To print: Click here or select File and then Print from your browser's menu

Long-Term Performance of Cadmium Alternatives

Fastener specific data on seven commercially available cadmium substitutes and four
lubricants. . .

By George Shaw
U.S. Army-Tank Automotive and Armaments Command
Materials Engineering Team (AMSTA-TR -E/MEPS)
Warren, Michigan 48397-5000

This report provides fastener specific data on seven commercially available cadmium substitutes and four
lubricants. Priority was given to obtaining a statistically acceptable clamp load and second to obtaining
both cosmetic and galvanic corrosion resistance when coupled to aluminum under accelerated service
conditions. The corrosion resisting capability and comparative ranking of the various finish systems
changed dramatically with test duration. An organic alternative was found to have performance
comparable to cadmium in all respects except for electrical conductivity.

Background. Industry has developed numerous coating systems in an attempt to find a performer
equivalent to cadmium. Unfortunately, complete engineering data to support their use as direct
replacements in all military applications is not available. The Army has a huge variety of tactical systems
in its inventory (many of which have predominately cadmium-plated hardware) and a logistics support
system that is attempting to minimize seemingly insignificant product variability (the finish on "standard
hardware"). To compound the problem, once a yellow chromate finish is applied to an inorganic fastener
finish, all finishes look identical when new. Alternate finishes can only be used if they provide the same
torque-tension relationship with the standard military torque charts. These same torque charts are used
by many commercial businesses as well.

Loose and missing fasteners have been reported on a wide range of products. Bradley Fighting Vehicles
have had problems retaining their bolt-on armor1; Boeing 737 inspections have detected missing screws2
and 1997 Ford Expeditions have had recalls for loose lug nuts 3. A primary cause for a loose fastener
(other than obvious installer error with an incorrect torque) is insufficient clamp load. Reliance on generic
torque charts may be the problem. This situation is more prevalent than one might imagine since both
cadmium- and zinc-plated fasteners in common installations will have clamp-load problems if certain
conditions are not maintained. One way to establish if your applied torque is statistically adequate to
achieve the necessary clamp load is to determine the statistical data spread at plus/minus three sigma.
Finishes that do not provide clamp load through the statistical confidence range have the potential for
working loose if the applied load exceeds the clamp load and a prevailing torque (locking) feature is not
provided.

Final Ranking - Deepest Average Pit Depth (Best To Worst) There are a large number of
variables that will directly affect
Finish 80 Cycles (mm.) 120 Cycles (mm.) the applied clamp load. These
1. Dorrltech over Zn rich 0 0.2 variables all impact the amount of
2. Cd with OD chromate 0.16 0.3 friction created in making the
3. Cd with Yel chromate 0.33 0.5 connection. The more energy that
4. E/M 6386 Black 0.08 0.9
5. Dorrltech over Zn plate 0.14 0.9 goes into overcoming friction, the
6. Sn/Zn w/ Yel chromate 0.20 1.0 less that is available for obtaining
7. E/M 6386 Gray 0.04 1.1 clamp load. Consequently, a
8. Zi/Ni w/ Yel chromate 0.19 1.4 statistical spread rather than
9. Zn w/ Yel chromate 0.48 2.6
single values are more
appropriate for defining this outcome. The obvious variables include type and class of thread, size and
grade of fastener, finish material properties, finish thickness and uniformity, type and concentration of
lubricant applied and whether a prevailing or free-running nut is used. Less obvious variables include the
condition of the roll dies for forming the threads, surface condition of the bearing surface of the substrate
and type of prevailing torque feature used. The number and complexity of these variables makes reliance
on any single material value such as coefficient of friction (nut factor, K) an unreliable indicator of clamp-
load capability. Although it could be argued that a relatively small K range at low K values (0.11 to 0.13)
of the complete fastener finish system could be used to maintain compliance with the military torque
charts, it would not preclude the user from breaking the fastener upon installation. Furthermore, it would
eliminate perfectly acceptable finish systems with higher K values that have lower torque-tension
variability.

