eps end use and application test resultsan eps producer sought to gain approval from general motors...

EPS END USE AND APPLICATION TEST RESULTS

A COMPILATION OF OUTSIDE LABORATORIES AND MANUFACTURERS’ TESTS OF EPS-PROCESSED

MATERIAL

Rev. 9 - February, 2014

ECO-PICKLED SURFACE

Rev. 9 – February 2014

Purpose Of This Document

The EPS® process is an alternative to traditional acid-pickling as a means to remove the surface oxides formed during the hot-rolling process of producing flat-rolled steel. The surface of EPS-processed steel is generally more uniform in appearance than that of acid-pickled steel and, through control of certain process parameters, the surface characteristics (texture, roughness) of EPS-processed steel can be managed to achieve a particular desired finish. For manufacturers to use EPS-processed steel in their products it must be shown to be interchangeable with acid-pickled steel for fabricating, painting or downstream processes such as galvanizing and cold rolling. Extensive testing of EPS samples has been conducted (and is ongoing) to establish its metallurgical properties and to benchmark its performance in manufacturing processes. The results of these tests are important to users and potential producers of EPS, as they:

(1) validate its conformance to accepted material/process specifications, (2) testify to its performance in common manufacturing processes, (3) demonstrate interchangeability with flat-rolled steel which has undergone

conventional acid-pickling EPS users and licensed producers will continue to independently test EPS in order to prove that it satisfies their specific manufacturing criteria. TMW will compile these tests as they become available and disseminate them as updates to this document. To request additional copies of this document please contact us at:

The Material Works, Ltd. 101 South Main Street Red Bud, Illinois 62278

Tel: 618-282-4200 Fax: 618-282-4201

email: [email protected]

EPS® is a trademark of The Material Works, Ltd. Copyright ©2009 - 2014 The Material Works, Ltd. All rights reserved.


INDEX OF EPS END USE AND APPLICATION TESTS

Description of Test Page

A. General Motors Paint Appearance/Performance Tests and Resistance Spot Weldability Tests - 2013

1. Introduction

2. GM Paint Appearance Study:

BYK Wavescan Testing Surface Roughness using Profilometer

3. GM Paint Performance Testing: Stone Impact Resistance Corrosion Rating Scale (Salt Spray) Corrosion/Undercutting Scribe Creepback (Salt Spray) Cyclic Corrosion Test (Salt Spray)

4. GM Resistance Spot Weldability – 2.7 mm HSLA Test Panels: Weld Lobe Generation Electrode Life Test Shear Tension Test Cross Tension Test Metallurgical Examination Microhardness Test Cap Life Test

5. GM Resistance Spot Weldability - 2.6mm C1008 Test Panels: Weld Lobe Generation Electrode Life Test Shear Tension Test Cross Tension Test Metallurgical Examination Microhardness Test Cap Life Test

1

2 – 4

5 – 12

13 – 32

33 – 52

B. Chrysler Paint/Paint Pretreatment Performance Tests 2013

1. Introduction 2. Chrysler Phosphate/Pretreatment Tests:

Phosphate Macro-Appearance (visual exam) Phosphate Crystal Size Measurement Phosphate Coating Weight Measurement

3. Chrysler Lubricant/Adhesive Compatibility Tests: Adhesion Testing Shear Testing

53 54 – 57

58 – 62


C. General Motors Paint Performance Tests, conducted by

Bodycote ACT Laboratories - 2006

1. Introduction

2. Paint Adhesion 1: tape pull test after razor scoring through the paint (GM 9071P, Methods A & B).

3. Paint Adhesion 2: tape pull test after razor scoring of panels exposed to high humidity environment (deionized water fog) for 96 hours (GM 4465P),

4. Paint Chip Resistance: visual inspection after “standard” gravel impinges on test panels that were maintained at a temperature of -25°C for 4 hours prior to test (GM 9508P),

5. Paint Curing Adequacy: visual inspection after solvent (xylene) is double-rubbed across the panels 10 times using firm pressure (GM 9509P),

4. Gasoline Resistance 1: visual inspection after 20 cycles of panel immersion (10 second immersion + 20 second dryoff) in gasoline (GM 9501P & 9507P),

5. Gasoline Resistance 2: visual inspection of panels saturation by gasoline for 3 cycles of 5 minutes each (GM 9500P),

6. Oil Resistance Test: visual inspection of panels after 7 hour bath in motor oil at 70 to 75°C (GM 9507P),

7. Corrosion Resistance: visual inspection for blistering and creep on panels scribed through the paint and exposed to a salt spray (fog) for 336 hours (GM 4298P).

8. Cyclic Corrosion Resistance: comparative visual inspection for blistering and creep on panels of EPS and reference cold rolled steel (CRS) scribed through the paint and exposed to 40 cycles of steam-generated high humidity, followed by cooldown/drying period (GM 9540P).

63

64 – 67 67 – 68

69

70

71

72

73

74 – 78

79 – 83

D. Humidity Test - 500 Hour Exposure of EPS, Hot Roll Black, HRPO and SCS samples E. Salt Spray Test - 1008 Hour Exposure of EPS and SCS F. EPS Roughened Surface Salt Spray and Paint Adhesion Tests: Low Carbon and Stainless Steel G. EPS Surface Texture Analysis and Comparison to Acid

Pickled Surface Texture

84

85

87

91


H. Laser and Paint Testing Comparing EPS Dry, EPS Oiled, EPS Dry Brushed, EPS Oiled Brushed, and SCS:

H1. Laser Cutting Speed

H2. Salt Spray Test - 1008 Hour

H3. Paint Adhesion Test I. Comparison of Residual Scale After Pickling: EPS VS. Acid Pickling J. Assessment of EPS vs. Acid Pickled in Cold Rolling and Subsequent Galvanizing, Conducted by ACESCO K. Hot Dip Galvanizing Trial: EPS Of Varying Roughness L. Stamping and Rollforming Trials of EPS, conducted by Hutchens Industries, Inc. M. Press Brake Tooling Wear Trials of EPS, conducted by DeJong Manufacturing, Inc.

95

96

98

100

101

104

109

111

112

A. GENERAL MOTORS PAINT APPEARANCE/PERFORMANCE TEST AND RESISTANCE SPOT WELDABILITY TESTS - 2013

1.0 Introduction and Discussion An EPS Producer sought to gain approval from General Motors to supply EPS for select automotive applications. This producer coordinated several laboratory tests of EPS samples in the areas of paint appearance and performance, plus spot weldability. The accredited testing laboratory ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan performed the paint-related tests during 2013. ACT prepared the samples and conducted the tests in accordance with appropriate GM standards. The welding research and testing firm Applied Engineering and Integration, Inc. (AET Integration) performed the resistance spot welding tests and analyses in accordance with GM Welding Specification GWS-5A. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT and AET Integration. From the results of these tests, EPS received approval from GM as a replacement of acid pickled for an end use product application.

273 Industrial Dr. Hillsdale, MI 49242 Phone: (517) 439-1485 Fax: (517) 439-1652

Page 2

ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.

www.acttespanels.com

GM Paint Appearance Study

Test Substrate: Customer Supplied Hot Rolled Steel

Pretreatment: Henkel Tectalis Ecoat: BASF U32AD800 Primer: BASF U28AW110 Base Coat: BASF E54KW401 Clear Coat: BASF E10CG081

ACT Quote Number: QC19940_020113 ACT Project Number: SO219433A

Material Received: 12/18/12 Test Date: 03/06/13

Prepared By: KWW Date Prepared: 03/06/13 Logbook: KWW-3, p. 52

APPROVED BY:

Kevin Wendt Technical Manager

Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Panels LLC

http://www.acttespanels.com

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLES)

William Perry

Typewritten Text


LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433A

Page 3 ACT reports are for the exclusive use of the client to whom they are addressed, and shall not be reproduced except in full, without written authorization from ACT. The tests done on the requested and/or specified number of samples may or may not constitute a representative sampling.

www.acttestpanels.com

Pretreatment Application: Henkel Applied Tectalis. Ecoat Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Ecoat per manufacturers

requirements.

Paint Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Primer and BC/CC per manufacturers requirements.

Evaluation #1: BYK Wavescan

Test Method: ACT WIL-0151 (07/28/08)

Number of Samples: One customer HRS topcoated flat panel. One customer HRS topcoated pie plate. One ACT CRS topcoated flat panel (control).

Number of Readings: Three longitudinal and three transverse per sample; average rating reported for each direction.

Instrument: BYK Gardner Wave-scan Dual Model 4840 (LEQP 0002)

Ratings: du,Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd, We, SW, LW, Rating (R)

Rating Description: du = < 0.1 mm wavelength Wa = 0.1-0.3 mm wavelength Wb = 0.3-1 mm wavelength Wc = 1-3 mm wavelength Wd = 3-10 mm wavelength We = 10-30 mm wavelength SW = 0.3-1.2 mm wavelength LW = 1.2-12 mm wavelength Rating (R) = Orange peel based on ACT Orange Peel Standards

Evaluation #2: Surface Roughness using Profilometer

Test Method: ANSI ASME B46.1 (2002) Section 4

Number of Samples: One customer HRS Ecoated flat panel. One customer HRS Ecoated pie plate. One ACT CRS Ecoated flat panel (control).

Number of Readings: Three longitudinal and three transverse per sample; average Ra reported for each direction.

Instrument (Skidded): Taylor Hobson Model Surtronic 3+

http://www.acttestpanels.com

William Perry

Typewritten Text

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLE 1)

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLE 2)

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(SAMPLE 3)




www.acttestpanels.com

Stylus Radius: 10 microns

Filter: Gaussian

Cut-off Length (Lc): 0.80 millimeters

Evaluation Length (Ln): 25.4 millimeters

Ra: Roughness Average in micro inches (µin)

Wavescan and Roughness Average Test Data:

Panel ID

Test Direction

Topcoat BYK Wavescan Parameters Ecoat Roughness, Ra (µin) du Wa Wb Wc Wd We LW SW Rating

Customer HRS Flat Panel

1 Long. 4.0 9.1 30.8 16.6 21.4 15.8 9.1 30.1 7.1 34 Trans. 3.6 8.9 29.9 17.2 19.9 13.4 8.5 27.1 7.2 32

Customer HRS Pie Plate

2 Long. 2.7 8.7 31.2 20.3 43.2 30.6 25.3 30.2 4.8 30 Trans. 5.7 7.6 28.0 20.9 51.8 32.7 34.0 27.1 3.9 29

ACT CRS Flat Panel (Control)

3 Long. 1.0 0.9 3.6 3.3 12.3 10.1 2.9 3.6 9.6 15 Trans. 1.0 1.0 3.6 3.0 9.5 6.0 2.2 3.3 10.2 15

http://www.acttestpanels.com

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLE 1)

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLE 2)


Page 5


www.acttestservices.com

GM Paint Performance Testing

Test Substrate: Customer Supplied Hot Rolled Steel

Pretreatment: Henkel Tectalis Ecoat: BASF U32AD800 Primer: BASF U28AW110 Base Coat: BASF E54KW401 Clear Coat: BASF E10CG081

ACT Quote Number: QC19940_020113 ACT Project Number: SO219433B

Material Received: 12/18/12

Prepared By: MDC Date Prepared: 04/16/13

Logbook: MDC-15, pp. 28-29

APPROVED BY:


Signed for and on behalf of ACT Test Services

http://www.acttestservices.com

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLES)


LABORATORY TEST REPORT ACT PROJECT SO219433B



Pretreatment Application: Henkel Applied Tectalis. Ecoat Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Ecoat per manufacturers

requirements.

Paint Application: ACT Test Panels LLC applied BASF Primer and BC/CC per manufacturers requirements.

ID Matrix: #1 = Flat Hot Rolled Steel #2 = Pie Plate Hot Rolled Steel

Evaluation#1: Stone Impact Resistance

Test Date: 03/08/13

Test Method: GMW14700 (12/09), Methods B and C

Test Conditions: Ambient and -18ºC, Air Pressure 70 ± 5 psi

Gravelometer: Q-Panel Model QGR (LEQP 0007)

Tape: 3M 898 (LEQP 0040)

Examinations: Chip Rating and Frequency for chips reaching down to substrate

Chip Rating Identifications: Number Categories for Chip Rating

Rating # Maximum stone chip diameter (mm) rating

10 No chips and no surface marks 9+ No chips: surface marks only within top coating layer 9 1.0 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 8 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 7 1.5 or 2.0 (depending on failure mode) 6 2.0 Poor >2.0

Failure Mode

To Substrate

Frequency

Low ( 5 chips) Moderate (5 < chips < 25) Heavy (> 25 chips)


William Perry

Typewritten Text

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLES A,B,C)

William Perry

Typewritten Text

(DRY EPS SAMPLES A,B,C)





Stone Impact Resistance Test Data:

Method B (-18ºC) To Substrate

ID Rating Frequency 1A 9 Low 2A Poor* Moderate

* Rating based on one chip which was >2.0 mm. If this chip was excluded from the evaluation, the next largest chip size is 1.5 mm, which the rating would be a 7.

Method C (Ambient) To Substrate

ID Rating Frequency 1B 9 5 2B 9 Moderate

Evaluation #2: Corrosion Rating Scale

Test Method: GMW15356 (06/09)

GMW15356 Rating Scale: Rating Description

10 No visible corrosion

9 One or two small rust spots

8 Some small rust spots

7 Many small rust spots (approx.10%)

6 Medium sized rust spots (10-40%)

5 Many medium sized rust spots (40-60%)

4 Large rust spot (60-90%)

3 Large corroded area or very large rust spot (100%)

2 Metal loss

1 Perforation






Evaluation #3: Corrosion/Undercutting Scribe Creepback

Test Method: GMW15282 (10/12)

Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool with tip angle of 60 ± 15° (Industry code E).

