A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODERN

SURFACE FINISHES FOR ZINC DIE CASTINGS

Zin

c Pro

tects

!

Why Zinc Castings

Zinc die castings are a unique choice for count-

less decorative and functional applications. Zinc

is a relatively dense metal, which has a feel of

“substance” and durability. Zinc casting alloys are

also stronger than all but the most highly rein-

forced molded polymers. Zinc’s hardness, self

lubricating properties, dimensional stability and

high modulus makes it suitable for work-

ing mechanical parts, such as gears and

pinions, that would be less durable if

molded from polymers. Zinc can be die

cast at moderate temperatures thus pro-

viding significant energy and processing

savings over other metals and engineer-

ing alloys. Zinc also accepts a broad

assortment of finishes, from chemical

conversion treatments to electroplating

to sprayed and baked polymers.

When a finish is properly selected and

applied to die cast zinc, almost any

desired aesthetic characteristic and coat-

ing durability can be achieved. Zinc castings can

be made to look like solid gold, weathered brass,

stainless steel, and even leather. The majority of

zinc die cast applications are not exposed to cor-

rosive environments and the aesthetic require-

ments of the part defines which finish should be

used, which in many cases means no finish at all.

For applications where the service environment

is aggressive, such as marine hardware, external

automotive parts, and items for

use outdoors at industrial sites,

corrosive attack can result in

white rust, black staining, or, in

some cases, flaking and peeling

of the finish due to corrosion of

the underlying zinc. For such

severe environments the manu-

facturer must select corrosion

resistant finishes.

The Study

The following information is from results of an

investigation1,2 conducted by the International

Lead Zinc Research Organization (ILZRO) to eval-

uate the performance of modern protective and

decorative finishes commonly used on zinc die

castings. The investigation was performed by the

Corrosion and Materials Research Institute

(CAMRI) in Newark, Delaware.

The ILZRO study described here provides a com-

parison of the performance of different finishes

used to protect and provide an aesthetic finish

to zinc die castings. The study looked at two dif-

ferent performance criteria – the ability of a fin-

ish to protect the underlying zinc against corro-

sion, and the ability of the finish to maintain its

initial aesthetic properties upon exposure to cor-

rosive conditions. This information is intended to

supplement the data found in earlier

publications3 and to allow an end user or parts

manufacturer to select the optimum finish prop-

erties for a given application.

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODERN SURFACE FINISHES FOR ZINC DIE CASTINGS

2

Test ProceduresThe test panel used in this study was a “boltboss plate” that incorporates flat and curvedsurfaces, rounded and sharp edges, through-holes of various diameter-to-depth ratios, andinside and outside corners. These test panelswere drilled and tapped, and stainless steelscrews added after finishing but before testexposure. An “X” was scribed through the finish, to expose the underlying zinc.In a preliminary phase of this study, die castzinc panels coated with a chromate conversiontreatment, with a powder epoxy, and with an“automotive” grade of copper-nickel-chromeelectroplate, were subjected to three differentaccelerated corrosion tests. These tests were as follows:

•The standard ASTM B-117 salt spray testfor 500 hours

•The newer ASTM G85 mixed salt cyclic fogtest – also for 500 hours

•The CAMRI test (originally used at DuPontin the 1980’s to evaluate finishes for indus-trial fasteners) which exposes panels to aconstant 100% relative humidity at 50º Cwith weekly misting of the panels with asolution of 1% sodium chloride and 1%sodium sulfate.

Panels subjected to this test were exposed forup to six months, with interim evaluation atone and three months.

This preliminary phase found that, while thetwo ASTM tests did produce white rust on portions of some panels, the CAMRI test pro-duced mixed corrosion products and physicalfailures not seen in either of the ASTM tests.More importantly, the appearance of the corro-sion and the localized physical failures of thefinishes appeared similar to what actuallyoccurs on coated zinc panels after extendedexposure to corrosive environments. Based onthese observations it was decided to use theCAMRI test method for the overall study. It wasfurther observed that while the six month testclearly gave the most dramatic failures and cor-rosion, all of the six month failures were alsoobserved in the three month inspection. It wasdecided, therefore, to run the final tests usingthe CAMRI protocol for three months. All testsample pictures shown in this report are fromthe final phase using the CAMRI protocol. One major advantage of the CAMRI test is thatit requires no special equipment. For example,anyone with a low-temperature (50º C or 122º F) oven can fashion a humidity chamberout of an aquarium with a glass top, place alayer of gravel and water in the bottom tomaintain saturated humidity, and apply theweekly spray of mixed salts with a hand spraybottle available at any hardware store. To put the CAMRI test in perspective relative toactual field exposure, DuPont studies foundthat a three month test in the laboratory equat-ed in nature and severity to roughly one year ofactual exposure at a severely corrosive chloro-fluorocarbons plant site on the U.S. Gulf Coast,or three to five years at inland chemical plantsites.

