CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001
ZINC COATING REVIEW
- 2000 AND BEYOND -
by Nick Karakasch*
*Nick Karakasch is the principal of Total Corrosion Consultants,
Melbourne Australia and specializes in services to the corrosion
prevention and structural fire protection industries. He has spent 35
years in these industries and has considerable experience with
galvanizing and inorganic zinc silicate coatings. He provides technical
consulting services to the Galvanizers Association of Australia in the
preparation of specifications and technical detailing.
Many articles have been written covering the merits
of hot dip galvanizing, inorganic and organic zinc
rich coatings. Much of the continuing discussion re-
volves around misunderstandings and anecdotal sto-
ries associated with each type. Although some ref-
erence to topcoating is made, this article basically
addresses untopcoated systems only.
All three systems in discussion are in competition
and are somewhat complementary, each having
strengths, limitations and selected properties. Each
system has its merits for specific applications
The one common ground in the protective mecha-
nism is the use of zinc as the means of providing the
corrosion resistance, in particular metallic zinc. It is
the volume and rate of zinc consumption that ulti-
mately determines performance together with envi-
ronmental exposure and how the zinc is fixed within
the system.
With inorganic zinc silicate coatings, zinc particles
are surrounded by an inert silicate matrix binder that
slows down zinc dissolution. Likewise, galvanizing
has a similar mechanism in that the corrosion rate of
zinc slows considerably when the alloy layers are
reached. It is often assumed that hot dip galvanizing
is all zinc, when in fact it consists of four distinct
layers, three of which are zinc / iron alloys.
The corrosion rate for a given volume of metallic
zinc regardless of application method is internation-
ally documented. It is frequently stated that perform-
ance is equal to a given thickness, however all things
are not equal within each individual system.
It must be strongly emphasised that not only are there
wide variations in zinc content but also variations in
thickness, uniformity and hardness between coating
types, hence the reason for the differences in per-
formance. For instance, the volume of metallic zinc
in hot dip galvanizing is typically three times greater
than the average zinc filled paint. Likewise water
based inorganic zincs on average carry 30% more
metallic zinc than solvent based materials and or-
ganic zinc rich paints.
The three systems are quite different in their indi-
vidual make up and in particular, zinc content. In
some circumstances a combination of systems is
used. The ultimate choice will depend on numerous
factors such as; the properties of a particular system,
size and structural configuration of the article to be
protected, where, when and how, severity of envi-
ronmental conditions and economic factors related
to expected performance.
A typical example is bridge protection where inor-
ganic zinc silicate coatings and galvanizing are of-
ten used in combination. Double end dipping tech-
niques for galvanizing can accommodate steel mem-
bers up to 23 metres in length. However many bridge
spans exceed this length or the construction configu-
ration is such that inorganic zinc becomes the only
material for consideration. Handrails, guardrails and
smaller components, on the other hand, are virtually
all galvanized.
Concrete reinforcement bars where used can also be
galvanized whereas inorganic zinc coatings are not
recommended for this application. Case studies pub-
lished by NACE International have reported the suc-
cessful use of hot dip galvanizing under cement fire-
proofing materials in the petrochemical industry for
periods up to 50 years with little or no zinc loss.
Inevitably, comparisons are made between systems
that appear to be selective or unbalanced. For exam-
ple, it is often stated that inorganic zinc coatings pro-
vide better protection in severe marine environments.
In conditions of constant splash, spillage or immer-
sion, such as the sea deck on offshore platforms,
galvanizing is not recommended unless topcoated.
Inorganics do perform better but they also require
topcoating. Life expectancy is approximately 18
months for galvanizing and 24 months for inorganic
zinc. In other environments the reverse is the case.
Severe marine conditions, such as the offshore oil
industry, is the one most commonly quoted for
comparative purposes. Galvanizing is confined to
gratings where the life expectancy on the main deck
is 5-8 years, the remaining steel is coated with high

