| Standard ID | Contents [version] | USD | STEP2 | [PDF] delivered in | Standard Title (Description) | Status | PDF |
| T/CSAE 105-2019 | English | 949 |
Add to Cart
|
5 days [Need to translate]
|
Evaluation Method of Vehicle Exposure to Weathering
| |
T/CSAE 105-2019
|
PDF similar to TCSAE105-2019
Basic data | Standard ID | T/CSAE 105-2019 (T/CSAE105-2019) | | Description (Translated English) | Evaluation Method of Vehicle Exposure to Weathering | | Sector / Industry | Chinese Industry Standard | | Classification of Chinese Standard | T40 | | Word Count Estimation | 27,263 | | Date of Issue | 4/25/2019 | | Administrative Organization | China Automobile Engineering Society | TCSAE105-2019: Evaluation Method of Vehicle Exposure to Weathering---This is a DRAFT version for illustration, not a final translation. Full copy of true-PDF in English version (including equations, symbols, images, flow-chart, tables, and figures etc.) will be manually/carefully translated upon your order.
T/CSAE 105-2019
Evaluation Method of Vehicle Exposure to Weathering
Atmospheric exposure test evaluation method for automobile
Content
Foreword...II
1 Scope...1
2 Normative references...1
3 Terms and Definitions...1
4 Complete vehicle atmospheric exposure test requirements...1
5 vehicle weatherability single performance rating... 2
6 Vehicle weatherability score calculation...3
7 Vehicle weatherability evaluation requirements... 4
8 Vehicle weatherability evaluation report...4
Appendix A (informative appendix) Typical sensory quality variations and ratings of automobiles...6
Appendix B (informative appendix) Method for assessing the odour level in a car under natural environment...18
Appendix C (informative) Car visible or accessible area partitions...20
Appendix D (informative) Weather resistance test record for parts...21
References...1
T/CSAEXX-2019
Foreword
This standard is drafted in accordance with the rules given in GB/T 1.1-2009 "Standardization Work Guide Part 1. Standard Structure and Compilation".
Please note that some of the contents of this document may involve patents, and the issuing organization of this document is not responsible for identifying these patents.
This standard was proposed and managed by the China Automotive Engineering Society.
This standard was drafted. China Electric Apparatus Research Institute Co., Ltd., Chongqing Changan Automobile Co., Ltd., Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Co., Ltd.
Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Geely Automobile Research Institute Co., Ltd., Shanghai Automobile Group Co., Ltd. Passenger Vehicle Company, Beijing Automobile Co., Ltd.
Company, Automotive Engineering Research Institute of Zhongtai Automobile Co., Ltd., Shenlong Automobile Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Automotive Group Co., Ltd. Automotive Engineering Research
Research Institute, China FAW Tianjin Technology Development Branch, Beijing Beiqi Deben Automotive Technology Center Co., Ltd., Dongfeng Motor Group Co., Ltd.
Center, Beiqi Foton Motor Co., Ltd., Asia Pacific Materials Testing Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Electric Apparatus Research Institute Co., Ltd.
Hainan Tropical Environment Branch.
The main drafters of this standard. Zhang Xiaodong, Zeng Wenbo, Wang Tianqi, Huang Xu, Wang Naxin, Huang Ping, Li Mingxi, Li Junxian, Wang Jun, Gao
Ze Hai, Wang Wentao, Hu Renqi, Yang Jiaowei, Yang Hao, Wang Hui, Tang Yugang, Wang Limei, Ren Peng, Yu Xiaojie, Huang Jiangling, Cheng Wei, Ma Xu
East, Chen Zezhen.
T/CSAE XX-2019
Atmospheric exposure test evaluation method for automobile
1 Scope
This standard stipulates the test requirements, performance rating, score calculation, evaluation requirements, etc. of weatherability evaluation after vehicle air exposure test.
This standard is applicable to the evaluation of the results after the weathering test of passenger cars. The evaluation of weather resistance of other types of vehicles can refer to the application.
2 Normative references
The following documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated references, only the dated version applies to this article.
Pieces. For undated references, the latest edition (including all amendments) applies to this document.