Tape: 3M 898 (LEQP 0040)

Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LEQP 0015)

Scribe Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on each side of the scribed line.

Average (CAverage): The mean of 8 measurements of Scribe Creepback at points 15 millimeters apart centered on the scribed line, discounting the areas less than 10 millimeters from each end of the scribed line.

Max Left (CLeft Max): A measurement of the maximum distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on the left side of the scribed line.

Max Right (CRight Max): A measurement of the maximum distance between the unaffected paint film, in millimeters, on the right side of the scribed line.

Total Max (CMax): CLeft Max + CRight Max

mm: Millimeter






Evaluation #4: Cyclic Corrosion Test

Test Start Date: 03/07/13 Test End Date: 04/16/13

Test Method: GMW14872, EXT, All, 4sp, Method 1/2/3, Exposure C (03/10)

Exposure Chamber: Thermotron Model SM-27-8200 (LEQP 0033)

Exposure: 28 Cycles (28 ± 3 Cycle Requirement)

One Cycle: 8.0 hours at 25 ± 3°C/45 ± 10% RH (Apply 4 salt mist applications, one at the beginning of the ambient stage and the others at approximately 1.5 hours apart.) 1.0 hour ramp to 49 ± 2°C/~100% RH 7.0 hours at 49 ± 2°C/~100% RH 3.0 hour ramp to 60 ± 2°C/ 30% RH 5.0 hours at 60 ± 2°C/ 30% RH (Note: On weekends and holidays, leave in the ambient condition of 25 ± 2°C/45 ± 5% RH)

Humidity: Steam generated with water fog assist

Sodium Chloride: Morton Culinox 999 Food grade

Salt Solution: 0.9% Sodium Chloride 0.1% Calcium Chloride (CaCl2·2H2O) 0.075% Sodium Bicarbonate 98.925% Deionized Water

Salt Mist Application: Garden Hand Sprayer (LEQP 0153)

pH Meter: Orion Model 710A with glass electrode and ATC probe (LEQP 0030)

Conductivity Meter: Oakton Model CON11 (LEQP 0018)

Balance: Sartorius Model ED623S (LEQP 0042)

Corrosion Coupons: ACT Test Panels 25.4 mm x 50.8 mm x 3.18 mm SAE 1008 Steel

Evaluations: Corrosion Rating per Evaluation #2. Scribe Creepback per Evaluation #3. Coupon Weight Loss in grams (g).






Cyclic Corrosion Test Data: 28 Cycles

Scribe Creepback (mm)

ID GMW15356

Rating Max Left (CLeft

Max)

Max Right (CRight

Max)

Total Max (CMax)

Average (CAverage)

1C 10 1.5 1.4 2.9 1.7 2C 10 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.3

GMW14872 Coupon Weight Loss: 3.18 mm Thick CRS Coupons

ID Cycles Initial Weight (g) Final Weight (g) Weight Loss (g) Ave. Weight Loss (g) 932T L 28 29.813 26.262 3.551 3.749 933T R 29.765 25.818 3.947






Photographs:

Ambient Stone Impact

Cold Stone Impact






Photographs (cont.):

28 Cycles GMW14872

Flat HRS 28 Cycles GMW14872

Pie Plate HRS


TEST REPORT

AET-13-0822A

Resistance Spot Weld Evaluation of 2.7 mm 050 HSLA Uncoated Steel Using General Motors Welding Specification GWS-5A

Submitted to: Steel Technologies, LLC

Prepared by:

AET Integration, Inc Wixom, MI 48393

August, 2013 248-420-9451

Page 13

50388 Dennis Court, Wixom, MI 48393

Table of Contents 1. Objective ........................................................................................................................2 2. Test Procedure ..............................................................................................................2 3. Test Results and Analysis ...........................................................................................4 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Tables

Table 1: Weld Schedule Table 2: Weldability Test Data Table 3: Shear Tension Test Data Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data Table 5: Cap Life Test Data

B: Figures

Figure 1: Weld Lobe Figure 2: Microhardness Traverse Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse Figure 4: Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points Figure 5: Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points Figure 6: Button Size vs. Weld Number Figure 7: Electrode Imprints

Page 14


1. Objective Evaluate 2.7 mm 050 HSLA uncoated steel provided by Steel Technologies, LLC using General Motors (GM) weld qualification specification GWS-5A dated April 2011.

2. Test Procedure 2.1 General Description Both the weldability and cap life evaluation procedure outlined by GWS-5A were conducted. Welding schedules are shown in Table 1 and were selected using the associated file for GWS-1A welding specifications. Minimum button size for this material was 7.0 mm per GMW 14057. GM Global Standard GMWZ – 19x24 mm electrodes were used. Electrode caps were dressed to the dimensions specified in the associated Cap Dress file for GWS-1A. Equipment used for testing is shown below.

2.2 Weldability procedure The weldability procedure consists of the following 6 components:

Weld lobe generation

Electrode life test

Shear tension test

Cross tension test

Metallurgical examination

Microhardness test

Resistance Spot Welder WSI Pedestal

Weld Control Miyachi ISA-500 AR MFDC

Weld Checker Miyachi MM-370A

Force Gauge Sensor Development Weld Probe

Tensile Test Machine MTS 810 Material Test System

Microscope Nikon SMZ800

Microhardness Tester Leco LM100AT

Page 15


Electrode caps were installed and aligned. The squeeze time was adjusted to ensure consistent electrode force before welding. Before welding was started, the electrode alignment was verified with carbon paper imprints. Welding begins by finding the current required to produce the minimum nugget diameter at the nominal weld time. Using this setup, 50 conditioning spot welds were produced. The process appeared stable at this point. After electrode conditioning, coupons were welded and peel tested in 100A increments to determine the current that produced point A of the weld lobe diagram (minimum button size at maximum weld time). Three coupons were produced and peel tested using the determined weld current. The weld lobe was generated by establishing the minimum button diameter curve and the expulsion curve. The minimum button diameter curve is composed of points A, B and C. These locations represent the current necessary to produce the minimum button diameter at each of the three different weld times. The three weld times in this case were the maximum weld time (three pulse, 140 ms per pulse), nominal weld time (three pulse, 130 ms per pulse), and minimum weld time (three pulse, 120 ms per pulse). The expulsion curve was established by increasing weld current in 200A increments until expulsion was observed on the second spot weld of the test coupon. The expulsion procedure was also conducted for each of the three weld times resulting in point D, E and F on the weld lobe. For each point of the weld lobe, three shear tension samples and three cross tension samples were produced. One sample was produced at each point for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Shear tension and cross tension tests were performed and the peak loads were recorded using an MTS load frame. An additional coupon was produced at point G of the weld lobe diagram for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Microhardness traverses were made using a Vickers scale diamond indenter with a 500g load. 2.3 Cap Life Test Procedure Weld parameters for point G were used in the cap life test. Welding speed was 30 welds per minute. The cap life test procedure was repeated for groups of 50 welds until 500 acceptable welds were obtained or until the button size dropped below the minimum button size requirement. Each group of 50

Page 16


welds consisted of 48 welds on endurance test panels and two welds on a peel test sample. The second weld of the peel test sample was examined for button size and weld characteristics. Cap imprints were taken every 50 welds.

3. Test Results and Analysis

Detailed weldability test data is listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. Shear tension test results are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix A. The average peak tensile load was 29.49 kN (6,630 lbs). Cross tension test results are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix A. The average peak cross tension load was 23.49 kN (5,281 lbs). The weld lobe is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B. The current ranges at all three weld times exceeded the 1.0 kA requirement in GWS-5A. Microhardness traverse results are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix B. The indent pattern is shown in Figure 3. Microhardness tests did not indicate brittle weld structures. Macro photos of metallurgical specimens are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 of Appendix B. Specimens at expulsion points did not exhibit thinning over 30%. As shown in Table 5, 500 acceptable welds were obtained for the cap life evaluation without the button size dropping below 7.0 mm. Figure 6 shows the button size variation throughout the test. Figure 7 shows the electrode imprints.

4. Conclusion The 2.7 mm 050 HSLA uncoated steel evaluated by this test appears to meet the weldability requirements specified in GM welding specification GWS-5A.

Page 17


Appendix A: Tables Table 1: Weld Schedules

Table 2: Weldability Test Data

(kN) (lbs) Schedule (ms)Total Weld

Time (ms)

Minimum 120 360

Nominal 130 390

Maximum 140 420

Electrodes Hold Time

(ms)

GM Global

Standard GMWZ -

19x24 Dome Nose

7.0 1575

Electrode Force Weld Time

180

Test Date 08/22/2013Test

MachineTaylor Material

2.7 mm 050

HSLA

Uncoated

Electrode

Type

GM

Global

Electrode

Tip Force

(kN)

7 kN

# of

Pulse3

Weld Time

(ms)

140, 130,

120

Cool Time

(ms)40

Hold Time

(ms)

2 12.0 11.8 6.8 6.9 130

3-52 12.0 11.8 130

54 12.2 12.0 7.1 7.1 140

56 12.2 12.0 6.8 7.0 140

58 12.2 12.0 6.8 6.9 140

59-61 12.2 12.0 140

62-64 12.2 12.0 140

66 12.2 12.0 140

68 12.3 12.1 6.9 7.0 130

70 12.3 12.1 7.0 7.1 130

72 12.3 12.1 7.0 7.2 130

73-75 12.3 12.1 130

76-78 12.3 12.1 130

80 12.3 12.1 130

82 12.4 12.2 6.6 6.7 120

84 12.5 12.3 7.3 7.4 120

86 12.5 12.3 6.8 7.0 120

88 12.5 12.3 7.0 7.3 120

89-91 12.5 12.3 120

92-94 12.5 12.3 120

96 12.5 12.3 120

180

Point A

Met., Point A

Point A

COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)

50 Conditioning Welds

Point A

Met., Point C

Point B

Cross Tension, Point C

Point C

Shear Tension, Point C

Sample or

Weld No. Mean.

Dia. (mm)

Max. Dia.

(mm)

Weld Button DataWelding Current DataWeld Time

Per Pulse

(ms)

Programmed

Current

(kA)

Measured

Current

(kA)

Min. Dia.

(mm)

Point C

Met., Point B

Shear Tension, Point B

Cross Tension, Point B

Cross Tension, Point A

Point B

Shear Tension, Point A

Point B

Point C

Page 18


Table 2: Weldability Test Data (Continued)

98 12.7 12.5 140

100 12.9 12.7 140

102 13.1 12.9 140

104 13.3 13.1 140

106 13.5 13.3 140

108 13.7 13.5 140

110 13.9 13.7 140

112 14.1 13.9 140

113-115 14.1 13.9 140

116-118 14.1 13.9 140

120 14.1 13.9 140

122 14.3 14.0 130

124 14.5 14.2 130

125-127 14.5 14.2 130

128-130 14.5 14.2 130

132 14.5 14.2 130

134 14.3 14.1 130

136 14.7 14.5 120

138 14.7 14.5 120

139-141 14.7 14.5 120

142-144 14.7 14.5 120

146 14.7 14.5 120

1st Exp.

1st Exp.

Shear Tension, Point E

Met., Point E

Cross Tension, Point E

Cross Tension, Point D

Met., Point D

Met., Point G

Shear Tension, Point F

Cross Tension, Point F

1st and 2nd Exp., Point F

Met., Point F

1st and 2nd Exp., Point D

Shear Tension, Point D

1st Exp.

1st and 2nd Exp., Point E

Page 19


Table 3. Shear Tension Test Data

(N) (lbs)

1 A 28,004 6,296

2 A 29,822 6,705

3 A 27,853 6,262

Average A 28,560 6,421

7 B 26,579 5,975

8 B 28,072 6,311

9 B 27,306 6,139

Average B 27,319 6,142

13 C 25,294 5,687

14 C 25,045 5,631

15 C 27,780 6,246

Average C 26,040 5,854

19 D 31,641 7,114

20 D 32,154 7,229

21 D 32,684 7,348

Average D 32,160 7,230

25 E 32,416 7,288

26 E 31,591 7,102

27 E 31,618 7,108

Average E 31,875 7,166

31 F 29,531 6,639

32 F 32,282 7,258

33 F 31,167 7,007

Average F 30,993 6,968

Average All 29,491 6,630

Shear Tension

Weld No.

Weld

Lobe

Position

Peak Load

Page 20


Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data

(N) (lbs)

4 A 23,375 5,255

5 A 26,649 5,991

6 A 23,457 5,274

Average A 24,494 5,507

10 B 17,628 3,963

11 B 24,183 5,437

12 B 23,309 5,240

Average B 21,707 4,880

16 C 24,278 5,458

17 C 16,695 3,753

18 C 23,889 5,371

Average C 21,621 4,861

22 D 26,949 6,059

23 D 24,835 5,583

24 D 22,591 5,079

Average D 24,792 5,574

28 E 25,160 5,656

29 E 24,891 5,596

30 E 24,997 5,620

Average E 25,016 5,624

34 F 22,490 5,056

35 F 22,455 5,048

36 F 25,010 5,623

Average F 23,318 5,242


Cross Tension

Weld No.

