|
|
|
|
Background
Starting January 1, 2004, Chromated Copper Arsenate
(CCA) treated wood products were no longer permitted to be manufactured
for general sale, with only some minor exceptions for use in limited,
well-defined applications. (See http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/cca_transition.htm
for more information.). Some of the commonly available preservative-treated
wood products will be treated with ammoniacal copper quat (ACQ),
copper azole (CBA/CA-B), or ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA).
While these alternative treating chemicals have been proven to be
effective wood preservatives when used in accordance with AWPA standards,
there is some evidence that these chemicals are more corrosive than
CCA to metal fasteners and connectors.
The purpose of this document is to provide answers to some specific
questions related to this issue. Users are cautioned that this
information
is only a synthesis of reports currently available from public
sources. A number of sources are attempting
to assess the corrosivity of treatment chemicals. Updates will
be issued as new or additional information becomes available.
|
| Questions
and Answers |
| Q:
Lumber treated with CCA has been available for many years. Does
metal corrode in contact with CCA treated lumber?
A: The chemicals used in CCA treated lumber have
been shown to be somewhat corrosive to fasteners and connectors.
Accordingly, chemical manufacturers and the treated lumber industry
have traditionally recommended and the model building codes have
required the use of corrosion resistant fasteners and connectors
when used with CCA treated lumber.
Q: What’s different with the
new alternative treatments?
A: When subjected to standardized laboratory tests
that accelerate the corrosion process, metal connectors and fasteners
exposed to the chemicals used in ACQ, Copper Azole, or ACZA exhibit
higher rates of corrosion than connectors and fasteners exposed
to CCA. Discussions within the affected industries are attempting
to sort out the significance of these differences in real-world
applications.
Q: What should users do while the
technical issues are being evaluated?
A: At the very least, users should rigorously apply
the recommendations of the chemical
manufacturers and the treating industry – to use corrosion
resistant fasteners and connectors or zinccoated (galvanized) fasteners
and connectors with corrosion protection at least equivalent to
that of hot-dip galvanized products.
Q: What zinc coating specifications apply to hot-dip galvanized
products used in wood building construction?
A: Specifications for sheet metal connectors (joist hangers and
metal straps) and fasteners (such as nails and bolts) are addressed
in separate ASTM standards. Coating weight designations for sheet
steel are specified in ASTM A 653, Standard Specification for Steel
Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron Alloy-Coated (Galvannealed)
by the Hot-Dip Process. An example zinc coating designation in
ASTM A 653 is G185 where “G” indicates zinc coating
and “185” indicates a total of 1.85 oz/ft2 of coating
on both sides of the steel sheet. For fasteners, minimum coating
weights are specified in ASTM A 153, Standard Specification for
Zinc Coating (Hot-Dip) on Iron and Steel Hardware. A Class D designation
applies for fasteners 3/8” in diameter and smaller. The minimum
coating weight associated with Class D is 1.0 oz/ft2.
Q:
Is there a difference between “hot-dip” galvanized products
and other types of galvanized products manufactured using a different
process?
A: There are a variety of processes for galvanizing metal products
other than the hot-dip process. These include electrolysis (electrogalvanized,
zinc plated) and peening (mechanical plating). There are some differences
and issues that users should be aware of:
| |
1) Coating
thicknesses developed by the electrolysis process may be too thin. Most
commonly available electrogalvanized or zinc plated fasteners and connectors
do not have a sufficient coating of zinc for these new chemicals. |
| |
2) The density of
the coating can be less than provided by the hot-dip process. For example,
mechanically deposited coating in accordance with ASTM B 695 Standard
Specification for Coatings of Zinc Mechanically Deposited on Iron and
Steel has a density that is approximately 75% of the density of the zinc
coating resulting from the hot-dip process. Approximately 33% greater
coating thickness is needed to produce the same level of zinc per unit
area as provided by the hot-dip process. |
Q: What connectors provide maximum
corrosion resistance?
A: Type 304 and 316 stainless steel have been used to provide maximum
corrosion resistance. Type 304 and 316 stainless steel connectors
and fasteners have been used in demanding applications such as
coastal exposures and in permanent wood foundations.
Q: What other details should users
and specifiers be aware of?
A: There are other issues that have been reported
that are important to users:
| |
1. |
Never
mix galvanized steel with stainless steel in the same connection.
When these
dissimilar metals are in physical contact with each other, galvanic
action will increase
corrosion rate of the galvanized part (the zinc will migrate
off the galvanized part onto the stainless part at a faster
rate). |
| |
2. |
Galvanizing
provides a sacrificial layer to protect the steel connector
or fastener. Greater thicknesses (coating weights - see Table
1) generally provide longer protection in corrosive environments.
|
| |
3. |
Aluminum
should not be used in direct contact with CCA, ACQ, Copper
Azole
or ACZA. |
Q:
Are all alternative treatments more corrosive than CCA?