ratio inorganic zinc, that to date has a successful track
record of 10 years.
The reason galvanized gratings are used is that they
are impractical to paint with high ratio inorganic zinc
because of their geometrical shape.
Fresh water environments are generally considered
benign. Inorganic zinc is not recommended for this
application as failure occurs within 12 months,
whereas galvanizing has a record exceeding 20 years.
Another example is the behaviour of zinc coated steel
in buried conditions. Inorganic or organic zinc is not
recommended. Hot dip galvanizing varies in per-
formance. Best results are obtained in alkaline or oxi-
dising soils where the life expectancy can be as high
as 15 years.
Promotional literature comparing inorganic and or-
ganic zinc coatings is also often clouded. A case in
point is the zinc component. A typical claim is that
organic materials contain 90% zinc compared to 77%
or 85% for inorganic. Closer scrutiny shows that this
can be easily misunderstood or misleading as it re-
fers to weight and not the critical component of vol-
ume of metallic zinc. While not as user friendly as
organic materials, inorganic zinc silicate coatings,
particularly water based products, are clearly supe-
rior in corrosion protection. They contain more me-
tallic zinc, have better abrasion, temperature and UV
resistance.
When top coated the differences are less pronounced.
Like galvanizing, both systems have strengths and
limitations. Nevertheless the overall technical fun-
damentals clearly favour inorganic materials.
The difference between hot dip galvanizing and zinc
paints is in their different nature and their respective
compositions. A brief description of the major points
for each process and the respective characteristics
of the product formed follows.
HOT DIP GALVANIZING (Covered by AS/
NZS4680:1999)
Due to galvanizing’s 160 year history, it is the one
system that has established an unbroken and unprec-
edented case history record with virtually no funda-
mental change since conception. It is, without doubt,
one of the oldest and best documented anti-corro-
sive material in the world. Recorded Australian case
histories in a variety of environmental conditions
from mild rural, to tropical marine now exceed 110
years. Other environments such as marine/petro-
chemical exceed 60 years. Retained zinc thickness
CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001
in these examples is between 70 to 90 microns.
Galvanizing is not only long lasting but is also pre-
dictable in performance to any given microclimate.
The galvanizing process basically involves the dip-
ping of steel into molten zinc (450oC) that results in
the creation of a new metal. Zinc silicates and or-
ganic zinc rich paints are often misleadingly referred
to and marketed as cold galvanizing. Hot dip galva-
nizing is synonymous with the protection of steel by
dipping into molten zinc creating a zinc/iron alloy.
The secret of galvanizing is in the volume of zinc
that alloys to the surface and the corresponding hard-
ness. The zinc is actually alloyed to the steel there-
fore contact between zinc and steel is at the “atomic
level”. Even when the steel has been damaged it is
impossible to separate zinc from steel. One reason
for this is that hardness ranges from 70dpn (diamond
pyramid number) for the top zinc layer to 240dpn.
The so-called delta layer at 240dpn is considerably
harder than 250 grade steel that is typically 160dpn.
The hardness means that galvanizing provides abra-
sion resistance superior to any known zinc paint coat-
ing. Regardless of the type of zinc paint, they still
remain surface coatings only and are not integrally
alloyed to the steel substrate. Taber abrasion tests
by the eminent Dutch corrosion authority Jan Van
Eijhsbergen revealed that epoxy zinc-rich primer
taken as unity showed that polystyrene zinc-rich are
5 times better, zinc silicate 50 times better and hot
dip galvanizing 500 times better.
The thickness or zinc mass achieved depends largely
on surface condition, composition, zinc temperature,
immersion time, mass and thickness of the steel be-
ing galvanized. As steel sections increase in mass /
thickness so accordingly does the end result in terms
of zinc/alloy thickness. The Australian Standard AS/
NZS 4680:1999 nominates ‘minimum’ thickness for
steel sections. For example above 6mm, 85 microns
is quoted, however in practice it is considerably
higher due to the nature of the process. Actual film
thicknesses will range between 95-200 microns, well
above the nominated minimum.(Fig 2).
Another major advantage of galvanizing is the extra
growth on all edges and corners that occurs during
the process. It can be said with confidence that the
majority of failures with paint systems invariably
start on corners and sharp edges.
Another benefit with galvanizing is that all surfaces
are treated, whereas by contrast, control of manual
painting is difficult. Even experienced paint appli-