QC/T 728-2005 Test method for atmospheric exposure of automobile
3 Terms and definitions
The following terms and definitions apply to this document.
3.1
Automotive weatherability
The ability of a vehicle to withstand the damaging effects of the climatic environment is generally tested and evaluated by the typical atmospheric exposure test of the vehicle.
3.2
Organoleptic quality
The quality of the driver's occupants such as visual, olfactory, tactile, and auditory, such as the appearance and smell of the vehicle. The
Class quality can cause users to complain, but does not affect normal use, and less maintenance costs (except severe odor).
3.3
Functional quality
The ability of an automobile machinery or electrical appliance to function properly. This type of quality problem will have a certain impact on consumer use, attenuation
A lighter degree will cause users to complain, and a heavier one will result in maintenance costs, but it will have no significant impact on vehicle safety and reliability.
3.4
Safety quality
Quality associated with normal contact with the vehicle or the safety or physical and mental health of the person using it. This kind of quality problem will cause users to complain or even
Initiate a recall.
4 vehicle air exposure test requirements
T/CSAEXX-2019
Refer to the relevant requirements of QC/T 728 to place the whole vehicle statically in China's typical damp heat (such as Hainan Qionghai) and/or dry heat (such as Xinjiang).
Turpan) The climate test is carried out in the climate zone. It is recommended to conduct a vehicle weathering inspection every 2 months or 3 months.
5 Vehicle performance test for individual exposure test
5.1 Component and material grade single performance rating
5.1.1 Sensory quality rating
Sensory ratings for parts and materials include the following.
a) Refer to Appendix A for specific expressions of sensory quality changes in parts or materials.
b) Uniform changes visible on the surface of the vehicle body, such as loss of light, discoloration, chalking, etc., are rated by the degree of change, see Table 1.
c) Non-continuous or local irregular changes in the surface of the vehicle body, such as blistering, cracking, rusting points, etc., are rated by the number of changes, see Table 2.
d) If the type of change has a quantitative significance of magnitude, plus the assessment of the magnitude of the change, see Table 3.
e) The representation of changes in weatherability should include the following. type of damage, degree of damage, or level of change. To indicate change
Size grades are indicated in parentheses.
Example. "Gloss. 2" in uniform change means loss of light 2; blistering level in scatter (quantity, size) change "bubble. 2 (S3)"
The number of bubbles is 2, and the foaming size is 3 levels.
Table 1 Level of uniform change
Degree of change
0 no change, no noticeable change
1 very slight, that is, just noticeable changes
2 slight, that is, sensible aging
3 medium, that is, there is a noticeable aging
4 is larger, that is, there is a big change
5 serious, that is, there is a strong change
Table 2 Quantity change level
Number of levels change
0 no, ie no visible change
1 less, that is, just some notable changes
2 less, that is, there are a few notable changes
3 medium, that is, there is a moderate amount of change
4 more, that is, there are more changes
5 dense, that is, intensive changes
Table 3 Size change level
Level change size
No visible change under S0 10 times magnifying glass
S1 10 times magnifying glass visible changes
S2 just visible changes under normal vision
S3 Significantly visible changes under normal vision (< 0.5mm)
T/CSAE XX-2019
S4 variation from 0.5mm to 5mm
S5 > 5mm change
5.1.2 Functional Quality Rating
For the evaluation of the functional attenuation level of components, see Table 4.
Table 4 Component function attenuation level
Degree of attenuation
0 no, that is, there is no obvious functional attenuation
3 Obviously, the function attenuation can be clearly felt, but it can still be used.
5 serious, the function can not be played properly, consumers can not use
5.1.3 Safety Quality Rating
For the safety quality rating of parts, see Table 5.
Table 5 Parts safety quality level
Degree of attenuation
0 None, safe and reliable performance related to vehicle safety
Serious, there are potential safety hazards, for normal contact with the vehicle or for the safety of the person or for physical and mental health
There is a security risk.
5.2 Vehicle-level single performance rating
The vehicle-level single-item performance mainly refers to the smell inside the car, which belongs to the sensory quality of the car. The evaluation of the odor level in the car is shown in Table 6. The evaluator is allowed.
