Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2019, 13(1): 49–65

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0448-0

REVIEW

Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections:

a state-of-the-art review
Min SUNa* , Jeffrey A. PACKERb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 2Y2, Canada
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

ABSTRACT A good understanding of the effects of galvanizing on the short- and long-term behaviours of steel
components is essential for structural design. This review paper is motivated by a series of recent reports on cracking in
galvanized cold-formed tubular steel structures and the limitations of current steel product standards and steel design
specifications in this field. The steel-related and galvanizing-related factors, different pre-galvanizing countermeasures for
brittle cracking and the available technical documents are summarized. An extensive bibliography is provided as a basis
for future research and development in this field.

KEYWORDS cold-formed steel, hollow structural sections, hot-dip galvanizing, embrittlement, heat-treatment, residual stress,
cracking

1 Introduction dipping of steel in the molten zinc bath; and (3) inspection.
A hot alkali solution is often used during degreasing to
Infrastructure is central to every aspect of our lives. remove dirt, paint marking and oil from the metal surface.
Premature deterioration of civil infrastructure and repair of The subsequent pickling process removes mill scales and
damage are multi-billion dollar problems. For example, the oxides by dipping the steel in a dilute solution of hot
direct cost of metallic corrosion in the United States is sulphuric acid. Fluxing is the final surface preparation step
approximately $276 billion per year, corresponding to in which a protective layer is created on the steel surface.
3.1% of the national gross domestic product [1]. Hence, This layer also promotes bonding between zinc and steel.
corrosion protection is of paramount importance to The zinc bath, consisting of a minimum 98% pure liquid
exposed steel structures such as bridges, industrial plants, zinc, is typically maintained at 450°C. Structural compo-
transmission towers and costal structures, because corro- nents are immersed in and withdrawn from the bath slowly
sion costs money, jobs and even lives. Among different to ensure the quality of coating [2,3]. The appearance,
techniques, hot-dip galvanizing is a cost-effective measure toughness and thickness of the coating predominantly
for corrosion protection. Galvanized steel structures are depend on the chemical compositions of the zinc bath and
often maintenance-free since the service life of the zinc the steel [4].
coating generally exceeds the design life of the structure it Galvanized steel structures have numerous advantages
protects [2]. In addition, the shiny appearances of in economical, environment protection and energy-saving
galvanized steel structures, such as the iconic VIA 57 aspects. Hence, a good understanding of the effects of
West building in New York, are appreciated by many galvanizing on the short- and long-term behaviours of steel
architects. components is essential for structural design. For example,
As shown in Figure 1, the complete galvanizing process the final hot-dipping process is certainly capable of
includes three basic procedures: (1) surface preparation inducing a significant thermal gradient through the steel
(degreasing, rinsing, pickling, rinsing and fluxing); (2) component. Cracking of steel during galvanizing as a
result of high residual and thermal stresses, as well as strain
Article history: Received May 21, 2017; Accepted Jun 18, 2017 ageing-induced material embrittlement as a result of cold-
50 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

Fig. 1 Hot-dip galvanizing procedures [2]

forming and elevated temperature have been observed and dynamic performances of cold-formed tubular steel
since the 1930s. The development of guidelines for structures; and (3) limitations of current steel product
prevention of cracking and significant embrittlement has standards and steel design specifications in this field.
since then been the focus of various research projects. A The occurrence of steel cracking during hot-dip
synthesis study of these early research projects can be galvanizing depends on: (1) steel-related factors such as
found in an investigation conducted by the American steel chemistry, material properties, residual stress, and
Institute of Steel Construction [4]. Standards have been pre-galvanizing microcracks as a result of cold-forming;
developed for safeguarding against cracking, embrittle- and (2) galvanizing-related factors such as degree of
ment, warpage and distortion of steel components in North pickling, preheating, bath temperature, immersion rate and
America [5–7] based on these early experimental investi- bath chemistry [4]. This paper reviews only those factors
gations using the steels available in the 1950s. Similar that affect galvanized cold-formed HSS. The steel-related
standards and guidelines have been published in other parts and galvanizing-related factors, as well as the current
of the world [3,8,9]. For many years, these standards have practices for prevention of brittle cracking, are discussed in
served well. Sections 2 and 3. Different pre-galvanizing counter-
However, the embrittlement problem has resurfaced in measures for brittle cracking are compared in Section 4.
the past decade. For example, premature cracking in Recent research in this field and their limitations are
galvanized highway structures has been reported across elaborated in Section 5.
North America [10–15]. These cracks have caused some
early decommissions and even hazardous collapses which
present a great threat to public safety. Poor in-service 2 HSS material-related factors
performance of some galvanized steel structures has
become an issue in Europe as well, hence the Eurocodes 2.1 Steel chemistry
are attempting to develop provisions to address the
problem [16]. These recently reported problems have The appearance, thickness, strength and durability of zinc
attracted a lot of attention in both the industry and coating depend on the chemistries of the steel and the zinc
academia since galvanized steel structures are virtually bath. The effects of certain elements in steel on the coating
everywhere. It was found that the reported premature structure have been studied extensively and incorporated
cracking problems were in general coincident with the into the galvanizing standards [4]. For example, to ensure
application of material of high strength and sections with the quality of coating, ASTM A385 [7] recommends the
large wall thickness, as well as new zinc bath mixtures with following steel composition: C£0.25%, Mn£1.3%,
tin and bismuth added to enhance the quality of coating, P£0.04%, Si£0.04% or 0.15%£Si£0.22%. The bath
which will be discussed in detail in the following sections. temperature and immersion time do influence the quality of
Hence, new guidelines for the prevention of significant the zinc coating obtained, but the most critical factor is the
embrittlement of modern steels during galvanizing need to steel chemistry and in particular the silicon content. At
be developed because the existing standards were devel- typical galvanizing temperatures, the well-known “Sande-
oped based on steels available in the 1950s. lin curve” suggests that steels with silicon content less than
This review paper focuses on galvanized cold-formed 0.04% develop normal thin coatings. Excessively thick and
steel Hollow Structural Sections (HSS). It is motivated by: brittle zinc coatings can be developed on “reactive steels”
(1) a series of recent reports on cracking in the corner with silicon content from 0.04% to 0.15%. Acceptable
regions of cold-formed Rectangular Hollow Sections coatings are produced when silicon levels range from
(RHS) after galvanizing (see Figure 2 for examples); (2) 0.15% to 0.22%. For “reactive steels” with silicon higher
concerns with the effects of galvanizing on the long-term than 0.22%, coating thickness continues to increase as the
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 51

Fig. 2 Examples of cold-formed RHS corner cracking during galvanizing. (a) Vancouver, Canada, 2016; (b) Vancouver, Canada, 2003
[11]; (c) Malaysia, 2009 [11]

silicon level increases [4]. Requirements on silicon content into a single quantity. Empirical carbon equivalent
based on the “Sandelin curve” have been incorporated into formulae, including carbon, manganese, silicon, nickel,
the new ASTM standard for cold-formed HSS [17] (see vanadium, molybdenum and sometimes copper and boron
Table 1) as well. The effects of zinc bath chemistry will be contents, have been developed based on experimental
discussed in Section 3.3. investigations to control cracking of different types of
In the last decade the incidence of corner cracking of steels during welding. Review of these experimental
RHS has increased in North America and Asia, particularly investigations can be found in Refs. [20,21].
during hot-dip galvanizing, where the problem has been The same approach has been used to minimize the risk
generally attributed to liquid metal embrittlement (LME) in of cracking in steel during galvanizing since carbon
association with very high residual stresses in the corner equivalent has been shown by previous research to have
regions [11]. LME is a phenomenon where certain ductile a strong link to the susceptibility of steel to LME [3]. For
metals (e.g., structural steel) experience a significant loss example, early research in Japan for the development of a
of ductility or even undergo brittle fracture when exposed new steel grade with low susceptibility to LME for
to specific liquid metals (e.g., zinc bath mixture). In general, application in power transmission towers [22] established
a critical level of tensile stress on the surface of solid metal Eqs. (1a) and (1b) for crack prevention:
is needed for the liquid metal to penetrate and weaken the
Mn Ni Cr Nb
grain boundaries of the immersed solid metal [3,4,18,19]. CE ¼ C þ þ þ þ þ f ðBÞ£0:22 (1a)
The phenomenon of LME will be further discussed in 13 29 17 7
Section 3. It should be noted that LME is only one type of (
the embrittlement and cracking mechanisms during 0, B < 0:0005
galvanizing. The other types will be discussed in Section 3. where f ðBÞ ¼ (1b)
0:04, B³0:0005
A useful concept for prevention of cracking during
welding of carbon and alloy steels is the carbon equivalent The validity ranges of the above equations are as
(CE) which reduces the number of significant chemical follows:
compositional variables affecting the weldability of steel C: 0.02%~0.16%, Si: 0.10%~0.50%, Mn: 0.80%
52 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

