 |
Using data collected in nationwide surveys of the hot-dip galvanizing industry (conducted by the American Galvanizers Association) and the paint industry (conducted by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers), an economic analysis of original and life-cycle costs provides an interesting comparison.
Original Costs
Although not recommended as reflecting the true cost of a corrosion protection system, original costs are sometimes the primary determinant for selection. Hot-dip galvanizing is more economical from an initial cost standpoint for all but the one-coat zinc-rich paint and the two-coat acrylic waterborne paint. This is the case when galvanizing is compared to many of the commonly used industrial paint systems. Additionally, hot-dip galvanizing may be even more economical when the project calls for small-weight-per-beam-length structural steel and/or assemblies, because of the efficient handling of many pieces in the galvanizing process.
 Life-cycle Costs
Because of the long life of the hot-dip galvanized coating and its virtually maintenance-free performance, galvanizing is consistently a better value than paint over a structure's life. Galvanizing durability and lifetime performance make it the logical choice when it is the lowest original cost system.
The UK Galvanizers Association published a technical update of a study commissioned by IZA that compares the performance of hot-dip galvanized steel with paint. The study examined a balcony application and compares total life cycle energy, environmental impacts, and life cycle inventory of galvanized steel to paint.
View the article.
|