The variability associated with this method is obvious when one attempts to conduct a literature search
for recommended torque values. A zinc- or cadmium-plated, Grade 8, ½-13 bolt with or without lubricant
has a recommended installation torque range of 58 to 127 ft-lb. (Military torque charts recommend 80-90
ft-lb installation torque). Furthermore, few seem to make a distinction between a free -running and a
prevailing torque application. For some finishes there is a significant difference in clamp load between
these applications. In fact the finishes with the greatest difference in clamp load for the same applied
torque are zinc and cadmium.

The accepted practice for reducing torque-tension variability and lowering the nut factor (K) is to add a
dry lubricant to the nut. A review of product data sheets for lubricants would lead one to believe that
these products are significantly different from one another. Specifications that invoke their use, however,
address them in a generic category. There appears to be no industry standard that mandates their use in
a prevailing torque application. The military specification that defines prevailing torque nut requirements,
MIL -N-45913B (Self-Locking, Hexagon, Prevailing Torque Nuts), requires the use of a dry lubricant on
cadmium-plated nuts. This requirement kept the military torque charts for cadmium-plated fasteners on
track. When the military specification was "improved" in 1998 as a detail specification, the lubricant
requirement was removed. The impact on the torque charts was not considered.

A commercial concern that does not have to rely on a military torque chart would have a different
approach for establishing the optimum finish. A finish system should have minimal torque-tension
variability throughout the applied torque range for the type and grade of fasteners used. For these
finishes torque values can be easily defined that provide a high confidence that both the clamp load had
been obtained and the fastener will not break on installation. The major drawback to this pursuit is that
data collection and analysis requires sophisticated equipment/software. It is also a relatively expensive
endeavor.

Corrosion resistance has been

Final Ranking - Total Average Pitted Volume (MM3 )
historically benchmarked with a
Finish
neutral salt spray (NSS) test per
ASTM B117 at an arbitrary 1. Dorrltech over Zn rich 0 1.0
number of exposure hours. This is 2. Cd with Yel chromate 8.3 6.0
a good quality control tool but 3. Cd with OD chromate 2.7 7.0
4. Sn/Zn w/ Yel chromate 16.2 137
has minimal merit when trying to 5. Dorrltech over Zn plate 1.4 265
establish or qualify performance 6. E/M 6386 Black 1.5 300
in a real time correlation. There is 7. E/M 6386 Gray 0.6 343
also the question of test 8. Zi/Ni w/ Yel chromate 25.6 358
9. Zn w/ Yel chromate 190.8 704
reproducibility with the NSS.
TACOM has conducted comparison tests at different test facilities with identical product and obtained
different test results based upon the test chamber. ASTM has recognized this problem and has instituted
a recommended practice to standardize the corrosivity of the test. Unfortunately, it is only a
recommendation and not a requirement. Both General Motors and Ford have established accelerated
corrosion tests that attempt to correlate a specific number of test cycles to years of cosmetic corrosion
protection. The GM test appears to be more widely publicized. It has one of the highest statistical
correlations of all accelerated corrosion tests to four-year fielded autos in Montreal, Quebec 4. It also
claims approximate correlation of up to 10 years of cosmetic corrosion (80 cycles), and controls the
corrosivity of the test conditions with standard coupons that must have a specified mass loss at cycles
8,16, 40 and 80.

The overall corrosion resistance of a bolted connection, however, is not limited to cosmetic corrosion .
Other conditions such as stress (preload), galvanic coupling, operational damage, automotive fluid
contact and heat can have significant impacts. Although there is no published correlation of the GM test
to accelerate these conditions, unofficial, preliminary findings suggest that the GM 9540P (Accelerated
Corrosion Test) protocol has a correlation of ~1.0 to 1.5 for galvanic corrosion and a 0.7 to 1.0
correlation for stress-accelerated corrosion.