Weld

Lobe

Position

Peak Load

Page 21


Table 5: Cap Life Test Data

Test

Date 08/22/2013 Test Machine Taylor Material

2.7 mm

050 HSLA

Uncoated

Electrode

Type

GM

Global

Electrode

Tip Force

(kN)

7

# of

Pulse3

Weld Time

(ms)130

Cool Time

(ms)40

Hold Time

(ms)

1-48 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

50 14.3 14.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 130

51-98 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

100 14.3 14.2 9.4 9.8 9.6 130

101-148 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

150 14.3 14.2 8.9 9.6 9.3 130

151-198 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

200 14.3 14.2 7.8 8.0 7.9 130

201-248 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

250 14.3 14.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 130

251-298 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

300 14.3 14.2 7.7 8.4 8.1 130

301-348 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

350 14.3 14.2 7.7 8.6 8.2 130

351-398 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

400 14.3 14.2 7.3 8.6 8.0 130

401-448 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

450 14.3 14.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 130

451-498 14.3 14.2 - - - 130

500 14.3 14.2 8.2 8.5 8.4 130

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

180

Sample

or Weld

No.

Welding Current Data Weld Button Data Weld Time

Per Pulse

(ms)

COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)Programmed

Current (kA)

Max. Dia.

(mm)

Mean.

Dia.

Measured

Current (kA)

Min.

Dia.

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Page 22


Appendix B: Figures

Figure 1: Weld Lobe

Point C

Point B

Point A

Point F

Point E

Point D

Point G

110

120

130

140

150

160

11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5

Weld

Tim

e (

ms)

Weld Current (kA)

Weld Time (ms) Weld Current (kA)

120 12.3

130 12.1

140 12.0

120 14.5

130 14.2

140 13.9

Point G 130 14.1

Minimum Button

Diameter

First Instance of

Expulsion on

Second Weld

Weld Lobe

Weld Time Current Range (kA)

Maximum 1.9

Nominal 2.1

Minimum 2.2

Weld Current Range

Page 23


(a)

(b)

Figure 2 (a,b): Microhardness Traverse for Points A and B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point A

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point B

Page 24


(c)

(d)

Figure 2 (c,d): Microhardness Traverse for Points C and D

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point C

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point D

Page 25


(e)

(f)

Figure 2 (e,f): Microhardness Traverse for Points E and F

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point E

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point F

Page 26


(g)

Figure 2(g): Microhardness Traverse for Point G

Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point G

Page 27


(a)

(b)

Figure 4(a,b): Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points A and B

Page 28


(c)

Figure 4(c): Metallurgical Photo of Minimum Button Size Curve Point C

(a)

Figure 5(a): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point D

Page 29


(b)

(c)

Figure 5(b,c): Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points E and F

Page 30


(d)

Figure 5(d): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point G

Figure 6: Cap Life Test Button Size vs. Weld Number

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Bu

tto

n D

iam

ete

r (m

m)

Weld Number

Actual Button Size

Minimum Button Size

Page 31


Figure 7: Electrode Imprints

Page 32

TEST REPORT

AET-13-0822SB

Resistance Spot Weld Evaluation of 2.6 mm C1008 Uncoated Steel Using General Motors Welding Specification GWS-5A

Submitted to: Steel Technologies, LLC

Prepared by:

AET Integration, Inc Wixom, MI 48393

August, 2013 248-420-9451

Page 33


Table of Contents 1. Objective ........................................................................................................................2 2. Test Procedure ..............................................................................................................2 3. Test Results and Analysis ...........................................................................................4 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................4 Appendix A: Tables

Table 1: Weld Schedule Table 2: Weldability Test Data Table 3: Shear Tension Test Data Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data Table 5: Cap Life Test Data

B: Figures

Figure 1: Weld Lobe Figure 2: Microhardness Traverse Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse Figure 4: Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points Figure 5: Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points Figure 6: Button Size vs. Weld Number Figure 7: Electrode Imprints

Page 34


1. Project Objective Evaluate 2.6 mm C1008 uncoated steel provided by Steel Technologies, LLC using General Motors (GM) weld qualification specification GWS-5A dated April 2011.

2. Test Procedure 2.1 General Description Both the weldability and cap life evaluation procedure outlined by GWS-5A were conducted. Welding schedules are shown in Table 1 and were selected using the associated file for GWS-1A welding specifications. Minimum button size for this material was 7.0 mm per GMW 14057. GM Global Standard GMWZ – 19x24 mm electrodes were used. Electrode caps were dressed to the dimensions specified in the associated Cap Dress file for GWS-1A. Equipment used for testing is shown below.

2.2 Weldability procedure The weldability procedure consists of the following 6 components:

Weld lobe generation

Electrode life test

Shear tension test

Cross tension test

Metallurgical examination

Microhardness test

Resistance Spot Welder WSI Pedestal

Weld Control Miyachi ISA-500 AR MFDC

Weld Checker Miyachi MM-370A

Force Gauge Sensor Development Weld Probe

Tensile Test Machine MTS 810 Material Test System

Microscope Nikon SMZ800

Microhardness Tester Leco LM100AT

Page 35


Electrode caps were installed and aligned. The squeeze time was adjusted to ensure consistent electrode force before welding. Before welding was started, the electrode alignment was verified with carbon paper imprints. Welding begins by finding the current required to produce the minimum nugget diameter at the nominal weld time. Using this setup, 50 conditioning spot welds were produced. The process appeared stable at this point. After electrode conditioning, coupons were welded and peel tested in 100A increments to determine the current that produced point A of the weld lobe diagram (minimum button size at maximum weld time). Three coupons were produced and peel tested using the determined weld current. The weld lobe was generated by establishing the minimum button diameter curve and the expulsion curve. The minimum button diameter curve is composed of points A, B and C. These locations represent the current necessary to produce the minimum button diameter at each of the three different weld times. The three weld times in this case were the maximum weld time (three pulse, 140 ms per pulse), nominal weld time (three pulse, 130 ms per pulse), and minimum weld time (three pulse, 120 ms per pulse). The expulsion curve was established by increasing weld current in 200A increments until expulsion was observed on the second spot weld of the test coupon. The expulsion procedure was also conducted for each of the three weld times resulting in point D, E and F on the weld lobe. For each point of the weld lobe, three shear tension samples and three cross tension samples were produced. One sample was produced for each point for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Shear tension and cross tension tests were performed and the peak loads were recorded using an MTS load frame. An additional coupon was produced at point G of the weld lobe diagram for metallurgical examination and microhardness testing. Microhardness traverses were made using a Vickers scale diamond indenter with a 500g load. 2.3 Cap Life Test Procedure Weld parameters for point G were used in the cap life test. Welding speed was 30 welds per minute. The cap life test procedure is repeated for groups of 50 welds until 500 acceptable welds are obtained or until the button size drops below the minimum button size requirement. Each group of 50 welds

Page 36


consisted of 48 welds on endurance test panels and two welds on a peel test sample. The second weld of the peel test sample was examined for button size and weld characteristics. Cap imprints were taken every 50 welds.

3. Test Results and Analysis

Detailed test data of the weldability test is listed in Table 2 of Appendix A. Shear tension test results are summarized in Table 3 of Appendix A. The average peak tensile load was 26.32 kN (5,917 lbs). Cross tension test results are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix A. The average peak cross tension load was 24.45 kN (5,497 lbs). The weld lobe is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B. The current ranges at all three weld times exceeded the 1.0 kA requirement in GWS-5A. Microhardness traverse results are shown in Figure 2 of Appendix B. The indent pattern is shown in Figure 3. Microhardness tests did not indicate brittle weld structures. Macro photos of metallurgical specimens are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 of Appendix B. Samples at expulsion points did not exhibit thinning over 30%. As shown in Table 5, 500 acceptable welds were obtained for the cap life evaluation without the button size dropping below 7.0mm. Figure 6 shows the button size variation throughout the test. Figure 7 shows the electrode imprints.

4. Conclusion The 2.6 mm C1008 steel evaluated by this test appears to meet the weldability requirements specified in GM welding specification GWS-5A.

Page 37


Appendix A: Tables

Table 1: Weld Schedules

Table 2: Weldability Test Data

(kN) (lbs) Schedule (ms)Total Weld

Time (ms)

Minimum 120 360

Nominal 130 390

Maximum 140 420

Electrodes Hold Time

(ms)

GM Global

Standard GMWZ -

19x24 Dome Nose

7.0 1575

Electrode Force Weld Time

180

Test Date 08/22/2013Test

MachineTaylor Material

2.6 mm

C1008C

Low

Carbon

Uncoated

Electrode

Type

GM

Global

Electrode

Tip Force

(kN)

7.0

# of

Pulse3

Weld Time

(ms)

140, 130,

120

Cool Time

(ms)40

Hold Time

(ms)

2 10.6 10.2 6.5 6.5 6.5 130

3-52 10.7 10.3 130

54 10.7 10.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 140

56 10.8 10.4 6.4 6.7 6.6 140

58 11.0 10.5 5.8 6.7 6.3

60 11.2 10.8 6.7 6.8 6.8 140

62 11.3 10.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 140

64 11.3 10.9 7.3 7.4 7.4 140

66 11.3 10.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 140

67-69 11.3 10.9 140

70-72 11.3 10.9 140

74 11.3 10.9 140

76 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 130

78 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.2 7.2 130

80 11.4 11.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 130

81-83 11.4 11.3 130

84-86 11.4 11.3 130

88 11.4 11.3 130

90 11.5 11.4 7.2 7.2 7.2 120

92 11.5 11.4 7.1 7.2 7.2 120

94 11.5 11.4 7.0 7.1 7.1 120

95-97 11.5 11.4 120

98-100 11.5 11.4 120

102 11.5 11.4 120

Met., Point B

Shear Tension, Point C

Weld Time

Per Pulse

(ms)

Programmed

Current

(kA)

Measured

Current

(kA)

Min. Dia.

(mm)

Cross Tension, Point B

Point B

Point B

Point A

Cross Tension, Point A

Shear Tension, Point A

Point A

Point B

Shear Tension, Point B

Sample or

Weld No. Mean.

Dia. (mm)

Max. Dia.

(mm)

Weld Button DataWelding Current Data

Point C

Met., Point A

Met., Point C

Point C

Point C

Cross Tension, Point C

180

Point A

COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)

50 Conditioning Welds

Page 38


Table 2: Weldability Test Data (Continued)

104 11.7 11.6 140

106 11.9 11.8 140

108 12.1 12.0 140

110 12.3 12.2 140

112 12.5 12.5 140

114 12.7 12.7 140

116 12.9 12.9 140

118 13.1 13.1 140

120 13.3 13.3 140

121-123 13.3 13.3 140

124-126 13.3 13.3 140

128 13.3 13.3 140

130 13.5 13.1 130

132 13.7 13.7 130

133-135 13.7 13.7 130

136-138 13.7 13.7 130

140 13.7 13.7 130

142 13.5 13.5 130

144 13.9 13.8 120

146 14.1 14.0 120

147-149 14.1 14.0 120

150-152 14.1 14.0 120

154 14.1 14.0 120

Met., Point E

Cross Tension, Point D

Met., Point D

Shear Tension, Point F

1st and 2nd Exp., Point F

1st and 2nd Exp., Point E

Met., Point G

Cross Tension, Point E

Cross Tension, Point F

Met., Point F

Shear Tension, Point E

2nd Exp., Point D

Shear Tension, Point D

Page 39


Table 3. Shear Tension Test Data

(N) (lbs)

1 A 24,887 5,595

2 A 25,706 5,779

3 A 25,549 5,744

Average A 25,381 5,706

7 B 24,549 5,519

8 B 24,107 5,420

9 B 24,108 5,420

Average B 24,255 5,453

13 C 22,515 5,062

14 C 24,356 5,476

15 C 25,484 5,729

Average C 24,118 5,422

19 D 27,357 6,150

20 D 25,662 5,769

21 D 29,587 6,652

Average D 27,535 6,190

25 E 30,884 6,943

26 E 25,601 5,756

27 E 28,353 6,374

Average E 28,279 6,358

31 F 23,791 5,349

32 F 30,106 6,768

33 F 31,171 7,008

Average F 28,356 6,375


Shear Tension

Weld No.

Weld

Lobe

Position

Peak Load

Page 40


Table 4: Cross Tension Test Data

(N) (lbs)

4 A 25,354 5,700

5 A 25,615 5,759

6 A 24,250 5,452

Average A 25,073 5,637

10 B 23,668 5,321

11 B 23,549 5,294

12 B 24,200 5,441

Average B 23,806 5,352

16 C 23,746 5,339

17 C 23,524 5,289

18 C 23,228 5,222

Average C 23,499 5,283

22 D 29,319 6,592

23 D 29,820 6,704

24 D 28,061 6,309

Average D 29,067 6,535

28 E 19,843 4,461

29 E 22,746 5,114

30 E 22,746 5,114

Average E 21,778 4,896

34 F 20,558 4,622

35 F 26,159 5,881

36 F 23,707 5,330

Average F 23,475 5,278


Cross Tension

Weld No.

Weld

Lobe

Position

Peak Load

Page 41


Table 5: Cap Life Test Data

Test

Date 08/22/2013 Test Machine Taylor Material

2.6 mm

C1008C

Low

Carbon

Uncoated

Steel

Electrode

Type

GM

Global

Electrode

Tip Force

(kN)

7.0

# of

Pulse3

Weld Time

(ms)130

Cool Time

(ms)40

Hold Time

(ms)

1-48 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

50 13.5 13.2 8.4 9.2 8.8 130

51-98 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

100 13.5 13.2 8.0 8.2 8.1 130

101-148 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

150 13.5 13.2 8.0 8.5 8.3 130

151-198 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

200 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.2 8.1 130

201-248 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

250 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.3 8.1 130

251-298 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

300 13.5 13.2 7.9 8.3 8.1 130

301-348 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

350 13.5 13.2 7.3 8.2 7.8 130

351-398 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

400 13.5 13.2 7.6 8.2 7.9 130

401-448 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

450 13.5 13.2 7.2 8.0 7.6 130

451-498 13.5 13.2 - - - 130

500 13.5 13.2 7.2 8.1 7.7 130 Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

180

Sample

or Weld

No.

