GFGSDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223804945

Evaluation of pre-treatment processes for HRS (hot rolled steel) in powder


coating

Article  in  Progress in Organic Coatings · April 2008


DOI: 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2007.10.004

CITATIONS READS

18 1,118

2 authors, including:

Banihan Gunay
Universiteti Metropolitan Tirana
61 PUBLICATIONS   506 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Average Speed Detection by Mobile ANPR View project

Route Rationality Scales in Urban Areas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Banihan Gunay on 05 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Evaluation of pre-treatment processes for HRS


(hot rolled steel) in powder coating
Bulent Tepe ∗ , Banihan Gunay
University of Ulster, Faculty of Engineering, Jordanstown BT37 0QB, N. Ireland, UK
Received 5 July 2007; received in revised form 3 October 2007; accepted 4 October 2007

Abstract
Hot rolled steel (HRS) is used extensively in the automotive, agricultural and appliance industries. The corrosive response of HRS was investigated
after it had been exposed to various surface treatments, prior to powder coating. The behaviour of three conversion coatings: zinc phosphate (ZnP),
iron phosphate (FeP) and zirconium (Zr)-based nano-scaled, on HRS was studied. HRS is naturally covered with iron oxide scale and this was
removed from the surface by mechanical and chemical processes, prior to the application of surface treatment and organic coatings. The following
tests on differently treated panels were conducted to evaluate corrosion performance: adhesion tests such as, crosshatch, pull-off, and conical
bending, SEM, XPS, salt spray and electro-chemical impedance studies were also performed. Good correlations were recorded showing that zinc
phosphate conversion coating gave the best performance, and zirconium-based nano-structured conversion coating, was superior to that of iron
phosphate conversion coatings on HRS.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Coatings; Conversion coatings; Hot rolled steel; Phosphating; Oxide scale

1. Introduction cant properties, earns them a significant role in the automobile,


process and appliance industries [6–8]. However, high-running
Powder coating applications on steel are increasing in pop- costs and concerns about the toxicity and eutrophication effect
ularity as they eliminate volatile organic compounds (VOCs), of phosphating waste, made necessary for manufacturers to seek
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and solvents, to produce a alternative cost-effective and environmentally friendly conver-
superior surface finish, resistant to corrosion with the poten- sion coatings.
tial to withstand daily use for a lifetime. Therefore, powder The new pre-treatment methods are promoted as providing
coating is widely used on HRS engineering components. To equivalent or superior performance to the conventional phos-
increase the effectiveness of the powder coatings, surface prepa- phating methods. These nano-structured conversion coatings can
ration by cleaning and conversion coating is required. This be applied at a number of points in the pre-treatment process.
ensures good adhesion between the substrate and coatings and Most of these newly developed conversion coatings are based
increases corrosion and blister resistance [1]. Conversion coat- on zirconium (Zr) and coating thickness are nano-meter level
ings can be divided into three categories: chromate, phosphate compared to micrometer level phosphating coating. According
and a less well defined and still emerging class of an environ- to Newhart, the thickness of the zirconium-based conversion
mentally friendly type, that contain little or no phosphate or layer is between 20 nm and 25 nm [9]. Schram et al. have used
chromate [2]. The main pre-treatments for steel are iron and spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE) for studying the thickness of
zinc phosphate; both types are used widely in industry [3–5]. the zirconium-based conversion layer; they have reported that it
Their economy of phosphating, speed of operation and ability is less than 10 nm [10].
to afford excellent corrosion resistance, adhesion and lubri- During the last few decades the range of products applied
to hot rolled steel (HRS) has increased considerably [11]. Hot
rolled steel is mainly used for producing sheet metal by passing
∗ Corresponding author.
a slab of steel between rollers, at high temperature, which trans-
E-mail addresses: tepe-b@ulster.ac.uk (B. Tepe), b.gunay@ulster.ac.uk forms it into sheet metal. Because of the high rolling temperature
(B. Gunay). HRS is naturally covered with iron oxide scale. Iron scales