~2.00%, Cu: 0%~0.40%, Ni: 0%~0.50%, Cr: 0%~0.60%, stresses are high, which is inevitable when galvanizing
Mo: 0%~0.50%, Nb: 0%~0.10%, V: 0%~0.10%, B: 0% cold-formed steel products. However, it can be seen in
~0.0010%. Table 1 that the maximum permissible values of certain
Later, using a similar approach Abe et al. [23] studied chemical elements in ASTM A500 are too liberal. For
cracking in galvanized steel bridges. Different carbon example, a 0.26% carbon content itself may invite LME
equivalent formulae for different steel types were proposed problems based on Eq. 1(a). In addition, the ASTM A500
for prevention of LME. One of the formulae, which has chemical requirements do not provide a sufficient recipe
been adopted in the Japanese standard for high-strength for LME prevention. As can be seen in Table (2), most of
steel for application in transmission towers, JIS G3129 the input chemical elements in Eq. (2) are missing while
[24], is shown as follows: research evidence [3,4] has shown that the presence of
these missing elements can increase the possibility of
Si Mn Cu Ni Cr Mo
CE ¼ C þ þ þ þ þ þ LME, particularly the presence of boron. According to
17 7:5 13 17 4:5 3 Eq. (2), a tiny amount of boron (B) will cause the CE-value
V Nb Ti to exceed the limit of 0.44. The chemical analysis results
þ þ þ þ ð420ÞðBÞ£0:44 (2) from six recent mill test reports from different North
1:5 2 4:5
American tube manufacturers are listed in Table 3. It can
The British guide for management of LME-induced be seen that the missing chemical elements such as Si, Cu,
cracking suggested the use of the above formula as well Ni, Cr, Mo, V, Ti and B are actually contained in the
[3]. Although the validity range of Eq. (2) is not mentioned products. According to Tables 1 and 2, ASTM A1085 [17],
in JIS G3129 or the British guide, it should be noted that CSA-G40.20/G40.21 [26], EN 10219-1 [27] and JIS
the above equation was developed based on experimental G3466 [28] have similar problems as ASTM A500 [25].
data on steels with carbon content below 0.12% [23]. A It should be noted that steel products manufactured to
few similar formulae have been developed in other parts of these standards may be outside the ranges of validities of
the world but no attempt is made in this review paper to list Eqs. (1a), (1b) and (2), as a result of the liberal maximum
all of them. permissible values for certain elements.
Table 1 shows the permitted amounts (by weight) of key China is now a major exporter of cold-formed HSS so
ingredients, by cast or heat analysis, for popular grades of their manufacturing standards should be of note. GB/T
prominent HSS specifications. There are many similarities, 6725 [29] and GB/T 6728 [30] are similar to EN10219-1
other than the Australasian and the Chinese standards. [27] and EN10219-2 [31], respectively. Different from
ASTM A500 [25], the predominant American specification EN10219-1, GB/T 6725 covers cold-formed open sections
for cold-formed HSS, is notable for containing little as well. For chemical requirements, GB/T 6725 refers to a
prescription, particularly with regard to silicon which is series of Chinese standards for base material for production
essential for the production of high-quality zinc coating. of cold-formed HSS, including carbon steel for general
For prevention of LME, careful control on the steel structural applications GB/T 700 [32], structural steel for
chemistry is important when the residual and thermal bridges GB/T 714 [33], high strength low alloy structural

Table 1 Chemical compositions (by weight) for cold-formed RHS of common grades
Chemical composition (cast or product analysis), %max unless specified otherwise
Standard Grade
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Al Ti Cu Nb V Ni N B
ASTM A500 B 0.26 – 1.35 0.035 0.035 – – – – – – – – – –
C 0.23 – 1.35 0.035 0.035 – – – – – – – – – –
ASTM A1085 A 0.26 £0.04 or 1.35 0.035 0.035 – – ≥0.02 – – – – – – –
0.15-0.25
CSA-G40.20/ 350W 0.23 0.40 0.50- 0.04 0.05 – – – – – – – – – –
G40.21 1.50
EN 10219-1 S355J2H 0.22 0.55 1.60 0.03 0.03 – – – – – – – – – –
AS/NZS 1163 350L0 0.20 0.45 1.60 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.04 – Nb + V = 0.11 – – –
450L0 0.20 0.45 1.70 0.03 0.03 0.50 0.35 0.10 0.04 – Nb + V = 0.11 – – –
JIS G3466 STKR490 0.18 0.55 1.50 0.04 0.04 – – – – – – – – – –
GB/T 1591 (1)
Q345A 0.20 0.50 1.70 0.035 0.035 0.30 0.10 – 0.20 0.30 0.07 0.15 0.50 0.012 –
Q460C 0.20 0.60 1.80 0.030 0.030 0.30 0.20 – 0.20 0.55 0.11 0.20 0.80 0.015 0.004

(1) As discussed in Section 2.1, GB/T 6725 refers to a series of standards for the chemical requirements of the base material for production of cold-formed RHS,
including GB/T 1591.
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 53

Table 2 Calculation of possible Carbon Equivalent using the maximum permissible value in steel product standards
Chemical elements for use in Eq. (2) (%)(1)
Standard Grade CE per Eq.(2)(2)
C Si Mn Cu Ni Cr Mo V Nb Ti B
ASTM A500 B 0.26 – 1.35 – – – – – – – – 0.44
C 0.23 – 1.35 – – – – – – – – 0.41
ASTM A1085 A 0.26 0.25 1.35 – – – – – – – – 0.45
CSA-G40.20/ 350W 0.23 0.40 1.50 – – – – – – – – 0.45
G40.21
EN 10219-1 S355J2H 0.22 0.55 1.60 – – – – – – – – 0.47
AS/NZS 1163 350L0 0.20 0.45 1.60 – – 0.30 0.10 0.11(3) – 0.04 – 0.62
450L0 0.20 0.45 1.70 – – 0.50 0.35 0.11(3) – 0.04 – 0.76
JIS G3466 STKR490 0.18 0.55 1.50 – – – – – – – – 0.41
GB/T 1591 Q345A 0.20 0.50 1.70 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.10 0.15 0.07 0.20 – 0.79
Q460C 0.20 0.60 1.80 0.55 0.80 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.20 0.004 2.61

(1) The chemical elements by %weight are the maximum permissible values from the standards.
(2) For chemical elements not included in the standards, a value of zero is used in the calculation of the Carbon Equivalent (CE) in Eq. (2).
(3) AS/NZS 1163 specifies a 0.11% maximum weight for Nb + V. This table assumes Nb = 0% and V = 0.11% for calculation of Carbon Equivalent in Eq. (2).