The staff gives a value of 0.5. See Appendix B for the relevant requirements for odor evaluation.
Table 6 Odour level
Grade odour level
0 odorless
1 has a slight odor (almost unrecognizable smell)
2 has an easy to recognize smell, but no discomfort
3 has a distinct smell, which makes people feel uncomfortable
4 has a strong smell, it is offensive
5 have an unbearable smell
6 Vehicle weatherability score calculation
6.1 The weatherability score of the whole vehicle is calculated from the three evaluation dimensions of sensory quality, functional quality and safety quality.
6.2 Sensory quality, functional quality and safety quality The three-point scores of the three dimensions are all 100 points, and the right in the vehicle weatherability score
The weights are 30%, 30% and 40%.
6.3 Sensory quality The weight of the high visible or high contact area, the visible or medium contact area and the low visible or low contact area is 70%,
20% and 10%. See Appendix C for definitions of each region.
T/CSAEXX-2019
6.4 The scores of the single-item performance 0 to 5 are shown in Table 7. Multiple aging phenomena for the same component, as well as multiple symmetrical parts
The same aging phenomenon is scored separately.
Table 7 Single item performance score
Single performance change level 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lost value code F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
Loss value 0 1 5 10 50 100
6.5 The calculation method of the weatherability score P of each dimension is.
100-(n0×F0 n1×F1 n2×F2 n3×F3 n4×F4 n5×F5) P >0
P=
0 P≤0
Where. 0n, 1n, 2n, 3n, 4n, 5n The number of a certain loss level.
7 Vehicle weatherability evaluation requirements
The weather resistance of the vehicle should meet the level requirements of Table 8.
Table 8 Vehicle weatherability rating requirements
Test Cycle
Weatherability rating requirements
Safety quality function quality
Sensory quality
High visibility or high contact
region
Visible or medium contact
region
Low or low contact
region
0 months all ≤ 0 all ≤ 0 ≤ 0 ≤ 0 ≤ 0
6 months all ≤ 0 all ≤ 0
≤1 change does not exceed
≤ 2 changes do not exceed
12 months all ≤0
Can't appear >3
≤ 2 changes do not exceed
≤3 change does not exceed
Note. The above performance change requirements do not include changes in sensory quality of parts with a three-pack period of no more than 3 months.
8 Vehicle weatherability evaluation report
The vehicle test report should include the following.
a) The name and model of the vehicle;
b) the test site;
c) the start and end time of the vehicle exposure test;
d) vehicle cleaning projects and cycles;
e) a list of vehicle inspection items;
f) vehicle inspection project name, standard procedures and inspection cycle;
g) appearance test results;
h) performance test results;
i) vehicle weatherability evaluation results;
T/CSAE XX-2019
j) body microenvironmental condition data;
k) atmospheric environmental condition data of the test site;
l) atmospheric exposure field pollutant data;
m) Information such as photos or videos.
T/CSAEXX-2019
AA
Appendix A
(informative appendix)
Typical sensory quality variations and ratings of automobiles
A.1 Types and definitions of typical sensory quality changes in automobiles
The definition of the typical sensory quality change of a car is described in Table A.1.
Table A.1 Definitions of typical sensory quality changes in automobiles
Name definition of English abbreviation
Foaming BL
The bulging phenomenon of the blisters on the surface of the human skin that is discontinuous on the surface of the sample may be corroded or caused by the substrate under the coating.
Fat surface defects
Deterioration of the appearance of powder on the surface of the powdered CH test
Fine crack CK does not penetrate to the underlying layer or the surface of the substrate
Cracking CR
a crack that penetrates the outer surface of the specimen or its entire thickness, the polymer between the two sidewalls of the crack
Is completely separate
Crack CZ
a network of fine cracks or deep cracks on the surface of the specimen or the subsurface, caused by a decrease in apparent density of the polymer
Surface crack
Color change DC initial color change (a* or b* or both)
Expansion EP is elongated in at least one direction than in the pre-test state
Lysate ED
A solid or liquid substance that appears on the surface of a sample and is one or more substances in the sample.