3Test rack and panels outside humidity chamber

Top side of test panel before finishing and corrosion testing

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODERN SURFACE FINISHES FOR ZINC DIE CASTINGS

4

Test Panels

Appearance of finishes before and after three month exposure to CAMRI test

Before After

Unfinished Control

Before After

A) Zinc Black

Before After

D) Sprayed & Baked Liquid Coating

Before After

B) Cu-Sn-Zn Electroplate

Before After

C) Trivalent Chromium + sealer

Before After

C) Zn Plate, Trivalent Chrome + sealer

Before After

E) Cr+6 Conversion +sealer

Before After

E) Cr+6 Conversion - no sealer

Before After

F) Mechanical Plate

Before After

G) Cu-Ni-Cr Electroplate

Before After

H) Powder Epoxy

Before After

I) Urethane Resin E-Coat

Finish PerformanceEvaluationTwo zinc alloys were tested, No. 3 andNo. 5. While there were slight differencesin the performance of the chromate con-version finishes between the two alloys,the differences were small and not con-

sistent. It was concluded that there is no significantdifference between these two alloys as far as resist-ance to corrosive atmospheres. All panels were tested“as finished”, with no heat treatment. Scoring of the finishes (Table 1) was done by twoCAMRI corrosion technologists who inspected thepanels together and agreed upon scores for individualpanels. The scoring was based on a maximum value of10 with points deducted for observed imperfectionsin the finish. Each panel was judged against an unex-posed panel with the same surface finish along withunfinished control panels that had gone through the

same test expo-sure. The finisheswere rated basedon their ability toprotect the panelagainst corrosionduring the testcompared withunfinished zinc panels. While scoring the panels itbecame apparent that some finishes showed localizedbreakdown but still maintained the aesthetic proper-ties of the coating while other finishes protected theentire surface of the sample but became quiteunsightly and would be judged for many applicationsas having failed. It was decided to score each finish intwo categories (1) their ability to physically protectthe underlying zinc against corrosion and (2) theirability to maintain the original aesthetic value of thepanel surface. Each of the scores was on a scale of 0 (no better than the unfinished control.) to 10 (visually perfect).

5

Performance Ranking of Finishes Table 1

FFIINNIISSHH CCAATTEEGGOORRYY AANNDD DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN CCOORRRROOSSIIOONN PPRROOTTEECCTTIIOONN PPRREESSEERRVVIINNGG ZZaammaakk 33 ZZaammaakk 55 AAvveerraaggee AAEESSTTHHEETTIICCSS

E - chromate conversion, no sealer 5 6 5.5 6E - chromate conversion, no sealer 6 4 5 4E - chromate conversion with sealer 7 5 6 6C - clear chromate (No Zn) with sealer 2 1 1.5 4C - clear chromate with sealer 3 2 2.5 2C - Zn plate, trivalent chrome, JS 500 sealer 4 4 4 3G - “dual nickel” Cu/Ni/Cr plate 5 6 5.5 7G - “marine” Cu/Ni/Cr plate 8 8 8 9F - zinc-tin mechanical plating 9 9 9 6H - powder epoxy 10-7011 on non-blasted panel 8 9 8.5 9H - powder epoxy 10-7011 on grit-blasted panel 9 8 8.5 9H - polyester powder coating 9 9 9 8D - 4510 liquid polyester coating 5 4 4.5 5I - urethane resin e-coat with nanoparticles 9 10 9.5 10I - urethane resin e-coat without nanoparticles 9 9 9 9I - urethane resin e-coat without nanoparticles 10 9 9.5 10D - low friction coating, phenolic resin 4 5 4.5 5D - low friction coating, polyamide-imide resin 3 3 3 4B - copper – Cu/Sn/Zn electroplate 6 6 6 1A - zinc black coating 1 1 1 2

Blisters formed on “dual nickel” Cu/Ni/Crplate after three month exposure

e-coat finish after three month test exposure

Selecting a FinishThe first step in selecting a finish for zinc die cast

parts is to determine how much corrosion resistance

the part will require. If it is a part to be used indoors

in a dry application, corrosion resistance is not a fac-

tor. For indoor parts that are to be frequently wetted

in service, such as faucet handles and shower heads, as

well as parts to be used outdoor in inland rural areas

or non-industrial, non-coastal sites, only moderate

corrosion resistance is needed. For hardware for boats

and marine facilities, constantly wetted parts, and

parts to be used outdoors in industrial applications,

corrosion resistance should be the first consideration.

The second issue is whether the part needs a decora-

tive finish, or whether a purely utilitarian finish is

adequate.

Once these issues have been decided, refer to the

chart below that shows relative performance for the

various types of finishes. For better corrosion resist-

ance select finish types toward the right of the chart.