Table 3 Calculation of Carbon Equivalent using mill test reports

Chemical elements (%)
Mill test report CE per Eq.(2)(2)
C Si Mn Cu Ni Cr Mo V Nb Ti B
#1 0.2 0.023 0.75 0.02 0.008 0.026 0.002 0.002 - 0.002 0.0(1) 0.31
#2 0.190 0.014 0.800 0.050 0.017 0.053 0.004 0.002 - 0.000 0.000(1) 0.32
(1)
#3 0.190 0.026 0.800 0.048 0.014 0.050 0.004 0.002 - 0.000 0.000 0.32
#4 0.190 0.014 0.820 0.051 0.019 0.044 0.005 0.002 - 0.000 0.000(1) 0.32
#5 0.14 0.23 0.86 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.013 - - - 0.29
#6 0.14 0.24 0.87 0.01 0.05 0.003 0.00 0.003 - - - 0.28

(1) The mill test reports do not include enough numbers of significant figures for Boron (B). See Section 2.1 for discussion.
(2) For chemical elements not included in the standards, a value of zero is used in the calculation of the Carbon Equivalent (CE) in Eq. (2).

steel GB/T 1591 [34], stainless steel GB/T 3280 [35] and estimate the CE-values. It can be seen in Table 2 that
weathering steel GB/T 4171 [36]. It should be noted that almost all possible CE-values could exceed the 0.44 limit
GB/T 700 specifies carbon steel with a minimum yield for LME prevention. In particular, the 0.004% boron limit
strength up to only 275 MPa. For the production of the in GB/T 1591 [34] permits an extremely high CE-value per
commonly used cold-formed HSS of grade Q345, GB/T Eq.(2). The CE-values per Eq.(2) are also calculated using
6725 refers to GB/T 714 and GB/T 1591 for base material the chemical analysis results from six recent North
in its Appendix A. GB/T 714 and GB/T 1591 contain a American mill test reports in Table 3. Although the CE-
much longer list of chemical elements since they cover values in Table 3 are below the 0.44 limit, it should be
high-strength low alloy steels. The chemical requirements noted that certain chemical elements are missing. For the
for the two standards are very similar. Hence, Table 1 only reports including boron, insufficient numbers of significant
includes the commonly specified grades Q345A and figures are provided, since a boron amount of just 0.0003%
Q460C from GB/T 1591 with minimum yield strengths will cause the CE-values to exceed the limit.
of 345 MPa (quality grade A) and 460 MPa (quality grade
C), respectively. Similar to the Australasian standard [37], 2.2 Material properties
most of the input chemical elements in Eq. (2) are specified
in GB/T 1591. Corner cracking during galvanizing can be avoided by
Possible CE-values per Eq. (2) are calculated using the using hot-finished RHS since these products have
maximum permissible values in the above steel product inherently better grain structure and mechanical properties
standards in Table 2. For chemical elements not included in as well as a low level of residual stress in comparison with
the standards, a value of zero is used in the calculation. It their cold-formed counterparts. This is consistent with the
should be noted that this assumption may greatly under- findings of previous experimental investigations [4,11,38]
54 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

which suggest that galvanizing-related factors do have an of the steel material, hence its yield and ultimate strengths
effect on steel cracking, but only on already-susceptible increase while its ductility decreases [42–44]. With cold-
material. formed RHS, the tightness of corner radii is critical when
Hot-finished HSS are primarily manufactured in the U. there is concern for RHS corner cracking during galvaniz-
K., German, France and Brazil to EN 10210 [39,40], and ing [4]. Internationally, there are two common manufactur-
the most common grade is S355J2H. This approach ing methods for cold-formed RHS: direct-forming and
typically commences with a Circular Hollow Section continuous-forming. For both methods, the coil strip is
(CHS) produced by cold-forming using the Electric progressively cold-bent into the desired shape by passage
Resistance Welding (ERW) approach. The circular shape through a serious of pressure rollers, during which the
is then heated to achieve full normalizing, to above the rollers introduce a controlled amount of cold bending
upper critical transformation temperature of 870 °C to (depending on the sizes of the used rollers) to the coil strip,
930 °C, and is formed to the desired shape in this thus the mechanical properties are theoretically consistent
condition. Good toughness and ductility can be achieved in the longitudinal direction of the RHS product. However,
around the entire cross-section of the final product. Hence, some gradual variation in the longitudinal direction will
RHS with small outside corner radii can be produced using occur – for both production methods – in practice due to
this approach without having cracking problems. Note that the location of the final RHS member relative to the
CHS to this specification, with very large wall thicknesses position in the hot-rolled coil material from which it was
and low diameter-to-thickness ratios, as used in bridges, made.
are likely to be manufactured by the seamless hot-forming The direct-forming process is illustrated in Figure 3(a)
approach [11]. However, this approach produces CHS and includes: (1) roll-forming a coil strip directly into an
only. ASTM A501 [41] is the American specification for open section with the desired rectangular shape; and (2)
hot-finished HSS. It should be noted that this specification joining the edges of the open section by welding to form a
is only to facilitate the importation of hot-finished HSS closed rectangular shape. The continuous-forming process
from Europe since these products are not manufactured in is illustrated in Figure 3(b) and includes: (1) roll-forming a
North America. However, hot-finished HSS is either coil strip first into a circular open tube; (2) joining the
unavailable in much of the world or prohibitively edges of the open tube by welding to form a closed circular
expensive. Hence, HSS is far more commonly produced shape; and (3) flattening the circular tube walls to form the
by cold-forming. desired rectangular shape. In North America, Europe,
Japan and Australia the continuous-forming process is
used almost exclusively (one exception being Bull Moose
2.2.1 Cold-forming methods Tube in the U.S. which uses the direct-forming method). In
China, the direct-forming technique has become the
In general, heavily cold-formed steels are susceptible to dominant manufacturing method for production of large-
LME and strain ageing [3,11,16]. The two mechanisms sized RHS. Mass production by this method started from
may cause significant transient and permanent losses of 2005 and the RHS have been successfully used in the
material ductility during and after galvanizing. The details construction of Olympic stadiums, railway stations, power
of the two mechanisms will be discussed in Section 3.2. plants and bridges [45].
It is well know that cold forming causes strain hardening Although the appearance of the sections can be similar,

Fig. 3 Cold-forming methods. (a) Direct-forming; (b) Continuous-forming

 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 55

the overall mechanical behaviours of RHS produced by suitability of cold-formed RHS for galvanizing is generally
different cold-forming methods can be substantially avoided in HSS manufacturing specifications, or blanket
different. Extensive investigations have been conducted statements are given such as in EN 10219-1 ...“the
to capture the strength and ductility gradients around the products shall be suitable for hot dip galvanizing” [27].
cross-section of RHS produced by different cold-forming The Australasian [37] standard discusses suitability for
methods [e.g., 46–56]. For direct-formed RHS, the cold- hot-dip galvanizing, if galvanizing is required by the
working is concentrated at the four corners, thus the flat purchaser, and AS/NZS even goes as far as recommending
faces (not containing the weld) of the final RHS product that a sample be hot-dip galvanized to determine its actual
have similar properties to the coil material. For continuous- performance for a given bath and tube characteristics. The
formed RHS, the entire cross-section contains high degrees problem with such a purchaser-driven approach is that
of cold-working, thus the final RHS product has higher most HSS produced internationally is sold to stock-
yield and ultimate strengths and lower ductility compared holders, so the end user or fabricator does not usually
to the coil material. However, if the same coil material is interact with the manufacturer at the time of production
used, the mechanical properties of the corner regions of the [11].
direct- and continuous-formed RHS should be similar In general, RHS with high yield-to-tensile strength ratios
since the coil plates are bent to similar radii [57,58]. This are susceptible to corner cracking. The minimum specified
deduction is consistent with the experimental evidences via mechanical properties for cold-formed RHS of common
tensile coupon tests [54] and Charpy V-notch impact tests grades are summarized in Table 5. It should be noted that
[55]. Hence, for prevention of corner cracking during the requirements are based on tensile test specimens
galvanizing, the key factor is the bending radius. machined from the flat face of the RHS in the longitudinal
direction [61]. Hence, they are not directly relevant for
assessment of susceptibility to LME and strain ageing. The
2.2.2 Relevant provisions in design guides for tubular steel
yield-to-tensile stress ratios in Table 5 are calculated using
structures
the specified minimum values. However, in reality it is
very difficult for manufacturers to achieve a yield-to-
For prevention of cracking during welding, the ISO
tensile stress ratio smaller than 0.85, even when such
standard for welded hollow section connections under
measurements are taken from the middle of a flat face
static loading [59] specifies minimum outside corner radii
where the degree of cold-forming is in general the lowest
for welding in the zones of cold-forming without heat
around the entire cross-section [11]. The yield-to-tensile
treatment (Table 4). As can be seen in Table 4, RHS
stress ratio of the RHS corner material is in general higher
manufacturing standards often permit much lower outside
than that of the material in the flat face [e.g., 46–50,52,54].
corner radii. Packer et al. [11] suggest that the ISO [59]
Kinstler [4] pointed out that the bending radius, is the
corner radius recommendations may apply equally to
most important single factor to consider when there is
galvanizing as both represent criteria affected by the
concern for brittle-type failure of steel galvanized after
extreme corner residual stresses induced by cold-forming.
cold working. In general, the susceptibility to corner
The Chinese technical specification for structures with
cracking increases as the RHS wall thickness increases and
steel hollow sections [60] also requires that special
the corner radius decreases. The manufacturing ranges for
attention be paid to the corner properties of cold-formed
outside corner radii of cold-formed RHS to different
RHS, especially when the structure is subject to seismic or
standards are summarized in Table 4. Similar to the ISO
fatigue loading. This specification suggests that when
HSS connection design standard [59], the European
designing structures using cold-formed circular shapes,
standard for cold-formed HSS products [31] logically
with wall thickness larger than 25 mm and diameter-to-
specifies minimum outside corner radii to avoid problems
wall thickness ratio smaller than 20, experimental
with welding or cracking in the corners of RHS. The
investigations should be performed to study the cold-
Chinese standard [30] contains similar wall thickness
forming process, the mechanical properties of the section,
thresholds and corner radius requirements. However, the
the connection capacity as well as the risk of lamellar
predominant American standard for cold-formed HSS,
tearing. However, information on prevention of corner
ASTM A500 [25], together with the Canadian [26] and the
cracking in cold-formed RHS is limited in the Chinese
Japanese [28] standards specify only maximum outside
specification.
corner radii, due to an emphasis on achieving a reliably
large “flat width” dimension. Measurements on contem-
2.2.3 Relevant provisions in HSS manufacturing porary RHS [54,62] showed a large spread of outside
specifications corner radius from 1.7t to 2.4t. To reduce the potential for
corner cracking of RHS, during cold-forming and welding,
HSS manufacturers are aware of this issue of potential the new ASTM A1085 standard for cold-formed HSS [17]
cracking, but there is no definitive published guidance on specifies different minimum outside corner radii for
this topic from structural steel associations [11]. The different RHS wall thicknesses. However, the requirement
56 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

