Why We Performed This Test
Powder coating is widely used on outdoor electrical enclosures because it provides a durable surface finish and good environmental protection. However, the corrosion resistance of a finished steel enclosure depends on more than the visible outer coating.
Surface preparation, edge coverage, punched openings, screw holes, coating thickness and the use of an additional electrophoretic coating layer can all influence how corrosion begins and develops.
To better understand the difference between the two coating systems, Daheng Electric conducted a controlled side-by-side comparison using four steel enclosure samples exposed in the same salt spray chamber at the same time.
The Main Question
Does an electrophoretic coating layer beneath the powder coating provide additional corrosion protection compared with powder coating alone?
Four Samples, Two Coating Systems
Four steel enclosure samples were used in the comparison. The samples were divided into two groups, with two samples in each group.
Group A
Powder Coating Only
Two steel enclosure samples finished with the standard powder coating process without an electrophoretic coating base layer.
Group B
Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Two steel enclosure samples treated with an electrophoretic coating base layer before the final powder coating process.
SST-SAMPLES-01
Overview of all four labeled samples before testing
Recommended ratio: 16:9
Test Conditions
All four samples were placed in the same chamber and exposed simultaneously to reduce variations caused by equipment conditions, test duration and salt spray concentration.
| Test Item | Test Condition |
|---|---|
| Test Method | Neutral salt spray exposure |
| Reference Method | ASTM B117-style test conditions |
| Salt Solution | Approximately 5% sodium chloride |
| Chamber Temperature | Approximately 35 degrees C |
| Number of Samples | 4 |
| Powder-Coating-Only Samples | 2 |
| Electrophoretic + Powder Samples | 2 |
| Intermediate Inspection | 163 hours |
| Final Inspection | 243 hours |
The test was conducted in Daheng Electric's internal testing facility. The purpose was to compare the relative performance of the two coating systems under the same internal test conditions.
SST-EQUIPMENT-01
Salt spray test chamber and test setup
Recommended ratio: 4:3
SST-TIMER-START-01
Equipment timer or control panel at the beginning of the test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Figure 2. Test chamber and equipment status at the beginning of the comparison.
Condition Before Testing
Before entering the salt spray chamber, all four samples were visually inspected and photographed. The initial images provide a reference for evaluating later changes in the coating surface, edges, punched openings, screw holes and other exposed areas.
- Coating surface condition recorded
- Edges and corners inspected
- Screw holes inspected
- Knockout areas inspected
- Sample identification confirmed
SST-BEFORE-OVERVIEW-01
Overview of all four samples before testing
Recommended ratio: 16:9
SST-BEFORE-A1
Sample A1 before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A1
Powder Coating Only
SST-BEFORE-A2
Sample A2 before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A2
Powder Coating Only
SST-BEFORE-B1
Sample B1 before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B1
Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
SST-BEFORE-B2
Sample B2 before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B2
Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Figure 3. Initial condition of the four samples before salt spray exposure.
Intermediate Inspection at 163 Hours
The first detailed inspection was performed after 163 hours of continuous salt spray exposure. At this stage, the samples were photographed to document any visible changes in coating condition and the early development of corrosion.
SST-TIMER-163-01
Equipment timer showing approximately 163 hours
Recommended ratio: 16:9
SST-163-A1
Sample A1 at 163-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A1 - Powder Coating Only
Observation
Observation details will be added after final image review.
SST-163-A2
Sample A2 at 163-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A2 - Powder Coating Only
Observation
Observation details will be added after final image review.
SST-163-B1
Sample B1 at 163-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B1 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Observation
Observation details will be added after final image review.
SST-163-B2
Sample B2 at 163-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B2 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Observation
Observation details will be added after final image review.
Inspection Focus
The inspection focused on visible rust initiation, edge corrosion, screw holes, punched openings, coating blistering, discoloration and corrosion spread.
Final Inspection at 243 Hours
The final documented inspection was completed after 243 hours of salt spray exposure. The same inspection points used at 163 hours were reviewed again to identify whether corrosion had expanded, remained localized or appeared in additional areas.
SST-TIMER-243-01
Equipment timer showing approximately 243 hours
Recommended ratio: 16:9
SST-243-A1
Sample A1 at 243-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A1 - Powder Coating Only
Observation
Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.
SST-243-A2
Sample A2 at 243-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample A2 - Powder Coating Only
Observation
Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.
SST-243-B1
Sample B1 at 243-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B1 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Observation
Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.
SST-243-B2
Sample B2 at 243-hour inspection
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Sample B2 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Observation
Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.
Side-by-Side Timeline Comparison
The timeline below is designed to compare each coating system at three stages: before testing, after 163 hours and after 243 hours.
Powder Coating Only
Before Test
SST-COMPARE-POWDER-BEFORE
Powder coating only samples before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
163 Hours
SST-COMPARE-POWDER-163
Powder coating only samples after 163 hours
Recommended ratio: 4:3
243 Hours
SST-COMPARE-POWDER-243
Powder coating only samples after 243 hours
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Before Test
SST-COMPARE-EP-BEFORE
Electrophoretic coating plus powder coating samples before test
Recommended ratio: 4:3
163 Hours
SST-COMPARE-EP-163
Electrophoretic coating plus powder coating samples after 163 hours
Recommended ratio: 4:3
243 Hours
SST-COMPARE-EP-243
Electrophoretic coating plus powder coating samples after 243 hours
Recommended ratio: 4:3
Key Observations
Coating Surface
Final observations will be added after reviewing the 163-hour and 243-hour test photographs.
Edges and Corners
Final observations will be added after reviewing the 163-hour and 243-hour test photographs.
Screw Holes and Openings
Final observations will be added after reviewing the 163-hour and 243-hour test photographs.
Corrosion Development Over Time
Final observations will be added after reviewing the 163-hour and 243-hour test photographs.
Important Note
Visible appearance is only one part of coating evaluation. This internal comparison did not include adhesion testing, scribe creep measurement, coating thickness correlation or destructive examination after salt spray exposure.
What the Results Mean
This comparison is intended to show how two coating systems behave under the same accelerated salt spray exposure conditions. Once all images are reviewed, the final analysis will focus on where corrosion first appeared, how quickly it developed and whether the electrophoretic coating base layer provided additional protection in vulnerable areas.
The most important comparison is not simply whether rust was present. The location, timing and rate of corrosion development are also relevant when assessing the performance of a coating system.
Path B: Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Test Scope and Limitations
This test was conducted by Daheng Electric as an internal comparative evaluation. It was not performed or certified by an independent third-party laboratory.
The test conditions were based on neutral salt spray principles commonly associated with ASTM B117. This article should not be interpreted as a formal ASTM certification report.
Actual corrosion performance may vary depending on steel quality, surface preparation, coating thickness, curing conditions, scratches, installation environment, humidity, pollutants, coastal exposure and maintenance.
Salt spray exposure is useful for controlled comparison, but it does not reproduce every condition encountered during long-term outdoor service.
Continuing to Improve Through Testing
Daheng Electric uses internal testing to better understand how materials, surface treatment and manufacturing processes influence the durability of AC disconnect enclosures.
The purpose of this test is not only to present a final result, but also to document the testing process, compare coating systems and support future process improvement.
Looking for an AC Disconnect Manufacturing Partner?
We support OEM and private-label AC disconnect projects for North American customers, including enclosure manufacturing, logo stamping, labeling, packaging and quality inspection.


