Daheng Electric logo
Daheng Electric
HomeAboutManufacturingQualityOEM & ODMBlogResourcesContact
Quality TestingAugust 4, 20267 min readDaheng Electric

Quality Test Series

Powder Coating vs. Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

A 243-Hour Neutral Salt Spray Comparison for Steel AC Disconnect Enclosures

We placed four steel enclosure samples into the same neutral salt spray chamber to compare two surface treatment systems under identical test conditions. Two samples used powder coating only, while two samples used electrophoretic coating followed by powder coating.

4 Test Samples
243 Hours
Two Coating Systems
Table of Contents

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.

Sample A1Sample A2

Group B

Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Two steel enclosure samples treated with an electrophoretic coating base layer before the final powder coating process.

Sample B1Sample B2
Figure 1. Four test samples prepared for the side-by-side salt spray comparison.

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 ItemTest Condition
Test MethodNeutral salt spray exposure
Reference MethodASTM B117-style test conditions
Salt SolutionApproximately 5% sodium chloride
Chamber TemperatureApproximately 35 degrees C
Number of Samples4
Powder-Coating-Only Samples2
Electrophoretic + Powder Samples2
Intermediate Inspection163 hours
Final Inspection243 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.

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

Sample A1

Powder Coating Only

Sample A2

Powder Coating Only

Sample B1

Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Sample B2

Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Figure 3. Initial condition of the four samples before salt spray exposure.

163 Hours

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.

Figure 4. Equipment operating time recorded at the 163-hour inspection point.

Sample A1 - Powder Coating Only

Observation

Observation details will be added after final image review.

Sample A2 - Powder Coating Only

Observation

Observation details will be added after final image review.

Sample B1 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Observation

Observation details will be added after final image review.

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.

243 Hours

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.

Figure 5. Equipment operating time recorded at the 243-hour inspection point.

Sample A1 - Powder Coating Only

Observation

Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.

Sample A2 - Powder Coating Only

Observation

Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.

Sample B1 - Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Observation

Final observation details will be added after the corresponding test image is reviewed.

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

163 Hours

243 Hours

Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating

Before Test

163 Hours

243 Hours

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.

Steel Substrate
Surface Preparation
Path A: Powder Coating Only
Path B: Electrophoretic Coating + Powder Coating
Neutral Salt Spray Exposure
Visual Comparison at 163 and 243 Hours

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.