Hot-Dip Galvanizing
by Thomas H. Cook
Consultant, Hot Springs, S.D.
T his article quantifies results of new technologies
in a specific hot-dip galvanizing plant. Future
articles will quantify results of these technolo-
gies in additional plants in which these technologies
have been adopted in different ways and in different
sequences. Steel products of different geometries and
types respond differently to these technologies. This
article suggests universal measurement methods so as
to compare various galvanizing plants. Above all, the
main purposes of this article are to enable galvanizers
to lower operating costs, attain a higher quality prod-
uct, and to be more profitable. Hot-dip galvanizing is
undergoing a revolution; it provides very long corro-
sion protection and is very competitive with other steel
coatings.
Readers are invited to fill out a Data Sheet (Fig.
1) and return it to the author so that more hot-dip
galvanizing articles can appear in Metal Finishing.
One Data Sheet is required for each kettle and any
units are fine provided that they are labeled. Galva-
nizers names, suppliers, and products will be kept
confidential.
ZINC BALANCE
Figure 2 is a completed Data Sheet for an excellent
Dry Kettle (no molten topflux on the molten zinc),
job shop galvanizer. The zinc balance is calculated to
determine where the zinc is consumed. In this case
on the steel, in dross, in ash, and stripped (dis-
solved) in acid.
(Lb Zinc on Steel) =
(lb steel) x (2) x (zinc thickness) X (1.W
(steel thickness) X (1.1)
The above formula is used to calculate the zinc on
the steel. The 2 in the numerator accounts for
coating both sides of the steel. The 1.1 in the
numerator provides 10% more zinc for drips and
runs. The 1.1 in the denominator accounts for the
differences in the densities of zinc and steel. Because
there is a 1.1 in both numerator and denominator
the algebra simplifies to:
(Lb Zinc on Steel) =
(lb steel) x (2) x (zinc thickness)/(steel thickness)
'HC 52 Box 120-B, HotSprings,SD 57747
August2000
Technology
Using data from Figure 2, the zinc on the steel
should be:
(Lb Zinc on Steel) =
(27,409,100 lb) X (2) X (0.0055 in.)/(0.1875 in.)
The 0.0055 in. is the average (4+7)/2 reported as
(mils) average zinc on steel (5.5/1,000) converted to
inches (0.0055). The 0.1875-in. thick steel is 3/ls in.
converted to a decimal. Doing the math of the above
algebraic equation gives:
(Lb Zinc on Steel) = 1,608,OOO
lb (not possible)
Clearly there cannot be 1,608,OOOlb of zinc on the
steel because only 1,395,500 lb of zinc total have
been consumed. Either the zinc thickness must be
thinner (than 5.5 mils) or the steel thickness must
be thicker (than 0.1875 in.) or both. After discus-
sions with the galvanizer, more accurate values are
4.58 mils zinc on steel and 0.22-in. thick steel. The
zinc on the steel more accurately is:
(Lb Zinc on Steel) =
(27,409,100 lb) X (2) X (0.00458MO.22 in.)
(Lb Zinc on Steel) = 1,141,200 lb
To calculate the zinc in the dross the following
formula and data from Fig. 2 are used:
(Lb Zinc in Dross) = (lb dross) X (0.97)
(Lb Zinc in Dross) = (175,180 lb) X (0.97)
(Lb Zinc in Dross) = 169,900lb
To calculate the zinc in the ash the following
formula is used:
(Lb Zinc in Ash) = (lb ash) X (0.90)
(Lb Zinc in Ash) = (89,845 lb) X (0.90)
(Lb Zinc in Ash) = 80,900 lb
To calculate the zinc stripped (dissolved) in
spent acid the formula is: (The 0.75% zinc in spent
acid comes from Fig. 2, in the Acid 2 tank section.
The 0.01 converts % to fractional zinc in spent acid.)
(Lb Zinc Stripped) =
(gal. spent acid) x (%Zn in spent) X (0.01)
x (spent density)
(Lb Zinc Stripped) =