0300-9440/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.porgcoat.2007.10.004
B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144 135

formed at temperatures above 570 ◦ C have three different scale mance of the pre-treatments of cold rolled steel and hot dipped
layers: wustite (Fe1 O), magnetite (Fe3 O4 ) and hematite (Fe2 O3 ) galvanized steel.
[12,13]. Oxide scale on the surface is not a continuous layer and
does not represent a protective barrier. Loosely adhered oxide 2. Experimental set-up
scale on HRS is prone to chips and will crack under impact and
in environmental conditions such as heat and humidity. The 2.1. Sample preparation
oxide scale on the surface provides cathodic protection and steel
substrate acts as anode. If there are any breaks on the oxide scale Hot rolled steel (HRS) and hot rolled steel, pickled and
layer the electrochemical action causes steel substrate to corrode oiled (HRS-P), were used for the experiment. Test panels were
without affecting the oxide scale [14]. Application of powder prepared according to ASTM 609 [24] and profiled in turret
coating over HRS surfaces that have not had the scale removed punching machines. Fig. 1 shows a test panel. HRS test panels
is very likely to result in adhesion failure. Therefore, oxide scale were cut from 3 mm thick sheets, HRS-P test panels were cut
on HRS should be removed prior to surface treatment or coat- from 2 mm thickness sheet. Some of the surface investigations
ings. This is usually done by chemical or mechanical methods or such as SEM and XPS experiments were conducted on test pan-
a combination of both [15]. Chemical cleaning using acids such els measuring 10 mm × 10 mm. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. After
as HCl, H2 SO4 , and H3 PO4 is a very effective method for the pre-treatment in different conditions, a side cutter was used to
removal of rust and mill scale [16,17]. The general mechanism cut these small test panels. These samples were suitable for SEM
to remove oxide scale is where acid penetrates through cracks and XPS studies.
and the hydrogen gas pressure increases to a point where the Oxide scale on hot rolled steel was removed by shot blasting
scale is blown off the metal surface. This method is known as and acid pickling. Panels were blasted in a monorail conveyor
“pickling” and sulphuric acid is commonly employed in this type of shot blasting machine and afterwards the surface rough-
process. Bhushan and Gupta [5] and Cheng et al. [18] have ness was recorded in Ra (note that Ra is the arithmetic mean of
studied the process of acid pickling, using warm sulphuric acid the absolute departures of the roughness profile from the mean
(H2 SO4 ) that was used for reference chemical cleaning in this line). Table 1 shows shot blasted test panels.
study. Brushing and blasting is an effective mechanical cleaning The acid pickling process was achieved in a spray cabinet.
method for oxide scale cleaning. However, because brushing is Acid solution was prepared by using 10% (v/v) H2 SO4 , and the
labour intensive it is at a disadvantage to the blasting process. solution heated to 60 ◦ C. The test panels were sprayed for 30 min
Blasting is the most popular process to clean oxide scale on then rinsed with deionised water. Table 2 shows the test panel
HRS. In this study blasting has been used for mechanical used in this paper.
cleaning.
The purpose of the present paper is to evaluate zinc phosphate, 2.2. Pre-treatment
iron phosphate and zirconium-based nano-scaled conversion
coating on HRS. Other authors have studied pre-treatment pro- Prior to the powder coating phase, a pre-treatment phase was
cesses on steel and its alloys [10,19–22]. However, there has been administered by five stages commonly used in phosphating in
nothing specific undertaken on HRS. The corrosion and adhesion industry: cleaning, rinsing, conversion coating, rinsing, and pas-
resistance of the conversion coatings on HRS was correlated by sivation. During this study the average size of a pre-treatment
using different test methods. Many authors have used salt spray plant was taken as a reference. Table 3 shows pre-treatment
and electrochemical methods for corrosion study [10,22]. Tang stages and zone lengths. It has been considered that it was a con-
et al. [23] have used the EIS method to investigate the perfor- veyor line and line speed as 2400 mm/min. According to this line

Fig. 1. Punched test panels.