Table 4 Manufacturing requirements for outside corner radii of cold-formed RHS

Outside corner radius, ro
Specification RHS thickness, t (mm) for fully Al-killed steel and C£0.18%,
for fully Al-killed steel (Al≥0.02%)
P£0.02% and S£0.012%
2.5£t£6 ≥2.0t ≥1.6t
6 < t£10 ≥2.5t ≥2.0t
ISO 14346:2013(1)
10 < t£12 ≥3.0t ≥2.4t (up to t = 12.5)
12 < t£24 ≥4.0t –
t£6 1.6t to 2.4t
EN 10219-2 6 < t£10 2.0t to 3.0t
t > 10 2.4t to 3.0t
ASTM A500 All t £3.0t
t£10.2 1.6t to 3.0t
ASTM A1085
t > 10.2 1.8t to 3.0t
t£3 £6 mm
3 < t£4 £8 mm
4 < t£5 £15 mm
5 < t£6 £18 mm
CSA-G40.20/G40.21
6 < t£8 £21 to 24 mm
8 < t£10 £27 to 30 mm
10 < t£13 £36 to 39 mm
t > 13 £3.0t
All t, up to 5050 mm 1.5t to 3.0t
AS/NZS 1163
All t, larger than 5050 mm 1.8t to 3.0t
JIS G3466 All t £3.0t
t£3 1.5t to 2.5t
3 < t£6 2.0t to 3.0t
GB/T 6728 for Fy > 320 MPa
6 < t£10 2.0t to 3.5t
t > 10 2.5t to 4.0t

(1) Requirements for welding in the corner regions of RHS without pre-treatment.

Table 5 Minimum specified mechanical properties for cold-formed RHS of common grades
Specification Grade Fy (MPa) Fu (MPa) Fy/Fu
EN 10219-1 S355J2H 355 for t£16 345 for 16 < t£40 510 for t < 3 470 for 3£t£40 0.755 for 3£t£40
B 315 400 0.788
ASTM A500
C 345 425 0.812
ASTM A1085 A 345 450 0.767
CSA-G40.20/G40.21 350W 350 450 0.778
C350L0 350 430 0.814
AS/NZS 1163
C450L0 450 500 0.900
JIS G3466 STKR490 325 490 0.663
GB/T 6725 Q345 345 470 0.734

is still liberal compared to those in the European and ISO radius of around 2t – for thicker-walled sections – is
standards. According to the requirements in ISO 14346 inviting corner cracking problems, unless there is careful
[59] and EN10219-2 [31], producing to an outside corner control of the steel chemistry.
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 57

2.2.4 Relevant provisions in galvanizing standards embrittlement and cracking, there is no definitive guideline
on the thresholds of wall thickness above which different
The occurrence of instant cracking in the corner region levels of heat-treatments are needed for tubular products
during galvanizing depends on the interaction of residual (see Section 4 for details).
stress, thermal stress and the transient loss of ductility due
to LME. The elevated temperature during galvanizing 2.3 Residual stress
could potentially accelerate strain ageing and cause
premature deterioration of the tubular member. However, Also associated with cold-forming is the generation of
the level of permanent loss of ductility depends on the pre- residual stress. For the purpose of compression member
galvanizing degree of cold-forming [4]. design, residual stress in the longitudinal direction is much
To minimize the risk of LME and strain ageing more influential than that in the transverse direction. The
embrittlement, the ISO galvanizing standard, ISO 14713- effect of longitudinal residual stress on the compression
2 [9], suggests that local cold-forming should be kept as behaviour of a steel member is to cause premature
low as possible. Where the condition cannot be fulfilled, a yielding, leading to a loss of stiffness and a reduction in
pre-galvanizing stress-relieving by heat-treatment is load-carrying capacity. In previous investigations on the
recommended. However, the standard does not specify compression behaviour of cold-formed RHS [e.g.,
the heat-treatment temperature or duration. Similarly, the 46,47,49,52,53,64], measurements of residual stresses
Australasian [8] and the Chinese [63] galvanizing have been conducted using the following methods:
standards as well as the British guide for management of (a) Destructive approach such as the sectioning method
LME-induced cracking (BCSA 2005) acknowledge that (see Figure 4(a));
the elevated temperature during galvanizing can accelerate (b) Semi-destructive approach such as the hole-drilling
the onset of strain ageing embrittlement of cold-formed method (see Figure 4(b));
steel, and recommend stress-relieving to suppress this (c) Non-destructive approach such as the X-ray diffrac-
phenomenon, without specifying the temperature or tion method (see Figure 4(c)).
duration for heat-treatment. However, experience in The measured longitudinal residual stresses are com-
Canada [11] has shown that corner cracking can still monly considered as two components. The first is the
occur with CAN/CSA-G40.20/G40.21 Class H RHS [26], membrane component (tensile or compressive depending
which is stress-relieved to 450°C. In all, it is challenging to on the measuring location), which is the mean value of the
apply the provisions in the above galvanizing standard and measured longitudinal residual stress which occurs
guidelines since they are in general brief and qualitative. uniformly through the wall thickness. The second is the
The North American standard safeguarding against bending component, which is the deviation from the mean
galvanizing-induced embrittlement, ASTM A143 [6], value. Due to the existence of the longitudinal residual
advises a minimum cold-bending radius of three times stress, steel samples cut from the tube walls may exhibit
the plate thickness. Although ASTM A143 does not both axial deformation and curvature, corresponding to
specify whether the limit is for the inside or outside radius membrane and bending residual stresses respectively. It
of the cold-bent region, it has usually been interpreted as can be concluded from the above investigations that the
the inside radius [4]. For steel sections with smaller compression behaviour of cold-formed RHS is mostly
bending radii, different degrees of pre-galvanizing heat- affected by the bending residual stress, while the
treatment are recommended (see Section 4 for details). membrane residual stress plays a minimal role. The
However, it is difficult to apply the provisions in ASTM residual stress levels at the corner regions of direct- and
A143 to modern cold-formed RHS since: continuous-formed RHS are similar since the corner radii
(1) The minimum cold-bending radius recommended by are similar [53,54]. However, it should be noted that
ASTM A143 conflicts with the corner radius requirements although extensive investigations on residual stresses in
in certain production standards for structural steel tubing in hollow structural sections have been conducted in the past,
North America (see Table 4). For example, ASTM A500 most of these investigations measured residual stresses in
[25] requires that for RHS the outside corner radius shall the longitudinal direction at the mid-length of the members
not exceed 3t (i.e. three times the wall thickness t), since they are relevant to column behaviour. Investigation
corresponding to a maximum inside corner radius of 2t. on residual stresses in the transverse direction of hollow
The Canadian standard has similar requirements. structural sections is limited. Previous research
(2) The requirements in ASTM A143 were developed [4,11,16,38], unpublished documents from Nippon Steel
based on early research in the 1950s (reported by [4]) on and Teck Cominco, as well as experience from galvanizers,
the steels available at the time. Hence, the applicability to has showed that cracking during galvanizing always starts
modern steel is unknown. at the inside surface of the corner region at the free end and
(3) Although ASTM A143 suggests heat-treatment of propagates outwards through the tube wall and eventually
severely cold-formed steels for prevention of significant down the tube length (i.e., in the longitudinal direction).
58 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