(30,000 gal) X (0.75) X (0.01) X (11 lb/gal)
(Lb Zinc Stripped) = 2,500 lb
19
 Company Address Phone Fax
Person E-Mail One Year Data From -To
Length Width Depth Temp. Concentrations/Conditions
Caustic - ~ ~ NaOH % Other % Firetube- Coil- Suds- Oil Sorbent-
Rinse - ____ ~ PH Flowing- Stagnant- Countercurrent- Oil Sorbent-
Acid 1 - - - Working: Acid % Fe % Zn % Inhib. % Suds-
Acid 2 At Spent: Acid % Fe % Zn % Oil Sorbent-
Strip __ __ - ___ At Spent: Acid % Fe % Zn % Oil Sorbent-
Rinse 1 PH- Flowing- Stagnant- Countercurrent- Tank Lined-
Rinse 2 - - - PH- Flowing- Stagnant- Countercurrent- Tank Lined-
Flux - - - ~ Be Fe % so4 % pH- ACN- Suds- WettingAgent-
Kettle - - ~ Al % Pb % Ni % Bi % Other %
Quench - -- pH-.-- Cr % Other % White Rust -O/O -Inches Sludge
(Lbs) Steelmzed Natural Gas Cost ($/Therm)
(In) Average Steel Thickness Natural Gas Cost ($/Year)
(Mils) Average Zinc on Steel Electricity Cost ($/KWH)
(Mils) Desired Zinc on Steel Electricity Cost ($/Year)
(Lbs) Zinc Used Zinc Cost ($/Lb)
(Lbs) Dross Dross Value ($/Lb)
(Lbs) Dry Ash Dry Ash Value ($/Lb)
(Lbs) Wet Skims Wet SkimsValue($/Lb)
(Lbs) Flux Used(For Solution) Flux Cost ($/Lb)
(Lbs) Topflux Used Gross Production Labor Including All Benefits ($/Hour)
(Gallons) Spent Acid Spent Acid Cost ($/Gal)
Steel: Job Shop- % Captive -...-.% Structural-% Spin- % Bolts -% Cast- % Silicon Killed-%
Rack Jigs: Have About-% the Surface Area of the Steel. Steel Re-Racked After Fluxing- Jigs Stripped Every
Caustic: Steel Product Put Into Caustic -% Temp of Exhaust Gases From Fire Tubes- Inches Sludge Depth-
Acid: H2S04- HCI- Heating Method/Coil Metal Acid Recovery- or Disposal- Oil Sorbent-
Flux: Heating Method/Coil Metal Tank Lined- Inches Sludge Depth- Dump- Purify- Frequency
pH Measured By: pH Meter- Blue Indicator- pH Paper- pH Adjusted By: NH40H- HCI- Zinc- Dross-
Process Tanks (Caustic/Acid/Flux): Sit on Cross Beams- Flat on Concrete- or in -Inches of Containment Pit Liquid
Containment Pit Divided Into Three Sections- Steel Product Drain-Time Over Process Tanks Seconds
Time (Minutes) Steel in Tanks: Caustic Rinse Acid Rinse Flux Zinc Kettle
Kettle: Number Burners- Flat Flame;_ End Fired- Burner Capacity (BtulHour) Kettle Capacity (LblHr)
Wall Cleaning: Frequency Pickaxe- Drawknife- Airhammer- Canopener- Kettle Enclosure-
There are -Inches of Directly Under the Kettle. Temp of the Furnace Pit Kettle Life-Years
Flue Heat Used to Heat Process Tanks- Temperature Outer Furnace Wall Kettle Covered-Hours/Week
Temperature of Exhaust Gases at Kettle Furnace Exit: Kettle Covered Idle Full Production
Maximum Inches from Top Edge of Kettle to Zinc Surface- Water Table Feet From Ground Level
Zinc Clean-Up: Number Paint Cans Used/Ton Steel _ Sanding Disks Used/Ton Steel- Files Used/Ton Steel-
Galvanizing Rejects: Total-% Refluxed Only -% Acid Stripped -% Causes of Rejects
Drossing: Kettle Temp- Days Between Dressing- Hours to Dross- Inches Lead in Kettle- Clam- Scoop-
Maximum Inches Dross: Before Drossing Six Hours After Drossing Number Guys to Dross
Skimming: Sinking Skimmers- Floating Steel Skimmers- Wood Skimmers- Manual Ash Box- Auto Ash BOX-
Reverse Archimedes Screw- Minimum Ash Box Stand-Off from Walls Inches Lbs Ash/Barrel
Cranes: Kettle Withdrawal Speed FtiMin Electric- Air- Number- Breakdown Time-% Capacity Lbs
Spin Baskets: Hours Used Between Cleaning- Lifetime (Months)- Special Alloy- Dimensions -High -Dia.
Turn-Around Time Working Days. Total Production (Labor Only) Guys Working -Hours/Week Each Guy.
Total Customers Complaints/Month Nature of Complaints
Quad Lower IQM Slower Univ. Lead Nickel Bismuth Spin
Flux Kettle T Withdraw Racking Alloy Alloy Alloy Express