136 B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Table 1
Shot blasted test panels
Test panel Measurement reading 1 Measurement reading 2 Measurement reading 3 Measurement reading 4 Average Standard deviation

S0 7.3 5.8 7.3 6.9 6.8 0.7


S1 6.6 4.3 5.7 7.1 5.9 1.2
S2 6.4 9.4 9.3 8.1 8.3 1.4
S3 7 7.3 6.5 6.2 6.8 0.5
S4 6.5 8.1 7.2 6.5 7.1 0.8
S5 7.3 7.3 6.1 6.9 6.9 0.6
S6 8.2 5.6 7.6 8 7.2 1.2
S7 6.2 6.3 6.9 6.1 6.4 0.4
S8 6.5 8.1 7.3 6.8 7.2 0.7
S9 7.3 7.9 6.9 8.1 7.6 0.6

Table 2 Table 4
Test panels used in the study Coating weights
Type of test panel Process prior to Legends Coating type Coating weight
pre-treatment
Zinc phosphate 2.54 g/m2
HRS (hot rolled steel) Shot blasted S0–S9 Iron phosphate 0.65 g/m2
HRS (hot rolled steel) Acid pickling E0–E9 Nano-scale Unknown
HRS-P (hot rolled steel pickled and oiled) P0–P9

ASTM 5402 [25] for curing; the MEK solvent rub test was used.
speed, contact time of each stage was calculated and it has been Average powder coating thickness was kept between 60 ␮m and
simulated in a small spray cabinet. After alkaline cleaning and 70 ␮m. For electrochemical impedance, test panels were coated
rinsing (first stage), a water break test was conducted for clean- with 40 ␮m thickness powder paint.
liness of surface. The coating weight for zinc-phosphate and
iron-phosphate was measured according to Eq. (1). The weights 2.4. Adhesion test
of phosphated test panels were recorded in gram (W1 ) and the
panels were cleaned by using 6% by volume hydrochloric acid Adhesion testing was conducted according to ASTM D4541
(HCl) then their weights were recorded in gram (W2 ). From the [26] pull-off and ASTM D3359 [27] tape test and ASTM D522
change of panels’ weights, the weight of the coating per unit [28] conical mandrel test. A Zwick tensile testing instrument is
area (g/m2 ) was calculated. Table 4 shows coating weight for used for the pull-off method to measure the lift force required to
test panels used in this study. pull a small area of coating away from the base metal. A dolly
W2 − W 1 was attached by adhesive (epoxy araldite) to the coating. After
Coating weight (g/m2 ) = (1) curing, the coating was cut around the base of dolly. The dolly
coated area (m2 )
and test panels were attached by jig to the upper and lower jaw
of the tensile test machine. 0.5 mm/min speed was applied and
2.3. Paint system maximum force was recorded on breakage point. The percent-
age of paint lifting and maximum force was recorded. For tape
After pre-treatment and dry-off process, all test panels were testing, cross-cut technique was used as stated on ASTM 3359
painted in an electrostatic powder coating booth. White indus- [27] method B. ElcometerTM cross-cut blades were used in this
trial TGIC free polyester powder coating was used. Coated test test. Classifications of adhesion tape test result were recorded
panels were stowed for 20 min in a curing oven at 200 ◦ C. After according to test method. A 1 mm spacing crosshatch cutter
the coating process some of the panels were tested according to with six cutting edges was used for this test. ASTM D522 [28]

Table 3
Pre-treatment stages
Process type Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Dry off oven