Fig. 4 Measurements of residual stresses in cold-formed RHS. (a) Sectioning method [64]; (b) Hole-drilling method [53]; (c) X-ray
diffraction method [53]

Hence, measurements of residual stresses in the transverse defects when their depth reduces the remaining wall
direction at the free ends of cold-formed RHS are needed, thickness to less than 90% of the specified wall thickness.
and particularly in the corner regions. The standard requires that the defect shall be completely
removed by chipping or grinding to sound metal. However,
microcracks in the corners of RHS – pre-existing in the coil
2.4 Pre-galvanizing microcracks
material or produced during cold-forming of the RHS – are
another issue that is not covered by HSS manufacturing
The inside surface of RHS can sometimes contain crack- specifications. The presence of such microcracks in the
like fold-defects as a result of severe cold-forming [38]. corners may have a dramatic influence if the section is
These defects may become stress raisers during galvaniz- subsequently subjected to hot-dip galvanizing. An inves-
ing and in turn make the steel products susceptible to tigation into surface defects of hollow sections by Chiew
cracking [4]. These defects also make it easier for liquid [65] recommended that sections with surface discontinu-
zinc and bath additives to penetrate the steel material and ities (cracks) of depth greater than 0.2 mm, which are
weaken the grain boundary. usually visible to the naked eye, be regarded as non-
Tolerances for local surface imperfections (such as compliant sections and structurally defective. A proble-
gouges or grooves) are usually provided in HSS standards, matic RHS specimen in an investigation on corner
typically as a percentage of the wall thickness, with cracking of RHS during galvanizing [38], which will be
permissible repair procedures. For example, ASTM 500 discussed in Section 5, contained fold defects of a
[25] suggests that surface imperfections shall be classed as maximum depth of only 31 mm.
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 59

3 Effects of galvanizing greater than 1100 MPa, since the atomic hydrogen
absorbed by high-strength steels during the pickling
3.1 Thermal stress process can significantly reduce the ductility of the
material. Identification of hydrogen trapping sites in metals
When dipped in a molten zinc bath, compressive thermal and their participation in brittle fracture is an ongoing field
stress is first developed on the surface of the steel section of research. A literature review on this topic can be found
since the inner colder mass acts as a restraint on the in Ref. [19]. Quite often the heat of the galvanizing bath
expansion of the surface material. The differential expan- expels the atomic hydrogen absorbed by the steel during
sion stress is reduced once the inner material starts to the pickling process. However, if the steel hardness is
expand. The thermal stress on the surface becomes tensile excessive, hydrogen can be retained and result in
when the steel section is withdrawn from the molten zinc embrittlement [4,6,19]. Hence, when galvanizing high-
bath since the surface material begins to cool while the strength steels and hydrogen embrittlement is of concern,
contraction is restrained by the hotter inner material. Since pickling can be substituted by abrasive blast cleaning since
tensile stress is necessary for the occurrence of cracking, the latter does not generate hydrogen [6]. Since structural
steel sections are more susceptible to cracking when being steels of common grades are not susceptible to hydrogen
withdrawn from the molten zinc bath [4,16,38]. Previous embrittlement [3,4,18,19], it is not further discussed in the
investigations [4,16] have suggested that cracking is following sections.
triggered once the accumulative surface stress or strain
(i.e., residual plus thermal) perpendicular to the direction 3.2.1 Liquid Metal Embrittlement
of cracking reaches a critical value.
The thermal stresses developed on the surface of steel One mechanism that may cause a transient loss of ductility
sections during galvanizing have been studied by in structural steel of common grades during hot-dip
researchers via site measurements and finite element galvanizing is Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME). LME
simulations [e.g., 4,16,66,67]. It can be concluded that occurs when steel is exposed to certain low-melting point
for typical galvanizing practices and commonly used steel liquid metals, such as zinc, while under tensile stress. Most
sections, the maximum tensile thermal stress generated on descriptions of the LME phenomenon suggest that the
the material surface can be up to 400 MPa, predominantly occurrence requires an accumulative surface stress (i.e.
depending on the dipping and withdrawing speeds. Hence, residual stress plus thermal stress) beyond the elastic limit,
severely cold-formed steels could be highly susceptible to at which point zinc penetration through grain boundary
cracking since they sometimes contain high levels of may occur. The material ductility decreases once inter-
residual stress. In general, the induced thermal stress granular decohesion takes place [3,4,18,19].
decreases as the dipping and withdrawing speeds increase. Motivated by reports on cracking of steel structures
For example, Kikuchi and Iezawa [66] studied experimen- during galvanizing in Japan, Kikuchi and Iezawa [66]
tally and numerically the thermal stresses at the weld toe of performed tensile coupon tests on steels of two different
steel plate-to-pipe joints during galvanizing. It was found grades (SM50A and STK55). The tensile coupons were
that the maximum thermal stress decreases as the dipping ruptured under different conditions:
speed or the pipe diameter increases. Similar observation Condition (a): at room temperature before galvanizing;
was made by Kominami et al. [67] in their study on thermal Condition (b): at the galvanizing temperature of 460 °C
stress in steel pipes during galvanizing. However, it should but in the absence of liquid zinc;
be noted that it is not practical to change these speeds Condition (c): immersed in molten zinc bath maintained
significantly for reactivity and drainage-control purposes. at 460 °C, and
Condition (d): at room temperature after galvanizing.
3.2 Embrittlement and cracking mechanisms It was found that:
(1) The hot-dip galvanizing process has only a small
Other than the thermal shock, steel materials may effect on the initial portion of the stress-strain curve;
experience a transient or a permanent loss of ductility as (2) The specimens immersed in molten zinc bath
a result of galvanizing. Depending on the characteristics fractured much earlier than those under the other three
and history of the steel, numerous types of embrittlement conditions. The SM50A and STK55 specimens under
mechanisms may occur [3,4,16,18,19]. This paper dis- Condition (c) fractured at 8.5% and 7.7% strains,
cusses only the two embrittlement mechanisms relevant to respectively;
structural steels of common grades: (1) liquid metal (3) The stress-strain curves of specimens under Condi-
embrittlement, and (2) strain ageing. No attempt is made tions (a) and (d) almost overlapped; and
in this review paper to discuss the other mechanisms in (4) The stress-strain curve from Condition (b) is below
details. For example, hydrogen embrittlement is a potential that of the base Condition (a), but the elongation before
problem for high-strength steels with tensile strength fracture remains more or less the same.
60 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