Welding Current Data Weld Button Data Weld Time

Per Pulse

(ms)

COMMENTS-REMARKS (e.g., flash, sticking, imprints)Programmed

Current (kA)

Max. Dia.

(mm)

Mean.

Dia.

Measured

Current (kA)

Min.

Dia.

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Electrode Imprints

Page 42


Appendix B: Figures

Figure 1: Weld Lobe

Point C

Point B

Point A

Point F

Point E

Point D

Point G

110

120

130

140

150

10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

Weld

Tim

e (

ms)

Weld Current (kA)

Weld Time (ms) Weld Current (kA)

120 11.4

130 11.3

140 10.9

120 14.0

130 13.7

140 13.3

Point G 130 13.5

Minimum Button

Diameter

First Instance of

Expulsion on

Second Weld

Weld Lobe

Weld Time Current Range (kA)

Maximum 2.4

Nominal 2.4

Minimum 2.6

Weld Current Range

Page 43


(a)

(b)

Figure 2 (a,b): Microhardness Traverse for Points A and B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point A

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point B

Page 44


(c)

(d)

Figure 2 (c,d): Microhardness Traverse for Points C and D.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point D

Page 45


(e)

(f)

Figure 2 (e,f): Microhardness Traverse for Points E and F

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point E

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point F

Page 46


(g)

Figure 2(g): Microhardness Traverse for Point G

Figure 3: Pattern for Microhardness Traverse

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Mic

roh

ard

ness (

HV

500g

)

Distance (mm)

Point G

Page 47


(a)

(b)

Figure 4(a,b): Metallurgical Photos of Minimum Button Size Curve Points A and B

Page 48


(c) Figure 4(c): Metallurgical Photo of Minimum Button Size Curve Point C

(a)

Figure 5(a): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point D

Page 49


(b)

(c)

Figure 5(b,c): Metallurgical Photos of Expulsion Curve Points E and F

Page 50


(d)

Figure 5(d): Metallurgical Photo of Expulsion Curve Point G

Figure 6: Cap Life Test Button Size vs. Weld Number

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Bu

tto

n D

iam

ete

r (m

m)

Weld Number

Actual Button Size

Minimum Button Size

Page 51


Figure 7: Electrode Imprints

Page 52

B. CHRYSLER PAINT/PAINT PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE TESTS - 2013

1.0 Introduction and Discussion An EPS Producer sought to gain approval from Chrysler to supply EPS for select automotive applications. This producer arranged for laboratory tests of EPS samples in the areas of paint performance and phosphate paint pretreatment. The accredited testing laboratory ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan performed the tests, preparing the samples and conducting the tests in accordance with pertinent Chrysler standards. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT. From the results of these tests, EPS received approval from Chrysler as a replacement of acid pickled for an end use product application.


Page 54



Chrysler Phosphate Testing

Test Material: Customer Supplied Steel Panels

Test Material ID s: HRPO HR EPS

Test Reference: Chrysler PS-7449 (02/07)

ACT Quote Number: QC19940_61513 ACT Project Number: SO223380A

Customer P.O. Number: Wire Transfer

Material Received: 07/19/13 Test Date: 09/07/13

Prepared By: LSC Date Prepared: 09/09/13 Logbook: LSC-10, p. 87

APPROVED BY:








Material Identification: A (Control) = Customer Supplied HRPO

B (Test) = Customer Supplied HR EPS

Phosphate Application: ACT Test Panels applied phosphate per manufacturers recommendations

Phosphate: PPG/Chemfil C700 C59 (Batch #30821313)

Evaluation 5.3.1: Phosphate Macro-Appearance

Test Method: ACT WIL-0146 (05/08) Section 5.4

Number of Panels: Three panels of each material

Macro-Appearance: Visual examination for non-uniformity such as void areas, blotchiness, spotting, streaking, and color appearance of phosphate coating using the naked eye.

Evaluation: Compare the uniformity of the test material to that of the control and rate per the appearance rating scale.

Appearance Rating Scale: More (>) uniform as compared to control Equal (=) in uniformity as compared to control Less (<) uniform as compared to control

Evaluation 5.3.2: Phosphate Crystal Size

Test Method: ACT WIL-0146 (05/08) Section 5.5


Microscope: Amray Model 1810D Scanning Electron Microscope (LEQP 0043)

Magnifications: 200 and 1000 X

Crystal Size: The mean of a representative sample of five crystals (predominant) and the maximum as measured on the 1000 X image produced by the SEM.

: Microns






Evaluation 5.3.3: Phosphate Coating Weight

Test Method: ACT WIL-0144 (05/08)


Instrument: ASOMA Instruments X-ray Fluorescence Model 200/400 (LEQP 0120)

Analysis Cycle: Each sample is irradiated for 60 Seconds

mg/ft²: Milligrams per Square Foot

Phosphateability Test Data: PPG/Chemfil C700 C59

ID Coating Weight (mg/ft²)

Micro-Appearance Macro-Appearance

Crystal Size (µ) Predominant Maximum Appearance Rating* Comments

Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B1 247 3 7 = Lighter B2 255 2 5 = Lighter B3 250 4 8 = Lighter

Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A1 417 5 11

Control Uniform

A2 481 5 8 Uniform A3 523 5 10 Uniform

* As compared to the customer supplied control material.






SEM Photographs: C700 C59 Zinc Phosphate

A1 (Control Material) A2 (Control Material)

A3 (Control Material) B1 (Test Material)

B2 (Test Material)

B3 Test Material)



Page 58



Chrysler Lubricant/Adhesive Compatibility Testing

Test Material: Customer Supplied Steel Panels

Test Material ID s: HRPO HR EPS

ACT Quote Number: QC19940_61513 ACT Project Number: SO223380B

Customer P.O. Number: Wire Transfer

Material Received: 07/19/13

Prepared By: LSC Date Prepared: 09/12/13 Logbook: LSC-10, p. 93

APPROVED BY:








Evaluation #1: Chrysler Shear Adhesion Test

Coupon Prep Date: 09/09/13-09/10/13 Test Date: 09/11/13

Test Method: Chrysler LP-463NB-29-02 (08/08) Section 6.3

Test Material ID s: A (Control) = Customer Supplied HRPO, 1" x 4" B (Test) = Customer Supplied HR EPS, 1" x 4"

Control Mill Oil: Quaker 61AUS, Lot #423884

Coupon Cleaning: Not required

Lubricant Application: Coupons were dipped half way into the mill oil (area where the adhesive will be applied), then placed upside down in a rack and allowed to age vertically for a period of 16 hours. (Oil coating weight to be 175 ± 25 mg/ft2.)

Test Sealer ID s, Bond Gap, and Bond Area:

Test Apparatus: Oven: Blue-M Model DC-136C (LEQP 0006) Shear Test Instrument: Instron/MTS Renew Model 1127 (LEQP 0003) Load Cell: 10000 lb. Instron Model 2511-303 (LEQP 0050)

Digital Thermometer: Omega Model HH2002A w/ Type K Thermocouple (LEQP 0236) Thermocouple: Lap Shear (0.8 mm steel coupons w/ small binder clips) with attached Type K

Thermocouple (LEQP 0233) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Model CD-6"CX Digimatic Caliper (LEQP 0240) Timer: Control Company Model 06-662-3 (LEQP 0273)

Jaw Gap: 4 inch distance between jaws

Jaw Separation Speed: 2 inches per minute

Adhesive Application: Pumpable adhesive is applied so that the material covers the required bond area

Adhesive Dwell Time: Minimum of 4 hours

ID Sealer Description Bond Gap (in.) Bond Area Set 1 MS-CD457F, Henkel TK2400 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 2 MS-CD457C, PPG B7793B 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 3 MS-CD510B, Dow 162OUS 0.020 0.5" x 1" Set 4 MS-CD473A, Henkel 0.030 1" x 1" Set 5 MS-CD473H, Henkel 0.030 1" x 1"






Bake Schedule: 20 minutes at 350

5 F

Bake Recovery Time: Minimum 4 hours after baking

Examinations: After conditioning, the bonded assemblies are evaluated on a tensile test machine. The shear strength and separation mode are recorded. The average shear strength and standard deviation are calculated.

Separation Modes: Adhesive or Cohesive Failure (Including Fine Line) of the adhesive

MPa: Megapascal

Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD457F, Henkel TK2400 (Set 1)

ID Shear Strength (MPa)

Ave. Shear Strength (MPa)

Standard Deviation (MPa)

Separation Mode (%) Adhesive Cohesive

Test Material: Customer Supplied HR EPS B1-1 16.9

15.9 2.4

5 95 B1-2 18.4 5 95 B1-3 13.9 5 95 B1-4 12.8 5 95 B1-5 17.6 5 95

Control Material: Customer Supplied HRPO A1-1 18.4

18.2 0.5

5 95 A1-2 18.0 5 95 A1-3 18.9 5 95 A1-4 17.6 5 95 A1-5 18.1 5 95






Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD457C, PPG B7793B (Set 2)






27.9 2.9

0 100 B2-2 27.1 0 100 B2-3 25.1 0 100 B2-4 25.5 0 100 B2-5 32.0 5 95


24.6 3.5

5 95 A2-2 20.9 5 95 A2-3 28.0 10 90 A2-4 25.1 10 90 A2-5 27.8 10 90

Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD510B, Dow 162OUS (Set 3)






32.2 2.2

10 90 B3-2 30.2 10 90 B3-3 31.3 10 90 B3-4 33.8 10 90 B3-5 30.5 10 90


30.2 2.3

10 90 A3-2 31.0 10 90 A3-3 28.4 10 90 A3-4 28.3 10 90 A3-5 29.5 20 80






Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD473A, Henkel (Set 4)






0.8 0.1

0 100 B4-2 0.8 0 100 B4-3 0.8 0 100 B4-4 0.8 0 100 B4-5 0.9 0 100


0.9 0.0

0 100 A4-2 0.9 0 100 A4-3 0.9 0 100 A4-4 0.9 0 100 A4-5 0.9 0 100

Lap Shear Strength Test Data: MS-CD473H, Henkel (Set 5)






0.2 0.0

0 100 B5-2 0.2 0 100 B5-3 0.2 0 100 B5-4 0.2 0 100 B5-5 0.2 0 100


0.2 0.0

0 100 A5-2 0.2 0 100 A5-3 0.3 0 100 A5-4 0.2 0 100 A5-5 0.2 0 100


C. GENERAL MOTORS PAINT PERFORMANCE TESTS CONDUCTED BY BODYCOTE ACT LABORATORIES - 2006

1.0 Introduction and Discussion Early in the development of EPS technology, it was important to ascertain that the EPS surface could be interchangeable with an acid pickled surface and, therefore, acceptable to manufacturers as a replacement for HRPO. An EPS User wanted to evaluate EPS samples against General Motors Paint Performance Standards, and contracted the accredited testing laboratory Bodycote ACT of Hillsdale, Michigan to perform such tests during 2006. NOTE: the EPS User was NOT seeking General Motors approval of EPS. ACT prepared EPS samples provided by TMW and then conducted the tests in accordance with GM standards and documented the results. The pages that follow provide the actual test reports from ACT. They are not only useful for the raw data and trends, but they also indicate whether or not the EPS results ‘passed’ the pertinent GM acceptance standards. In all cases, the tested EPS samples met the GM paint performance acceptance criteria; however, the reports were not provided to GM, therefore it should not be inferred that GM ‘approves’ the use of EPS-processed steel based on these test results. GM has since approved the use of EPS-processed steel based on different set of tests conducted in 2013 (See Section A).

TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.BODYCOTE.COM

Page 64

The results presented above relate only to the items submitted for testing. This certificate or report shall not be reproduced in full, without the approval of the Laboratory.

THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street Red Bud, IL 62278

ATTN: Laura Berner

GM Paint Performance Testing

Customer Supplied Panels

Material Identification: Non–Zinc Exterior Non “S”

Test Standard: GM 4350M (04/06) Class A336, Table 5

Bodycote Quote Number: AQT 59354 Bodycote Project Number: AIN 174320A

Prepared By: TML

Date Prepared: 11/30/06 Logbook: TML-14, pp. 69-72

APPROVED BY:

Kevin Wendt Lab Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.


LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320A

Page 65


Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 10/11/06 Process Date: 11/08/06 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN176349 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 542AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148 Evaluation #1: Visual Examination Rating Scales Degree of Change: None: No change Slight: Barely observable with normal examination Moderate: Modest change, Readily noticeable Pronounced: Distinct change, Easily observed with casual examination Evaluation #2: Paint Adhesion Test - Method A AQT 59354: Per Line Item #3 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9071P (08/02) Method A Number of Tests: Three crosshatch tests per sample



Page 66


Scribing Tool: Single edge razor blade - 2.0 mm spacing Tape: 3M Scotch Brand #898 (LCE #284) Evaluations: Rate percentage of paint film remaining after tape pull Rate Level of Failure Evaluation #3: Paint Adhesion Test - Method B AQT 59354: Per Line Item #3 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9071P (08/02) Method B Process: 20 x 75 mm "X" Cut + Tape Adhesion Number of Tests: Three cross cuts per sample Scribing Tool: Single edge razor blade Tape: 3M Scotch Brand #898 (ACT #284) Evaluations: Rate percentage of paint remaining under tape test area, type of removal, and failure mode Type of Removal Rating: A Paint removed along knife cut evenly B Paint removed in the "V" section of the knife cut C Paint removed in a "patch not touching" knife cut D Paint removed in a "patch touching" knife cut



Page 67


Adhesion Test Data: As Received Requirement: Minimum of 99% paint retention in as received condition.