Zone length (m) 6.00 1.50 6.00 1.50 2.40 12


Time (s) 150 38 150 38 60 300
Zinc phosphate Alkaline cleaning Tap water rinse Conversion coat zinc Tap water rinse Passivation (ambient Drying (135 ◦ C)
(45 ◦ C) (ambient temperature) phosphate (45 ◦ C) (ambient temperature) temperature)
Iron phosphate Alkaline cleaning Tap water rinse Conversion coat iron Tap water rinse Passivation (ambient Drying (135 ◦ C)
(45 ◦ C) (ambient temperature) phosphate (45 ◦ C) (ambient temperature) temperature)
Nano-structured Alkaline cleaning Tap water rinse DI water rinse Conversion coat DI water rinse Drying (135 ◦ C)
(45 ◦ C) (ambient temperature) (ambient temperature) nano-structured (ambient temperature)
(ambient temperature)
B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144 137

conical mandrel testing was conducted. Test panels for a con- coated test samples have a hydrophobic surface. A thin layer
ical mandrel test were ground down to 0.8 mm thickness prior of coating was lifted by using very fine emery paper, which
to pre-treatment and powder coating. This is stated in ASTM allowed the surface to absorb NaCl solution on to the painted
D522 [28] standard. Then a powder coated HRS sheet was bent surface.
over a conical mandrel and the coating observed for cracks and
discolouration. 3. Results and discussion

2.5. Salt spray test 3.1. Surface morphology

Neutral salt spray testing was conducted according to ASTM The results of the cleaning process of oxide scale and con-
B117 [29] in Q-FOGTM CCT 600 neutral salt fog cyclic corro- version coatings used in this study was observed by using
sion tester. Salt spray testing was conducted for all test samples scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Fig. 3A illustrates the
until failure or 1000 h if no failure occurred. An “X” incision chemical cleaning of oxide scale with 10% (v/v) hot sulphuric
was scribed through the coating by using (ElcometerTM scriber) acid. Acid pickling is an effective chemical cleaning process for
making sure that the coating was scribed all the way to the sub- the removal of oxide scale however, it was recorded that some
strate. The test panels were reported for surface corrosion and oxide scale remained on the surface as shown in Fig. 3A. This
creepage from the scribe at 250 h, 500 h, 750 h and 1000 h. If residue could be avoided by increasing the spray time in the
creepage on any of the panels was over 3 mm from the scribe, spray cabinet.
testing for those panels was ended and reported as a failure before Fig. 3B and C shows samples after zinc phosphate pre-
the end of the test period. Ratings based on creepage from the treatment; the samples were used as delivered from the supplier
scribe were detailed on a report sheet. and did not have the oxide scale removed. It is necessary to
remove oxide scale prior to coating as it was found that it
2.6. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) prevents zinc phosphate crystallization and in the dry-off after
the pre-treatment process, oxide scale cracks; this is shown in
On each differently pre-treated test panel one cylindrical tube Fig. 3B. The method of shot blasting to remove oxide scale on
of a transparent acrylic tube was fixed by using an epoxy (epoxy HRS was successful but 20–25% of oxide scale still remained on
araldite) adhesive. The geometrical area for impedance measure- the surface. Fig. 3E shows that shot blasted test samples still have
ments was 10 cm2 . The electrochemical tests were conducted some oxide scale on the surface. Fig. 3D and F shows typical
with 0.5% wt. NaCl solution. A three electrodes electrochem- zinc and iron phosphate coating. It is clearly shown that the zinc
ical cell was formed with a platinum mesh counter electrode phosphated test panel had some pores, voids on the surface, due
(CE) fixed on a rubber bund, which was fixed on an acrylic to the remaining oxide scale. Contrary to the zinc phosphated
tube. The working electrode was attached (WE) on a differently panels, iron phosphated panels displayed good surface coverage
pre-treated test panel (pre-treated and powder coated HRS). The (Fig. 3F).
potentials were measured and referred (RE) to a (SCE), saturated X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was carried out
calomel reference electrode (4 M KCl). Schematic electrochem- using a Kratos Axis Ultra DLD spectrometer for qualitative
ical experiment set-up is shown in Fig. 2. analysis of the nano-scaled conversion coating and oxide scale.
All EIS studies were performed using a Solartron 1260 fre- In the SEM study for nano-scaled conversion coating, it was
quency response analyser, Solartron 1287 potentiostat and a not possible to quantify deposition on the substrate because of
PC. Impedance data were collected at frequencies ranging from its nano-scaled coating characteristic. Therefore, an XPS study
104 Hz to 10−1 Hz. The experimental impedance was inter- was initiated. Fig. 4 shows XPS study for nano-scaled conver-
preted in ZPlot electrochemical impedance software. All the tests sion coating were it can be seen that zirconium and fluoride was
were conducted at room temperature (20 ± 2 ◦ C). The powder deposited on the surface because fluorozirconic acid (H2 ZrF6 )
was used in the nano-scaled conversion coating composition.
Zirconium and fluoride content is shown in Table 5. Zr content
for HRS-P test panels was found to be the highest. This could
result from the fact that the surface of the HRS-P test panels was
free from oxide scale (Fig. 5). Compared to salt spray results
HRS-P test panels performed better with Zr-based coating. This
could be attributed to the Zr content on HRS-P test panels being