cators have difficulties in maintaining uniform thick-
ness and applying paint materials to hard-to-get-ar-
eas. Two sided protection is also an important con-
sideration. Manual application techniques are not
suitable and cannot coat the internal surface of hol-
low sections that would in turn give rise to inside-
out corrosion.
The greatest advantage of hot dip galvanizing is that
on removal from the zinc bath the process is fin-
ished and components can be handled through to
erection without the risk of damage. By contrast all
zinc paint alternatives require specific curing
conditions and sustain damage to varying degrees,
that regularly translates to construction delays and
site repair costs. Site repair of paint coatings
frequently becomes evident late in construction as
an added variation expense to the end client. No site
touch up of galvanizing is necessary unless welding
or drilling takes place.
The process of galvanizing is basically mechanical
handling. It is inherently simple and has changed lit-
tle since first described in 1837. The use of galva-
nizing does require attention to detail during the
design and specification stage to ensure favourable
design criteria. Distortion of fabricated sections can
occur if basic design guidelines are not followed.
The inspection process is fast, simple and requires
minimal labour. The fundamentals of the process are
such that galvanizing will not occur if the steel has
not been properly cleaned. That is immediately evi-
dent. Therefore, the opportunity to conceal inad-
equate surface preparation is non existent.
The application of topcoats to galvanized surfaces is
usually for identity, aesthetics or added chemical or
corrosion resistance in extreme service.
ZINC FILLED COATINGS
There is an extensive range of zinc rich paints
available, all based on individual formulations. Per-
formance varies widely due to varying zinc content
and binder type. Zinc depletion is not easy to
determine and can only be calculated by the use of
zinc coupons or by laboratory techniques.
Performance predictability to any given microclimate
is difficult to assess. Accelerated testing of zinc paints
only provides a guide to performance. Correlation
to real service exposure is not easy to determine and
remains a challenge to the paint industry.
Zinc coatings are divided into two broad classes by
the type of resin or binders used.
CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001
One class is called inorganic. These use binders that
are substances of inorganic nature i.e. based on ma-
terials other than carbon chemistry.
The other type is called organic zinc rich primer.
These products have binder/resin systems that are of
organic nature i.e. based on compounds of carbon.
Whilst there is some technical similarity, the major
difference is that inorganic binders do not suffer
normal degradation as with organic binders, are con-
siderably harder and have greater volumes of zinc.
Industry promotional activity has tendered to be gen-
eral, suggesting that all inorganic zinc paints are
equal in performance regardless of type. Experience
has shown there are distinct differences in perform-
ance between types. The heat and chemically cured
materials were without doubt the best performers.
However these products are obsolete and have been
superseded by materials that do not have the same
performance characteristics and are somewhat infe-
rior in comparison.
There is no doubt that inorganic zinc silicate coat-
ings in the paint industry are excellent products and
are the acknowledged leader in combating corrosion
as single coat applications, or as primers for high
performance topcoats. Their use has been wide and
varied with outstanding results. The application of
top coats is usually only necessary in areas of ex-
treme chemical fallout, immersion conditions such
as fresh or salt water, concrete encasement or to im-
prove the aesthetic appeal.
Adhesion of zinc paints to the substrate is predomi-
nantly mechanical, that is determined and influenced
by the degree of surface preparation and roughness
obtained. Minimum surface preparation necessary
is class 2.5 or 3 (near or white metal) AS1627.4 1989.
INORGANIC ZINC SILICATE (Covered by
AS/NZS3750.15:1998)
There are numerous types of inorganic coatings each
with advantages and disadvantages that would make
them the first choice for a particular application.
Inorganic zinc silicate coatings consist of zinc dust
in finely divided particle size form dispersed in a
variety of mediums bound in a matrix of silica. There
are four basic types: heat and chemically cured, and
two self curing materials based on either water or
solvent. The heat and chemical cured materials are
now obsolete, and have been superseded by the self-
curing water and solvent based materials.
Whilst the binder systems may be either water or