For better aesthetic retention consider finishes closer

to the top of the chart. If neither of these factors is

important for your particular application, don’t limit

yourself by selecting properties not required – this

will only reduce your options and probably cost more

than is necessary.

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MODERN SURFACE FINISHES FOR ZINC DIE CASTINGS

6

A Zinc BlackB Cu-Sn-Zn ElectroplateC Clear Chromate and Trivalent ChromiumD Sprayed & Baked Liquid CoatingsE Hexavalent Chromium ConversionF Mechanical PlatingG Cu-Ni-Cr ElectroplatingH Epoxy & Polyester Powder CoatingsI Urethane Resin E-Coats

A B

C

D

EF

G H

I

Incr

easi

ng A

ppea

ranc

e R

eten

tion

Increasing Corrosion Protection

Table 2

Finishes TestedThe types of finishes included in the study are describedbelow in approximate increasing order of performance, withthe lowest performing finishes listed first.

A Zinc Black. This is a process in which a relatively thickblack phosphate film is imparted to the casting to protectagainst humidity and moderately corrosive atmospheres.This finish is not usually proposed as a stand-alone corrosionbarrier, but rather is a paint pre-treatment. Unlike thesmooth, dense blacking that is used widely on steel guns andtools, the blacking on zinc is dull and somewhat powdery inconsistency. Zinc blacking by itself did not offer significantprotection in this test, and was largely dissolved or washedoff by the periodic wetting of the panels with mixed saltsolution.

C & E Chromate Conversion Coatings. These are chem-ical immersion treatments which produce a thin protectivefilm on the zinc surface. They are intended primarily to pro-tect parts during storage or in mild (e.g. indoor) environ-ments or, like the zinc black, to provide an optimum surfacefor adhesion of subsequent paint or other organic finishes.Conversion coatings are sometimes followed by a sealer orlacquer to enhance their performance and extend the rangeof their applicability. In these tests it was observed that thehexavalent chromate conversion coatings, with or without asealer, performed much better than did trivalent chrome or“clear” chromate finishes.

D Sprayed & Baked Liquid Coatings. This includes abroad spectrum of different chemistries, including epoxies,polyesters, phenolics and urethanes, just to mention a few.The test matrix included low friction fluoropolymer coatingsnot primarily intended for protecting against corrosion. Thecoatings were applied approximately 25 to 50 microns (1-2mils) thick, and provided only moderate protection. Somealso tended to discolor or become generally unsightly duringthe test. There are many thicker industrial sprayed and bakedorganic coatings on the market that undoubtedly wouldhave performed better in this test.

B Copper-Tin-Zinc Electroplate. This is a proprietaryprocess that forms a dull, silvery finish on the zinc. In thesetests it offered fair protection to the zinc, but the finishitself developed an unsightly, sometimes black, splotchyappearance. The overall thickness of the finish in this casewas about 25 microns (1 mil).

G Copper-Nickel-Chrome Electroplate. This has beenone of the workhorse finishes for outdoor and corrosiveapplications for many years. On zinc it begins with a thinlayer of cyanide (non-acid) copper flash to protect the zincagainst the acidity of subsequent baths. Next comes a thick-er layer of acid copper plate, which serves to make the sur-face more uniform and assures good electrical conductivity.This is followed with one or more layers of nickel, which pro-vides a continuous corrosion resistant barrier. Finally one ormore layers of chromium are applied to give the desiredshiny “silvery” appearance and to protect the nickel againstmechanical forces such as wear and erosion. Electroplatinghas one disadvantage vs. non-electrical processes in that it isdifficult to get plated metal into inside corners and holes.This can be largely overcome by using what are called “con-forming” anodes, but these make the process more expen-sive. A two-nickel layer system commonly referred to bysome as “automotive” grade chrome plate, plus a three-nick-el-layer version used for more stringent applications andsometimes referred to as “marine” grade, were tested. Therewas, a noticeable improvement in performance with the

“marine” vs. the “automotive” grade plating. There was also,with both systems, a noticeable incidence of local failures atinside corners – presumably indicative of thinner platingapplication at those locations.

F Mechanical Plating. This name is somewhat mislead-ing, as this general category of finishes involves placing theparts in a drum with the desired mixtures of metal powdersand a chemical “activator” and tumbling the parts until thedesired thickness of coating builds on the part by mechani-cal plus chemical action. It is possible in this way to coatwith an “alloy” of almost any desired metals, includingzinc+tin, zinc+cobalt, zinc+iron and zinc+nickel. Zinc isalmost always included because it responds especially wellto the mechanical/chemical bonding process. This processhas a distinct advantage over electroplating in that materialscan be applied very uniformly on all surfaces, including oninside corners. The use of different metal combinationsoffers different aesthetics (colorations). This process wasoriginally developed with zinc alone – a process usuallyapplied to steel parts and called “mechanical galvanizing”.The zinc+tin alloy was tested with a coating thickness ofapproximately 50 microns (2 mils), including a topcoat withtrivalent chrome and clear sealer.

