In generic reliability standards such as GB/T 2423, IEC 60068 and MIL-STD-810, “damp heat” is treated as an independent climatic stress. The goal is not merely to verify moisture resistance, but to accelerate and expose failure modes triggered by water adsorption, condensation, “breathing” and electrochemical migration. Although a high-low temperature cyclic humidity chamber (hereafter “the chamber”) can deliver both steady-state and cyclic profiles, an ill-chosen method may either inflate test costs through over-testing or misalign failure mechanisms and distort field-failure predictions. This paper reviews the physics, acceleration factors and applicability boundaries of Steady-state Damp Heat (SSDH) and Cyclic Damp Heat (CDH) from an engineering perspective, and provides actionable selection rules for R&D, test and quality engineers.

Physical Models and Acceleration Mechanisms
2.1 Steady-state Damp Heat (SSDH)
Stress signature: constant temperature and humidity (e.g. 40 °C/93 %RH, 85 °C/85 %RH).
Mass-transfer path: three-stage “adsorption–diffusion–equilibrium”; equilibrium moisture content follows Henry’s adsorption isotherm.
Dominant failures:
a) Dielectric constant and loss tangent of insulators increase → breakdown voltage drops.
b) Electrochemical migration (ECM) on metallisation or PCB copper → dendritic short.
c) Glass-transition temperature of rubbers and sealants decreases → permanent compression set.
Acceleration model: Arrhenius–Peck
AF = exp[(Ea/k)(1/Tuse?1/Ttest)] × (RHtest/RHuse)^n
where n = 2–3, Ea = activation energy (eV), k = Boltzmann constant.
2.2 Cyclic Damp Heat (CDH)
Stress signature: 24-h cycles of “heat-up – high T/RH – cool-down – low T/high RH”, e.g. 25 → 55 → 25 °C at ≥ 95 %RH; forced condensation during ramps.
Mass-transfer path: pressure differential drives “breathing”; vapour condenses on internal surfaces during cool-down and re-evaporates during heat-up, producing repeated liquid/vapour phase change.
Dominant failures:
a) Aluminium wire corrosion inside sealed relays/IC packages → open circuit.
b) Delamination at coating–metal or potting–substrate interfaces → capillary channels.
c) Micro-cracks in fibre-reinforced composites due to differential swelling/shrinkage.
Acceleration metric: number of condensation events; empirically one condensation ≈ 8–12 h SSDH corrosion increment.
Specimen Taxonomy vs. Test Method
3.1 By architecture
Class A – Solid homogeneous dielectrics (phenolic rods, ceramic substrates, potted transformers).
Mass transfer: surface adsorption only, no breathing space.
Recommendation: SSDH; lifetime can be quantified directly with Peck model.
Class B – Cavity/sealed enclosures (IP67 controllers, MIL connectors, PV junction boxes).
Mass transfer: significant breathing; repeated internal condensation.
Recommendation: CDH, optionally with sub-cycles down to ?10 °C or ?40 °C to amplify thermal mismatch.
Class C – Surface coating systems (automotive sensor plating, conformal coatings).
If the concern is bulk moisture resistance of the coating itself → SSDH.
If the concern is coating–metal interface blistering → CDH.
3.2 By moisture-ingress mechanism
Adsorption/diffusion-controlled (polymers): failure driver = volume resistivity drop.
Criterion: moisture uptake < 0.5 % at 23 °C/50 %RH equilibrium → SSDH.
Breathing/condensation-controlled (sealed cavities): failure driver = internal corrosion.
Criterion: internal volume ≥ 5 cm3 and sealing ≤ IP65 → CDH.
Industrial Case Studies
4.1 New-energy vehicle OBC
Construction: die-cast Al housing, internal potting, power device on thermal pad.
Field failure: DC-DC transformer core rust → audible noise.
Root cause: thermal pad and Al housing form micro-gap; diurnal temperature swing induces breathing.
Test comparison:
SSDH 85 °C/85 %RH, 1000 h – no failure.
CDH 55 °C/95 %RH ? 25 °C/95 %RH, 10 cycles – red rust visible on core.
Conclusion: CDH reproduces field failure within two weeks, cutting validation time by 60 %.
4.2 5G AAU antenna radome
Material: glass-fibre reinforced polyurethane, UV-resistant top-coat.
Failure mode: wave transmittance drop after damp heat → VSWR alarm.
Mechanism: moisture diffusion raises resin permittivity; CDH-induced micro-cracks increase scattering.
Selected profile: IEC 60068-2-30 CDH (55 ? 25 °C, 6 cycles) plus 2 h UV sub-cycle; deviation vs. one-year Hainan outdoor exposure < 8 %. Decision Tree Step 1 – Sealing assessment If IP ≥ X7 and cavity ≥ 5 cm3 → CDH branch; Else → SSDH branch. Step 2 – Dominant failure mechanism Insulation degradation → SSDH; Corrosion/delamination → CDH. Step 3 – Field environment Diurnal ΔT ≥ 20 °C and RH > 85 % → CDH;
Long-term steady high humidity (e.g. indoor tropics) → SSDH.
Step 4 – Lifetime model requirement
Quantitative MTBF required → SSDH (Peck model mature);
Pass/fail needed quickly → CDH faster.
Test Parameter Essentials
6.1 SSDH
T tolerance: ±2 °C; RH tolerance: ±3 %RH.
Air speed: 0.5–1.0 m/s to avoid stagnant boundary layer.
Intermediate read-outs: 168 h, 500 h, 1000 h; 2 h recovery at 25 °C/50 %RH before insulation-resistance test.
6.2 CDH
Ramp rate: 0.5–1 °C/min to ensure sufficient pressure differential.
Condensation control: raise absolute humidity or light fog during heat-up; droplet diameter on inner wall ≥ 2 mm.
Low-temperature dwell: extend to ?10 °C or ?40 °C for 1 h if product claims low-T operation.
Cycle count: 10 for automotive, 21 for rail/military applications.
Common Pitfalls
Pitfall 1: “CDH is always more severe and can replace SSDH.”
Correction: CDH works for sealed systems; for solid dielectrics it may add irrelevant thermal-cycle fatigue and cause over-test.
Pitfall 2: “Raising RH to 98 %RH shortens time further.”
Correction: RH > 95 %RH produces free water droplets that drip on specimens, creating local over-corrosion inconsistent with field conditions and unsuitable for modelling.
Pitfall 3: “Any condensation seen equals valid test.”
Correction: Condensation on chamber wall ≠ specimen breathing; confirm with viewing window or borescope that droplets form on the specimen/internal surfaces.
Closing Remarks
Humidity testing uses the polar water molecule as a catalyst to replicate, in a compressed time frame, corrosion, ageing and electrical drift that a product may encounter during its life. SSDH and CDH are not merely ranked by “severity”; they address two distinct mass-transfer and failure routes. Only by combining specimen architecture, sealing level, material polarity and field conditions with quantitative acceleration models can a scientific, economical and traceable choice be made. It is recommended that a DFR (Design for Reliability) team be engaged at the test-plan review stage to simulate sealing topology, moisture-sorption curves and critical failure modes, thereby reducing physical test iterations and R&D cost. For assistance in profile tailoring, lifetime extrapolation or failure analysis, joint validation with chamber manufacturers or third-party reliability laboratories is encouraged to ensure high homology between test data and field failures.