finishing.com logo
    HOME / sitemapFAQsBOOKSHelp WantedsAdvertiseContact   you are here: Hotline/Forum => Letter 37583
most fun in metal finishing

Is ASTM B-633 still the viable spec. when calling out trivalent chromium?

(2005)

Q. We design and manufacture CATV power supplies and outdoor enclosures (3R, 4 and 4X). We have been specifying clear and bronze chromium conversion coatings over zinc plated CRS per ASTM B633 [link is to spec at TechStreet] for some time, and are just now realizing these coatings are hexavalent and are rapidly being phased out (RoHS, etc). We are researching trivalent chromium coatings and our local plating vendors' capabilities with this. It seems we will be able to make the switch without major issues. Reading the many posts on this issue here in finishing.com has been a tremendous help in increasing my knowledge.

My main concern is creating new internal specs/drawing notes to specify trivalent chromium. Example: One current spec. we have is: "Zinc plate (0.0010" thick) plus bronze chromate conversion per ASTM B633-98: Type 2 bronze, FE/ZN 25, (very severe environments)". Questions I have:

How would I call this out for trivalent chromium?

Do I continue referencing ASTM B633, even though it was written for hexavalent chromium?

Are there new accepted ways of specifying trivalent chromium?

What if I want to keep the native clear/blue trivalent (instead of dyeing yellow) and have high corrosion protection (which is possible now)? Do I then have to customize my note since type 3 is clear (but low corrosion protection) and type 2 is colored (but high corrosion protection)? i.e. call out salt spray hours?

Thanks for your time. Any information will be appreciated.

John Highet
Mechanical Designer, Power Supply Industry - Bellingham, Washington, USA


(2005)

A. I would be interested in other people's take on this inquiry, too, John. My feeling is that there is nothing that prevents you from saying "except . . ." or "but . . .", and thus you can say "except that chromate conversion coating must be trivalent in accord with RoHS standards, and must achieve xx hours to white rust".

But spec writers don't like their specifications used in this fashion unless your spec is "tougher" than the more generic case. They try to prevent you from "diluting" the spec. Here is an extract addressing that (this extract is from ASTM A480 and I don't know offhand which specs have and don't have such a statement) --

37583specNotPO

Several different technologies are in play in this rapidly changing, highly competitive, proprietary field, including at least one naturally yellow trivalent chromate. Some of these trivalent chromates use top coats for increased corrosion protection, and that may be no problem in some applications; but if you need conductivity, or paint adhesion, etc., your "except" list may also have to prohibit such top coats or allow only certain types, etc.

You are probably right that there may be some problems with B-633 in this age of proprietary trivalent chromates for RoHS standards, but it is a far better starting point than a blank sheet :-)

pic of Ted Mooney Teds signature
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
finishing.com
Pine Beach, New Jersey


(2005)

A. It's my opinion that referring to ASTM B 633 leads to more confusion than clarity; the automotive industry uses much more of Zinc Alloy plating and Trivalent Chromate and without referrals available, its easier to use relevant automotive standards as a guide or starting point.

The reason being, Trivalent chromates don't deliver similar results as Hexavalent; I have had twenty enquiries last year with customers asking for Trivalent Passivations with Hexavalent Plus performance and its not actually happening on plating shop floors despite fancy literature and fancy prices.

khozema Khozema Vahanwala
Saify Ind
 
Bangalore, Karnataka, India


(2005)

A. So much to say and yet I don't know where to start.
1. Trivalent provides ALMOST the same corrosion protection as hexavalent. We have done many, many salt spray tests with several different suppliers of trivalent products (not all trivalent products yield the same results) and we just can't seem to get the same corrosion protection as with hexavalent. Again, it is very close but not equivalent. Trivalent is still the best/closest/cost effective replacement in our opinion.

2.We still use ASTM B633 and do exactly as Ted has stated. We state on our drawings that the parts must be RoHS compliant and for the passivation over our zinc plating to be Trivalent "clear to light blue" in color. We do call for type II and allow no red rust for the 96-hour test on either the primary surface or edges of our sheet metal piece parts. We also have a standard calling for no white rust on the primary surface up to 12 hours. No more than 10% white rust on the primary surface for 96 hours. White rust on the edges is acceptable. I do agree that ASTM needs to help out with this situation by modifying B633 but for now it's all we can go with.

3. Our manufacturing plants are keying off of the "clear to light blue color" and will be scrapping any existing sheet metal that is yellowish in color after a certain date next year in order to become RoHS complaint.

Doug Kovacs
- North Canton, Ohio


(2005)

A. Just who is this ASTM and who do they think they are leaving industry up in the air like this? I can answer that as I am an ASTM volunteer on Committee B08 that works on issuing new and revising existing ASTM specifications on Metallic and Inorganic Coatings. ASTM B 633 is one of those specs. Unfortunately, as with all too many technical organizations, corporations aren't so willing to support such organizations and persons aren't so willing to give up their time so organizations suffer from too much work to be done by too few people. This is just the case with ASTM's Committee B08 on coatings! It needs dedicated people from firms willing to support this necessary effort to keep specifications current and technically up to date. If you're willing to support this necessary cause, visit the ASTM web site and check out joining the committee.