A: The majority of the research has been conducted on the
corrosivity of ACQ and Copper Azole. Comparative testing has indicated
that borates are less corrosive but users should still consult
manufacturer recommendations regarding corrosion resistant fasteners
or corrosion protection of fasteners and suitable applications
for borate treatments.
|
| More
Information |
A
search on the internet will provide a long list of “hits”
on this topic. Information on the following web sites may be especially
useful to users of treated wood products:
General:
Information
from manufacturers of treating chemicals:
Table
1. Zinc coating weight and thicknessa, b, c
| Component
/ Description |
Coating
weight
(oz / ft²) |
Coating
thickness (mils) |
| ASTM
A 653 – Standard Specification
for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) or Zinc-Iron Alloy-Coated
(Galvanized) by the Hot-Dip Process |
| Steel
Sheet |
| |
G360 |
3.60 |
3.06 |
| |
G300 |
3.00 |
2.55 |
| |
G235 |
2.35 |
2.00 |
| |
G210 |
2.10 |
1.79 |
| |
G185 |
1.85 |
1.57 |
| |
G165 |
1.65 |
1.40 |
| |
G140 |
1.40 |
1.19 |
| |
G115 |
1.15 |
0.98 |
| |
G90 |
0.90 |
0.77 |
| |
G60 |
0.60 |
0.51 |
| ASTM
A 153 – Standard Specification for Zinc Coated (Hot-Dip)
on Iron and Steel Hardware |
| Castings |
| |
Class
A |
2.00 |
3.40 |
| Rolled
or Pressed Steel |
| |
Class
B-1: t >= 3/16 in., L >15 in. |
2.00 |
3.40 |
| |
Class
B-2: t < 3/16 in., L >15 in. |
1.50 |
2.55 |
| |
Class
B-3: any thickness, L <= 15 in. |
1.30 |
2.21 |
| Hardware |
| |
Class
C: diameter > 3/8 in. |
1.25 |
2.13 |
| |
Class
D: diameter <= 3/8 in. |
1.00 |
1.70 |
| ASTM
A 641 – Standard Specification for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized)
Carbon Steel Wire |
| Carbon
Steel Wire (used to form nails or staples) |
| Class
1 |
|
|
| |
0.035
in. diameter |
0.10 |
0.17 |
| |
0.048
in. diameter |
0.15 |
0.26 |
| |
0.062
in. diameter |
0.15 |
0.26 |
| |
0.076
in. diameter |
0.20 |
0.34 |
| |
0.080
in. diameter |
0.25 |
0.43 |
| |
0.092
in. diameter |
0.28 |
0.48 |
| |
0.148
in. diameter |
0.35 |
0.60 |
| |
0.192
in. diameter |
0.50 |
0.85 |
| |
0.207
in. diameter |
0.53 |
0.90 |
| Class
2 |
|
|
| |
0.035
in. diameter |
0.30 |
0.51 |
| |
0.048
in. diameter |
0.30 |
0.51 |
| |
0.062
in. diameter |
0.35 |
0.60 |
| |
0.076
in. diameter |
0.40 |
0.68 |
| |
0.080
in. diameter |
0.45 |
0.77 |
| |
0.092
in. diameter |
0.50 |
0.85 |
| |
0.148
in. diameter |
0.60 |
1.02 |
| |
0.192
in. diameter |
0.70 |
1.19 |
| |
0.207
in. diameter |
0.75 |
1.28 |
| ASTM
B 695– Standard Specification for Coatings of Zinc
Mechanically Deposited on Iron and Steel |
| Iron and Steel |
| Class: |
110 |
1.86 |
4.2 |
| |
80 |
1.41 |
3.2 |
| |
70 |
1.20 |
2.7 |
| |
65 |
1.15 |
2.6 |
| |
55 |
0.92 |
2.1 |
| |
50 |
0.87 |
2.0 |
| |
40 |
0.69 |
1.6 |
| |
25 |
0.43 |
1.0 |
| |
12 |
0.21 |
0.5 |
| |
8 |
0.14 |
0.3 |
| |
5 |
0.09 |
0.2 |
| |
| Notes: |
| a.) |
Coating weight for steel sheet in accordance
with ASTM A 653 represents total coating weight for both sides. Coating weight on a single side is taken as one-half of the
total coating weight. Coating thickness for one side is shown. |
| b.) |
From Table X2.1 of ASTM A 653-95, 1 oz/ft2
of zinc coating corresponds to a coating thickness of approximately
0.0017 in. (1.7 mils). This approximation is used to determine
coating thickness.
|
| c.) |
Minimum
coating thickness specified in ASTM B 695 are in units of
µm. Values shown are converted to mils
by dividing by 25.4. Minimum coating weight approximated assuming
density is 75% that of zinc coating from the hot-dip process
in accordance with “Zinc Coatings” from the American
Galvanizers Association. |
AF&PA/American Wood Council – August
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|