Phenomenon of surface
Color intensity decay of faded F coloration (mainly increased L* value)
Gloss change GC surface reflectance change
Pinhole PH sample surface has a diameter of less than 0.5mm, for the film product pinhole through the entire thickness
Corrosion R Oxide layer on the metal surface
Separation of SP laminates between layers, partial peeling of components in bonded components or separation into thin layers in similar materials
Shrinkage SH is shortened in at least one direction from the pre-test state
Tiger skin pattern TS visible parallel stripes on the surface like tiger skin
Wrinkle WR sample surface presents regular wrinkles in the form of small wave ripples
Wrapping (curved) W The change in the basic shape different from the surface defect, also refers to the deformation of the plastic product.
Yellowing Y tends to change yellow color, showing a slightly yellow hue (ie, b value increases)
The phenomenon of irregularly shaped raised particles distributed on the surface of a rough surface BA sample
Peeling off one or more layers of the surface of the P sample, or the surface cover layer is completely detached from the substrate.
Hard (brittle) EM samples are deteriorated due to aging
Long mold MG in the hot and humid environment, the sample surface breeds various molds
Spot (oxidized) S One or more spots on the surface of the sample that are different from the original color
Blooming FR
The surface of the sample appears as a creamy white deposit, and the initial stage of the blooming is easy to wipe the frost with a damp cloth.
T/CSAE XX-2019
Loose LS sample appears to sway up and down and left and right
Sticky SK test pattern has a sticky feeling on the surface or can leave a fingerprint
A.2 Typical sensory quality changes in cars
An example of a typical sensory quality change picture of a car is shown in Figures A.1 to A.12.
Figure A.1 Cracking of non-metallic parts
Figure A.2 Surface fading of the sample
T/CSAEXX-2019
Figure A.3 Partial whitening of plastic parts
Figure A.4 Cloud-like spots on the surface of the plated parts
Figure A.5 Surface corrosion of metal parts
T/CSAE XX-2019
Figure A.6 Non-metallic cracks
Figure A.7 The lampshade is yellowed
Figure A.8 Warpage and deformation of non-metallic parts
T/CSAEXX-2019
Figure A.9 Tiger skin pattern on the surface of plastic parts
Figure A.10 The surface of the rubber part is frosted
Figure A.11 Foaming on the surface of the coating
T/CSAE XX-2019
Figure A.12 Car carpet
A.3 The level of typical sensory quality changes in cars
A.3.1 Loss rating
The degree of gloss change before and after aging of the paint film was visually observed and the gloss before and after aging was measured by the method of GB/T 9754. Calculate the loss rate, which
The rating is shown in Table A.2.
Table A.2 Level of light loss
Level of light loss (visual) Loss of light /%
0 no light loss ≤ 3
1 very slight loss of light 4 ~ 15
2 slight loss of light 16~30
3 obviously lost 31~50
4 severe loss of light 51 ~ 80
5 completely lost light >80
Calculate the loss rate (%) using the following formula.
AA
Loss of light
In the formula.
0A - the measured value of the gloss before aging;
1A - Gloss measurement after aging.
A.3.2 Color change rating
A.3.2.1 Instrument measurement
Determine and calculate the total color difference between the pre-aged and aged samples according to the methods of GB/T 11186.2 and GB/T 11186.3.
( *E ), according to the color difference rating, see Table A.3.
T/CSAEXX-2019
Table A.3 Degree of discoloration and discoloration level
Level color difference /
*E degree of discoloration
0 ≤ 1.5 no discoloration
1 1.6 to 3.0 very slight discoloration
2 3.1～6.0 slight discoloration
3 6.1 ~ 9.0 obvious discoloration
4 9.1~12.0 Large discoloration
5 >12 severe discoloration
A.3.2.2 Visual colorimetry
When the surface of the paint film is uneven and the color of the paint film is two or more colors, etc., it is not suitable for the instrument method.
law.
Refer to the provisions of GB/T 9761 to compare the aged sample with the non-aged sample (standard plate), before and after aging of the paint film
The degree of color change is evaluated with the gray sample card according to GB 250, see Table A.4.