Table 5
XPS quantification data (at.% concentration) for nano-scaled conversion
coatings
HRS shot blasted (%) HRS-P (%) HRS acid pickled (%)

Zr 3d 2.44 9.04 1.6


Fig. 2. Electrochemical impedance experiment set-up (RE: reference electrode, F 1s 1.3 3.68 0.86
CE: counter electrode, WE: work electrode).
138 B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Fig. 3. SEM study.

more than on acid pickled and shot blasted HRS test panels. Binding energy values of Fe 2p3/2 and Fe 2p1/2 indicated
More Zr deposition took place on HRS-P panels were the con- existence of oxide scale magnetite (Fe3 O4 ) and hematite
tent of Zr (9.04%) and salt spray results were very good. Most (Fe2 O3 ) [30,31]. Fig. 5 shows XPS spectra of oxide scale
of the test panels exceeded 500 salt spray hours; some of the test layer. The XPS survey scan confirmed that oxide scale
panels reached 750–1000 salt spray hours. remained on HRS shot blasted and acid pickled test pan-
The existence of oxide scale for mechanically and chem- els. However HRS-P test panels were free from oxide
ically cleaned HRS test panels was analysed by using XPS. scale.
B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144 139

Fig. 6. HRS panels after 500 h salt spray test.


Fig. 4. XPS survey scans for nano-scaled conversion coating.

attributed to the remaining oxide scale showing partially de-


cohesive behaviour. Crosshatch results in Table 6 show that
adhesion between substrate and coating was good for all test
panels. No cracking was observed around the conical bend of
the test panels, only powder coating on untreated HRS test
panels was cracked. Poor adhesion due to oxide on the sur-
face between HRS and coating caused this failure. Considering
the results of the pull-off, crosshatch adhesion and conical
mandrel test, there was no evident difference between each
conversion coating and surface oxide cleaning method. Only
the blasted and iron phosphated test sample was below average
readings.

3.3. Salt spray results


Fig. 5. XPS spectra of oxide layer.
The rusting degrees after 1000 h salt spray test are shown
in Table 7. The progress of corrosion on differently treated as
3.2. Adhesion test well as the untreated HRS test samples was evaluated after the
salt spray test. The anticorrosive protection achieved with zinc
Pull-off test results (Table 6) indicated that adhesion of the phosphate was more predominant to that of iron phosphate and
conversion coatings were acceptable. Shot blasted and iron zirconium-based conversion coatings. Some of the acid pickled
phosphated test panels were recorded as under average pull- and blasted test panels failed after 250 h. SEM results shown in
off value. Studying the percentage of area removal in Table 6, Fig. 3 that acid pickling and shot blasting are effective cleaning
removed coating of the blasted and acid pickled HRS test sam- methods for oxide scale, although some oxide scale remains on
ples was more than the HRS-P test samples. This could be the substrate. Iron phosphated HRS-P test panels performed well

Table 6
Pull-off adhesion and crosshatch test results
Test samples Pull-off adhesion test Crosshatch test

