Galvanic corrosion needs dissimilar metals, an electrolyte and an electrical path. Engineering evidence should identify exposed interfaces, liquid entry and drainage, and whether protection remains intact after assembly and service instead of making a generic salt-spray claim.
Review the metallurgical interface, mechanical contact and cut edge separately
An internal clad interface, copper- or aluminium-side mechanical contact, and an exposed punched or machined edge have different risks. Draw material orientation, finish boundaries, cut-edge protection, fastener and washer materials, isolation and no-pooling zones.
Measure the assembled state before and after exposure
Salt mist can compare protection quality, but a standalone hour count is not field life. Test specimens in the real torque, seal and mounting orientation, then inspect appearance, sealing, four-wire resistance, torque and insulation before and after exposure.
- Define evaluation zones around scratches, cut edges, holes and seal boundaries
- Record corrosion products, blistering, finish defects and contact-resistance change
- Add tests for actual media, temperature-humidity cycles and service actions
Acceptance rules must name the method, specimen and boundary
An RFQ should state copper and aluminium grades and orientation, joining process, finish, sealant, assembly hardware, environment, test method, duration, rating method and electrical retest rule. IEC 60068-2-11 and ASTM B117 define exposure methods; they do not replace product acceptance criteria or field-life evidence.
Apply this guide to a project
Use product pages to identify the hardware family and the calculator for early estimates only. Acceptance depends on drawings, operating conditions and project tests.