As an ASTM insider, check out the ASTM guidance document on terminology and you'll discover that "chromating is a chemical conversion process using chromium compounds." When they wrote this, they didn't differentiate between hex or tri so Type II ASTM B 633 could be either tri or hex. Regardless of this, anyone ordering a RoHS compliant coating should clearly specify that they're looking for such. Our firm has 7 electroless nickel combinations, some of which are lead-free / cad-free and some not - to heighten the cases that a RoHS compliant coating is achieved, it's always best to let your finisher know.

Lastly, we're using a clear, blue-bright tri-chrome conversion coating that gives wonderfully bright clear and when a yellow dye is added to it, looks amazingly close to conventional hex chrome yellow zinc. The clear, trivalent product OUT PERFORMS any clear hex product we've ever used and the yellow is nearly identical in corrosion performance.

Milt Stevenson, Jr.
Syracuse, New York

December 1, 2009
appended

Q. Please help me to find the ASTM B633 [link is to spec at TechStreet] (downloading) for zinc electroplating.

Thanks & regards

baljit kaur
employee - ludhiana,punjab, india


December 1, 2009

A. Hi, Baljit. We've linked your inquiry to a source for the spec; there are other specification clearing houses, or you can download it from www.astm.org. In any case, though, it is internationally copyrighted and you must pay about $40 - $50 for the download. Good luck.

Regards,

pic of Ted Mooney Teds signature
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
finishing.com
Pine Beach, New Jersey

August 13, 2010

Q. Perusing the text of ASTM B633-07, I see that they specifically define passivate as "a conversion coating on zinc shall not contain hexavalent chromium." To me, this incorporates trivalent chromate. Since types V and VI are defined as passivation, this would therefore make the trivalent chromate ASTM B663 types V or VI, colorless or colored respectively.

Anyone have any information regarding the conductivity of trivalent vs. hexavalent chromates on zinc? Is it possible to create a non-conductive chromate on zinc as can be done with aluminum?

Ken Jacques
- Meriden, Connecticut, USA


August 15, 2010

A. Hi, Ken.

I could be in error, but I don't think the conductivity of a chromate for aluminum (or zinc for that matter) is a go/no-go affair. Rather, I believe that the thin clear chromates simply impose lower resistance than when the same or similar chromate is applied thicker. I think what you are hunting for -- an insulative chromate -- won't be found.

Regards,

pic of Ted Mooney Teds signature
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
finishing.com
Pine Beach, New Jersey

August 17, 2010

Hi Ted,

I had assumed along the lines of what you mentioned (more resistive than non-conductive), but don't see a reference in the ASTM B-633 nor B-201 regarding chromate application and increased electrical resistance as is seen for aluminum in MIL-DTL-5541.

Ken Jacques
- Meriden, Connecticut, USA


January 26, 2013 -- this entry appended to this thread by editor in lieu of spawning a duplicative thread

Q. We are reviewing all documentation to make sure our products are RoHS compliant. (Our medical devices will shortly lose RoHS exemption).

Our standard Finish note (for many years) was:
ZINC PLATE PER ASTM B633-98 Fe/Zn5 SC1 MILD, THEN CLEAR CHROMATE

How can we modify this note to make sure finishes are RoHS-compliant?

Kalos Orisate
Component Engineer - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  ^- Privately contact this inquirer -^



September 13, 2013

Q. I have a requirement that zinc finish must be a Minimum of .0005 which would be 13 µm, in order for this product and finish to be compliant to their standards; we must also state which of the standards applies. I have checked the ASTM B633 standard, and ASTM along with ISO only show as 12 µm at a minimum. Is there any standards organization that covers Fe/Zn13 that I'm missing?

Dallas M. Dworak
- Corona, Ca. U.S.A.
  ^- Privately contact this inquirer -^


September 17, 2013

A. Hi Dallas. I suspect that your customer simply works in English rather than metric units, so they want a round number of .0005" to use with their inspectors and documentation, rather than wanting to specify an over-precise thickness of .00047244". I'd probably want to simply plate the parts to .0005" and certify them as complying with ASTM B633, .0005" thick.

Regards,

pic of Ted Mooney Teds signature
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
finishing.com
Pine Beach, New Jersey

October 3, 2014

A. ASTM B633 covers 2 types of RoHS compliant (Hex Chromium free) plating, types V (colorless trivalent) & VI (colored trivalent). It also covers 4 standard services classes of thickness (SC 1 = 5 µm, 2 = 8 µm, 3 = 12 µm, 4 = 25 µm). The selection of V would be used when needed for a base coat under paint or powdercoat and VI for standalone plating.

For Reference: The service class is based on the expected wear and lifetime of the product. (i.e, indoor with no movement/wear = SC 1, outdoor/humid environment with movement/wear = SC 4). This is determined based on an educated decision.

Zach Brannan
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

ADD a Q or A to THIS thread START a NEW THREADView This Week's HOT TOPICS

disclaim

 seek

JobshopsCapital Equip. & Install'nChemicals & Consumables Consult'g, Train'g, SoftwareEnvironmental ComplianceTesting Svcs. & DevicesUsed & Surplus


©1995-2014 finishing.com     -    Privacy    -    Search