccated 7075 specimens all failed between 168
hours and 336 hours. The primed and topcoated 2024
specimens were borderline failures at 500 hours, except
for the CAA which failed at 336 hours. On both alloys,
the CAA process performed the worst of all those
tested.
In general, the corrosion resistance of several of
the anodize processes, in combination with the standard
epoxy primer or the epoxy primer/polyurethane topcoat
coating systems, was equivalent to the performance of
the chromic acid anodize controls. This equivalent
performance for these non-chromated anodic coatings as
compared to the chromated anodic coating is due to a
high degree of interfacial integrity between the
coating and substrate.
SUMMARY
The goal of this effort was to evaluate non-
chromated alternatives for chromic acid anodizing used
on current aerospace structures. The results from this
evaluation show that some of the alternative anodize
processes have comparable performance properties to
CAA. The SBAA and SAA test results show that they
provide acceptable performance for corrosion resistance
and coating adhesion. The coated PAA specimens
performed fairly well, however, the unpainted specimens
failed rapidly in the corrosion tests. As stated
earlier in the report, the fatigue characteristics of
these processes were not evaluated and may be an issue
for the use of these materials. For example, Sulfuric
Acid Aiudize has traditionally been considered to be a
fatigue sensitive process and should not be used in
fatigue critical areas. The MIL-A-8625 military
specification, which covers CAA and SAA, has been
revised to include the SBAA alternative. In 1993, the
SBAA was authorized by the Naval Air Systems Command as
an alternative to CAA. The use of a non-chromated
process will allow the Navy to meet stringent
environmental standards while maintaining operational
readiness and efficiency of system performance. In
addition, significant cost savings ($M) will be
recognized by avoiding the need to implement emission
control equipment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their thanks to
Mr. William Green, Mr. John Deitzel, and Mr. Donald
Hirst for their contributions to this effort. Without
their dedication and inspiration this work would not
have been possible.
REFERENCES
1. Cornelius, Col.K., "DoD Hazardous Waste Minimization
Efforts," Presentation at the Fifth Aerospace HazardoUS
Waste Minimization Conference, Costa Mesa, CA, May 1990
2. Spadafora, S.J. et al., "Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division at Warminster Environmental Materials
Program Phase I," Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft
Division Warminster, Report #NAWCADWAR-92075-60,
Warminster, PA. 24 June 1992
3. Spadafora, S.J. et al., "Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division at Warminster Environmental Materia1l
Program Phase II," Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft

g
 sion Warminster, Report #NAWCADWAR-93057-60,
iinster, PA. 22 August 1993
'padafora, S.J., "Non-Chromated Surface
:reatments for Aluminum," Naval Air Warfare Center
,raft Division Warminster, Report #NAWCADWAR-92077-
Warminster, PA. 18 August 1992
gernick, S., et al., THE SURFACE TREATMENT AND
ISHING OF ALUMINUM AND ITS ALLOYS, Finishing Pub.
, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 289-365 & 430-441, 1987
Cochran, P.G.C., "Sulfuric and Chromic Acid
)dizing of Aluminum," ELECTROPLATING ENGINEERING
TDBOOK, Durney, L.J., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984
Moji, Y., "Boric Acid - Sulfuric Acid Anodizing
)cess Development (BAC 5632)," Boeing Report No. D6-
313TN, Feb 6, 1990
Howard, M., "Corrosion Resistance and Paint Adhesion
aluation of Sealee Sulfuric/Boric Acid Anodize
atings," Rohr Ind. Report No. RHR-90-194, Dec 1990.
American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM
,thod D-3933, "Preparation of Aluminum Surfaces for
:ructural Adhesive Bonding (Phosphoric Acid
iodizing) ," 1980.
D. "Phosphoric Acid Anodize," ADHESIVE BONDING OF
LUMINUM ALLOYS, Thrall, E.W. and Shannon, R.W., Marcel
ekker Inc., 1985
1. Chang, T.C., "Effect of Anodic Film Type (Thin Film
;ulfuric vs Chromic Acid) on Fatigue Life of Aluminum
illoys," McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC-K5784,
Tanuary 28, 1991
12. Spadafora, S.J. and Pepe, F.R., "A Comparison of
Sulfuric/Boric Acid Anodize and Chromic Acid -nodize
Processes," Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Di'.Ision
Warminster, Report #NADC-93042-60, Warminster, PA. 22
June 1993
13. Ketcham, S.J., "A Handbook of Protective Coatings
For Military and Aerospace Equipment," TPC Publication
10, National Assoc. of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), 1983
14. Spadafora, S.J., et al., "Corrosion Preventive
Primers For Military Equipment," National Association
of Corrosion Engineer's Corrosion 85 Conference, Paper
No. 194, Boston Massachusetts, March 1985
15. Hegedus, C.R. et al., "A Review of Organic Coating
Technology For U.S. Navy Aircraft," Journal of Coatings
Technology, Nov 1989
16. DeLuccia, J.J., et al., "AGARD Corrosion Handbook,
Volume 2, Aircraft Corrosion Control Documents: A
Descriptive Catalogue," AGARDograph No. 278, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), March 1987
TABLE 1: ORGANIC COATING SYSTEMS EVALUATED*
MIL-SPEC TYPE IFUNCTION THICKNESS
MIL-P-23377D 1 Epoxy Primer 0.6-0.9 mils
MIL-P-85582A 1 Epoxy Primer 0.6-0.9 mils
TT-P-2760 1 Polyurethane Primer 0.8-1.2 mils
MIL-P-23377D 1 Epoxy Primer 0.6-0.9 mils
MIL-C-85285 1 Polyurethane Topcoat 1.8-2.2 mils
* All coatings were applied by conventional air spray &
allowed to cure for seven days prior to testing.