Zinc alloys have received most of the attention as cadmium alternatives. Much of their corrosion
resistance capability was established on pristine surfaces in NSS with an unspecified plating thickness.
The high nickel (10-14%), zinc-nickel alloys and tin-zinc were reported to give superior performance.

Even pure zinc has been touted as a cadmium substitute and has actually been converted as such in
some military programs as a "cost-savings, environmentally compliant" initiative. A major reservation in
the Army community with using the cadmium alternatives was the unknown impact on the torque charts.
Organic alternatives to cadmium are being used in most commercial automotive designs. Many military
engineers are uncomfortable with an organic replacing an inorganic system. Organic systems are highly
dependent on process control to maintain substrate adhesion, adequate thickness and durability. They
tend to be applied at a higher thickness (approximately 1.0 mil) which would tend to affect the torque-
tension relationship. As externally threaded fasteners are typically rolled to class 2 dimensions, only a ~
0.3 mil nominal plating build is available to meet class 3 thread tolerances. Previous negative experiences
with "brittle" thermoset coatings created a high level of uncertainty if an organic would remain intact with
normal handling abuse, installation torque and the highly abrasive, off-road military environment. Many
military designs are highly dependent on aluminum for weight savings and corrosion resistance. There is
no data available to assess the impact of these replacements in a galvanic couple. One published article5
reported the electrochemical potential of the high nickel, zinc-nickel alloy at _0.80 V which would indicate
a minimal galvanic interaction with our aluminum armor that is typically AA5083 at a potential of _0.87 V.

The $100K research grants are a rare commodity in DoD these days. There were many questions, a
directive to replace cadmium wherever practical (but no significant funding to support the change) and
enough concerned parties with the talent, facilities and dedication to get the answers. This report
summarizes the cooperative efforts of eight organizations to accomplish this end.

Test Format. The direction for this effort was to obtain engineering information relative to actual product
obtained with normal manufacturing processes and not laboratory controlled samples. These samples
would be procured, handled, assembled and tested in a manner that would duplicate as close as possible
the actual service conditions. Rather than controlling the variables that affect the outcome of the
numerous tests involved, factual data would be gathered and reported to define the conditions under test.
The GM 9540P accelerated test protocol was selected as the test mechanism not only for the amount of
published data relative to the test but also because it was already widely used by the automotive supplier
base. The test applies a 1.25% salt solution as a mist in four consecutive intervals over a 4.5 hr period
followed by eight hours in high humidity @ 49 ± 2C and an eight-hour dryoff at 60 ± 2C. A 24-hr test
period constitutes one test cycle. Test samples would be evaluated at 80 and 120 cycles of accelerated
testing. The nominal life of an Army system is 25 years including at least two overhauls/upgrades. A 10-
year (80-cycle) prediction would be totally inadequate in this context. It is highly unlikely that the
corrosion rates would be linear when extending the test duration past 80 cycles, but the 120-cycle
duration appeared more appropriate for military applications.

The ½ -13, Grade 8 bolt with a flange nut was selected as the test candidate. It is one of the most widely
used bolts in the Army inventory for high-strength connections. The torque chart recommends an
installation torque of 90 ft-lb for all applications. The equivalent metric size would be an M12-1.75, Grade
10.9 with an installation torque of 80 ft -lb.

Both free-running and prevailing torque

Electrochemical Reference Data 5 (Seawater)
applications were evaluated. The free-running hex
Alloy Solution Potential (V)
and hex flange nuts are Grade 8. The prevailing
torque hex nuts (all metal type) are Grade C; the 1. Zn -1.10
prevailing torque flange nuts (all metal type) are 2. Zn-Co (0.3% Co) -1.026
Grade G. The flange nut was selected over the 3. AA 5083 -0.87
4. Cd -0.82
conventional hex for four reasons. 1) It is 5. Zn-Ni (12% Ni) -0.80
extremely difficult to barrel process the organic 6. Mild Steel -0.58
finishes on flat surfaces such as flat washers. They 7. Sn -0.49
tend to stick together during the curing cycle. 2) A 8. Ni -0.07
hardened washer or flange nut is required in most fastener connections. 3) The flange nut creates a large
bearing surface that would make the galvanic reaction on the aluminum surface easier to evaluate. And
4) it was believed that the galvanic interaction would be restricted to the bearing surface of the flange nut
and the top periphery of the flange. This would leave the flats and the top of the flange nut unaffected by
the galvanic reaction and intact for the cosmetic corrosion evaluation.