YEAR 1 83 T 84 1 85 1 86 / 87 1 88 1 89 1 90 1 91 1 92 I 93 I 94 I 9s 1 96 I 97 I 98 I gg I 88
%GZU 1 1
Dr. Thomas H. Cook (c) 2000 Phone/Fax 605 745 4567 E-Mail galvecon@gwtc.net

Figure 1. Data sheet.

20 Metal Finishing
 Company Address Phone Fax
Person E-Mail One Year Data From-Jan 1,1999_To- Dee 31,1999-
Length Width Depth Temp. Concentrations/Conditions
Caustic-45- 8 9- -170 F- NaOH % Other % Firetube-X- Coil- Suds-X- Oil Sorbent-
Rinse -32 - -- 7 -- 9 -Amb- PH-1 3- Flowing- Stagnant-X- Countercurrent- Oil Sorbent-
Acid 1 -45- -7 9 -Amb- Working: Acid-G-IO-% Fe-- 5 % Zn % Inhib.-Yes- % Suds-
Acid 2 -33.5 7 9 -Amb- At Spent: Acid-P- 3-% Fe-12-% Zn-0.75-% Oil Sorbent-
strip - - At Spent: Acid % Fe %Zn % Oil Sorbent-
Rinse 1 _33.5 7-- -- 9 -Amb- PH-O- Flowing- Stagnant-X- Countercurrent- Tank Lined--X
Rinse 2 --- - PH-.- Flowing- Stagnant- Countercurrent- Tank Lined-
Flux -33.5 -7- -g- -160 F- Be-12- Fe-0.2-% SO4-% pH5- ACN- Suds-X- Wetting Agent-X-
Kettle -33.5 -7- -g- -825 F- Al-0.0025-% Pb-0.006-% Ni-0.027% Bi-0.0799% Other %
Quench PH- Cr % Other % White Rust-% -Inches Sludge
-27,409,100 - (Lbs) Steel Galvanized Natural Gas Cost ($iTherm) $ o-55-
0.1875-(In) Average Steel Thickness Natural Gas Cost ($/Year)-$174,000-
4 To 7- (Mils) Average Zinc on Steel Electricity Cost ($/KWH) $0.08-
3 To 5-(Mils) Desired Zinc on Steel Electricity Cost ($/Year)- $35,000-
-1,395,500 (Lbs) Zinc Used Zinc Cost ($/Lb) $0.565-
-175,180 (Lbs) Dross Dross Value ($/Lb) !0.33-
-89,845 (Lbs) Dry Ash Dry Ash Value ($/Lb) $0.195-
(Lbs) Wet Skims Wet SkimsValue($/Lb)
(Lbs) Flux Used (For Solution) Flux Cost ($/Lb) $0.60 -
(Lbs) Topflux Used Gross Production Labor Including All Benefits ($/Hour)
-30,000 (Gallons) Spent Acid Spent Acid Cost ($/Gal) -~ $ 2.00-
Steel: Job Shop-IOO-% Captive-O-% Structural % Spin-O-% Bolts-O-% Cast-O-% Silicon Killed- %
Rack Jigs: Have About- % the Surface Area of the Steel. Steel Re-Racked After Fluxing- Jigs Stripped Every
Caustic: Steel Product Put Into Caustic-IOO-% Temperature of Exhaust Gases From Fire Tubes- Inches Sludge Depth-
Acid: H2S04- HCI-X- Heating Method/Coil Metal Acid Recovery- or Disposal-X- Oil Sorbent.-.-
Flux: Heating Method/Coil Metal-Carbon Sticks- Tank Lined-X- Inches Sludge Depth-3- Dump- Purify-X- Frequency-4 Months-
pH Measured By: pH Meter- Blue Indicator- pH Paper-X- pH Adjusted By: NH40H-X- HCI- Zinc- Dross-
Process Tanks (Caustic/Acid/Flux): Sit On Cross Beams-X- Flat on Concrete- or in Inches of Containment Pit Liquid
Containment Pit Divided Into Three Sections-No- Steel Product Drain-Time Over Process Tanks Seconds
Time (Minutes) Steel in Tanks: Caustic Rinse Acid Rinse Flux Zinc Kettle
Kettle: Number Burners-IS- Flat Flame-X- End Fired- Burner Capacity (Btu/Hour) -7OO,OOO- Kettle Capacity (Lb/Hr)-lO,OOO-
Wall Cleaning: Frequency-Weekly- Pickaxe-X- Drawknife- Aid-rammer-X- Canopener-. Kettle Enclosure-
There are -0.2-Inches of -Insulation- Directly Under the Kettle. Temp of the Furnace Pit Kettle Life-7 - 8-Years
Flue Heat Used to Heat Water Process Tanks- Temperature Outer Furnace Wall Kettle Covered-80 Hours/Week
Temperature of Exhaust Gases at Kettle Furnace Exit: Kettle Covered Idle Full Production
Maximum Inches From Top Edge of Kettle to Zinc Surface Water Table Feet From Ground Level
Zinc Clean-Up: Number Paint Cans Used/Ton Steel Sanding Disks Used/Ton Steel Files Used/Ton Steel
Galvanizing Rejects: Total-O.l-% Refluxed Only-90-% Acid Stripped-IO-% Causes of Rejects
Drossing: Kettle Temp-820- Days Between Drossingl- Hours to Dross-l- Inches Lead in Kettle-O- Clam- Scoop-X-
Maximum Inches Dross: Before Dressing-3- Six Hours After Dressing-0.75- Number Guys to Dross 4
Skimming: Sinking Skimmers- Floating Steel Skimmers- Wood Skimmers-X- Manual Ash Box-X- Auto Ash Box-
Reverse Archimedes Screw- MinimumAsh Box Stand-Off from Walls -- 3 Inches Lbs Ash/Barrel
Cranes: Kettle Withdrawal Speed Ft/Min-5- Electric-X- Air- Number-8- Breakdown Time-l-% Capacity (Lbs)
Spin Baskets: Hours Used Between Cleaning- Lifetime(Months)- Special Alloy- Dimensions High Dia.
Turn-Around Time-S-Working Days. Total Production (Labor Only) Guys-22-Working-SO-Hours/Week Each Guy
Total Customers Complaints/Month-5- Nature of Complaints- Lost Steel Parts, Poor Zinc Drainage, Dull Galv (Si Steel)-
Technology Dry Quad Lower IQM Slower Univ. Lead Nickel Bismuth Spin
Started Kettle Flux Kettle T Withdraw Racking Alloy Alloy Alloy Express
Date July84 June86 88? act 93 Aug 97 Ott 98