Adhesion Method A Method B Requirement ID Retention (%) Level of Failure Retention (%) Failure Mode Type of Removal Met/Did not Meet

100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 1 100 None 100 None None Met



Evaluation #4: Humidity Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #4 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Start Date: 11/16/06 Test End Date: 11/20/06 Test Method: GM 4465P (07/95) Exposure: 96 Hours Deionized Water Fog Humidity Chamber: Singleton Model 24 (LCE #87) Evaluations: Visual Examination for Blistering or other Surface Defects per Evaluation #1

Adhesion Test per Evaluations #2 and #3 within 10-15 minutes after removal



Page 68


Humidity Test Data: 96 Hours Requirement: No evidence of blistering or other appearance changes at the end of the hours indicated

and a minimum of 99% paint retention.

Blister Rating Requirement

ID Size Frequency Pattern Other Defects Met/Did not Meet 4 10 None None None Met 5 10 None None None Met 6 10 None None None Met

Final Adhesion Method A Method B Requirement

ID Retention (%) Level of Failure Retention (%) Failure Mode Type of Removal Met/Did not Meet 100 None 100 None None Met 100 None 100 None None Met 4 100 None 100 None None Met





Page 69


Evaluation #5: Chip Resistance of Coating AQT 59354: Per Line Item #8 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/16/06 Test Method: GM 9508P (06/02) Method A Preconditioning: Minimum of 4 hours at -25 ± 2°C Temperature: Temperature -25 ± 2°C Air Pressure: 70 ± 3 psi Test Apparatus: Q-Panel Model QGR Gravelometer (LCE #98) Gravel: 1 pint water worn alluvial road gravel which passes through a 16 mm space

screen, but is retained on a 9.5 mm space screen. Exposure Chamber: Walk-In Freezer KOLPAK (LCE #15) Tape: 3M Scotch Brand 202-2 (LCE #287) Examinations: Visual comparison with General Motors Standards mm: Millimeter Chip Resistance Test Data: -25 ± 2°C Requirement: Minimum rating of 6 (metallic substrates).

Chip Resistance Requirement ID Rating Level of Failure Type of Failure Met / Did not Meet 13 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met 14 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met 15 7 Substrate/Primer Adhesive Met



Page 70


Evaluation #6: Adequacy of Cure Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #10 of Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Method: GM 9509P (07/95) Process: Solvent Rub, Ten Double Rubs with Firm Pressure Solvent: Xylene Examination: Observation of Painted Surface for Changes Observation of Rubbing Cloth for Residue Rating Scale: Rating Paint Surface Residue on Cloth 0 No Change None 1 Slight-Barely Observable Trace Amount 3 Moderate-Readily Noticeable Readily Noticeable 5 Severe-Very Obvious Saturated with Color Cure Test Data: Xylene Requirement: Rating of 0 or 1.

Painted Surface Cloth Requirement ID Rating Description Rating Description Met / Did not Meet 16 0 No Change 0 None Met 17 0 No Change 0 None Met 18 0 No Change 0 None Met



Page 71


Evaluation #7: Gasoline Dip Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #11 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/14/06 Test Methods: GM 9501P (03/97) Method A GM 9507P (09/88) Thumbnail Hardness Process: 20 Cycles (10 Second Immersion + 20 Second Dry-Off) tested every Fifth Cycle

for Thumbnail Hardness per GM 9507P Fuel: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Evaluations: Visual examination for color change or paint removal to previous surface or lifting or peeling of paint film and other surface changes per Evaluation #1 Gasoline Dip Test Data: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Requirement: No color change, paint removal to previous surface, lifting, peeling or visible defect in

paint film.

Requirement ID 5th Cycle 10th Cycle 15th Cycle 20th Cycle Met / Did not Meet 19 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met 20 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met 21 Pass Pass Pass Pass Met



Page 72


Evaluation #8: Gasoline Puddle Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #12 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/15/06 Test Method: GM 9500P (11/88) Process: The panel is saturated for five minutes and inspected. The process is done a total

of three times. Fuel: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Evaluations: Visual examination for color change or paint removal to previous surface or

lifting or peeling of paint film or other surface changes per Evaluation #1 Gasoline Puddle Test Data: Marathon® 87 Octane Regular Unleaded Requirement: No color change, paint removal to previous surface, lifting, peeling or visible defect in

paint film.

Requirement ID 1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle Met / Did not Meet 22 Pass Pass Pass Met 23 Pass Pass Pass Met 24 Pass Pass Pass Met



Page 73


Evaluation #9: Oil Immersion Test AQT 59354: Per Line Item #13 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Date: 11/16/06 Test Method: GM 9507P (09/88) Test Container: 1 Gallon metal pail Oil: GM Goodwrench 5W30 Exposure Chamber: Despatch Oven LDB 2-27-4 (LCE #92) Immersion: 7 Hours immersion in 70-75°C hot oil bath Examinations: Thumbnail Hardness per GM 9507P after Exposure Visual examination for marring, paint removal and change in appearance per

Evaluation #1 Oil Immersion Test Data: 7 Hours Requirement: No marring or paint removal of the surface (i.e., no paint removal or change in

appearance).

Requirement ID Marring Paint Removal Visual Examination Met / Did not Meet 25 None None None Met 26 None None None Met 27 None None None Met


Page 74


THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street Red Bud, IL 62278

ATTN: Laura Berner

GM Neutral Salt Spray Testing

Customer Supplied Panels

Material Identification: Non–Zinc Exterior Non “S”

Test Standard: GM 4350M (04/06) Class A336, Table 5

Bodycote Quote Number: AQT 59354 Bodycote Project Number: AIN 174320B (Rev. 1)

Prepared By: TML

Date Prepared: 09/21/07 Logbook: TML-14, pp. 69-72

APPROVED BY:

Kevin Wendt Lab Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.


LABORATORY TEST REPORT PROJECT AIN174320B (Rev. 1)

Page 75


Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 10/11/06 Process Date: 11/08/06 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN176349 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 542AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148 Evaluation #1: Visual Examination Rating Scales Test Methods: ASTM D 714-02 Blister Ratings ASTM D 610-01 Degree of Rusting Blister Size Scale: 10 No Blistering 8 Blisters Easily Seen by Unaided Eye 6,4,2 See Photographic Standards in ASTM D 714 Blister Frequency: N=None, F=Few, M=Medium, MD=Medium Dense, D=Dense Blister Pattern: Uniform, Streaks, Scattered, Patches, Edges, Along Scribe, etc. Rust Grade Rating Scale: 10 Less than or equal to 0.01% 9 Greater than 0.01% and up to 0.03% 8 Greater than 0.03% and up to 0.1% 7 Greater than 0.1% and up to 0.3% 6 Greater than 0.3% and up to 1.0% 5 Greater than 1.0% and up to 3.0% 4 Greater than 3.0% and up to 10.0% 3 Greater than 10.0% and up to 16.0% 2 Greater than 16.0% and up to 33.0% 1 Greater than 33.0% and up to 50.0% 0 Greater than 50.0%



Page 76


Rust Distribution Rating: S: Spot Rusting – Spot Rusting occurs when the bulk of the rusting is concentrated in a few localized areas of the painted surface G: General Rusting – General Rusting occurs when various size rust spots are randomly distributed across the surface P: Pinpoint Rusting – Pinpoint Rusting occurs when the rust is distributed across the surface as very small individual specks of rust H: Hybrid Rusting – An actual rusting surface may be a hybrid of the types of rust distribution depicted in the visual examples (Spot, General, and Pinpoint Rusting) Degree of Change: None: No change Slight: Barely observable with normal examination Moderate: Modest change, Readily noticeable Pronounced: Distinct change, Easily observed with casual examination Evaluation #2: Corrosion Creepback Test Test Method: GM 9102P (09/97) Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool (Industry code E) Air Blow-Off Apparatus: Air Blow-Off, 80 psi using a 3.0 mm round orifice (LCE #134) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LCE #115) Total Width Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film in millimeters,

on each side of the scribed line. Average: The mean of 12 measurements of Total Width Creepback at points 10 mm apart

centered on the scribed line. Each measurement is an average of the creepback on two sides of the scribed line.

Maximum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the most

extensive amount of affected paint, discounting the areas less than two centimeters from the ends of the scribed line.

Minimum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the least


mm: Millimeter



Page 77


Evaluation #3: Neutral Salt Spray Exposure AQT 59354: Per Line Item #5 on Quotation Material Received: 10/11/06 Test Start Date: 11/15/06 Test End Date: 11/29/06 Test Method: GM4298P (06/97) Neutral Salt Spray Exposure: 336 hours Salt Spray Chamber: Singleton Model 24 (LCE #575) Salt: Morton® Reagent Grade Sodium Chloride Examinations: Visual Examination per Evaluation #1 Total Width Creepback per Evaluation #2



Page 78


Neutral Salt Spray Test Data: 336 Hours Requirement: No evidence of blistering or other appearance changes at the end of the hours indicated.

Maximum allowable creepback is 6 mm on bare steel. Less than 10% of the surface shall be corroded (exclusive of scribes and/or within 3 mm of sharp edges).

Blister Rating Requirement

ID Size Frequency Pattern Visual Met / Did not Meet 7 10 None None None Met 8 10 None None None Met 9 10 None None None Met

Corrosion Rating Total Width Creepback (mm) Requirement ID Grade Distribution Average Maximum Minimum Met / Did not Meet 7 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met 8 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met 9 10* None 0.2 0.2 0.2 Met

* Rating pertains to areas away from the scribe line

Original Report Date: 11/30/06 Revision #1 Report Date: 09/21/07 Reason for Revision #1: Added note to data table on p.5.

TESTING GROUP ACT LABORATORIES – A NEW BODYCOTE COMPANY ● HILLSDALE LABORATORY 273 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE ● HILLSDALE ● MICHIGAN ● 49242 ● USA ● TEL: +1 (517) 439-2691 ● FAX: +1 (517) 439-4321 ● ONLINE: WWW.MTUSA.BODYCOTE.COM

Page 79


THE MATERIAL WORKS 101 South Main Street

Red Bud, IL 62278

ATTN: Alan Mueth

GM Cyclic Corrosion Testing

Samples CRS and EPS85

Standard: GM4350M (04/06) Class A336

Bodycote Quote Number: NRA-163 Bodycote Lab Number: 001621B (Rev. 3)

Customer P.O. Number: 0025278

Prepared By: JAL and TML Date Prepared: 09/21/07

Logbook: TML-16, pp. 64-65

APPROVED BY:

Kevin Wendt Laboratory Manager Signed for and on behalf of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc.


LABORATORY TEST REPORT LAB #001621B (Rev.3)

Page 80


Panel Preparation: ACT Test Panels prepared panels for testing per manufacturer’s recommendations Material Received: 05/04/07 Process Date: 06/27/07 Subcontract Location: ACT Test Panels, Hillsdale, MI Subcontract Report: AIN178475 Cleaner: Henkel PCL 1523 Phosphate: Henkel B958 P90 Immersion Ecoat: PPG ED6060 Primer: DuPont 765224EH Basecoat: DuPont 270AC301 White Clearcoat: DuPont RK8148

Evaluation #1: Corrosion Creepback Test Test Method: GM 9102P (09/97) Scribing Tool: Straight shank, tungsten carbide tip lathe cutting tool (Industry code E) Air Blow-Off Apparatus: Air Blow-Off, 80 psi using a 3.0 mm round orifice (LCE #134) Digital Caliper: Mitutoyo Digimatic Model CD-6" (LCE #115) Total Width Creepback: A measurement of the distance between the unaffected paint film in millimeters,

on each side of the scribed line. Average: The mean of 10 measurements of Total Width Creepback at points 10 mm apart

centered on the scribed line. Each measurement is an average of the creepback on two sides of the scribed line.

Maximum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the most


Minimum: A measurement of the Total Width Creepback, at the point with the least


mm: Millimeter



Page 81


Evaluation #2: Cyclic Corrosion Test Material Received: 05/04/07 06/27/07 – Panels received from ACT test Panels Test Start Date: 07/02/07 Test End Date: 08/27/07 Test Methods: GM 9540P (12/97) GM 8101G (12/98) Exposure: 40 Cycles Exposure Chamber: Thermotron SM-32C (LCE #270) Humidity: Steam generated with water fog assist Evaluations: Visual examination for Corrosion per GM 8101G Rating Scale Total Width Creepback per Evaluation #1 GM8101G Rating Scale: Rating Description 10 No Visible Corrosion 9 One or two small red rust spots 8 Some small red rust spots 7 Many small red rust spots (approx.10%) 6 Medium sized red rust spots (10-40%) 5 Many medium sized red rust spots (40-60%) 4 Large red rust spot (60-90%) 3 Large corroded area or very large red rust spot (100%) 2 Metal Loss 1 Perforation Note: This rating scale pertains to areas away from the scribe line



Page 82


GM 9540P Test Data: 40 Cycles Requirement: Duration C – Corrosion rating of 8 or better per GM8101G and maximum allowable

creepback is 6 mm on bare steel.

Total Width Creepback (mm) Requirement ID Average Maximum Minimum

GM 8101G Rating Met / Did not Meet

1 CRS 4.9 7.2 2.7 10* Did not Meet 2 CRS 5.9 7.3 2.9 10* Did not Meet 3 CRS 4.3 7.6 2.3 10* Did not Meet

1 EPS85 3.7 5.7 1.6 10* Met 2 EPS85 2.8 4.2 1.8 10* Met 3 EPS85 3.1 4.2 2.1 10* Met

* Rating pertains to areas away from the scribe line

Original Report Date: 08/29/07 Revision #1 Report Date: 09/06/07 Revision #2 Report Date: 09/17/07 Revision #3 Report Date: 09/21/07 Reason for Revision #1: Split the CRS and EPS85 data into 1 report. Reason for Revision #2: Added panel preparation Added test requirements and whether samples met those requirements Reason for Revision #3: Added note to rating scale on p.3 and to data table on p.4.