Table A.4 Degree of discoloration and color change
Grade gray card level discoloration degree
0 5 to 4 without discoloration
1 is slightly inferior to grade 4 to grade 3 and is slightly discolored
2 inferior to grade 3 to 2 slight discoloration
3 inferior to the level 2 to 1 to 2 significant discoloration
4 is inferior to 1~2 to 1 large discoloration
5 inferior to grade 1 severe discoloration
A.3.3 chalking rating
A.3.3.1 The evaluation of the velvet cloth powdering grade is carried out according to ISO 4628-7. The degree and grade of pulverization are shown in Table A.5.
Table A.5 Degree and grade of chalking
Grade chalking degree
0 no powder
1 Very slight, just trace the pigment particles on the test cloth
2 slight, the test cloth is stained with a small amount of pigment particles
3 Obviously, the test cloth is stained with more pigment particles.
4 heavier, the test cloth is covered with a lot of pigment particles
5 Serious, the test cloth is covered with a large amount of pigment particles, or the sample appears exposed
A.3.3.2 The evaluation of the chalking level of the tape method is carried out in accordance with ISO 4628-6.
Note. The evaluation of the ISO 4628-6 tape paper grade is more suitable for final evaluation.
A.3.4 Crack rating
T/CSAE XX-2019
A.3.4.1 The cracking level of the paint film is expressed by the number of cracks in the paint film and the crack size. The cracking quantity grade and cracking grade are shown in Table A.6 and Table.
A.7.
Table A.6 Degree of cracking
Grade cracking quantity
0 no visible cracking
1 few, small, almost negligible cracking
2 A small amount. Perceptible cracking
3 medium amount of cracking
4 a greater number of cracks
5 dense cracking
Table A.7 Crack size rating
Grade crack size
S0 10 times magnifying glass without visible cracking
S1 10 times magnifying glass can be seen cracking
S2 visible vision just under normal vision
S3 Clear vision visible cracking under normal vision
S4 basically reaches 1mm wide crack
S5 over 1mm wide crack
A.3.4.2 If possible, the type of depth of cracking may also be indicated. The cracking depth is mainly divided into three types.
a) indicates that the surface without penetrating the paint film is cracked;
b) a crack that penetrates the surface paint film but has substantially no effect on the paint film underneath;
c) indicates cracking through the entire paint film system, visible substrate.
A.3.4.3 Assessment of cracking grades. Grade of cracking and grade of cracking (brackets). If possible, indicate
The depth of the crack.
Example. Cracking 3 (S4) b, indicating that the number of cracking is 3, the cracking size is S4, and the cracking through the surface paint film does not affect the bottom layer.
A.3.5 Foam rating
A.3.5.1 The foaming density level of the paint film is indicated by the density of the paint film foaming (see Table A.8) and the foaming size (see Table A.9).
Table A.8 Foaming density rating
Grade defoaming density
0 no bubble
1 few, a few bubbles
2 very small bubbles
3 have a medium number of bubbles
4 have a larger number of bubbles
5 dense bubbles
Table A.9 Bubble size rating
T/CSAEXX-2019
Grade foaming size (diameter)
S0 10 times magnifying glass without visible bubbles
S1 10 times visible under the magnifying glass
S2 just visible bubbles under normal vision
S3 < 0.5mm bubble
S4 0.5mm ~ 5mm bubble
S5 > 5mm bubble
A.3.5.2 Assessment of the level of foaming density. the level of foaming density and the level of foaming (brackets).
Example. Foaming 2 (S3), indicating that the film has a foaming density of 2 and a foaming size of S3.
A.3.6 Rating of rust
A.3.6.1 The rust level of the paint film is indicated by the number of rust spots (rust spots) on the surface of the paint film (see Table A.10) and the size of the rust spots (see Table A.11).