solvent, the final chemical structure is similar on full
curing. Water based materials on average carry 30%
more metallic zinc, and have better abrasion and
temperature resistance. Nevertheless these
characteristics are being ignored by sections of the
corrosion industry that now claim or suggest that
solvent borne zinc is equal.
For the purposes of this article, four commercial in-
organic zinc products were selected at random and
evaluated by independent authorities for metallic
zinc. The evaluation showed that only one material
appeared to meet the criteria outlined in the Austral-
ian Standard.
The evaluation for metallic zinc showed clearly that
there are a variety of formulations available, some
of which do not comply with the pigment constituents
specified for zinc dust in AS/NZS 3750.15:1998,
although it must be emphasized that not all products
are marketed as conforming to this standard. The non-
conforming materials with variations are shown in
Fig 3.
Fig 3
C h emical C om p o sitio n of Z in c D ust S a m ples w t %
P rod u ct T y pe Z inc Z inc Z inc
(T o tal) (M etal) (O x id e)
T y p e 4 S olven t 94 .5 80 .3 14 .2
T y p e 4 S olven t 93 .8 82 .9 10 .9
T y pe 6 98 .7 80 .1 18 .6
H igh R a tio
W a ter
Z in c D ust as p er A S/N Z S 3 7 5 0.15 . 1 9 98
Zinc Dust 9 8.0 m in 9 4.0 m in 5*
Note: AS/NZS 3750.15:1998 “The zinc oxide content may be
calculated as the difference between total zinc content and the
metallic zinc content multiplied by 1.25”.
WATER BASED
This coating type is without doubt the best of the
zinc coatings available. It is characterised by fast
hardening, good damage resistances, and higher me-
tallic zinc content in the dry film. It is sensitive to
high humidity and low temperatures during the
application stage.
The curing time is two to three hours but is dependant
on climate conditions. It has non-toxic, non-flam-
mable properties and early hardness permits rapid
handling of coated steel. Being water based, it has
no EPA restrictions. While its usage has been varied,
its main use has been in the offshore oil industry and
CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001
for road and rail bridges. The offshore industry, in
particular, has demonstrated the advantages of water
based materials over solvent based materials, that
are totally excluded from this application
environment.
SOLVENT BORNE (ETHYL SILICATE)
These materials are available as either two or sin-
gle-pack and have been the dominant materials used
in the paint industry. They are characterised by tol-
erance to high humidity and low temperature appli-
cation but are slower to develop handling resistance
and do not fully reach the ultimate hardness of the
water borne type.
They are best suited for site application under diffi-
cult weather conditions. Metallic zinc content and
abrasion resistance is lower than water based mate-
rials. It is for technical reasons that the same high
loading of metallic zinc cannot be incorporated as in
the water borne type without some loss of film build
properties, abrasion resistance and ultimate life. This
loss ranges from marginal to substantial when com-
paring some lower cost materials available. In addi-
tion, they are solvent based and therefore are not as
environmentally friendly as their water based coun-
PB FE CD
ter parts.
0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01
ORGANIC ZINC RICH COATINGS
0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01
(Covered by AS/NZS3750.9:1994)
0 .0 10 < 0.01 < 0.01
Most types of organic resins have at one time or other
been used as zinc rich primer binders. Organic
binders are film formers and have the tendency to
encapsulate and insulate individual particles of zinc.
0 .2 max 0.05 max 0 .1 max
Binders used have been such resins as; epoxy,
chlorinated rubber, phenoxy, epoxy ester, urethane
alkyd and polyester, to name a few.
Main advantages are greater tolerance to poorer sur-
face preparation, ease of application, better flow
characteristics, greater film flexibility, ease of top
coating as they contain no voids, slightly better curing
in low humidity conditions and some chemical
resistance.
The down side is they generally cost more. The trade
off is that surface preparation and application labour
cost is less, they contain less zinc, are lower in UV,
temperature and abrasion resistance, generate more
welding fumes and performance expectations are
considerably less. These materials usually provide
some initial galvanic protection because the high
weight loading of zinc affords some zinc to zinc con-
tact. With time they tend to behave and function more