TABLE 2. ASTM D3359 ADHESION RATINGS

Rating Description
5A - No peeling or removal
4A - Trace peeling or removal along incisions
3A - Jagged removal along incisions up to 1/16
in. (1.6 mm) on either side
2A - Jagged removal along most of incisions up
to 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) on either side
1A - Removal from most of the area of the X
under the tape
OA - Removal beyond the area of the X
2 )
TABLE 3. COATING WEIGHT TEST RESULTS - (mg/ft
ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY PAA SBAA CAA SAA

2024-T3 Sealed --- 150.9 576.4 1115.2

7075-T6 Sealed --- 429.9 567.2 1731.2
2024-T3 Unsealed 40.3 372.8 416.0 904.3
7075-T6 Unsealed 43.2 576.0 315.5 1397.9

TABL 4. 24 HOUR z DHESION/WATER RESISTANC" TEST RESULTS

ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA

2024 - MIL-P-23377 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-85582 5A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 4A
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-85582 5A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 5A
MIL-C-85285
TABLE 5. 4 DAY ADHESION/WATER RESISTANCE TEST RESULTS
ANODIZE PROCESSES

LLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA

7 5A 5A 5A 5A
2024 - MIL-P-2337
- MIL-P-85582 3A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 5A
MIL-C-85285
5A 5A 5A 5A
7075 - MIL-P-23377
- MIL-P-85582 3A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 4A
MIL-C-85285

TABLE 6. 7 DAY ADHESION/WATER RESISTANCE TEST RESULTS

ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 - MIL-P-23377 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-85582 4A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 4A
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-85582 5A 5A 5A 5A
- TT-P-2760 5A 5A 5A 5A
- MIL-P-23377/ 5A 5A 5A 5A
MIL-C-85285
TABLE 7. SCRAPE ADHESION TEST RESULTS - (kg)
ANODIZE PROCESS7S
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 MIL-P-23377 0.5 3.0 6.5 1.5
- MIL-P-85582 7.0 3.5 9.0 3.0
- TT-P-2760 1.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
- MIL-P-23377/ 6.0 4.0 6.0 10.5
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377 2.0 7.0 5.0 4.5
- MIL-P-85582 6.0 4.5 7.0 5.5
- TT-P-2760 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.5
- MIL-P-23377/ 4.0 3.5 6.0 3.0
MIL-C-85285

TABLE 8. Z% SALT SPRAY RESULTS - 336 HRS (BARE PANELS)

ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024-T3 Sealed FAIL* PASS PASS PASS
7075-T6 Sealed FAIL* PASS PASS PASS
(* Failure occurred at less than 72 hours of exposure)
//
TABLE 9. 5% SALT SPRAY TEST RESULTS (1000 HRS)
ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 - MIL-P-23377 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-85582 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- TT-P-2760 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-23377/ PASS PASS PASS PASS
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-85582 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- TT-P-2760 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-23377/ PASS PASS PASS PASS
MIL-C-85285

TABLE 10. 5% SALT SPRAY TEST RESULTS (3500 HRS)

ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 - MIL-P-23377 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-85582 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- TT-P-2760 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-23377/ PASS PASS PASS PASS
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-85582 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- TT-P-2760 PASS PASS PASS PASS
- MIL-P-23377/ PASS PASS PASS PASS
MIL-C-8528.5

TABLE 11. S0 2 /SALT

SPRAY TEST RESULTS (168 HRS)
ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLOY (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 - MIL-P-23377 P F @108 P P
- MIL-P-85582 P F @168 F @168 P
- TT-P-2760 F @108 F @48 F @16- F @108
7075 - MIL-P-23377 P F @108 - P
- MIL-P-85582 F @168 F @168 + F @108
- TT-P-2760 F @108 F @48 P F @48
(P = Pass, + = Borderline Pass, - = Borderline Failure
and F @### = Failure at # Hours)

TABLE 12. S0 2 /SALT

SPRAY TEST RESULTS (336 HRS)
ANODIZE PROCESSES
ALLCq (Unsealed) PAA SBAA CAA SAA
2024 - MIL-P-23377/ - - F @336 -
MIL-C-85285
7075 - MIL-P-23377/ F @336 F @250 F @168 F @168
MIL-C-85285

/AZ.