Adhesion (MPa) Percentage area removed (%) Classification Percentage area removed

HRS shot blasted ZnP 6.2 50 5B 0%


HRS shot blasted FeP 4.3 60 3B 5–15%
HRS shot blasted Zr-based 7.5 60 4B Less than 5%
HRS acid pickled ZnP 5.1 60 4B Less than 5%
HRS acid pickled FeP 6 35 5B 0%
HRS acid pickled Zr-based 5.4 50 4B Less than 5%
HRS-P ZnP 8 40 4B Less than 5%
HRS-P FeP 6.8 50 4B Less than 5%
HRS-P Zr-based 6.6 50 5B 0%
140 B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Table 7
Salt spray results

over 500 h in the salt spray test, whereas results for acid pickled scale, for adhesion and creepage failure, which were exposed to
and shot blasted panels were very poor. Many of the panels failed 500 h of salt spray testing.
in a 250 h time span. Zirconium-based nano-scaled conversion
coating performed better than that of iron phosphate, and some 3.4. Electrochemical impedance measurements
of the shot blasted and acid pickled panels reached 750 salt spray
hours. Differently pre-treated test samples (Table 8) were immersed
Adhesion failure was recorded on some of the shot blasted and in 5% wt. NaCl electrolyte, and data was collected from electro-
acid pickled panels during the salt spray test. It was shown that chemical impedance measurements (Fig. 9), for each conversion
untreated test panels were prone to failure of adhesion in high coating and oxide cleaning systems. Bode plots display absolute
humidity. Fig. 6 illustrates test panels not cleaned from oxide value of the impedance |Z| ( cm2 ), which was plotted versus the

Fig. 7. The coating resistance of differently pre-treated powder coated samples


during 15 days of immersion in 5% NaCl electrolyte. Fig. 8. Rust spots on shot blasted HRS.
B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144 141

frequency (Hz). The total impedance of test panels defined as |Z| frequency over 104 Hz capacitance was shorted, low frequency
( cm2 ) value, extrapolated to 10−1 Hz. In the Bode magnitude up to 10−1 Hz was used to measure capacitive response. It was
plots, which were used as comparison of each coating system. noted that HRS-P test panels (P7), which were coated with ZnP
Fig. 7 shows impedance |Z| ( cm2 ) at 10−1 Hz. At the high did not show any bode magnitude plot in day 1. This was due

Fig. 9. Nyquist (Z  cm2 vs. Z  cm2 ) and bode (frequency (Hz) vs. |Z|  cm2 ) magnitude plots for differently pre-treated samples. (a) HRS-P FeP conversion
coated samples; (b) HRS-P nano-scaled conversion coated samples; (c) HRS-P ZnP conversion coated samples; (d) HRS acid pickled FeP conversion coated samples;
(e) HRS acid pickled nano-scaled conversion coated samples; (f) HRS acid pickled ZnP conversion coated samples; (g) HRS shot blasted FeP conversion coated
samples; (h) HRS shot blasted nano-scaled conversion coated samples; (i) HRS shot blasted ZnP conversion coated samples.
142 B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Fig. 9. ( Continued )

to conversion coating resistance to permeability. In day 2 it dis- et al [32] high performance coating systems can be categorised
played readings of |Z| 108  cm2 at 10−1 Hz. Also, impedance by high impedance |Z| > 109  cm2 at low frequency <10−2 Hz.
for acid etched and ZnP test panels (E7) were very high and Zinc phosphating exhibited the best corrosion resistance on
recorded 109  cm2 (Fig. 9(f)) in the first 2 days but began to HRS-P and HRS acid pickled test panels as shown in Fig. 9(c)
degrade over the duration of the test. The two samples were an and (f). Capacitive region for those panels at 10−1 Hz was over
indication of good corrosion resistance. According to Granata 108  cm2 and after 15 days immersion in NaCl solution, resis-
B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144 143

Fig. 9. ( Continued ).