Table A.10 Number of rust spots (plaques)
Grade rust situation rust point (spot) number (a)
0 no rust point 0
1 very few, a few rust points ≤ 5
2 There are very few rust spots 6~10
3 have a moderate number of rust points 11 to 15
4 There are a large number of rust points 16 to 20
5 dense rust spots >20
Table A.11 Rust point size rating
Grade rust point size (maximum size)
S0 10 times magnifying glass without visible rust spots
S1 rust point visible under 10 times magnifying glass
S2 rust point just visible under normal vision
S3 < 0.5mm rust point
S4 rust point of 0.5mm~5mm
S5 > 5mm rust point
A.3.6.2 Assessment of the rust rating. the rating of the number of rust spots (spots) and the rating of the rust point size (with brackets).
Example. Rusting 3 (S4), indicating that the number of rust spots (spots) is 3, and the rust point size is S4.
A.3.7 Peeling rating
A.3.7.1 The degree of peeling of the paint film is based on the relative area of the paint film peeling (see Table A.12) and the size of the peeling exposed area (see Table A.13).
Show.
Table A.12 Exfoliation area rating
Grade peeling area /%
0 0
1 ≤ 0.1
T/CSAE XX-2019
2 ≤ 0.3
3 ≤1
4 ≤3
5 >3
Table A.13 Peel size rating
Grade peeling size (maximum size)
No visible peeling under S0 10 times magnifying glass
S1 ≤1mm
S2 ≤ 3mm
S3 ≤10mm
S4 ≤ 30mm
S5 >30mm
A.3.7.2 The depth of the peeling may be expressed according to the level of damage of the paint film system.
a) indicates that the surface paint film is peeled off from the underlying paint film;
b) indicates that the entire film system is peeled off from the substrate.
A.3.7.3 Assessment of the level of spalling. the grade of the exfoliation area and the grade of the exfoliation size (with parentheses). If possible, can be expressed
The depth of the peeling.
Example. Exfoliation 3 (S2) a, indicating that the peeling area is 3, the peeling size is S2, and the surface paint film is peeled off from the underlying paint film.
A.3.8 Long mildew rating
A.3.8.1 The grade of coated mildew is indicated by the number of coated mildew spots (see Table A.14) and the size of the mildew spots (see Table A.15).
Table A.14 Long mold quantity grade
Grade of mildew
0 no mildew
1 very few mildew
2 sparsely mildew
3 medium amount of mildew
4 more number of mildew
5 dense mold points
Table A.15 Mildew size rating
Grade mildew size (maximum size)
S0 no visible mildew
S1 can see mildew under normal vision
S2 < 1mm mildew
S3 < 2mm mildew
S4 < 5mm mildew
S5 ≥5mm mildew and hyphae
A.3.8.2 Assessment of the degree of mildew grade. the grade of the number of molds and the grade of the mold size (with brackets).
T/CSAEXX-2019
Example. Long mildew 2 (S3), indicating that the number of coated mildew is 2, and the size of the mildew is S3.
A.3.9 Spot rating
A.3.9.1 The grade of the coating spots is indicated by the number of coating spots (see Table A.16) and the spot size (see Table A.17).
Table A.16 Number of spots
Number of grade spots
0 no spots
1 few spots
2 small amount of sparse spots
3 medium number of spots
4 more spots
5 dense spots
Table A.17 Speckle size rating
Grade spot size (maximum size)
S0 10 times magnifying glass without visible spots
S1 10 times magnifying glass with visible spots
S2 visible spots under normal vision
S3 < 0.5mm spot
S4 0.5mm ~ 5mm spots
S5 >5mm spots
A.3.9.2 Assessment of the spot level. Method of the number of spots and the size of the spot size (with parentheses).
Example. Spot 2 (S3), indicating that the number of coating spots is 2 and the spot size is S3.
A.3.10 Pan-gold rating
The grade of the coating gold is indicated by the degree of coating gold (see Table A.18).
Table A.18 Degree of gold
Level of gold
0 no panning
1 Just noticeable, very slight pan-gold
2 slight pan-gold
3 obvious pan-gold
4 a large degree of pan-gold
5 serious pan-gold
A.3.11 Staining rating
The grade of coating contamination is indicated by the degree of coating contamination (see Table A.19).
Table A.19 Degree of contamination
T/CSAE XX-2019
Level of contamination
0 no stain
1 just noticeable, very slightly stained
2 slight staining
3 obvious contam...
|