The aluminum substrate was aluminum armor, AA 5083. There were 12 aluminum fixtures (18 × 2.5 ×
1.38 inch) that would accommodate 12 through-bolted connections each. The bolt hole diameter was
0.525 ± .002 inch. The test fixtures received a chromate conversion coating per MIL-C-5541 prior to
fastener installation. The twelve test fixtures were the maximum allowable that could be tested in the
ACT chamber at one time. The test fixtures were rotated 180 degrees and progressively moved from the
center to the sides of the test chamber every 20 cycles starting with cycle 40 to equalize the conditions.
This action was necessary as differential corrosion rates were noted at the cycle-40 inspection interval.
The test fixtures and their fastener systems were prepared in duplicate so that a separate evaluation
could be made at both 80 cycles and 120 cycles. There would be six replicates of each system in both a
prevailing torque and free-running application (except for the zinc and zinc-nickel finishes where three
each were tested). The controls were cadmium with a yellow chromate finish and also cadmium with an
olive drab chromate finish. The olive drab finish is more corrosion resistant due to the thicker chromate
and is preferred with the standard Army camouflage topcoat system. Should the chemical agent resistant
(CARC) topcoat chip-off, the olive drab finish is more visually compatible than the reflective yellow
chromate finish.
Both free-running and prevailing torque applications were tested for two reasons. 1) We needed to
determine what impact the prevailing torque feature had on the integrity of the fastener finish relative to
corrosion resistance. 2) A break-loose torque test would be performed at each test interval to get a
quantitative assessment of the impact of the corrosion products on fastener removal. We were uncertain
if the prevailing torque fasteners could be broken loose without fracture after 120 cycles. All bolts in the
test fixtures were torqued to 90 ft-lb with a calibrated, dial torque wrench. Actual preload or preload
relaxation was not determined. The break-loose test was performed with the same tool.

The cadmium-plated hardware was purchased to Federal specification, QQ -P-416, Class 2, Type 2. The
zinc alloy finishes were purchased to GM specification, GM6280M (Corrosion Protective Coatings-Zinc
Alloy Plating). The zinc plating was purchased to ASTM B633, Class Fe/Zn 8, Type 2. These specifications
dictate a minimum plating thickness of eight microns and a supplementary chromate finish. The intention
was to assure that the finishes were procured to the maximum level of performance by applying the
maximum allowable plating thickness. The actual plating thickness was verified on flat significant surfaces
and documented. The organic finishes are not held to a minimum thickness but to performance. The
organic finish film thickness was taken from cross-sectioned, metallographically polished and etched
samples. Prevailing torque nuts were specified with a dry lubricant of the plater's choice. Based upon
previous data, the Sn/Zn finish was not lubricated for the PT (locknut) application. The only organic finish
that came with a factory applied lubricant was the gray E/M 6386, PT nut. The lubricants involved in this
study were Adrem 615 (AD 615), Everlube 8000, Jon Cote 615 (JC 615) and MACuGUARD.