Similar observations were made in the experiments and 2% additives [2,8]. Lead and aluminum have been
conducted by Kinstler [4]. Tensile tests were performed on traditionally added to the zinc bath to: (1) enhance the
steel coupons made from ASTM A36 steel (with a nominal brightness of the galvanized coating; (2) suppress the over-
yield strength of 250 MPa) at the galvanizing temperature reaction between zinc and steel with high silicon content to
of 450°C in the presence and absence of a molten zinc maintain a thin and ductile coating; and (3) enhance the
bath. It was found that the elastic portion of the stress- drainage of molten zinc from the surface of the steel, and in
strain curve and the yield stress were not affected by the turn to control the thickness and uniformity of the coating
presence of zinc. However, the coupons immersed in the [4, 68–71). However, there has been ongoing pressure to
molten zinc bath fractured at a 5% strain, which is even remove lead from the zinc bath for environmental and
earlier than that of Condition (c) in Kikuchi and Iezawa health concerns [68].
[66]. Research has been conducted by dominant suppliers,
The results of the above investigations were consistent such as Teck Cominco in Canada and Umicore in Belgium,
with the aforementioned general theory of LME. However, on different bath additives and their impact on zinc coating
it should be noted that the steels tested by Kikuchi and quality [4,68]. It was found that Tin and Bismuth behave
Iezawa [66] were not heavily deformed before galvanizing. much like lead and aluminum in a zinc bath. They are
The ASTM A36 steel tested by Kinstler [4] had relatively effective in improving drainage, retarding the over-
low yield strength and good ductility as well. It can be reaction between steel and zinc and enhancing the
expected that for severely cold-formed steel, such as the brightness of the coating, without the potential environ-
corner region of thick-walled cold-formed RHS, the mental impacts. As a result, new zinc bath mixtures with
material may brittle fracture at an earlier stage during tin and bismuth have been developed (e.g., BritePlusTM by
galvanizing as a result of LME, high residual stresses, Teck Cominco and GalvecoTM by Umicore).
relatively low ductility and possible pre-galvanizing However, the occurrence of steel cracking during hot-
defects. dip galvanizing seems to have become more prevalent
since tin and bismuth were added to the zinc bath mixture
[11,16]. According to the 2008 Nyrstar annual report,
3.2.2 Strain ageing “between June 2000 and March 2007, Umicore produced
and supplied (approximately) 45Kt of Galveco to galva-
Strain ageing is a mechanism that may cause a permanent nizers in various countries (corresponding to approx.
loss of ductility of steel. It is associated with time- 3.5Mt of steel that has been galvanized with Galveco).
dependent diffusion of carbon and nitrogen atoms in the Umicore withdrew Galveco from the market in March
material. Carbon steel deformed to a critical degree may be 2007 as a precautionary measure following the discovery
embrittled significantly as a result of strain ageing. The of cracking in steel that had been hot dip galvanized. It is
resulting brittleness varies with the ageing temperature and alleged that a cause of this cracking is the use of Galveco.”
time. At room temperature, the ageing process requires Similarly, in North America Teck Cominco was also
several months to obtain the maximum embrittlement blamed for its new product because the incidences of hot-
[3,4,18,19]. However, the time for maximum embrittle- dip cracking increased after the introduction of BritePlusTM
ment decreases significantly at elevated temperatures. For [11].
example, a high degree of strain ageing-induced embrit- Hence, Teck Cominco duly undertook some experi-
tlement may occur in cold-formed steel when in contact mental research [38] into the galvanizing of contemporary
with the 450 °C molten zinc bath. To account for the RHS. It was found that the size of cracks became greater
possible occurrence of the in-service ageing, the Austra- when the content of tin or bismuth exceeded approximately
lasian standard for cold-formed hollow structural sections 0.2%. However, Teck Cominco concluded that the
AS/NZS 1163 [37] requires artificial “strain ageing” of the predominant factor affecting cracking upon galvanizing
test pieces prior to tensile or impact testing, so that any was the RHS itself, and that the zinc bath chemistry had
change in HSS properties with time is likely captured by only a small effect. Other details of this research will be
“strain ageing” the test samples. The ageing is achieved by discussed in Section 5. Criteria in an interim guidance
heating to a temperature between 150 and 200 °C for not document in Germany also include controls on tin and
less than 15 min, which raises the yield stress and bismuth: Sn + Pb£1.3% and Bi£0.1% [3]. However, the
decreases the ductility. document points out that “this is not an absolute limit
below which either LME can be guaranteed not to occur or
3.3 Zinc bath chemistry above which LME will definitely occur on a more then rare
basis”. Recently, as part of a research program for the
As discussed in Section 2.1, the quality of zinc coating evolution of Eurocode 3, Feldmann et al. [16] established
depends on the chemistries of the steel and the bath different maximum plastic strain capacities for steel
mixture. The galvanizing bath typically contains 98% zinc components based on the tin content in the zinc baths.
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 61

The details of the research by Feldmann et al. [16] are galvanizing typically starts at the inside surface of the
discussed in Section 5. However, it should be noted that the corner region at the free end. Research in Japan [73] found
galvanizing process has been practiced for a century, with that the application of an anti-plating agent in the corner
little change in practice. The new zinc bath composition regions can effectively suppress LME since the susceptible
has not been universally adopted while the issue of steel material is no longer “wetted” by the molten zinc (see
cracking during galvanizing has resurfaced internationally Figure 5). As can be seen in Figure 2, the RHS free ends
[4]. Hence, further research in this field is needed since, to tend to “open” during galvanizing as a result of high
this day, the relative significances of the steel-related and residual and thermal stresses in the transverse direction.
the galvanizing-related factors on the potential for LME Industrial experience from Nippon Steel & Sumikin Metal
and strain ageing have not been fully elucidated. Products Co. Ltd., Japan [74] showed that the risk of
cracking can be reduced by welding end plates to the RHS
to restrain the expansion of the section. The end plates
4 Countermeasures for embrittlement of could be cut off after galvanizing. Grinding the inside
steel during galvanizing corners at the member ends has also been found to be
effective in improving crack resistance. This procedure
As discussed in Section 2.2.4, galvanizing standards helps to remove folds and other surface roughness that tend
[8,9,63] and industry guidance [3] commonly recommend to act as stress raisers and crack initiation sites. It also
pre-galvanizing stress relieving by heat treatment as a probably removes some of the hardest and most brittle
countermeasure for LME and strain ageing. However, the material at these locations [38].
requirements in these standards are brief and qualitative.
For example, the above standards do not specify the heat
treatment temperatures and often suggest that “specialist
advice should be sought”.
In North America, post-cold forming heat treatment is
available with ASTM A1085 [17] by specifying Supple-
ment S1, and with CAN/CSA-G40.20/G40.21 [26] by
specifying Class H. Both standards describe identical heat
treatment, at a temperature of 450 °C or higher, followed
by cooling in air. Although some HSS production plants
have the ability to perform heat treatment on site, it usually
involves transportation of the HSS to a third-party heat-
treating facility. Ordering generally need to be done
directly with a producer and, due to the extra processing
required, a premium is applied to the selling price.
However, it should be noted that heat treatment at a
temperature in the range of 450 to 480 °C does not affect Fig. 5 Application of anti-plating agent to prevent corner
the metallurgical properties to the extent of influencing the cracking during galvanizing [73]
toughness. It has been shown, by laboratory testing, that
such heat treatment does not provide any improvement in 5 Recent research
the Charpy V-notch (CVN) toughness of North American
cold-formed HSS [55,72]. Similarly, experience in Canada Motivated by the lack of technical guidance for prevention
[11] has shown that corner cracking can still occur with of corner cracking of RHS, Poag and Zervoudis [38]
CAN/CSA-G40.20/G40.21 Class H RHS [26]. performed a series of experiments on four RHS specimens
For steels roll-formed to a radius less than three times the of the same size (RHS 127769.5 mm). The four RHS
plate thickness such as the corner regions of RHS, the specimens were obtained from four sources, cut into short
ASTM document catering to prevention of LME and lengths and dipped into zinc bath mixtures with different
excessive strain ageing [6] recommends either normalizing amount of additives such as tin and bismuth. It was found
the steel (870 °C to 925 °C) or stress relieving at a that “susceptible” RHS specimens with high yield-to-
maximum of 595 °C, for 24 minutes per centimetre of ultimate stress ratios and pre-existing crack-like defects
section thickness, to avoid excessive grain growth. It cracked in the corner regions in all zinc baths, while the
should be noted that the normalizing process changes the less susceptible material did not crack at all. Hence, it was
grain structure of the material and produces HSS that are concluded that the zinc bath chemistry had a lesser effect,
equivalent to hot-finished European HSS produced to EN and only on susceptible steel material. The research
10210 [39,40]. conducted by Poag and Zervoudis [38] shed light on the
As aforementioned in Section 2.3, cracking during RHS corner cracking problem. However, this research is
62 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