Page 83


Test Photographs:

CRS GM9540 EPS85 GM9540

EPS85 GM9540

D. HUMIDITY TEST – 500 HOUR EXPOSURE OF EPS DRY, HOT ROLL BLACK, HRPO AND SCS SAMPLES

A single coil of low carbon flat rolled steel was the source of smaller samples that were acid pickled then oiled, SCS processed and EPS processed. It was important that all of the samples came from the same source coil in order to isolate the differences in results of humidity tests. TEST PROCEDURE:

Testing Laboratory:

Test Start Date:

Test Method:

Test Chamber Humidity:

Test Chamber Temp:

Water Specification:

Test Duration:

St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. (A2LA Accredited)

April 24, 2008

ASTM D 2247-02: Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance of Coatings in 100% Relative Humidity

98% Relative Humidity

38 C (104 F)

Type IV (Ion Exchange) ASTM D 1193-99E

500 hours, no interruptions

TEST RESULTS:

SAMPLE ID

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

500 HOUR VISUAL OBSERVATION

TBUS10 Hot Roll Black, Untreated (reference) Moderate Corrosion

TBUS10P HRPO (acid pickled with heavy coat of oil) Slight Corrosion

TBUS10SCS SCS processed, single pass Moderate Corrosion

TBUS105 EPS processed, single pass, dry surface Slight Corrosion

TBUS1012 EPS processed, double pass, dry surface Slight Corrosion

CONCLUSIONS:

The EPS samples’ humidity results were comparable to the HRPO with heavy oil at the 500 hour completion of the test, whereas the untreated hot rolled black and SCS samples showed more corrosion. The EPS “second pass” sample showed no meaningful difference from the EPS “single pass” sample.

E. SALT SPRAY TEST – 1008 HOUR EXPOSURE OF EPS AND SCS

A single coil of low carbon flat rolled steel was the source of smaller samples that were SCS processed and EPS processed. It was important that all of the samples came from the same source coil in order to isolate the differences in results of salt spray testing of the painted samples. All samples were painted using a powdercoat process. The paint thickness was subsequently measured at 5 different locations on each sample (center and close to each of the 4 corners). All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. TEST PROCEDURE:

Testing Laboratory:

Test Methods:

Test Chamber Conditions:


Test Duration:

St. Louis Testing Laboratories, Inc. (A2LA Accredited)

ASTM B117-07: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments

5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at between 93 F and 98 F


1008 hours

TEST RESULTS:

The amount by which the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is quantified according to the following index:

10 = 0 inch 9 = 0 to 1/64th inch 8 = 1/64th to 1/32nd inch 7 = 1/32nd to 1/16th inch

6 = 1/16th to 1/8th inch 5 = 1/8th to 3/16th inch 4 = 3/16th to 1/4th inch 3 = 1/4th to 3/8th inch

EPS

SAMPLE

RANGE OF PAINT

THICKNESS (mils)

CREEP AT

504 HOURS

CREEP AT

840 HOURS

CREEP AT

1080 HOURS

1 3.2 – 4.6 9 9 9

2 4.6 – 5.2 9 9 9

3 2.1 – 3.9 8 8 7

4 3.1 – 3.9 9 9 7

5 2.7 – 3.5 9 9 8

6 2.4 – 4.4 9 9 7

7 3.9 – 5.3 9 9 8

8 3.3 – 5.0 8 8 8

9 4.1 – 6.1 10 10 9

10 2.8 – 3.9 9 9 9

11 3.4 – 4.0 9 9 8

12 3.6 – 5.5 9 9 9

SCS

SAMPLE

RANGE OF PAINT

THICKNESS (mils)

CREEP AT

504 HOURS

CREEP AT

840 HOURS

CREEP AT

1080 HOURS

13 3.1 – 4.2 8 8 7

14 3.3 – 4.2 8 8 1

15 3.7 – 5.6 9 9 8

16 3.0 – 5.1 8 8 2

17 2.9 – 5.6 9 9 9

18 3.2 – 4.4 9 7 7

19 3.7 – 4.6 8 8 6

20 2.6 – 5.4 4 4 4

21 3.4 – 5.3 7 7 3

22 5.1 – 7.0 9 9 9

23 3.2 – 4.3 5 5 3

24 3.2 – 4.4 5 5 3

F. EPS ROUGHENED SURFACE SALT SPRAY AND PAINT ADHESION TESTS: LOW CARBON & STAINLESS STEEL A manufacturer of electrical transformer panels sought to achieve improved paint adhesion for both its low carbon mild steel products and its stainless steel products. The manufacturer decided to evaluate EPS processing wherein a rougher surface texture was produced (130 to 160 Ra), based on the understanding that a uniform, but rougher surface of “jagged” micro peaks and valleys would offer superior paint adhesion. EPS samples were provided as two populations:

- average roughness of 130 Ra for low carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409

- average roughness of 160 Ra for low carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409 The 3” x 6” samples underwent a pretreatment customary for each of the manufacturer’s two painting processes, were painted, and the paint thickness measured at the center and near each of the four corners to characterize the average paint thickness. SALT FOG TEST PROCEDURE:

All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting (in the case of the low carbon steel) and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. The panels were placed in a salt fog chamber for continuous exposure for 1500 hours.

Test Methods:



Test Start Date:

Test Duration:

ASTM B117-07: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments

5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at an average 95 F


June 23, 2008

1500 hours

SALT FOG TEST RESULTS:



MATERIAL

SURFACE

Ra

PRETREATAND PAINT

AVERAGE PAINT

THICKNESS

1500 HR. CREEP INDEX

1500 HOUR

OBSERVATION

Mild Steel 130 5 stage wash, powdercoat

4.04 mils 10 large blisters at scribe

Mild Steel 130 2 stage wash, urethane over

epoxy

3.29 mils 8 small, dense blisters over entire panel


4.52 mils 10 large blisters at scribe


epoxy

3.62 mils 9 small, dense blisters over entire panel

409 Stainless

130 5 stage wash, powdercoat

3.92 mils 10

409 Stainless

130 2 stage wash, urethane over

epoxy

4.21 mils 10 tiny blisters along scribe

409 Stainless


4.36 mils 10

409 Stainless


epoxy

4.62 mils 10 tiny blisters along scribe

304 Stainless


4.87 mils 10

304 Stainless


epoxy

4.13 mils 10

304 Stainless


4.77 mils 10

304 Stainless


epoxy

4.85 mils 10

PAINT ADHESION TEST PROCEDURE: EPS samples were provided as two populations:

- average roughness of 130 Ra for carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409

- average roughness of 160 Ra for carbon steel and stainless 304 and 409 The 3” x 6” samples underwent a pretreatment customary for each of the manufacturer’s two painting processes, were painted, and the paint thickness measured at the center and near each of the four corners to characterize the average paint thickness. A total of 11 parallel cuts were made with a razor blade, 1 mm apart in both a vertical and horizontal direction forming a grid. One inch wide pressure-sensitive tape was then firmly applied to the scribed surface and rapidly removed with the pull strength measured using an adhesion tester.

Test Methods: ASTM D3359-02: Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test

ASTM D 4541-02 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers

PAINT ADHESION TEST RESULTS:

Paint adhesion is quantified according to the following index characterizing the amount of paint coating removed (present on the tape):

5B = No removal of paint. The edges of the cuts are completely smooth; none of the cross hatch squares or the lattice are detached. 4B = Small flakes of coating are detached at intersections; less than 5% of the area is affected. 3B = Small flakes of coating are detached along edges and at intersections of cuts. The area affected is 5 to 15% of the lattice.

MATERIAL

SURFACE

Ra

PRETREAT AND PAINT

AVERAGE PAINT

THICKNESS

PULL OFF FORCE (lbs/in2)

PASS/FAIL

INDEX 5B


3.39 mils >1000 * PASS


epoxy

3.79 mils 500 PASS


4.05 mils 300 ** PASS


epoxy

4.62 mils >1000 * PASS

409 Stainless


3.80 mils 500 ** PASS

409 Stainless


epoxy

4.66 mils >1000 * PASS

409 Stainless


4.04 mils 350 ** PASS

409 Stainless


epoxy

4.70 mils >1000 * PASS

304 Stainless


5.26 mils 700 ** PASS

304 Stainless


epoxy

4.05 mils 600 PASS

304 Stainless


5.29 mils 800 PASS

304 Stainless


epoxy

4.50 mils 700 PASS

* a Pull Force >1000 means the force required to remove the tape was beyond the scale of the Pull Force measurement device, which has a maximum reading of 1000 lbs/in2.

** The adhesive tape failed (ripped, instead of clean removal) at the indicated pull force in these cases, hence the true upper limit of force required to remove the paint is unknown.

G. EPS SURFACE TEXTURE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON TO ACID PICKLED SURFACE TEXTURE In October 2011, detailed surface profile evaluations were performed on samples of conventional acid-pickled sheet steel and EPS processed sheet steel in their bare (no coating) state and in chromated (prepaint process) and chromated plus painted states. The purpose was to characterize surface texture of steel that had been pickled by these two very different methods in all three states. The evaluations employed a sophisticated Wyko non-contact optical profilometer* to scan the samples. This device uses the phase change of light reflecting from various heights of the material to measure the uniformity of a flat surface. It is capable of characterizing surface roughness at the sub-nanometer level. Below is a profile resulting from one of the scans of a bare acid pickled surface: The surface scans of both acid pickled and EPS samples computed the following indicators of surface variance: Ra, Rq and Rt. Ra is the most familiar of these terms, often referred to as “average roughness” because it measures the average absolute value of peaks and values from the arithmetic mean of the profile.

While Ra is useful, it is not a conclusive measure of surface roughness, as all of the profiles shown below have the same Ra value: Rq is the “root mean square” measurement of Ra and varies from Ra by a constant factor. In this case Rq is not different enough from Ra to discuss in any detail. Rt characterizes the “total” height profile as illustrated below:

Roughness measurements for the bare, chromated and painted (by e-coating) scans were as follows:

Note that the Ra of the bare EPS surface is greater than that of the acid pickled surface, as is expected (EPS processing is intended to produce a higher Ra, but more uniform surface than acid pickling). Chromating and then E-Coat painting the surface has the expected effect of ‘smoothing out’ surface roughness for both the

side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2

Rq 2.11 3.12 5.34 4.67 2.66 1.8 4.67 5.5 0.857 0.589 1.04 0.95

Ra 1.65 2.47 4.18 3.65 2.09 1.43 3.61 4.27 0.66 0.458 0.814 0.744

Rt 79.66 28.42 72.86 42.71 114.2 56.56 158.8 183.15 9.7 7.21 10.09 9.89

(microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns)

BARE SURFACE CHROMATED SURFACE E‐COATED SURFACE

ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS

acid pickled and the EPS samples so that final Ra and Rt values are comparable for acid pickled and EPS samples.

However, these pure roughness measurements are not the entire story. The Wyko profilometer has the ability to filter raw roughness data to determine the “waviness” of a surface. How is surface waviness different from roughness? The profiles below illustrate these two distinct concepts:

Waviness is a long wavelength shape which averages out local roughness data to characterize the overall contours of a surface. The surface’s waviness can be quantified by Wa, Wq and Wt, which are calculated for a waviness profile the way that Ra, Rq and Rt are for a roughness profile.

Waviness measurements for the bare, chromated and painted (by e-coating) scans were as follows:

The average waviness, Wa, of the bare EPS sample is comparable to the acid-pickled sample, as is the total wave height profile, Wt. However, as successive layers of coating are applied – first chromate and then paint – both Wa and Wt of the EPS sample drops to roughly half the level of the acid pickled sample, indicating an overall smoother surface finish for the EPS samples.

side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2 side 1 side 2

Wq 0.841 1.87 1.11 1.63 1.76 0.883 1.2 1 2.06 1.29 0.855 0.943

Wa 0.622 1.55 0.869 1.32 1.43 0.716 0.984 0.815 1.67 1.04 0.693 0.726

Wt 4.97 9.26 7.04 10.02 9.92 4.88 5.81 5.3 10.6 6.89 4.16 5.24

(microns)

BARE SURFACE CHROMATED SURFACE E‐COATED SURFACE

ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS ACID ‐ PICKLED EPS

(microns) (microns) (microns) (microns) (microns)

Why does this occur? It is because the EPS surface exhibits a more uniform distribution of ‘jagged’ peaks and valleys across its surface, whereas the acid pickled surface is characterized by rather coarse, ‘long wavelength’ peaks and valleys. A coating placed on the EPS surface tends to fill up its uniformly distributed valleys to the same depth which smooths out the surface considerably. Much less smoothing can occur on the coarser acid pickled surface, as is shown in the side-by-side scan profiles below:

In summary, while the EPS surface might be considered to have higher roughness (as indicated by Ra value) than a typical acid-pickled surface, the very uniform topography of the EPS surface peaks and valleys promotes a better, more consistent paint (e-coat) appearance.

Measurement by Severstal Dearborn, LLC.