Galvanic Ranking Based Upon Test Duration

80 Cycles 120 cycles

Pitted Volume Max Pit Depth Pitted Volume Max Pit Depth
1. Dorrltech Zn Rich Dorrltech Zn Rich Dorrltech Zn Rich Dorrltech Zn Rich
2. E/M 6386 Gray E/M 6386 Gray Cd w/Yel chromate Cd w/OD chromate
3. Dorrltech Zn plate E/M 6386 Black Cd w/OD chromate Cd w/Yel chromate
4. E/M 6386 Black Dorrltech Zn plate Sn/Zn w/chromate E/M 6386 Black
5. Cd w/OD chromate Cd w/OD chromate Dorrltech Zn plate Dorrltech Zn plate
6. Cd w/Yel chromate Zn/Ni w/chromate E/M 6386 Black Sn/Zn w/chromate
7. Sn/Zn w/chromate Sn/Zn w/chromate E/M 6386 Gray E/M 6386 Gray
8. Zn/Ni w/chromate Cd w/Yel chromate Zn/Ni w/chromate Zn/Ni w/chromate
9. Zn w/Yel chromate Zn w/Yel chromate Zn w/Yel chromate Zn w/Yel chromate

Cosmetic corrosion resistance was evaluated qualitatively from two perspectives. The ability of the finish
system to protect the substrate and its resilience to installation damage (resistance to red corrosion
products) was the first standard. The overall resistance of the finish to degrade (white corrosion products)
combined with the red corrosion products define the overall appearance of the fastener over time and was
the "cumulative" standard for ranking corrosion resistance.

The extent of the galvanic corrosion was established quantitatively. As there are no established standards
for acceptance, the guidance provided in ASTM G46, Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion, was
used to prepare and evaluate the aluminum surfaces. The microscopic method was used at 50X to
determine both the maximum pit depth as well as the total pitted volume under and adjacent to the
contact area with the flange nut. The total average pitted volume was calculated by multiplying the
deepest pit depth (average) by the pitted area (average).

Preload/clamp load data and statistical spread were based upon 12 replicates. Bolts and nuts had the
finish as specified, but in all cases the square test washer was zinc plated. Test format was per SAE J174
for the free-running applications and IFI 100/107 for the prevailing torque applications. The tension range
was established for the same applied torque. A GSE-Model FTS 860, Fastener Test System was used with
the data analysis by the Keithley "Asyst" Scientific Program. From a practical point of view, the maximum
clamp load must be below the minimum required tensile strength, which is 21,285 lb for this Grade 8
bolt. Clamp load in excess of this value has the potential for fastener fracture on installation. The minus
three sigma value could be conservatively established at 12,750 lb, which is nominally determined at
75% of the yield strength. A major manufacturer has had no field problems with a -3 sigma of 12,000 lb
and this value was used as the approximate low limit for this study. The coefficient of friction (a.k.a. nut
factor K) was also reported for information at the noted torque.

Cosmetic Corrosion Ranking Based Upon Test Duration

80 Cycles 120 Cycles

Substrate (Red) Cumulative Substrate (Red) Cumulative

1. Cd w/ Yel chromate Cd w/ Yel chromate Cd w/ OD chromate Cd w/ OD chromate

Cd w/ OD chromate Cd w/ OD chromate Cd w/ Yel chromate Cd w/ Yel chromate
Zi/Ni w/ chromate Sn/Zn w/ chromate
E/M 6386 Black Zi/Ni w/ chromate
 E/M 6386 Gray
Dorrltech Zn Plate

2. Sn/Zn w/ chromate Dorrltech Zn Rich Dorrltech Zn Rich Dorrltech Zn Rich

Dorrltech Zn Rich

3. Zn w/ Yel chromate Sn/Zn w/ chromate Dorritech Zn plate Zi/Ni w/ chromate

Zi/Ni w/ chromate Sn/Zn w/ chromate

4. Dorritech Zn plate E/M 6386 Gray E/M 6386 Black

E/M 6386 Gray E/M 6386 Gray

5. E/M 6386 Black E/M 6386 Black Dorrltech Zn Plate

6. Zn w/ Yel chromate Zn w/ Yel chromate Zn w/ Yel chromate

The final test was electrical conductivity after each test interval. This is an important aspect if
electromagnetic interference (EMI) or grounding is a concern.

A cost factor was also included for all nine finishes based upon major sources of supply in the Detroit
area. It was not our intention to promote "gold plated" commercial hardware. Performance must be
prorated against product cost.