YR 1 84 1 85 1 86 1 87 1 88 1 89 1 90 1 91 1 92 1 93 1 94 / 95 1 96 1 97 1 98 / 99 1 00
GZ 1 10.29 1 11.61 1 8.38 1 6.42 1 6.75 1 6.43 1 6.34 1 6.55 1 6.55 1 6.41 1 6.35 1 6.18 1 6.12 1 6.06 j 5.7 1 5.08 1 5.2
Dr. Thomas H. Cook (c) 2000 Phone/Fax 605 745 4567 E-Mail galvecon@gwtc.net

Figure 2. Completed data sheet.

August 2000 21
 The zinc balance is shown in Table I. The calcu- Table I. Zinc Balance

lated total zinc used of 1,394,500 lb is only 1,000 lb Lb zinc on the steel 1,141,200 lb 81.8%
Lb zinc in dross 169,900 lb 12.2%
less than the 1,395,500 lb reported in Figure 2. In
Lb zinc in ash 80,900 lb 5.8%
the early days of galvanizing work the author con- Lb zinc stripped in acid 2,500 lb 0.2%
sidered good practice as 80% or more zinc on the Lb zinc total 1,394,500 lb 100.0%
steel, less than 10% zinc in dross, less than 7% zinc
in ash (using a manual ash box), and zinc stripped in
acid as quite variable depending on operations (e.g. kettle were 10 feet wide (a most unusual case) then
racking, reracking, rack size, hooks, wires, etc.) Al- twice as much production would be required to at-
though zinc balance is required, unfortunately it can tain the same %plant utilization.
be misleading. For example, very thick zinc coatings Lb/Man-Hour = (lb of steel)/(guys) x (hr/wk) x (wk/yr)
would make zinc in dross, ash, and stripped appear
quite small. In the next section much better means Lb/Man-Hour = (27,409,100 lb)/(22) x (50 hr/wk)
X (50 wk/yr)
of measurement and evaluation are presented.
Lb/Man-Hour = 498 lb
PROCESS NORMS Calculations for kettle capacity (actually maxi-
Unlike zinc balance, process norms are either based mum continuous kettle capacity) will be shown in a
on steel galvanized or on absolute methods of mea- future article. The basis for these calculations is:
surement. In this way the galvanizer can be evalu- 10,000 Btu/ft/hr heat throughput through the avail-
ated on an absolute scale. able side-wall heating zones (for this galvanizer only
To calculate %Gross Zinc Usage (%GZU) the fol- 8,470 BtuJft21hr was used); six-in. upper and g-in.
lowing formula and data from Figure 2 are used: lower insulated (no heat throughput) zones; 6,700
%GZU = (lb zinc used) X (lOO%)/(lb steel) Btu/ft2/hr convected and radiated heat losses at the
zinc air interface (reduced by 25% for a kettle having
%GZU = (1,395,500 lb) x (100%)/(27,409,100lb)
an enclosure; the case with this galvanizer); 50%
%GZU = 5.09% efficiency for a flat-flame furnace; minimum 6-in.
The author introduces the concept of %Standard- castable high-strength insulation under the kettle
ized Gross Zinc Usage (%SGZU), which fixes the (not the case with this galvanizer); and a well insu-
steel thickness at l/4 in. In this way all galvanizers lated outer furnace wall (not the case with this
steel would have the same surface area relative to galvanizer).
weight. %SGZU is defined as: The calculations give a maximum continuous ca-
pacity of
%SGZU = (%GZU) X (average steel thickness)/(0.25 in.)
Kettle Capacity = 25,600 lb steel/hr(calculated)
%SGZU = (5.09%) x (0.22 in.)/(0.25 in.)
This galvanizer is able to galvanize only about
%SGZU = 4.48%
10,000 lb steel/hr, not because of the kettle capacity
%Dross/Steel is defined as; but because insulation around the furnace is insuf-
%Dross/Steel = (lb dross) X (lOO%)/(lb steel) ficient and the floor plates get so hot that they
expand and buckle-up.
%Dross/Steel = (175,180 lb) x (100%)/(27,409,100lb) Kettle Firing is defined by:
%Dross/Steel = 0.64% Kettle Firing =
%Ash/Steel = (lb ash) X (lOO%)/(lb steel) (Btu/ftLkr side-wall heating zone heat throughput) x
(100%)/(10,000 Btulftkr side-wall heating
%Ash/Steel = (89,845 lb) x (100%)/(27,409,100 lb) zone heat throughput)
%Ash/Steel = 0.33% Kettle Firing =
%Plant Utilization is defined as: (8,470 Btu/ft/hr) X (100%)/(10,000 Btu/ft/hr)
%Plant Utilization = Kettle Firing = 84.7%
(million lb of steel) X (lOO%)l(kettle length in ft) If this kettle had been fired at 100% then the
%Plant Utilization = (27.4 million lb) x (1000/0)/(33.5ft) maximum continuous capacity would have been
32,000 lb steel/hi-. The up-side to under firing a
%Plant Utilization = 81.8% kettle is that the kettle life would have been ex-
The %plant utilization formula above generally tended from about 6 years to predictably about 12
applies to a kettle 5 feet wide. If, for example, a years. The next item also is a predictor of kettle life.