H. LASER AND PAINT TESTING COMPARING EPS DRY, EPS OILED, EPS DRY BRUSHED, EPS OILED BRUSHED, AND SCS In March through May 2010, we conducted the following tests:

Laser Cutting: Test Details found at E1 on pages 29, 30

Corrosion Resistance (Salt Spray Test): Test Details found at E2 on pages 31, 32

Paint Adhesion: Test Details found at E3 on page 33

We compared the following samples:

EPS OILED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ra = 130.6

EPS DRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 120.8

EPS OILED BRUSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 82.6

EPS Dry BRUSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 76.6

SCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ra = 26.8

All of the samples came from a single coil of 14 gauge hot roll black, low carbon steel, therefore, they all had shared a common chemistry and handling/storage history prior to EPS processing. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS:

Laser Test: EPS Dry and EPS Dry Brushed produced the fastest laser speeds. We found that the consistent (low Rz), dry EPS surface improved laser speeds while the oil and remaining scale (as found on SCS) reduced the laser speeds. The smoother surface found on EPS brushed and SCS samples did not positively or negatively affect laser speeds. Both EPS and SCS lasered much faster than the HRPO which has an inconsistent (high Rz) and oiled surface. Corrosion Test: The EPS results were significantly better than the SCS results. We found that smoother and oiled surfaces resulted in no significant affect. It can be noted that a leaner paint prep would show improved results with a dry surface but this leaner paint prep variable was not included in this test. Adhesion Test: The EPS results were significantly better than the SCS results. We also found that the oil had no affect but the smoother brushed EPS surface produced 20% worse adhesion than EPS without brushing. For the best combination of laser speeds, paint corrosion and adhesion test results, EPS Dry (without brushing) is the best material.

H1. LASER CUTTING SPEED

The trial objectives were to:

1. Assess the sensitivity of maximum achievable laser cutting speed to surface roughness and presence/absence of an oil coating.

2. Compare the laser cutting performance of the EPS-processed material with previously established cutting performance of commercial-quality acid-pickled HRPO of the same thickness.

3. Determine a systematic procedure for improving laser cutting speed with no attendant loss of cut quality.

The trials were performed by a contract laser cutting firm, Precision Laser Manufacturing (PLM) of East Peoria, Illinois on March 16, 2010. All sample sheet sizes were 48” x 48”.

The surface roughness of each sample sheet was measured in five separate locations (near the center and near each of the four corners) using a stylus profilometer. The measurements were taken after EPS processing and again after subsequent SCS brushing for those sheets receiving brushing.

The table laser unit for the trials used a 4000 watt Rofin-Sinar DC040 head operating with oxygen assist gas. Optimum parameters for lasering 14 gauge HRPO had been established on this unit through experience. The maximum speed at which parts could be cut from HRPO at consistently good quality was determined to be 138 inches per minute.

The standards settings applied for HRPO (focal length, focal point, power and assist gas pressure) were used to make initial part cuts on each of the five sample sheets. The resulting parts were all of excellent quality. Cutting speed was increased until part quality began to deteriorate, then individual laser settings were varied to restore cut quality. Speed was then increased further until cut quality deteriorated and the cycle repeated until further increases in cutting speed were not obtained without losing part quality.

The final laser settings** and maximum cutting speeds for the samples were:

# - Description

Ra

Power

Assist Gas Pressure

Maximum Speed

% Increase Over HRPO

0 – HRPO Reference - - 32% 17.4 psi 138 in./min NA

1 – EPS OILED 130.6 40% 24.7 psi 189 in./min 37%

2 – EPS DRY 120.8 45% 29.0 psi 224 in./min 62%

3 – EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 44% 26.1 psi 213 in./min 54%

4 – EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 44% 29.0 psi 224 in./min 62%

5 – SCS 26.8 44% 30.5 psi 181 in./min 31%

** Focal length was 7.5 inches. Focal point was varied but the same value of 2.0 proved to be optimum for all samples. The same nozzle and oxygen assist gas were used for all trials.

Ideally, a portion of the original coil would have been acid-pickled to yield samples of acid-pickled dry and acid-pickled oiled sheets to use in the tests. This was not practical; however, the SCS reference point is germane here. Multiple laser speed tests of light gauge SCS against acid-pickled and oiled have shown that a laser speed increase of 30% for SCS over the P&O samples is typical. That lends credence to the SCS result and, therefore, to the EPS speed increase results observed here.

Relative speed performance is the important result from these tests, rather than absolute speed performance. Laser systems with a more (or less) advanced laser head carriage/indexing system might achieve a greater (or lesser) absolute speed with acceptable part quality. What is apparent from this testing is the overall cleanliness and uniformity of the EPS surface, especially EPS dry, yielded substantial laser cutting speed increases relative to acid-pickled sheets, whether dry or oiled.

H2. SALT SPRAY TEST - 1008 HOUR The various samples were painted using a commercial powder coat painting system after a 5-stage pretreatment. Average paint coating thickness was measured at eight locations on each sample.

SALT FOG TEST PROCEDURE:

All sample preparation and testing was performed at St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation) accredited laboratory. All samples had a razor-blade scribe cut through the paint to the metal surface. The scribe marks through the paint expose the metal surface directly to the salt spray. This induces rusting and causes the paint to “creep” away from either side of the scribe mark under continued exposure. The distance the paint creeps away from the scribe mark is measured at regular intervals. The panels were placed in a salt fog chamber for continuous exposure beginning April 7, 2010. The standards for sample preparation, operation of the salt fog chamber and measurement of results are:

Test Methods:



Test Start Date:

Test Duration:

ASTM B117-09: Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus

ASTM D 1654-92 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments

5% NaCl – 95% H2O mist at an average 95 F


April 7, 2010 at 8:00 am

1008 hours continuous



6 = 1/16th to 1/8th inch 5 = 1/8th to 3/16th inch 4 = 3/16th to 1/4th inch 3 = 1/4th to 3/8th inch

1008

h

ou

rs

7 8 7 8 7 7 8 9 2 3

840

ho

urs

8 8 7 8 8 7 9 9 6 5

672

ho

urs

8 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 6 6

504

ho

urs

9 9 8 9 9 8 9 9 6 7

384

ho

urs

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9

192

ho

urs

10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 8 9

Pai

nt

Th

ickn

ess

2.9

mils

2.9

mils

2.9

mils

2.9

mils

2.1

mils

2.1

mils

3.1

mils

3.0

mils

3.3

mils

3.2

mils

Ra

130.

6

130.

6

120.

8

120.

8

82.6

82.6

76.6

76.6

26.8

26.8

Des

crip

tio

n

EP

S O

ILE

D

EP

S O

ILE

D

EP

S D

RY

EP

S D

RY

EP

S O

ILE

D B

RU

SH

ED

EP

S O

ILE

D B

RU

SH

ED

EP

S D

RY

BR

US

HE

D

EP

S D

RY

BR

US

HE

D

SC

S

SC

S

Sam

ple

1-1

1-5

2-2

2-5

3-2

3-6

4-2

4-6

5-1

5-2

Cre

ep In

dex

SA

LT

SP

RA

Y T

ES

T R

ES

UL

TS

H3. PAINT ADHESION TEST

The various samples were painted using a commercial powder coat painting system after a 5-stage pretreatment. Average paint coating thickness was measured at eight locations on each sample.

PAINT ADHESION TEST PROCEDURE:

Two samples of each of the EPS and SCS populations were selected for testing at St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an A2LA (American Association for Laboratory Accreditation) accredited laboratory. A hydraulic coating adhesion tester was used to gradually increase the pulling force on a 20 millimeter diameter circular patch on the sample. Three tests were performed on each sample following the standard ASTM D 4541-02 “Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers.”

If the coating remains intact up to a pull tension of 1000 psi, the coating is considered “PASSED”; however, pulling tension was increased on all tests until the coating failed and the methods of failure recorded. The possible methods of failure are:

Adhesive - coating separates from the substrate

Cohesive - top layer(s) of coating separate from lower layers

Tests conducted at 72° F and 50% relative humidity yielded the following results.

Sample

Description

Ra

Paint Thickness

Tension At Failure

Failure Mode

1-3 EPS OILED 130.6 2.4 mils 1312 psi cohesive

1-6 EPS OILED 130.6 3.1 mils 1945 psi cohesive

2-1 EPS DRY 120.8 3.0 mils 1920 psi cohesive

2-6 EPS DRY 120.8 2.6 mils 1606 psi cohesive

3-1 EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 2.2 mils 1369 psi cohesive

3-3 EPS OILED BRUSHED 82.6 1.9 mils 1440 psi cohesive

4-3 EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 3.2 mils 1289 psi cohesive

4-5 EPS DRY BRUSHED 76.6 2.7 mils 1547 psi cohesive

5-3 SCS 26.8 3.3 mils 788 psi adhesive

5-5 SCS 26.8 2.4 mils 1101 psi adhesive

I. COMPARISON OF RESIDUAL SCALE AFTER PICKLING: EPS VS. ACID PICKLING .

The EPS process performs a ‘mechanical pickling’ of hot rolled steel, very different than traditional acid pickling, yet capable of achieving the level of scale (oxide) removal customary for acid pickling. This was established through analysis of a number of samples of EPS-processed and acid-pickled material in March 2011.

To characterize EPS scale removal over a range of material thickness, samples were obtained from two different coils:

- a ‘thin’ strip having thickness 0.106” (12 gauge) - a ’thick’ strip having thickness 0.242”

Sections of both the thick and thin strips were run through the EPS process at different speeds – a ‘normal’ production speed and a considerably slower speed (the EPS processing was performed on a single EPS cell that is 26’-10” long). This was done to see if the greater exposure to the slurry stream that accompanies a slower speed would show measurably different extent of scale removal.

In addition, the EPS samples were taken from both the center of the strip and near the edge of the strip in order to rule out variation in scale removal across the width of the strip as a factor.

The comparison group of acid pickled strip samples covered a range of thickness comparable to the EPS samples. The acid pickled samples originated from a variety of different picklers, as indicated in the table below.

TEST PROCEDURE:

First, surface roughness testing was performed on the samples using a Mitutoyo Surftest 201 profilometer. Average of the measured Ra values is reported below.

Next, a cross section was removed from each sample, then encapsulated in bakelite which was hardened to rigidly fix the cross section in place. These samples were then ground and polished in accordance with ASTM E 3-0. Each sample was then examined under high magnification and the thickness of any observed scale layer measured in accordance with ASTM B 487-85, cross sectional measurement by optical microscopy.

All sample preparation and measurement was performed by St. Louis Testing Laboratories, an independent metallurgical testing lab accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation.

Test Methods:

ASTM E 3-01 (2007)e1: Standard Guide for Preparation of Metallographic Specimens

ASTM 487-85 (2007): Standard Test Method for Measurement of Metal and Oxide Coating Thickness by Microscopical Examination of a Cross Section

SCALE THICKNESS MEASUREMENT RESULTS:

Avg

. S

urf

ace

Ro

ug

hn

ess,

R

A

(mic

ro in

che

s)

64.3

71.8

63.2

75.4

68.7

83.9

70.6

71.7

56.3

45.8

80.8

75.5

84.9

Avg

. S

cale

T

hic

knes

s

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

Min

. S

cale

T

hic

knes

s

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

< 0

.000

1"

Max

. S

cale

T

hic

knes

s

0.00

02"

0.00

04"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

02"

0.00

01"

0.00

01"

0.00

02"

0.00

03"

0.00

02"

0.00

02"

0.00

02"

Per

cen

t S

urf

ace

Are

a W

ith

Sca

le

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

min

imal

Tak

en

Fro

m

cent

er

edge

cent

er

edge

cent

er

edge

cent

er

edge

EP

S L

ine

S

pee

d

(ft/

min

)

45 45 20 20 25 25 12 12

Str

ip

Th

ickn

ess

0.10

6"

0.10

6"

0.10

6"

0.10

6"

0.24

2"

0.24

2"

0.24

2"

0.24

2"

0.09

7"

0.10

0"

0.10

6"

0.13

8"

0.24

5"

Sam

ple

EP

S-1

EP

S-2

EP

S-3

EP

S-4

EP

S-5

EP

S-6

EP

S-7

EP

S-8

AP

-1

AP

-2

AP

-3

AP

-4

AP

-5

acid

pic

kled

at

st

eel m

ill #

1

acid

pic

kled

at

a

tol

l pic

kler

acid

pic

kled

at

st

eel m

ill #

2

acid

pic

kled

at

a

serv

ice

cent

er

acid

pick

led

at

stee

l mill

#3

SCALE THICKNESS MEASUREMENT CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the various scale thickness measurements shows that EPS processed strip run at its normal production leaves a residual scale amount comparable to that of acid pickling:

- average max. thickness of 4 EPS normal speed samples = 0.000225”

- average max. thickness of the 5 acid pickled samples = 0.000220”

Slowing the EPS line speed such that exposure to the slurry stream is roughly doubled has the effect of halving the residual scale thickness:

- average max. thickness of the 4 EPS half speed samples = 0.0001”

J. ASSESSMENT OF EPS vs. ACID PICKLED IN COLD ROLLING AND SUBSEQUENT GALVANIZING, CONDUCTED BY ACESCO In the second half of 2010, an extensive evaluation was performed on a coil of SAE 1008 hot rolled steel that underwent EPS processing and subsequent cold rolling and galvanizing. The same cold reduction and galvanizing were performed on a coil of comparable material that had been acid pickled, to afford a ‘side-by-side’ comparison of the EPS pickled steel and acid pickled steel. The cold reduction and galvanizing, as well as all metallurgical evaluations, were performed by Acesco, a leading flat rolled steel processor and supplier of metal building products in Columbia, South America. The following report is a direct translation of Acesco’s summary report, authored by Jairo Gómez, Paolo Puccini, Carlos Barrios, Franco Rachello, Fredy Leal, and Manuel Muñoz:

“ASSESSMENT OF THE “ECO PICKLED SURFACE (EPS)” PROCESS AS A CLEAN ALTERNATIVE FOR SUBSTITUTING PICKLING WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID

As part of the assessment process of a viable and clean alternative that displaces the use of hydrochloric acid for pickling hot rolled steel destined for cold rolling, a hot rolled SAE 1008 steel coil was pickled at the TMW plant using acid free slurry blasting. This coil was then sent to Colombia for reducing its thickness in a reversible mill and continuous galvanizing by hot immersion. This report explains the entire test, beginning with the pickling (EPS) of the coil, moving on to rolling the material, and finally the galvanizing process. Study for confirming the chemical composition of the steel and determining surface roughness and appearance were performed in Acesco's laboratories. 1. EPS PICKLING

On 26 July 2010 pickling was performed on a SAE 1008 hot rolled coil using EPS “slurry blasting”. Coil specifications were: thickness 2.89 mm, width 1524 mm and weight 21.8 Ton. EPS pickling was performed in the TMW processing center located in the city of Red Bud, Illinois, United States.