like conventional type primers, rather than providing
true galvanic protection as with inorganic zinc paints.
For these reasons they are generally used in ‘systems’
rather than being left un-topcoated.
Inorganic zinc primers provide much better protec-
tion, particularly water based materials. They have a
greater ability to carry a higher volume of zinc in the
dried film. The reason for this is the higher density
of the silicate binder. The average organic zinc with
90% zinc by weight only translates to approximately
60% by volume, due to the different densities be-
tween silicate binder and epoxy resin.
To illustrate the point the following typical example
compares total zinc loading of 90% by weight of or-
ganic to inorganic in a direct comparison. In prac-
tice the weight of zinc varies in accordance with the
respective standard.
Fig 1
Z IN C C O N T E N T C O M P A R IS O N
O R G A N IC V S IN O R G A N IC
O r ga n ic
W e ig h t V olu me W e ig h t
B in d e r (e poxy) 9 8 .1 8 10 (S ilic ate )
A d d itive s 1 0 .5 0
Z in c D u st 90 12 .6 0 90
10 0 21 .2 8 10 0
Z in c C o n te n t 90% 5 9% * 90%
D e nsity used to c onve rt to vo lum e: Epoxy B ind er 1.1, A dd itive s 0.5,
B inde r 2 .6 , Zinc D ust 7 .1 4
Water based inorganic paints have the highest vol-
ume loading of metallic zinc of any applied zinc paint
coating.
Note that both have 90% by weight in the dry film,
however the inorganic has 77% zinc by volume
(12.60 divided by 16.45) whereas the organic coat-
ing has only 59% (12.60 divided by 21.28) zinc by
volume, a variance of 23% in this example favour-
ing the inorganic zinc. Again the difference arises
from variations in density, giving inorganic coatings
higher volumes of zinc in the dry film. The key point
in any comparison between coating types is metallic
volume of zinc, not weight.
Higher zinc by volume allows for more intimate zinc
to zinc, and zinc to steel contact. Because of the rela-
tively higher amount of binder present in the organic
version, the zinc is more insulated and inhibited from
providing cathodic protection to the steel.
The respective Australian Standards quote “metal-
CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001
lic” zinc contents as; 77% for solvent borne inor-
ganic, and 85% for water based inorganic. Organic
primers are nominated as total zinc mass of 85-94%.
When total zinc is quoted it includes non-metallic
components such as zinc oxide. Only metallic zinc
is capable of providing galvanic protection. Inorganic
zincs clearly carry more zinc by “volume” due to
the differences in binder densities. Metallic zinc by
volume should be the major consideration in any
evaluation process.
The current wave of marketing appears to favour
epoxy zinc rich primers over inorganics, particularly
in comparison to solvent borne types that are clearly
superior in performance as single-coat materials.
Water based materials are rarely mentioned in any
comparison although they are superior to both of the
other two. It would appear that formulated charac-
teristics of organic materials favour application tech-
niques and speed rather than higher corrosion resist-
ance.
The movement amongst some manufacturers in pro-
In or ga n ic moting organic zinc rich primers has clear manufac-
turing cost advantages. This can be evidenced by the
V olu me
processing of 100 kilos of base raw materials for both
3 .8 5 products. The end result in manufactured volume
clearly favours organic materials.
12 .6 0
INSPECTION
16 .4 5
7 7% * Inspection of paint systems is somewhat complex,
Inorga nic S ilic a te s
AS/NZS2312:1994 (Guide to protection of iron and
steel against exterior atmospheric corrosion) sets out
the requirements and practices needed to ensure
proper application. Inspection costs are often over
looked. It is generally accepted that inspection costs
of 2-8% of the total job should be viewed as a pre-
mium on insurance against the cost of rectifying pre-
mature coating failures. Many coating failures can
be traced back to questionable practices during sur-
face preparation and application.
The main areas of coating inspection for all steel
projects are:
· Specification enforcement and job control
maintenance
· Job process monitoring and regulation
· Interfacing with engineer and contractor’s rep-
resentative
· Responding to extraordinary conditions
· Surface preparation (pre-blast washing, before
and during operations)
 CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001