tance to corrosion was degraded to around 106  cm2 ; despite tallization of ZnP conversion coating and may have created some
this finding the panels still measured the highest resistance. Shot holes, voids and pores. SEM study in Fig. 3C and D shows
blasted and ZnP conversion coated samples (Fig. 9(i)) did not that ZnP conversion coating on oxide scale was insufficiently
perform as well as other ZnP coated samples due to pores and deposited on the surface after pre-treatment.
voids on the conversion coating surface. Oxide scale on the shot Iron phosphating had mediocre barrier properties compared
blasted surface was not cleaned properly and this prevented crys- to those of other conversion coatings. On iron phosphated test
144 B. Tepe, B. Gunay / Progress in Organic Coatings 62 (2008) 134–144

Table 8 rier against corrosion. It is a newly developed environmentally


Test sampling for electrochemical impedance spectroscopy study friendly conversion coating, suitable for many sectors in engi-
Legend Material and process Coating neering, which are seeking to replace problematic conventional
P1 Iron phosphate (FeP)
conversion coatings. This paper demonstrates that zirconium-
P4 HRS-P Zr-based nano-scaled based nano-scaled conversion coating is generally satisfactory,
P7 Zinc phosphate (ZnP) where corrosion resistance is required for HRS with a powder
E1 HRS acid Iron phosphate (FeP) coating system.
E4 pickled in10% Zr-based nano-scaled
E7 (v/v) H2 SO4 Zinc phosphate (ZnP)
S1 Iron phosphate (FeP)
References
HRS shot
S4 Zr-based nano-scaled
blasted [1] S. Palraj, M. Selvaraj, P. Jayakrisnan, Prog. Org. Coat. 54 (2005) 5.
S7 Zinc phosphate (ZnP)
[2] R.G. Kelly, J.R. Scully, D.W. Shoesmith, R.G. Buchheit, Electrochemical
Techniques in Corrosion Science and Engineering, Mercel Dekker Inc.,
2003, ISBN 0-8247-9917-8.
samples lower capacitive readings were recorded. On a shot [3] D.C. Gordon, Corros. Prev. Control 31 (1984) 5.
blasted HRS test sample, iron phosphate displayed excellent cor- [4] G.P.A. Turner, Introduction to Paint Chemistry and Principles of Paint
Technology, 1998, ISBN 0 412 73320 4.
rosion protection at the beginning of the test (Fig. 9(g)); it was
[5] B. Bhushan, B.K. Gupta, Handbook of Tribology, 1997, ISBN 1-57524-
recorded around 107  cm2 at 10−1 Hz. However, as the test pro- 050-5.
gressed there was a rapid decrease recorded to around 104  cm2 [6] W. Rausch, The Phosphating of Metals, Finishing Publications Ltd., Lon-
at 10−1 Hz. This was noted as the biggest drop in impedance val- don, 1990.
ues; it is shown in Fig. 7 trend line S1. This result may have been [7] G. Lorin, Phosphating of Metals, Finishing Publications Ltd., London,
1974.
due to powder coating on the surface degrading more slowly than
[8] C. Rajagopal, K.I. Vasu, Conversion Coatings: A Reference for Phosphat-
on other test samples, when the electrolyte absorbed by powder ing, Chromating and Anodizing, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
coating (day 3) reached the actual FeP coating, the ion transfer Ltd., New Delhi, 2000.
process accelerated and a sudden fall occurred. [9] N.J. Newhard, in: H. Leidheiser (Ed.), Corrosion Control Coating, 1979.
Zirconium-based nano-structured conversion coating showed [10] T. Shcram, G. Goeminne, H. Terryn, W. Vanhools, Institute of Metal Fin-
ishing 73 (1995) 91.
consistent results. During the immersion time low frequency
[11] “Surface Defects in Hot Rolled Flat Steel Products”, Verein Deutsher
impedance did not drop as much as on other coating pro- Eisenhuttenleute, 1996, ISBN 3-514-00590-7.