Table 1

Chemical composition and hardness of the coil pickled for Acesco

Coil C Mn P S Si Al N Hardnes

SAE 1008 0.07 0.38 0.011 0.008 0.007 0.036 0.0050 70 HRB

Figure 1 shows a schematic of the line where EPS pickling was performed, which consisted of running the material through a push-pull EPS line, comprised of two pickling cells, each equipped with four 125 horsepower ‘slurry turbines’ - two on the upper face and two on the lower face for directing the slurry towards the surface of the steel. The two cells have a recirculation system that controls the temperature of the slurry, filters it and separates fine and coarse grit, as well as the scale removed from the surface of the hot rolled steel that has been pickled.

Figure 2: Coil After EPS Processing

After pickling the steel with EPS, the 1524 mm wide coil was slit and converted into a 1220 mm wide coil with a weight of 17400 Kg. and two 268 mm wide mults with a weight of 4400 Kg.

The material was shipped back to Acesco, where it was cold rolled and reduced to 1.12 mm and then galvanized to a final thickness of 1.15 mm.

The 268 mm mults will be formed into 150 mm purlins.

2. CHARACTERIZATION OF EPS HOT ROLLED COIL

Characterization of the surface of the material was performed for the purpose of comparing this surface with one obtained through acid pickling. A rougher and more uniform surface was apparent in the material pickled with EPS, as shown in Figure 3 below:

FIGURE 1: Diagram of the EPS Process

Average roughness (Ra) (m)

EPS Sheet Acid sheet

CS CI CS CI

1.95 1.90 1.30 1.24 2.04 2.02 1.25 1.33 2.21 1.76 1.50 1.37 2.17 1.89 1.42 1.30 1.90 1.66 1.33 1.24

Figure 3: Surface Appearance and Roughness of Materials at 50X Magnification

EPS Pickled Acid Pickled

3. COLD REDUCING THE EPS COIL

On November 30, four months after being EPS pickled, the coil was cold reduced to bring the material from 2.896 mm to 1.12 mm thickness. As a relevant observation, no surface oxidation was detected when the material was being reduced, despite the fact that this steel was not oiled after being pickled by EPS. See figure 4.

Figure 4: Surface conditions of EPS material on first pass through the reversible mill. Left photo shows coil prior to first pass (note no oxidation). Right photo is after first pass. The steel was reduced to 1.12 mm in 5 passes with mill forces reaching up to 1000 tons, but it is necessary to note that this steel was SAE 1008 with hardness between 70 and 72 HRB.

Table 2

Summary of cold reduction loads, thickness, % reduction and speed

Pass Thicknessmm

Reduction%

ForceTon

Speed mpm

1 2.632 9 531 892 2.132 19 757 3003 1.727 19 882 2084 1.399 19 944 2355 1.120 20 962 206

With respect to the roughness of the EPS material after cold reduction, we can state that no difference was observed between the cold reduced EPS and cold reduced material from pickling in an acid medium. Table 3 shows the measured roughness values for both the EPS and the acid pickled materials.

Table 3

Comparative, roughness of cold rolled steel coming from EPS and acid pickling

Average roughness (Ra) (m)

EPS Sheet Acid sheet

0.44 0.49 0.51 0.590.50 0.54 0.52 0.550.49 0.51

4. EPS COIL GALVANIZING

During the hot immersion galvanizing process for the EPS coil, the material did not present any issues and was processed at 25 tons hour. The spangle obtained in this steel was uniform and compared to the acid pickled material galvanized coils of the same thickness (1.15 mm) that preceded it, the EPS coil spangle smaller and more homogeneous, as shown in See Figure 6.

Figure 5: Photographs of the galvanizing process for the EPS coil. Left photo is the cold rolled EPS steel entering the galvanizing line. Right photo is the material after the exit accumulator.

Figure 6: Photographs of the appearance of galvanized spangle

EPS Acid Pickled

5 mm 5 mm

5. CONCLUSIONS

a) The EPS process ensures, just as pickling with acid does, surface cleaning of hot rolled steel.

b) Steel pickled with the EPS process presents greater surface roughness and homogeneity compared to material pickled with acid.

c) For this test, steel that was pickled with the EPS process, was cold reduced and galvanized without problems.

d) Galvanizing spangle in the material pickled with the EPS process, was smaller and more homogeneous than the galvanizing spangle in the material coming from acid pickling.

e) A door has been opened to alternatives that reduce impact on the environment by not using acid, because the EPS pickling process is clean and its by-products are easily recyclable.

f) An EPS pickling line for our production is 70 meters shorter than the process for pickling with acid and services for an EPS pickling line are less complex and dangerous.

END OF REPORT”

Regarding the rust resistance of the EPS coil which was the subject of this trial, it is noteworthy that the coil was transported via ocean-going container with no special packaging and experienced practically no rusting at all. The exact chronology of the material is as follows:

Coil was originally processed as EPS DRY on 07/26/2010

Coil was full paper wrapped in TMW standard white packaging paper. No shrink wrap or VCI film used.

Coil stored in TMW inventory.

Coil was slit and broke in half on 08/31/2010

Slit coils were full paper wrapped in TMW standard white packaging paper. No shrink wrap or VCI film used.

Coils stored in TMW inventory.

Coils were loaded into the container and left TMW 10/07/2010.

Coils were taken to New York to be loaded onto Ocean Vessel by 10/13/2010.

Booking confirmation we received estimates ETA in Colombia was 11/5/2010.

Coils stored in Acesco inventory.

Coils processed by Acesco on cold mill on 11/30/2010.

After 127 days of storage and overseas transportation the EPS Dry coils remained rust free. A few small patches of rust were observed on the outside wrap where there had been contact with water. The remainder of the coils were rust free.

K. HOT DIP GALVANIZING TRIAL: EPS OF VARYING ROUGHNESS

SMS SIEMAG of Hilden, Germany, working closely with a European galvanizer, sponsored a trial in which an EPS-processed coil was hot dip galvanized and the characteristics of the galvanized coating evaluated. The trials were conducted in 2013, with the coil being EPS-processed in the US in April, arriving in Europe in July and being galvanized in August. Material specs are as follows:

- Grade: European Standard S355 - min. yield 355 MPa (51,500 psi)

- Strip size: 1106 mm X 1.99 mm (43.5” x 0.0783”)

- Average Ra: 2.45 µm (96 microinches) after EPS processing

- Coil kept dry – no oil or coating after EPS processing

After the dry EPS coil arrived at the European galvanizer, the EPS’d coil was slit into 5 mults. 4 of the 5 mults were then dry reduced in a skin pass mill leaving only 1 mult having the original EPS surface (this one mult having the original EPS surface roughness is designated as ‘mult 5’ in the table below). All five mults were then run through the galvanizing line with zinc coating thickness set to Z275, which corresponds to 137.5 g/m2 per side (equivalent to US spec G90). The strip cleaning section before the zinc bath consisted of a spray degreasing section followed by an electrolytic degreasing section followed by a water rinse followed by a pre-treatment of a dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution. The zinc bath had an aluminum content of 0.18% (by weight). The average incoming strip temperature was 475 °C (887 °F) which closely matched the average zinc bath temperature of 464 °C (867 °F). The average process speed of galvanizing was 62 m/min (200 ft/min.) The measured characteristics of the mults, before and after galvanizing, are as follows:

Mult

Skin Pass

Rolling Force,

kN (lbs.)

Avg. Thickness After

Skin Pass

Average Ra

Prior to Galvanizing

Galvanized Coating Appearance

1 160 kN (36,000 lbs.) 1.97 mm (0.078”) 1.88 µm (74 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’

2 350 kN (78,700 lbs) 1.91 mm (0.075”) 1.53 µm (60 µin) uniform, ‘grainy dull’



5 NA 1.99 mm (0.078”) 2.45 µm (96 µin) uniform, more dull

It was also observed that the appearance of the galvanized finish of the mult with the original (higher Ra) EPS surface was slightly more dull than the mults that had undergone a skin pass surface smoothing. A ‘punch ball’ impact test was performed on galvanized samples taken from all 5 mults. In this test, a special apparatus is used to drop a large bearing ball onto the sample in a controlled, repeatable manner. The impact of the ball makes a pronounced protrusion in the sample as shown below. After reviewing all test results, SMS-SIEMAG offered the following conclusions:

1. “EPS-processed steel offers very good performance for hot dip galvanizing.”

2. “It presents a very uniform, ‘tight’ finish with excellent adhesion.”

3. “There is no indication that EPS-processed steel is susceptible to Iron-Zinc-

alloying (similar to a Galvannealed surface).”

4. “The EPS descaling process can be combined with a hot strip galvanizing line

in place of an acid pickling section.”

This test determines how well the zinc coating adheres to the surface of the protrusion where the material has been stretch-deformed by the impact, and some ‘flaking off’ of the zinc coating is likely. Optical evaluation of the zinc coating on samples from the ‘smoothed’ (skin passed) mults were all evaluated as ‘excellent’, and from the original EPS (higher Ra) mult as ‘good’. (The test standard rating scale is “excellent”, “good”, “acceptable”, “unacceptable” and “poor”.)

L. STAMPING/ROLLFORMING TRIALS OF EPS, CONDUCTED BY HUTCHENS INDUSTRIES, INC.

In early 2008, 14 coils totaling 537,000 lbs. of hot rolled strip were EPS-processed for use by Hutchens Industries, Incorporated in their Seymour, Missouri facility. Hutchens manufactures over-the-road trailer suspensions, subframes and slider systems. Two particular parts – a long, channel shaped body rail and a rocker side plate – were produced using the EPS-processed material, whereas these parts are normally produced from acid-pickled and oiled strip (HRPO). The EPS strip supplied to Hutchens included six (6) coils 52.125” wide and eight (8) coils 40.375” wide, all 0.232” thick. The coils were slit at the Seymour plant for use in the subsequent operations. Six (6) coils were run through a rollformer to produce the body rails. The remaining eight (8) coils were run through an 800 ton stamping press to produce the rocker side plates. Both the stamping press and the rollformer employed a water-based synthetic lubricant. After their operations, the parts were cleaned in a paint pre-treatment system to remove all contaminants from the fabricating processes, as well as the oil applied as the final step of the EPS processing. The parts were then primed using a water-based primer. Hutchens Industries concluded that EPS-processed material was completely interchangeable with the HRPO they normally use. The Hutchen’s Corporate Quality Manager stated:

“In talking with the production managers from the Die Shop to Finish, no one sees any problems using this material. Also, the surface texture seems to accommodate our primer processes well. We did not see any problems with the application or have heard any negative feedback of the parts we have shipped to this date. Therefore, Productivity/Quality would accept the EPS material in the usages as we are currently using P&O.”

M. PRESS BRAKE TOOLING WEAR TRIALS OF EPS, CONDUCTED BY DEJONG MANUFACTURING, INC.

In October 2008, DeJong Manufacturing, Inc., a contract manufacturer from Sharon, Iowa conducted side-by-side forming trials of these three materials:

- EPS-processed mild steel with a completely clean surface - EPS-processed mild steel with a moderate coating of oil - Hot Roll Black mild steel with an untreated surface

The objective was to form approximately 4000 of the same part from each of these materials on a DeJong press brake. The blanks used were all 4.0” x 7.7” and 0.250” thick. There were two 90 bends to be made in each blank, so the total number of bends for each material would be approximately 8000. Three identical tool steel bottom dies were obtained for the trial - a different die to use with each of the three different materials. After the 4000 parts (8000 bends) were made using EPS dry, the forming die was replaced with a new die to use for the 4000 parts from EPS oiled, and so on. When all the parts were run, the three dies were set side-by-side for inspection. Matt DeJong describes his observations on die wear as follows:

“As far as EPS dry vs. EPS oiled, believe it or not we could not tell a difference in tool wear. I would have thought the EPS oiled would have looked better after 8000 strokes (two bends per part), but it didn’t. The most surprising result was the HR Black (nice smooth USX hr black finish) as it had significantly more tooling wear than the EPS product. I would have thought the rougher (higher Ra) EPS surface would have been harsher on the tool. All in all, I’m very much impressed with what EPS we’ve used and have NO CONCERSN OR ISSUES. All is positive, no negatives.”

The following page shows high magnification photos of the primary wear surfaces of the three separate bottom dies. The additional wear on the dies used for bending hot roll black is evident, compared to the dies used for EPS dry and EPS oiled parts.

EPS Dry

EPS w/ Oil

Hot Roll Black

eps end use and application test resultsan eps producer sought to gain approval from general motors...

Documents