Test results and data. The scope of the project increased as a result of two unforeseen variables: 1)
The plating thickness of both the Sn/Zn and Zi/Ni alloy finishes was found to be excessively high (close to
0.001 inch) on the original hardware. A free-running nut could not be advanced more than one revolution
by hand. The plating specifications do not limit the maximum thickness. Although new hardware was
plated, we tested the impact of the high plating build on the Sn/Zn for a comparison to the "nominal"
build. This could be a common situation with a fastener purchase noting the lack of control in the
specifications. 2) We noticed a significant difference in the torque-tension relationship with the various
lubricants. We tested systems with and without a lubricant and also compared different lubricants over
similar plating thicknesses.

The data is presented in the attached spreadsheets and tables. Corrosion rankings are provided at both
the 80 and 120 cycle ACT interval. Only the best and worst finishes maintained their same ranking with
respect to resistance to cosmetic corrosion and galvanic corrosion at both intervals. With regard to
cosmetic corrosion resistance, the cadmium finishes were always the best; the zinc with yellow chromate
was the worst. Dorrltech over zinc rich had the best resistance to galvanic corrosion, and zinc with yellow
chromate was the worst. The other finishes shifted in ranking based upon test duration. As the rankings
are comparative, photographs are provided of each system at the 120-cycle interval. The photographs
document the worst case of each sample group. A finish may have finished third with respect to cosmetic
corrosion but be totally acceptable for general use.

Findings and conclusions. The test data indicate that there is no direct cadmium replacement for all
engineering applications. There was no significant difference in cosmetic or galvanic corrosion resistance
between the two controls. The criteria for visual acceptability (cosmetic) are quite subjective. Most
acceptance standards only evaluate the flat (significant) surfaces of the fastener. The cosmetic, cadmium
benchmark was corrosion free on all surfaces. The only finishes that could not be recommended for long-
term general use are zinc and both of the E/M finishes. The severe corrosion on the zinc-plated hardware
is obvious. The exposed bolt threads on the E/M finished bolts in the PT applications were corroded, and
the gray finish was showing signs of disbond at 120 cycles. The galvanic test data (pitted volume)
indicate a dramatic increase in corrosion rates — up to two orders of magnitude from the 80 to 120 cycle
interval. The only exceptions were the cadmium and Dorrltech over a zinc-rich finish where the increased
corrosion of the aluminum substrate was negligible. The primary site for the galvanic attack was adjacent
to the flange nut outside diameter and run-off area. The only finish that showed a different attack site
was the zinc-nickel finish where both the inside and outside diameter areas directly under the flange nut
bearing area were equally attacked. This is a significant finding, as a material loss at the bearing surface
will result in loss of preload over time. The galvanic test data for the zinc-nickel finish does not agree with
the electrochemical data. The data suggested that rather than acting as an alloy, the zinc is preferentially
removed (dezincification). To confirm this suspicion a semi-quantitative, x-ray analysis was performed on
the SEM on the 120 cycle, flange nuts. Corrosion attack sites had a nickel content as high as 29% (as
compared to the original nickel content of 11% by atomic weight percent). The solution potential of the
corroding zinc-nickel has changed over time, and this finish has become extremely cathodic with respect
to the aluminum.

Many military programs have EMI or grounding requirements. The organic systems that tested relatively
well for corrosion resistance lack this capability. The tin-zinc finish, although able to meet this criterion,
had relatively poor results in a galvanic couple with aluminum; this finish does have merit if used in
ferrous systems. If electrical conductivity is not an issue, then the Dorrltech finish over zinc-rich base is
actually superior to cadmium when the cost factor is introduced. This organic finish has the additional
benefit of being applied with a process that does not induce hydrogen embrittlement in the substrate
(provided the steel is not pickled prior to the zinc phosphate pretreatment).