· Priming and pretreatment coats (before and schedule is undertaken.

during operations)
· Intermediate, mid or tie coats (before and dur-
ing operations)
· Finish coats (before and during operations)
· Record keeping
In summary, inorganic materials should be consid-
ered where high performance is required. In less se-
vere environments or where adequate surface prepa-
ration is not achievable, organic zinc rich paints
would be more appropriate. Organic zinc materials
are outstanding products as touch-up(site) materials
for inorganic coatings or galvanizing. They make a
good compromise although thickness needs to be in-
creased to compensate for the lower zinc content.
As single coat applications, inorganic materials are
clearly superior, particularly when water based. How-
ever where top-coats are necessary the distinction is
less and in many circumstances will actually favour
To examine and illustrate final installed costs, the
following costs are expressed in square metres and
detail first cost, inspection, and estimate site repair
cost. These were obtained from the market place and
are typical only. These extra costs are conservative
estimates and don’t take into consideration extra stag-
ing required, delay to other trades or site penalty rates
that may be applicable.
Fig 4
H o t D ip G a lva n izin g
Averag e p rice $ 4 5 5 / to nn e
$ 1 8 .7 5 m 2
Ass um ed ligh t, me d , a nd heav y stee l
a verage s urface a re a p er to n ne 2 4 m2
OR
Ino rgan ic Z inc (Type 3 /6 w ate r b as ed ) 1 2 5 - 5 0
$ 2 0 .0 0 m 2
microns
Initia l ap p lic atio n in sp e ction (2 -8 % ) say 5 % $ 1 .00
S ite re p airs 5 % $ 1 .00

organic zincs. S ite ins p ectio n $ 1 .00

$ 2 3 .0 0 m 2
COST CONSIDERATION & COMPARI-
SONS Plus ap p licab le site p e nalty rate s sc affo ld ing o r s tagin g

The cost comparisons between systems are gener- TYPIC AL TOTAL COST COMPARISON
ally not well understood. Confusion arises from the Long-term Protection
different pricing methods used. Galvanizing is typi-
The Premise: 5000 Tonne Steel (24m2 surface area /tonne) 120000 m2
cally charged by weight whereas zinc rich coating
are calculated on surface area. System 1 System 2
Hot Dip Galvanizing Inorganic Zinc Silicate
(type 3 or 6)
Whilst there are always exceptions, average prices
are often extrapolated in an over simplified way on Radius / Chamfer Edges NIL $600,000

assumptions that unit prices would remain the same Initial cost of Application $2,275,000 $2,400,000
despite being applied to a vast range of sizes and Initial Inspection 5% NIL $120,000
weights.
Site Repairs 5% NIL $120,000
Because of the current demand for productivity and
site time efficiency, primary installation costs need Plus Site Penalty -
NIL
Required / Cost
scaffolding or staging unknown
to account for such items as:
Site Inspection - $120,000
· Radius or chamfered edges
TOTAL INITIAL COST $2,275,000 $3,360,000
· Repairing transport damage
· Quality controlled inspection Notes:
· Erection damage repair
System 1
· Total effect on site occupation
Hot dip galvanizing average price $455 / tonne
Site repair, inspection and radius or chamfering of (Assume steel sizes of light – medium, heavy – average 24 m2 / tonne)
edges where necessary have a significant impact on $18.75 m2
a project and therefore should always be part of any System 2
evaluation process. Unfortunately this is not always Radius / Chamfer Edges
the case and they are seldom costed. There is also a $120 / Tonne
cumulative effect with regard to much greater costs (Assume 25 lm / Tonne)
in future maintenance unless a disciplined repair Price quoted is conservative and includes extra handling.
 CORROSION MANAGEMENT May 2001

