Marketing wants to put a 25-year life on a coated composite product and points at some accelerated weathering data to back it up. As the QA lead I'm nervous about standing behind that number, so how far can I really lean on chamber testing?
Accelerated weathering, for instance UV, condensation and thermal cycling in a chamber, is genuinely useful for ranking materials and exposing weak points quickly, but it does not translate cleanly into a number of years in the field. The correlation between chamber hours and real exposure depends on the material, the degradation mechanism and the climate, so a fixed hours-to-years conversion is rarely defensible on its own. A credible service-life case usually pairs accelerated data with a recognised protocol, some real outdoor exposure, and clearly stated assumptions about the service conditions. Be especially wary if a likely failure mode, such as coating adhesion or substrate movement, is not represented in the chamber regime at all. Before publishing a figure you have to stand behind, get the specific claim and its evidence reviewed, and materials testing can advise on a defensible durability programme.
Ask the Allbase team and we'll add the answer here for everyone.