The break-loose torque data was more Disassembly Assessment (Torque in ft-lb)
complex than originally anticipated.
The best and worst finishes with Finish (Application) 80 Cycles 120 Cycles Change
Cadmium (PT) 86 87 +1 (+1%)
respect to cosmetic corrosion
Cadmium (FR) 90 87 -3 ( -3%)
resistance (cadmium and zinc, Black E/M (PT) 85 85 0
respectively) provided the two Tin-Zinc (PT) 115 119 +4 (+3%)
extremes in change from the 80 to Tin-Zinc (FR) 112 129 +17 (+15%)
Zinc-Nickel (PT) 95 112 +17 (+18%)
120 cycle test interval. The Dorrltech
Zinc (PT) 99 108 +9 (+9%)
finishes and the Gray E/M 6386 in the Zinc (FR) 120 160 +40 (+33%)
free-running application had relatively
low break-loose torque values at the Dorritech Zn Rich (PT) 64 69 +5 (+8%)
Dorritech Zn Rich (FR) 58 65 +7 (+12%)
80-cycle interval. These low values
Dorritech "Mix" (PT) 64 68 +4 (+6%)
suggest a possible loss of preload or it Dorritech "Mix" (FR) 78 60 +18 (-23%)
may be a by-product of the coating Black E/M 6386 (FR) 76 78 +4 (+3%)
chemistry. Gray E/M 6386 (PT) 84 75 -9 ( -11%)
Gray E/M 6386 (FR) 63 58 -5 ( -8%)
Zinc-Nickel (FR) 110 90 +20 (+18%)
What was totally unexpected was a
drop of up to 23% in break-loose torque over time with three of the finishes (Dorrrltech over zinc-rich
coated bolt/ Dorrltech over zinc-plated nut, Gray E/M 6386 and zinc-nickel). The Dorrltech system had
negligible metal loss at the bearing surfaces. Metal loss without a substantial increase in corrosion
products would reduce the preload of the connection and explain the drop. Although the zinc-nickel finish
had relatively high metal loss by cycle 120, only the free -running application showed a drop in torque.
The prevailing torque application displayed the anticipated reaction of a torque increase of 17%. This
increase is probably attributed to the volumetric increase in corrosion products at the thread interface.
This same anomaly between applications was also noted in the dual Dorrltech system. Only the gray E/M
6386 showed a slight decrease in torque between the two test intervals for both applications (8-11%).

Many automotive designs are only looking for 10-year performance. The visual appearance of all the
finishes, with the exception of zinc plate, is acceptable. The black E/M finish had no red corrosion on the
exposed bolt threads. Both the silver/gray E/M 6386 and the Dorrltech/zinc-rich finishes were beginning
to develop red rust at the thread run-off area. From the galvanic perspective, all the finishes, with the
exception of zinc with a yellow chromate, should provide adequate performance coupled to aluminum.
The same electrical conductivity issues still apply if grounding is a concern. The user is only left with
cadmium and tin-zinc alloy finishes.

The torque-tension data provided four major conclusions. 1) Separate torque charts are warranted for
prevailing torque and free-running applications. Only one (zinc) of the nine systems tested in a free-
running application had a statistically acceptable preload using the military torque charts. If the torque
charts are to remain unchanged, the appropriate lubricant must be identified for each individual finish.
The Army has been using insufficient torque for the free-running cadmium-plated hardware from day one.
This explains the loosening phenomena on the applique armor that was fastened with free-running
cadmium-plated bolts. 2) There is no such thing as a "generic" lubricant. There are major differences in
these products. The optimum lubricant will provide an acceptable preload in both prevailing torque and
free-running applications. The fastener user should become totally familiar with the performance aspects
of the various lubricants and specify only those lubricants that fit his torque requirements. It may be
possible to employ a more lubricious lubricant to rectify a heavy plate condition. 3) A procurement
specification must control maximum material condition dimensions with a thread assembly or functional
size gage to maintain the validity of the torque chart. 4) The relatively thick, organic finishes do not have
a negative impact on torque-tension values. Testing should be conducted on fine threaded fasteners to
verify that this statement holds true for all fastener systems. PF