22 Metal Finishing
Table II. Process Norms
Item Value Good Practice
%GZU 5.09% 3-6%
%SGZU 4.48% 45%
%Dross/steel 0.64% 0.60% maximum
%Ash/steel 0.33% 0.80% (no ash box)
(Manual ash box) 0.40% (manual ash box)
0.20% (auto ash box)
%Plant utilization 81.8% More than 100%
Lb steel/man-hr 498 More than 500 (job shop)
Up to 1,000 (captive)
Kettle capacity 10,000 lb/hr (actual) 25,600 lb/hr (calculated)
Kettle firing 84.7% 100% maximum
Kettle depth/width 1.29 1.3-2.5
%lCoating thickness 136% 150% maximum
%Spent acid 38.5% 100%~ maximum
See text why the actual kettle capacity is so low.

Kettle Depth/Width (ratio) is defined as: ume to having only one HCl pickling tank. Thus, the
steel is never left in the tank for extended periods of
Kettle Depth/Width = (kettle depth)/(kettle width)
time. A single HCl acid pickle tank is very unusual
Kettle Firing = (9ft)/(7ft) and has considerable risk regarding production ca-
Kettle Depth/Width = 1.29 pabilities. Likely this low spent acid production is a
Ideally the best results overall are for kettle combination of correct inhibitor usage, high spent
depth/width ratios to be 1.3 to 2.5, especially if lower acid cost ($2/gall, careful testing, and excellent
kettle temperatures are desired. Higher depth/ worker training.
width ratios and lower kettle temperature normally Table II shows a summary of the process norms.
provide longer kettle lives. The value is for the galvanizers data from Figure
Xoating Thickness is defined by: 2 and Good practice usually results in high-quality
product at low cost.
Xoating Thickness 1 (mils zinc on steel)
X (lOORY(3.37 mils)
%,Coating Thickness = (4.58 Mils) X (100%)/(3.37 mils) GALVANIZING TECHNOLOGIES AND %GROSS ZINC
USAGE
%Coating Thickness = 136% Bad and good aspects of ten new galvanizing tech-
Ideally, this should be as close to 100%) as possi- nologies are shown in Table III. The %GZU (1984-
ble. The above figure of 136% is excellent. The 4.58 1999) are shown in Figure 3. The year that each
mils came from the zinc balance calculation and the technology was installed and the quantitative re-
3.37 mils is the standard 2-ozlft zinc coating. sults of each technology are shown in Table IV.
The following formula has been used by the au- As Table IV shows quad flux and a manual ash
thor for 26 years to successfully predict how much box reduced zinc usage in 1986-1987 by $804,000/
spent acid is produced under various plant condi- year. A lower kettle temperature in 1988 reduced
tions: (The 0.0075 is simply a constant that works.) zinc usage by $56,00O/year. A high depth/width ket-
(Gallons Spent Acid) = (lb steel) x (0.0075)/ tle ratio (1.5 or more) is usually required at a lower
(2 iron at dump) x (steel thickness in in.) kettle temperature to enable high production.
(Gallons Spent Acid) =: Initially, in 1993 Improved Quality Method (IQM)
(27,409,100 lb) X (0.0075)/(12%) X (0.22 in.) reduced zinc usage $15,00O/year. Interestingly zinc
usage dropped in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. The
(Gallons Spent Acid) = 77,867 gal (predicted) cumulative drop in zinc usage over these four years
%Spent Acid is defined by: is $51,000 (now yearly basis). Possible reasons for
%Spent Acid = (gal spent actual acid) this steady zinc usage decline are: (a) continuing
X (lOO%Y(gal spent acid predicted) improvements due to IQM, (b) thicker steel prod-
ucts, and/or (c) better trained, stable labor.
%Spent Acid = (30,000 gal) X (lOOY~~)/(77,867
gal)
Two pieces of information indicate that the 1994-
#pent Acid = 38.5% 1997 steady zinc reduction is due to continuing IQM
This is an exceptionally low production of spent improvements. The first information is subjective,
acid. The galvanizer attributes this very small vol- but consistent. After about 100 galvanizers began