highly qualitative due to its small scope. The four RHS 6 Conclusions
specimens have the same cross-sectional dimensions.
Hence, the thresholds of wall thickness above which Whether structures made of modern steel sections of
different levels of pre-galvanizing countermeasures are different strengths and sizes can be critically embrittled
needed could not be determined. The yield-to-ultimate during galvanizing is difficult to research since the
stress ratio was obtained from mill test reports. Hence, the occurrence depends on the interaction of many factors
results were most likely from testing of tensile coupons including the quality of steel, structural design and
machined from the flat faces of the RHS specimens, which detailing, fabrication as well as the galvanizing process.
are not representative of the material properties at the This review paper provides a basis for future research on:
corner regions where the cracking occurred. It is unknown (1) the prerequisites for cracking of cold-formed RHS; (2)
where the RHS specimens were manufactured. Pre- the effect of cold-formed RHS cross-section geometry on
existing crack-like defects with a maximum depth of galvanizing-induced embrittlement; (3) the thresholds of
31mm were found in a cracked RHS specimen. Although cold-formed RHS wall thickness above which different
the research acknowledged that RHS containing high levels of pre-galvanizing countermeasures are needed; and
levels of residual stress are more susceptible to cracking, (4) the detrimental/beneficial effects of hot-dip galvanizing
no residual stress measurements were performed. on the mechanical behaviours of cold-formed RHS.
Funded by Departments of Transportation across the
country, a series of investigations has been conducted in Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
the United States to explain the poor in-service perfor- support from the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) and the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
mance of some recently built galvanized steel highway
structures [10,12–15]. One of the key research parameters
is the cold-bending radius of the steel components.
Symbols and Abbreviations
However, the components tested, such as high mast
illumination poles, generally have very large bending
radius-to-thickness values which satisfy the ASTM A143 ri inside corner radius
limit. Hence, the research outcomes do not apply to cold- ro outside corner radius
formed RHS. t wall thickness
Similar research has recently been conducted by the A cross-sectional area
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission [16]
CHS circular hollow section
for the evolution of Eurocode 3. Technical guidelines were
developed to help minimize the risk of cracking of modern CE carbon equivalent
steel during galvanizing. However, this research only E modulus of elasticity
included slightly cold-formed members such as pre- ERW electric resistance welding
cambered beams before hot-dip galvanizing. It assumes a Fy yield stress
maximum cold-forming-induced plastic deformation (εpl)
Fu tensile strength
of 2%, which can be calculated using Eq. (3).
HSS hollow structural section
t
εpl ¼ (3) I moment of inertia
2ri þ t
K column effective length factor
where t is the plate thickness, and ri is the inside radius of L unsupported length of column
cold-forming.
LME liquid metal embrittlement
Hence, the guidelines proposed by Feldmann et al. [16]
in general do not apply to cold-formed RHS. For example, RHS rectangular hollow section
using Eq. (3) and assuming an inside radius of t, the plastic εpl plastic deformation
deformation on the inside surface of the corner region of a
cold-formed RHS is 33%. Same as ASTM A143 [6],
Feldmann et al. advise the application of heat-treatment for
high degrees of cold-forming. In addition, Feldmann et al. References
assume notch-free surfaces, while Poag and Zervoudis [38]
suggest that crack-like fold defects could sometimes be 1. AGA. Performance of hot-dip galvanized steel products in the
generated as a result of severe cold-forming. These defects atmosphere, soil, water, concrete and more. American Galvanizers
may become stress raisers during galvanizing and in turn Association, Centennial, USA, 2010
make the steel products susceptible to cracking. It can be 2. AGA. Hot-dip galvanizing for corrosion protection – a specifiers
concluded from the literature review that research in effects guide. American Galvanizers Association, Centennial, USA, 2006
of galvanizing on cold-formed steel tubing is limited at 3. BCSA/GA. Galvanizing structural steelwork – an approach to the
present. management of liquid metal assisted cracking, 1st ed. British
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 63

Constructional Steelwork Association, London, UK and Galvani- American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
zers Association, West Midlands, UK, 2005 USA, 2015
4. Kinstler T J. Current knowledge of the cracking of steels during 18. Vander Voort G F. Embrittlement of Steels. In: ASM Handbook,
galvanizing – a synthesis of the available technical literature and Volume 01- properties and selection: irons, steels, and high-
collective experience for the American Institute of Steel Construc- performance alloys.Geauga County, USA: ASM International,
tion. GalvaScience LLC, Springville, USA, 2005 1990, 689–736
5. ASTM. Standard practice for safeguarding against warpage and 19. Krauss G. Steels- processing, structure, and performance.2nd ed.
distortion during hot-dip galvanizing of steel assemblies, ASTM Geauga County, USA: ASM International, 2015
A384/A384M-07. American Society for Testing and Materials, West 20. Cieslak M J. Cracking phenomena associated with welding. In:
Conshohocken, USA, 2013 ASM Handbook, Volume 06- welding, brazing, and soldering.
6. ASTM. Standard practice for safeguarding against embrittlement of Geauga County, USA: ASM International, 1993, 88–96
hot-dip galvanized structural steel products and procedure for 21. Smith R B. Arc welding of carbon steels. In: ASM Handbook,
detecting embrittlement, ASTM A143/A143M-07. American Volume 06 – welding, brazing, and soldering.Geauga County, USA:
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2014 ASM International, 1993, 641–661
7. ASTM. Standard practice for providing high-quality zinc coating 22. Ikoma T, Kojima O, Hatakeyama K, Kanazawa S, Hiroki T, Iezawa
(hot-dip), ASTM A385/A385M-15. American Society for Testing T. Development of steel HT60 with low susceptibility to liquid zinc
and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2015 embrittlement for power transmission tower. Tetsu To Hagane,
8. AS/NZS. Hot-dip galvanized (zinc) coatings on fabricated ferrous 1984, 70(10): 1445–1451
articles, AS/NZS 4680:2006. Standards Australia, Sydney, 23. Abe H, Iezawa T, Kanaya K, Yashamita T, Aihora S, Kanazawa S.
Australia and Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, Study of HAZ cracking of hot-dip galvanizing steel bridges, IIW
2006 Doc IX-1795-94. International Institute of Welding, Villepinte,
9. ISO. Zinc coating – guidelines and recommendations for the France, 1994
protection against corrosion of iron and steel in structures – part 2: 24. JSA. High tensile strength steel for tower structural purposes, JIS
hot dip galvanizing, ISO 14713-2:2009. International Organization G3129:2005. Japan Standards Association, Tokyo, Japan, 2005
for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009 25. ASTM. Standard specification for cold-formed welded and seamless
10. Foley C M, Ginal S J, Peronto J L, Fournelle R A. Structural carbon steel structural tubing in rounds and shapes, ASTM A500/
analysis of sign bridge structures and luminaire supports. Wisconsin A500M-13. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Department of Transportation Report No. 04-03. Department of Conshohocken, USA, 2013
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Marquette University, 26. CSA. General requirements for rolled or welded structural quality
Milwaukee, USA, 2004 steel/structural quality steel, CAN/CSA-G40.20-13/G40.21-13.
11. Packer J A, Chiew S P, Tremblay R, Martinez-Saucedo G. Effect of Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Canada, 2013
material properties on hollow section performance. Structures and 27. CEN. Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy
Buildings, 2010, 163(SB6): 375–390 and fine grain steels – part 1: technical delivery conditions, EN
12. Stem A, Richman N, Pool C, Rios C, Anderson T, Frank K. Fatigue 10219-1:2006(E). European Committee for Standardization, Brus-
life of steel base plate to pole connection for traffic structures. Texas sels, Belgium, 2006
Department of Transportation Report FHWA/TX-11/9-1526-1. 28. JSA. Carbon steel square and rectangular tubes for general structure,
Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, JIS G3466:2015. Japan Standards Association, Tokyo, Japan, 2015
Austin, USA, 2011 29. SAC. Cold forming steel sections, GB/T 6725-2008. Standardiza-
13. Goyal R, Dhonde H B, Dawood M. Fatigue failure and cracking in tion Administration of the People's Republic of China, Beijing,
high mast poles. Texas Department of Transportation Report No. China, 2008
FHWA/TX-12/0-6650-1. Department of Civil and Environmental 30. SAC. Cold formed steel hollow sections for general structure –
Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, USA, 2012 dimensions, shapes, weight and permissible deviations, GB/T 6728-
14. Foley C M, Diekfuss J A, Wan B. Fatigue risks in the connections of 2002. Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of
sign supporting structures. Wisconsin Department of Transportation China, Beijing, China, 2002
Report No. WHRP 0092-09-07. Department of Civil and Environ- 31. CEN. Cold formed welded structural hollow sections of non-alloy
mental Engineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA, 2013 and fine grain steels – part 2: tolerances, dimensions and sectional
15. Ocel J M. Fatigue testing of galvanized and ungalvanized socket properties, EN 10219-2:2006(E). European Committee for Standar-
connections. Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA- dization, Brussels, Belgium, 2006
HRT-14-066. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, USA, 32. SAC. Carbon structural steels, GB/T 700-2006. Standardization
2014 Administration of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, China,
16. Feldmann M, Pinger T, Schafer D, Pope R, Smith W, Sedlacek G. 2006
Hot-dip-zinc-coating of prefabricated structural steel components, 33. SAC. Structural steel for bridge, GB/T 714-2015. Standardization
JRC Scientific and Technical Research Report No. 56810. European Administration of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, China,
Commission Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, 2010 2015
17. ASTM. Standard specification for cold-formed welded carbon steel 34. SAC. High strength low alloy structural steels, GB/T 1591-2008.
hollow structural sections (HSS), ASTM A1085/A1085M-15. Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China,
64 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13(1): 49–65