REFERENCES:

1. Got a Screw Loose on M2/M3 Series Bradleys, U.S Army PS Magazine, June 1997.
2. Two More Boeing 737 Jets Are Found To Have Missing or Loose Fasteners, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 1998.
3. Loose Lug Nuts Force Ford Recalls, Detroit News and Free Press, May 13, 1998.
4. Update on the Development of an Improved Cosmetic Corrosion Test by the Automotive and Steel Industries, L.A.
Roudabush, H.E. Townsend and D.C. McCune, SAE 6th Automotive Corrosion and Prevention Conference, Dearborn, MI, Oct 4-6,
1993.
5. Replacements for Cadmium,J. S. Hadley, Aston University IMF Midland Branch Symposium, "Environmentally Friendly Surface
Finishing", Oct 24, 1990.

This project was accomplished with a direct expenditure of less than $6,000 of taxpayer funds.
 The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions: Brian
Lowry, Curtis Metal Finishing Co.; William Frederick, E/M Corp.; Gary Carda and Tim
Niland, General Fasteners Co.; Darrin McCaffrey and Larry Gutowsky, Magni Industries,
Inc.; Loren Lanier, UDLP-CTC; Joseph Menke, U.S. Army, TACOM-Rock Island, IL.

NOTES:

1. Finish thickness measurements for organic coatings are cumulative, i.e. they include the Zn plate /Zn rich base coat. The zinc rich
base coat is Dorrlflake applied over zinc phosphate. Finish thickness values are the mean value based upon three units per lot
with three readings per unit. Readings were taken on the flats with X -ray fluorescence, eddy current based thickness tester or
metallographically.
2. The zinc alloy finishes were purchased to GM 6280M which specifies a minimum plating thickness of 8 microns (~0.3 mils)
3. Dorrltech over zinc chromate meets GM 7113 or Ford S427
4. Dorrltech over zinc rich base coat meets GM 7114 or Ford S426. Both the base coat and topcoat are individually cured at 400
degrees F.
5. The E/M 6386 finish is cured at 350 _ 400 degrees F. The Black version is an additional topcoat cured at 250 degrees F.
6. These are epoxy resin based organic systems. These finishes are not ultraviolet stable and will degrade (chalk), if not protected.
The black E/M 6386 topcoat is not an epoxy.
7. Zi/Ni finish was applied with the acid process. Actual Nickel content was 11%.
8. ACT conducted in accordance with GM 9540P with the flange nut on top. Substrate is aluminum armor (AA5083) with a chromate
conversion per MIL -C-5541.
9. ACT ratings are based upon flange nut only. Only the E/M 6386 coatings displayed a significant difference in corrosion (more
severe) on the bolt threads and predominately in the PT applications where the coating was apparently damaged with nut
engagement. A rating of "1" is best. Total Corrosion is a visual comparison of the cumulative red and white corrosion products.
10. Galvanic Corrosion evaluated after cycle 80 and 120 on the aluminum surface under and adjacent to the flange nut.
11. All fasteners were originally torqued to 90 ft -lb. for the Break-Loose test. The values indicated are the mean of six connections in
 ft-lb. (except for the Zn and Zn/Ni finishes which were the mean of three each connections).
12. All torque-tension related testing performed on GSE -Model FTS 860, Fastener Test System. Data analysis by Keithley "Asyst"
Scientific Program. Clamp load values and statistical variability based upon a standard hex nut with the noted plating thickness,
not a flange nut. Statistical data based upon twelve replicates.
13. Electrical conductivity checked after cycle 80 and 120. Results were identical at both test intervals. "Failed" systems had infinite
resistance.
14. Cost is based upon bolt/nut combination with or without lubricant as specified. Cadmium with a free running nut and no lubricant
is the baseline (1.0).

Serving the Finishing Industries. Since 1936 .

PFONLINE and all contents are properties of Gardner Publications, Inc.
All Rights Reserved .