24 Metal Finishing
Table III. New Hot-Dip Galvanizing Technologies
Technology Bad Aspects Good Aspects
From wet to dry kettle Requires good flux solutions Lower %GZU
People think dangerous zinc spatter Much less kettle smoke
Faster production
Much less residual flux on steel

Quad flux (Be 11-14, Requires good acid rinsing or flux Much lower %GZU
ACN=1.6, pH=4.2, solution purification Thinner zinc on steel
wetting agent) Requires flux solution testing Requires flux solution testing
Requires periodic flux maintenance Much less zinc spatter
Better zinc drainage
Less zinc clean-up labor
Less dry ash
Lower kettle temperature Requires high depth/width kettle Lower %GZU
845-825F (usually 1.5 or greater) Thinner zinc coatings on
silicon/phosphorus steels

IQM (Improved Quality Contract for use Better zinc drainage

Method: relates to zinc Higher quality product
melt only) Less zinc clean-up labor
Cleaner threads on bolts
Very low operating cost
Zero environmental problems

Slower withdraw from zinc May slow production Less zinc clean-up labor
2-3 Wmin Requires crane modification Better looking product

Universal racking May increase %,GZU Higher lb/man-hr production

Lead alloying to 1.3% Pb Contract for use Lower %GZU

Alloying devices must be maintained Better zinc drainage
More corrosion in salt water Lower clean-up labor
NIOSH CDC health hazard
OSHA air maximum 0.05 mg/m
Kidney, eyes, GI tract, blood, CNS

Nickel alloying Continuing cost (medium) Lower %GZU

0.055% Ni Pimples on steel if lead near 0.5% Thinner zinc coatings on
NIOSH CDC health hazard silicon/phosphorus steels
OSHA air maximum 1 mg/m Phosphorus steels
Lung and nasal cancer More silvery coatings

Bismuth alloying Continuing costs (moderate) Lower %GZU

0.1% Bi Patented in USA; contract for use Better zinc drainage
Lower clean-up labor
Spangle reappears for lead free
Not listed by CDC

Spin express Contract for use Excellent results in plant trials

CDC = Center for Disease Control

using IQM, the author was curious to know when
IQM became most effective. Consistently, galvaniz-
ers reported that IQM just keeps getting better and
better. In other words, IQM is good after two months
but better after two years and even better after five
years. The second information that IQM is the cause
of the uniform zinc usage decline for 1994 to 1997 is
shown in Table V. Note that the year (1993) IQM
was started dross and ash increased (0.71% and
0.51%, respectively). These initial dross and ash
increases are due to sins of the past and are not
attributable to IQM. Note that both dross and ash
decrease between 1994 to 1997 and for 1997 hit all
time lows of 0.39% and 0.38% respectively. The
long-term IQM improvements and remarkably low
dross and ash production are consistent with the
increased fluidity and decreased zinc oxidation af-
forded by IQM.
Table IV shows bismuth 0.1% was started in 1997
and the zinc usage decreased $41,00O/year (net ben-

August 2000 25
 Table V. Effects of Technology/Conditions on Dross and Ash
%Dross/ %A&
Year Production Production Technology Conditions
10 1986 1.21 1.85 Quad flux and ash box
z 9 1987 0.48 0.95 _
1988 0.60 0.64 Lower kettle temperature
(3 f3 1989 0.51 0.47
9 1990 0.49 0.51 Kettle change
a 7
1991 0.55 0.57
6 1992 0.64 0.46
5 1993 0.71 0.51 IQM
1994 0.59 0.47
4 1995 0.58 0.41
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 1996 0.44 0.42
YEAR 1997 0.39 0.38
1998 0.55 0.48 Bismuth 0.1%
Figure 3. Percent gross zinc usage on an annual basis. 1999 0.64 0.33 Nickel 0.025% and kettle
change

efit; bismuth cost was subtracted from gross to give

the $41,000). Since this galvanizer is lead-free he V shows an increase in dross and ash production for
was also pleased that the spangle returned. Table 1998. It is surprising that the increased zinc fluidity