Beijing, China, 2008 hot-rolled and cold-formed rectangular hollow sections. Thin-
35. SAC. Cold rolled stainless steel plate, sheet and strip, GB/T 3280- walled Structures, 2010, 48(7): 495–507
2015. Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of 53. Tong L W, Hou G, Chen Y Y, Zhou F, Shen K, Yang A.
China, Beijing, China, 2015 Experimental investigation on longitudinal residual stresses for
36. SAC. Atmospheric corrosion resisting structural steel, GB/T 4171- cold-formed thick-walled square hollow sections. Journal of
2008. Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of Constructional Steel Research, 2012, 73: 105–116
China, Beijing, China, 2008 54. Sun M, Packer J A. Direct-formed and continuous-formed
37. AS/NZS. Cold-formed structural steel hollow sections, AS/NZS rectangular hollow sections – comparison of static properties.
1163:2016. Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia and Standards Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 92: 67–78
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 2016 55. Sun M, Packer J A. Charpy V-notch impact toughness of cold-
38. Poag G, Zervoudis J. Influence of various parameters on steel formed rectangular hollow sections. Journal of Constructional Steel
cracking during galvanizing. In: Proceedings of AGA TechForum, Research, 2014, 97: 114–126
Kansas, USA, 2003 56. Sun M, Packer J A. High strain rate behaviour of cold-formed
39. CEN. Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine rectangular hollow sections. Engineering Structures, 2014, 62-63:
grain steels – part 1: technical delivery conditions, EN 10210- 181–192
1:2006(E). European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 57. Feldmann M, Eichler B, Kühn B, Stranghöner N, Dahl W,
Belgium, 2006 Langenberg P, Kouhi J, Pope R, Sedlacek G, Ritakallio P, Iglesias
40. CEN. Hot finished structural hollow sections of non-alloy and fine G, Puthli R S, Packer J A, Krampen J. Choice of steel material to
grain steels – part 2: tolerances, dimensions and sectional properties, avoid brittle fracture for hollow section structures, JRC Scientific
EN 10210-1:2006(E). European Committee for Standardization, and Policy Report No. 72702. European Commission Joint
Brussels, Belgium, 2006 Research Centre, Luxembourg, 2012
41. ASTM. Standard specification for hot-formed welded and seamless 58. Sedlacek G, Feldmann M, Kühn B, Tschickardt D, Höhler S, Müller
carbon steel structural tubing, ASTM A501/A501M-14. American C, Hensen W, Stranghöner N, Dahl W, Langenberg P, Münstermann
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2014 S, Brozetti J, Raoul J, Pope R, Bijlaard F. Commentary and worked
42. Chajes A, Britvec S J, Winter G. Effects of cold-straining on examples to EN 1993-1-10 “Material toughness and through
structural sheet steels. Journal of the Structural Division. Proceed- thickness properties” and other toughness oriented rules in EN
ings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1963, 89(2): 1–32 1993, JRC Scientific and Policy Report No. 47278. European
43. Karren K W. Corner properties of cold-formed steel shapes. Journal Commission Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, 2008
of the Stuctural Division. Proceedings of the American Society of 59. ISO. Static design procedure for welded hollow-section joints –
Civil Engineers, 1967, 93(1): 401–432 recommendations, ISO 14346:2013. International Organization for
44. Karren K W, Winter G. Effects of cold-forming on light gage steel Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013
members. Journal of the Stuctural Division. Proceedings of the 60. CECS. Technical specification for structures with steel hollow
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1967, 93(1): 433–469 sections, CECS 280:2010. China Association for Engineering
45. Sun M, Packer J A. Direct forming versus continuous forming, for Construction Standardization, Beijing, China, 2010
cold-formed square hollow sections. In: Proceedings of the 14th. 61. ASTM. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing
International Symposium on Tubular Structures, London, UK, 2012, of steel products, ASTM A370-17. American Society for Testing
739–746 and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2017
46. Davison T A, Birkemoe P C. Column behaviour of cold-formed 62. Packer J A, Frater G S. Recommended effective throat sizes for flare
hollow structural steel shapes. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineer- groove welds to HSS. Engineering Journal (New York), 2005, 42(1):
ing, 1983, 10(1): 125–141 31–44
47. Key P W, Hasan S W, Hancock G J. Column behaviour of cold- 63. SAC. Metallic coatings – hot dip galvanized coatings on fabricated
formed hollow sections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, iron and steel articles – specifications and test methods, GB/T
114(2): 390–407 13912-2002. Standardization Administration of the People's Repub-
48. Zhao X L, Hancock G J. Square and rectangular hollow sections lic of China, Beijing, China, 2002
subject to combined actions. Journal of Structural Engineering, 64. Somodi B, Kovesdi B. Residual stress measurements on cold-
1992, 118(3): 648–667 formed HSS hollow section columns. Journal of Constructional
49. Key P W, Hancock G J. A theoretical investigation of the column Steel Research, 2017, 128: 706–720
behaviour of cold-formed square hollow sections. Thin-walled 65. Chiew S P. Assessment of BS EN10219 200  200mm SHS with
Structures, 1993, 16(1-4): 31–64 corner surface defects. Technical Report, Nanyang Technological
50. Wilkinson T, Hancock G J. Tests for the compact web slenderness of University, Singapore, 2007
cold-formed rectangular hollow sections, Research Report No. 66. Kikuchi M, Iezawa T. Effect of stress-concentration on liquid metal
R744. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1997 embrittlement cracking of steel by molten zinc. Journal of the
51. Guo Y J, Zhu A Z, Pi Y L, Tin-Loi F. Experimental study on Society of Materials Science, Japan, 1982, 31(342): 271–276
compressive strengths of thick-walled cold-formed sections. Journal 67. Kominami Y, Yano K, Ishimoto K, Terasaki T, Mukae S. Thermal
of Constructional Steel Research, 2007, 63(5): 718–723 stress of plate and pipe occurred during dipping in the molten zinc
52. Gardner L, Saari N, Wang F. Comparative experimental study of bath – liquid metal embrittlement of welded joint of steel during hot
 Min SUN et al. Hot-dip galvanizing of cold-formed steel hollow sections: a state-of-the-art review 65

dip galvanizing (report 2). Quarterly Journal of the Japan Welding experience with the galveco alloy. In: Proceedings of the 20th.
Society, 1985, 3(2): 347–352 International Galvanizing Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
68. Zervoudis J, Anderson G. A review of bath alloy additives and their 2003
impact on the quality of the galvanized coating. In: Proceedings of 72. Kosteski N, Packer J A, Puthli R S. Notch toughness of
the 6th. Asia Pacific General Galvanizing Conference, Cairns, internationally produced hollow structural sections. Journal of
Australia, 2005 Structural Engineering, 2005, 131(2): 279–286
69. Gagne M. Industrial testing of zinc-bismuth alloys for after- 73. Mori M, Nakagomi T, Suzuki I, Kim C. Proposal of prevention
fabrication hot dip galvanizing. In: Proceedings of the 18th method on cracks at hot-dipped galvanization of rectangular hollow
International Galvanizing Conference, Birmingham, UK, 1997 section steel pipes by cold forming. Journal of Structural and
70. Gilles M, Sokolowski R. The zinc-tin galvanizing alloy: a unique Construction Engineering, 2009, 74(638): 739–746
zinc alloy for galvanizing any reactive steel grade. In: Proceedings 74. Abe K. Countermeasures for steel structure brittle cracking caused
of the 18th. International Galvanizing Conference, Birmingham, by hot dip galvanizing. In: Seminar on Design of Steel Structures –
UK, 1997 Structural Hollow Sections, Department of Civil Engineering, the
71. Pankert R, Dhaussy D, Beguin P, Gilles M. Three years industrial University of Hong Kong, China, 2011