CONCLUSION ZINC COMPARISON

GALVANIZING & ZINC RICH PAINTS

Most hot dip galvanizing is accomplished with GALVANIZING

fabricated components prior to erection. Small
STEEL AS/NZS MINIMUM ACTUAL METALLIC
components are much easier to galvanize, particularly THICKNESS STANDARD AVERAGE DRY ZINC
THICKNESS FILM THICKNESS CONTENT
intricate items. (MICRONS) (MICRONS) (gm/m 2)

Zinc paints were originally developed to overcome 3mm plate 55 99 707

the limits of galvanizing bath sizes. They offer flex- 4mm plate 70 110 785
ibility in use, particularly for large and complex 5mm angle 70 110 785
items. They are generally suited for in situ applica- 6mm plate 70 130 1000
tions or where complexity of steel structures is such
12mm plate 85 150 1070
that it suits painting. The shipping and maintenance
industry, together with large storage vessels are good 200 UB 85 140 1000

examples of where zinc paints are highly suited. 310-410 UB 85 150 1071

Heavy Structural
This article has attempted to offer a comparison in Steel
85 180-200 1285-1428

the use of un-topcoated zinc coatings and galvaniz- 180-200 PFC 85 120 857
ing and to give basic guidance as to the merits of 125-150 PFC 85 110 785
each process. Choosing one system over another or
RHS/SHS (light) 85 85-95 607-678
in combination is not always simple, but not neces-
sarily difficult providing the evaluating authority is ZINC SILICATE PAINT SY STEMS
aware of the differences involved. Steel Thickness
Thickness for all steel sections is constant. Metallic zinc is data from governmental
G test.

AS/NZS Standard Metallic Zinc

Zinc Content Thickness Content gm/m2
REFERENCES Inorganic
77% of Dry Film (metallic) 75 microns 185
(Solvent)
• Australian / New Zealand Standards:
- AS/NZS 3750.9:1994 Organic Zinc Primers Inorganic (Water) 85% of Dry film (metallic) 75 microns 289
- AS/NZS 3750.15:1998 Inorganic Zinc Silicate Paint
- AS/NZS 2312:1994 Guide to Protection of Iron and Steel 150 microns 578
Against Exterior Atmospheric Corrosion Organic Zinc Rich
- AS/NZS 4680:1999 Hot Dip Galvanized (zinc) Coatings 90% Zinc Content 75 microns 185 *
(epoxy)
on Fabricated Ferrous Articles
- AS1627.4:1989 Abrasive Blast Cleaning TYPICAL COMPARISON CHART
HOT DIP GALVANIZING - INORGANIC ZINC SILICATES
• Corrosion Resistance Galvanized Coatings Retrospective
USE OF GALVANIZING INORGANIC ZINC SILICATE
Evaluation: - A.J Vazquez & J J DeDamborenea, Centro APPLICATION SOLVENT BORNE WATERBASED
Nacional De Investigaci - ones metallurgical (cenim / csic), Inspection Minimal (self Reqs Continuous Inspection
Spain inspection)

• Coating Guide for New Steel Bridges, Szokolik Consulting Dry Film Thickness Excellent Needs Care Edges & Corners
Control (including edges) No
Pty Ltd, November 1999
• L Vincent, Corrpro Companies Inc USA, PMC Article Coating Thickness 85 microns 75 microns 150 um
180 microns
September 1999
Zinc Mass /m2 (average) 600 gms/m2 185 gms/m2 560 gms/m2
• Hot Dip Galvanizing Journal, Dr M Burcher, 1993
Adhesion Fusion Bonded Surface Coating Surface Coating
• Facts About Inorganic Zinc Coatings, N Karakasch, March
1999 Hardness 8 x Harder Than - -
Zinc Paint
• Nace International, Corrosion 94, Paper 521 Site Touch After Erection No Yes Yes

Weather / Curing Delay No Yes Yes

Temperature Resistance 200oC 300oC 400oC

Chemical Resistance ph 6 - 12.5 6 - 10 6 - 10

Salt Water Immersion No No No

Environmental Cleanliness Yes No - Contains Volatile Yes

Solvents

Site Application No Yes Yes

Fresh Water Immersion Yes No No

Buried Conditions Yes No No

Concrete Reinforcement Yes No No