Table IV. Effects of Technology on %GZU

%GZU Net $/Year for
Year %GZU Change Started Reasons for %GZU Change %GZU Change
1984 10.29 No technology/bad plant manager
+1.32 Flux made from spent HCl +$204,000
1985 11.61
-3.23
1986 8.38 June 1986 Quad flux and ash box - $804,000
- 1.96
1987 6.42
+0.33 Flux getting bad? Fin coils? +$51,000
1988 6.75
-0.36 1988? Lower kettle temperature -$56,000
1989 6.43
-0.09
1990 6.34
+0.21 1990 New kettle likely under-filled
1991 6.55
0
1992 6.55
-0.14
1993 6.41
-0.06 October 1993 IQM -$15,000
1994 6.35
-0.17
1995 6.18 Continuing IQM improvements?
-0.06 Thicker steel products? -$51,000
1996 6.12 Better trained, stable labor
-0.06
1997 6.06
-0.36 August 1997 Bismuth 0.1% -$41,000
1998 5.70
-0.62 October 1998 Nickel 0.025% - $75,000
1999 5.08 New kettle over-filled (-$19,000)
+0.12 Back to normal %GZU +$19,000
2000 5.20
%GZU changes are actual from table numbers.
Net $/year based on 27,409,100 lb steel/year, $0.565/lb of zinc, includes materials costs but not labor costs, and based on average %sGZU
change for 12 months before versus 12 months after installation of technology.
Data for first three months of 2000.

26 Metal Finishing
Table VI. Galvanizing Costs
cost Tse
Capital and interest Fixed for nine years
Energy Mostly fixed
Administrative Fixed
Maintenance Mostly fixed
Zinc Variable
Labor Variable
Supplies Variable
Spent acid Variable
Total
(due to bismuth) would cause more dross. Because
nickel was started so quickly after bismuth, it is not
known if the dross increase would have gone back
down to normal. Ash production of 0.33% for 1999 is
excellent.
As shown in Table IV additions were started in
1998. Initially 0.055% nickel was used but the gal-
vanizer experienced some zinc peeling problems on
thick steel products (from several different clients),
which the galvanizer blamed on nickel. Later he
reduced the nickel to 0.025% and is happy with the
$75,00O/year lower zinc cost (net nickel cost was
subtracted from gross savings to give the $75,000).
Table V shows an additional dross increase (from
0.55% for 1998 to 0.64% for 1999), which is consis-
tent with literature reports of increased dross using
nickel. The reader should note that lung and nasal
cancer can result from nickel. The author found
0.078% nickel in this galvanizers ash and 0.45%
nickel in his dross. The ash could produce an air-
borne hazard, whereas the dross is not likely to
become airborne. Interestingly, the OSHA maxi-
mum allowable for nickel is 1 mg/M3 (causes cancer),
whereas the maximum allowable for lead is only
0.05% mg/M3 (causes kidney, eye, gastrointestinal,
blood, and central nervous system difficulties). An-
other galvanizer (prime western) using a manual
ash box had 0.052% airborne lead (so the ash box
was taken away).
The lower zinc usage caused by the new technol-
ogies apply only to this galvanizer. Steel types and
steel geometries vary greatly and the choice of which
technology to adopt first greatly affects the attain-
able benefits. For example, IQM or nickel zinc can
cause a dramatic lowering of zinc usage for a galva-
nizer with especially bad flux solution. In a future
article the author will examine a galvanizer with
very bad flux solution but attains low %GZU using
most of these technologies. His rejects are, however,
unacceptably high.
August 2000
$/Year Cents/Lb % cost
$711,000 2.59 cents 24.3%
$209,000 0.76 cents 7.1%
0.37 cents 3.5%
gE%i: 0.36 cents 3.4%
$7881500 2.88 cents 27.1%
2.91 cents 27.3%
;22::: 0.55 cents 5.2%
$60,600 0.22 cents 2.1%
$2,918,500 10.64 cents 100.0%
GALVANIZING COSTS
Costs for the galvanizer (Fig. 2 data) are shown in
Table VI. For a bare-bones plant using hydrochlo-
ric acid pickling in a warm climate (no acid flume
exhaust and no central heating) the general rule of
thumb for building a plant is $lOO,OOO/ft of kettle
length. Thus, this plant cost about $lOO,OOO/ft X 32
ft equals $3.2 million. At 8% interest for 9 years
(1.08 raised to the power 9) the interest equals the
principle. Then $6.4 million must be paid back to the
lender divided by 9 equal payments of $711,000
($6.4 million). The $711,000/27,409,100 lb equals
$O.O259/lb equals 2.59 cents/lb of steel (for capital
and interest).
Readers may question energy cost as being most-
ly fixed. Very detailed calculations, which have
given accurate results for many years, show that if
production doubled from 27 million lb of steel to 54
million lb of steel then the total energy cost will
increase only 20% (from $209,00O/year-$251,000/
year). Future articles will deal with these calcula-
tions. The remainder of the cost items in Table VI
comes directly from Figure 2 or from phone conver-
sations with the galvanizer. Considering the actual
total cost of 10.64 cents/lb steel galvanized, it is
difficult to understand how some galvanizers can
profit by charging 8 to 10 cents/lb of steel.
RECOMENDATIONS FOR THE GALVANIZER
From Figure 2 the galvanizer is not using the tech-
nologies, universal racking, or slow steel withdrawal
from the molten zinc. These two technologies are
likely to increase lb/man-hour by faster production
and less zinc clean-up. These two technologies likely
would reduce costs more than $lOO,OOO/year.
Slow withdrawal from the zinc is especially im-
portant for long steel products like pipe. For exam-
ple, a 6-in. diameter 40-ft-long pipe withdrawn 20
from horizontal at 5 ft/min will have the zinc flow
along the outside and out the inside at 14.6 ft/min.
The resulting outside and inside drain lines are
usually an average of 0.5 in. wide by 0.125 in. thick
27
Table VII. Energy Savings
Savings
Item Modification Current Energy $/Year Future Energy $Near $Near
Caustic tank Insulate sides and ends $22,600 $17,500 $5,100
Flux tank Heat recovery from kettle $38,600 gas $38,600
flue to heat flux ($10,000 electricity for ($2,000 est. electricity
compressor) to pump water)
Kettle heat Convert from flat flame $113,000 $84,400 $28,600
(50% eff.) to end firing
(67% eff..) insulation under
kettle and around furnace
Electricity $35,000 $27,000 $8,000
Total $209,200 $128,900 $80,300