cesses. For the duration of 15 days testing there was a smaller [12] R. Chen, W. Yuen, Oxid. Met. 56 (2001) 89.
reduction noted. Fig. 9(b), (e) and (h) shows nano-structured [13] B. Kim, J. Szpunar, Scripta Mater. 44 (2001) 2605.
conversion coating Bode and Nyquist plots. Shot blasted and [14] J.R. Davis, Surface Engineering for Corrosion and Wear Resistance, ASM
International, 2001.
nano-structured conversion coated HRS test samples showed
[15] D.B. Freeman, Phosphating and Metal Pretreatment—A Guide to Modern
some rust spots after 10 days immersing in 5% wt. NaCl. This Processes and Practice, Industrial Press Inc., New York, 1986.
may have occurred because nano-scale coating did not cover the [16] M. Straschill, Modern Practice in the Pickling of Metals, Robert Draper,
peaks on the shot blasted surface. Fig. 8 illustrates the degra- Teddington, Middlesex, England, 1968.
dation. The slow decrease in low frequency impedance of the [17] R.M. Cornell, U. Schwertmann, The Iron Oxides, Wiley–VCH, Verlag
GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2004, ISBN 9783527302741.
immersed test panels for Zr-based nano-structured coating is
[18] S. Cheng, C. Juan, S. Kuan, W. Tsai, Oxid. Met. 60 (2003) 6.
indicative of good corrosion resistance compared to the rapid [19] T. Metroke, O. Kachurina, E. Knobbe, JCT Coat. Technol. 74 (2002) 927.
decrease in FeP conversion coated test panels. [20] H. Kim, J. Zhang, R. Yoon, R. Gandour, Surf. Coat. Technol. 188–189
(2004) 762.
4. Concluding remarks [21] A. Khramov, V. Balbyshev, N. Voevodin, M. Donley, Prog. Org. Coat. 47
(2003) 207.
[22] S. Palraj, M. Selvaraj, P. Jayakrishnan, Prog. Org. Coat. 54 (2005) 5.
In this paper it was demonstrated that the corrosion resis- [23] N. Tang, W.J. Ooij, G. Gorecki, Prog. Org. Coat. 30 (1997) 255.
tance of powder coated hot rolled steel can be enhanced by [24] ASTM 609, Standard practice for preparation of cold rolled steel panels for
applying conversion coatings. However, conversion coating is testing paint, varnish, conversion coatings, and related coating products.
not the only process necessary for HRS and this study has shown [25] ASTM 5402, Standard practice for assessing the solvent resistance of
organic coatings using solvent rubs.
that it is imperative that oxide scale on the substrate should be
[26] ASTM D4541, Standard test method for pull-off strength of coatings using
removed, prior to pre-treatment and powder coating, to ensure portable adhesion testers.
a superior result with the best resistance to corrosion. The pres- [27] ASTM D3359, Standard test methods for measuring adhesion by tape test.
ence of oxide scale increased degradation of HRS; this was [28] ASTM D522, Standard test method for elongation of attached organic
evident from salt spray testing and electrochemical impedance coatings with conical mandrel apparatus.
[29] ASTM B117, Standard practice for operating salt spray (fog) apparatus.
spectroscopy studies. It was established that zinc phosphate out-
[30] M. Jenko, B. Korousic, D. Mandirano, V. Presern, Vac. Surf. Eng. Surf.
performs iron phosphate and nano-scaled conversion coating in Instrum. Vac. Technol. 57 (2000) 295.
corrosion performance, where it displays high impedance val- [31] M. Oku, K. Hirokawa, Electron Spectrosc. Phenom. 8 (1976) 475.
ues in low frequency. However, zirconium-based nano-scaled [32] R. Granata, K. Kovaleski, Electrochemical Impedance analysis and Inter-
conversion coating was also demonstrated as a favourable bar- pretation, ASTM Publication, 1993, ISBN 0-8031-1861-9.

View publication stats

You might also like