Is There a Mil Spec for Alternatives to Cadmium Finishes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dingpud
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on alternatives to cadmium finishes for hardware, specifically highlighting the use of tin-zinc coatings as an industry standard where cadmium is prohibited. Military specifications (Mil Specs) are no longer maintained by the military but have transitioned to SAE standards, beginning with an "A" for aerospace applications. ASTM B 633 is identified as a replacement for the outdated QQ-C-416 standard. Additionally, vapor deposition aluminum, as specified in Mil Spec 83488, is presented as a viable alternative to cadmium finishes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Military Specifications (Mil Specs) and their transition to SAE standards.
  • Familiarity with ASTM B 633 and QQ-C-416 standards.
  • Knowledge of vapor deposition techniques, specifically ion vapor deposition and sputtering.
  • Awareness of the implications of cadmium restrictions in manufacturing processes.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest SAE specifications relevant to aerospace applications.
  • Study the ASTM B 633 standard and its implications for hardware finishes.
  • Learn about vapor deposition techniques, focusing on ion vapor deposition and sputtering for aluminum coatings.
  • Explore online specifications services like IHS for comprehensive access to military and aerospace standards.
USEFUL FOR

Manufacturers, aerospace engineers, and quality assurance professionals seeking alternatives to cadmium finishes in hardware applications will benefit from this discussion.

dingpud
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Does anyone know if there is a published Military Specification which gives suitable alternatives to Cadmium finishes on hardware?

Thanks,
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
No idea about the military specifications, but tin-zinc coatings are an industry standard for applications where cadmium has been blacklisted.
 
Mil spec are no longer kept up to date by the military. They were taken over by SAE and now start with an “A” for aerospace specs. You could check with SAE to see if they have made a replacement spec.

Otherwise I found this company that lists ASTM-B-633 which replaced the old standard which was QQ-C-416:

http://www.dfcis.com/dzfinish.html#rohs
 
That's the one I've been looking for...thanks.

Correct, new specs aren't upkept by the Gov't, but there are a lot of specs out there which are still active and can be found at the following link:

http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/

The search engine is kind of sensitive, so when typing in a number, make sure you don't have any numbers included.

One other nice thing with this site is if a spec is inactivated, they will typically list what the superceding document number is...

Thanks again for ASTM B 633...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It all depends on what you are looking for. Obviously you found what you need. The best thing to do is to talk someone into getting a license for an on-line specs service like IHS. All you would have to do is look up the MIL spec and it would tell you all you need including the cancellation and the new SAE or equivalent controlling spec.
 
Cadmium can be replaced by vapor depositiong aluminum as covered under mil spec 83488.

Ion Vapor depostion of aluminum may be used. Also, sputtered aluminum satisfies 83488. Information on sputtering equipment for such aluminum coatings can be received from John Marshall, jay3marsh@aol.com
 
Cadmium can be replaced by vapor deposition aluminum as covered under mil spec 83488.

Ion Vapor deposition of aluminum may be used. Also, sputtered aluminum satisfies 83488. Information on sputtering equipment for such aluminum coatings can be received from John Marshall, jay3marsh@aol.com
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K