H Epoxy and Polyester Powder Coatings. Thesepolymeric coatings are applied as powders in a dry electro-static process, and subsequently “fused” in an oven. Thisprocess offers environmental and personal hygiene advan-tages over wet sprayed and baked coatings because thereare no solvents to drive off. Because the powder applicationis usually an electrostatic process, sprayed powder coatingsalso provide better buildup at edges than do wet-sprayedpolymers. On the down side, for this same reason it is diffi-cult to get coating materials into deep recesses and insidecorners although this problem was not observed with thesample geometry used for these tests. In fact, no local fail-ures of these coatings were observed at inside corners, ashad been the case with the Cu-Ni-Cr electroplating. In thesetests, both the epoxy and the polyester powder coatings didmuch better than had the sprayed liquid coatings. Whilepowder coatings are gaining an excellent reputation as cor-rosion protecting barriers, it is also true that these powdercoatings, at 75-100 microns (3-4 mils) were much thickerthan were the liquid coatings evaluated in this program.

It is generally accepted that grit-blasting a part gives bettercoating adhesion and, therefore, better coating performancein aggressive service conditions. The blast finish on some ofthe epoxy-coated panels produced only about a 25-micron (1 mil) surface profile – and did not enhance performance inthese tests as compared to a non-blasted zinc surface. Mostcoating manufacturers recommend much deeper blast pat-terns – typically 50 to 75 microns (2-3 mils) for optimumcoating performance. Such an aggressive blast, however,may result in warpage and/or a matte coated surface, soshould be tested and evaluated on your particular partbefore specifying heavy blast preparation for a powder coating.

I Electrophoretic Urethane Coatings. Also known as“e-coats”, the three electrophoretic coatings evaluated hereall did exceptionally well. Measuring only about 20-25microns (0.8-1 mils) in thickness, these finishes defied therule about thickness being needed for good corrosion pro-tection. One of the finishes tested contained ceramic“nanoparticles” to give added abrasion and wear resistance,and a black color. The nanoparticles did not show any meas-urable effect on corrosion resistance compared to the regular urethane resin e-coats.

7

Contributors to this StudyILZRO aknowledges the North American Die CastingAssociation (NADCA) www.diecasting.org, the inter-national zinc industry and Eastern Alloys Inc. andMazak Ltd. for their financial support of this study.ILZRO also thanks the Corrosion and MaterialsResearch Institute (CAMRI) for their excellent workperforming the corrosion tests and reporting theresults. And, ILZRO thanks the following companieswho contributed materials and applied finishes to the samples tested in this program.

Intermet Technical Center, Lynchburg, VirginiaAcheson Colloids Co., Port Huron, Michigan Acme Finishing Company Inc., Elk Grove Village,Illinois Allied Finishing Grand Rapids, Michigan Atotech USA, Inc., Rock Hill, South Carolina ClearClad Coatings, Harvey, Illinois e-Black Solutions, Toronto, Ontario Canada Erie Plating Co., Erie, Pennsylvania Finishing & Plating Service, Kenosha, Wisconsin Grove Plating Company Inc., Fox River Grove, Illinois Umicore Research, Olen, Belgium

References1. Goodwin, F.E., Tatnall, R.E.& Corbett, R.A.,

“Evaluation of Corrosion Tests for Zinc Die CastingSurface Finishes”, presented at CastExpo ’05, St.Louis, Missouri, April 16-19, 2005, North AmericanDie Casting Association, Wheeling, Illinois.

2. Goodwin, F.E., Tatnall, R.E.& Corbett, R.A., “UpdatedPerformance Data on Modern Surface Finishes forZinc Die Castings”, presented at CastExpo ’06,Columbus, Ohio, April 18-21, 2006, NorthAmerican Die Casting Association, Wheeling,Illinois.

3. Zinc Alloy Diecastings – Selected CorrosionPreventative Finishes, Eurozinc, revised by MazakLtd. 2004.

International Zinc Association

International Lead Zinc Research Organization (ILZRO)

International Zinc Association (IZA), 168 Avenue de Tervueren, B-1150 Brussels - BelgiumTel: 32.2.7760070 Fax: 32.2.7760089 Email: info@iza.com Internet: www.zincworld.org

Zin

c Pro

tects

!

This document is for information purposes only. The publisher, International Zinc Association, has taken all reasonable care to ensure accuracy of the information contained within this brochure, but accepts no liability forloss or damage to any party howsoever caused, arising from its use. This brochure may not be reproduced, inwhole or in part, or in any form whatsoever, without the prior written consent of the publisher.