(heavier drain line at last take out). If this pipe has
a 3-mil zinc coating, then there will be 14.0 lb of zinc
in the coating and 15.5 lb of zinc in the two drain
lines. The two drain lines are greatly reduced (go
flat) with slow withdrawal. From experience long
steel products and spin products benefit most from
technologies that improve zinc drainage (e.g. quad
flux, IQM, lead, and bismuth).
Table VII shows energy savings by insulating the
sides and ends of the caustic tank, heating the flux
using waste kettle flue heat, converting the kettle
furnace from flat flame (50% efficiency) to end fired
(67% efficiency), insulating under the kettle (6-in.
rigid high-strength insulation), and insulating the
outside of the kettle furnace. The predicted
$80,30O/yr savings would reduce galvanizing cost by
0.29 cent/lb steel.
At present the galvanizer uses only word-of-
mouth advertising. His product is excellent. It is
not okay to have excellent product in your backyard
if nobody knows about it. This is just plain bad
business. Hot-dip galvanizing is a business and like
any business, advertising is required. A reasonable
profit from a single job can pay many times over the
advertising costs to get the job.
THANKS TO THE GALVANIZER
The author sincerely thanks the owner/operator of
the galvanizing plant. His cooperation and patience
are greatly appreciated. The author is pleased to
have been a part of the very great success that this
owner has achieved. This owner/operator and his
plant are without question one of the best three in
North America. They are good friends.
BIOGKAPHV
Thomas H. Cook has a Ph.D. in inorganic chemistry
from the University of Wyoming and has taught
chemistry at the university level for 20 years. He
has presented Hot-Dip Galvanizing Workshops and
consulted world-wide for 26 years. MZJ

NEWSTATIONARY/CENTRAL
(INCLUDES SHIPPING)
l5ton $8994
20ton 12,029
30ton 14,667
IN STOCK-READY TOSHIP-5 YEARCOMPRESSORWARRANTY. 40ton 20,108
NEWPORTAM;;AIRC YOUR INTERNATIONAL 50ton 25.182
CHILLER CONNECTION 60ton 281873
E! $4233 80ton 35,532 210ton 72,906
5ton ZARSKYWATERCHILLERS 100ton 42,940 255ton 89,326
7.5ton !i%z: 800-473-9178.713-462-2500 130ton 52,727 290ton 101,751
lOton $8420 150ton 58,264 360ton 125,507
FAX713-462-2544 MS\
15ton $12940 F.O.B. Houston,TX -- 170ton 61,179 420ton 136,295
Circle 071 on reader information card

28 Metal Finishing