eld conditions that warrant the appropriate level of corrosion protection necessary to achieve a minimum useful life of

75 to 100 years. The research encompassed the following:

Laboratory studies of corrosion rates
and polarization characteristics.
Field measurements of corrosion
rates on lengths of production pipe.
Direct examination of operating
DAVID H. KROON, DALE LINDEMUTH, SHERI SAMPSON,
pipelines.
AND TERRY VINCENZO, Corrpro Companies, Inc.
Design Decision Model development for dening corrosion protection
requirements.
The results of a 2-year study of corrosion and the
The
results demonstrate that highcorrosion protection of ductile iron (DI) pipe are
quality dielectric coatings are neither
reported. The study includes field and laboratory tests
necessary nor practical for the corrosion
of short- and long-term polarization rates under various
control of DI pipe. The evaluation conconditions, corrosion-rate reduction with corresponding
cludes that when cathodic current is
deemed appropriate, the levels of current
cathodic current criterion, and the corrosion protection
needed to provide a practical service life
benefits of standard asphaltic shop coating on the
extension (75% reduction in corrosion
annealing oxide formed during pipe manufacturing.
rate) are notably less than the highly conThis information was analyzed in conjunction with an
servative industry norms that have been
extensive database taken from 1,379 physical inspections established for regulated pipelines. Acof buried iron water lines. The outcome of the study is a
knowledging both of these facts is fundarisk-based corrosion protection design strategy for buried mental to the practice of prudent corrosion control engineering for DI pipe and
DI pipelines.
can yield considerable cost savings in corrosion control practices.

Corrosion Protection
of Ductile Iron Pipe

ot all soil environments

are corrosive to ductile
iron (DI) pipe. Although
corrosion may be occurring in this environment,
the rate of corrosion may
be acceptable for the
service life of the pipe. Properly designed
and installed iron pipe systems in moderately corrosive soils have demonstrated a
performance of more than 100 years of
service. When soil tests and performance
history indicate that conditions are corrosive to DI pipe, however, positive corrosion protection is warranted.
This 2-year research eort was undertaken by Corrpro Companies, Inc. (Medina, Ohio) in cooperation with the
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association
(DIPRA) (Birmingham, Alabama) in
order to evaluate the circumstances and

24

Corrosion Protection
Research
Research on corrosion and corrosion
protection of DI pipe involved laboratory and eld tests that included aqueous
solution studies, soils research, cathodic
polarization, and electrical resistance
measurements of a standard asphaltic
shop coat.
The rst series of laboratory tests consisted of electrochemical and electrical
tests on 100 DI pipe samples in ve aqueous solutions of dierent electrical resistivity. Tafel (E log I) behavior was analyzed to dene general corrosion rates,
cathodic current requirements, and relative currents for corrosion rate reduction
(i.e., life extension). All potential measurements were made relative to a copper/copper sulfate (Cu/CuSO4) electrode

Trade name.

MATERIALS PERFORMANCE January 2005

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 24

12/9/04 2:43:38 PM

FIGURE 1

(CSE). The potential range was chosen to

capture the anodic and the cathodic reactions of the DI pipe in each electrolyte.
The corrosion rate was determined
from the plot of polarized potential vs the
log of current density (CD). Using Tafel
analysis, the linear (straight) portions of
the anodic and cathodic legs of the voltage/current relationship are extended,
with the point of intersection indicating
the corrosion current under a freely corroding condition. Using a graphical
analysis, the general corrosion rate (mils
per year) was calculated. This analysis
provides the instantaneous general corrosion rate of a single sample at the time of
measurement. Protective current requirements were calculated based on icorr at the
points of reduced corrosion rate.
As a cathodic current is applied, there
is a corresponding reduction in the corrosion current and, therefore, the corrosion rate (Figure 1). To determine the
service life extension current characteristics for DI pipe, the potentials (e.g., Epol
and Epol) were determined graphically
from the cathodic leg of the Tafel relationship over a range of corrosion-reducing
currents (e.g., i and i). This polarized
potential is that which is necessary to reduce the corrosion rate of the test sample.
The polarization of the test sample at a
given corrosion-reducing current is calculated as the dierence between potential
at that current (e.g., Epol) and the corrosion potential (Ecorr).
Following the testing in aqueous solutions, ve soils of various origins were
collected for similar long-term polarization testing in the laboratory and in the
eld. The sites selected were chosen to
represent a range of conditions where lifeextension corrosion protection might be
employed (i.e., conditions where pipe
with standard asphaltic shop coat would
not aord the desired life). Complementary to the eld tests were laboratory tests
involving DI pipe coupons and soils from
all ve of the eld sites, using 40 pipe
samples. The lab procedures included Elog I polarization measurements followed
by controlled polarization potential measurements over a 2-month period.

Determination of corrosion reduction current and potential.

FIGURE 2

Polarization vs corrosion rate reduction (field tests).

For the 2-month laboratory polarization studies, the currents were initially set
to those corresponding to 75 and 50% of
the natural corrosion current. As the test
samples polarized over time, the current
was controlled through the use of resistors
and a potentiostat to maintain the same
polarization potential.
The eld and laboratory evaluations
simulated service-life extension strategies
where a cathodic corrosion protection

current of sucient magnitude is applied

to the pipe. The magnitude of this current
is sucient to reduce corrosion rates, but
not necessarily approaching zero, as is the
case with traditional corrosion control
through cathodic protection (CP). Use of
this corrosion protection solution for DI
pipe, however, must be based on a comprehensive engineering evaluation of the
likelihood of corrosion and the consequences of an external corrosion failure.
January 2005 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 25

25

12/9/04 2:43:46 PM

FIGURE 3

tion levels in excess of 0.07 V. This is the

magnitude of polarization that is needed
for a 75% reduction in the natural corrosion currents or a quadrupling of pipe
service life.

Additional Factors for

Corrosion Protection Design

Polarization vs corrosion rate reduction (lab tests).

FIGURE 4

Long-term polarization vs corrosion protection CD.

A corrosion control strategy based on

the use of life-extension currents is a wellfounded engineering approach for typical
DI water main projects where some corrosion deterioration is acceptable relative
to pipeline reliability and operating costs.
Complete CP requires a notably higher
current demand, calling for more CP
hardware and greater costs. Figures 2 and
3 show the eld and laboratory polarization vs calculated corrosion-rate reduction

26

trends. Figure 4 relates polarization to

applied corrosion protection current for
the eld test pipes after a 2- to 3-month
stabilization period.
Figure 4 graphically summarizes the
as-found CD and polarization data for
the eld test pipes at the end of the extended testing. In most of the eld test
cases, a corrosion protection current consisting of 0.1 A/cm2 (100 A/ft2) of total
pipe surface produces cathodic polariza-

The results of this research and the following key additional factors were collectively used as the foundation for the
development of the DI pipe corrosion
protection decision model presented later.
These additional factors include use of
bonded coatings, information gathered
from DIPRAs database, and use of polyethylene (PE) encasement for corrosion
protection.
BONDED COATINGS ON DI PIPE
The industry experience of users, engineers, coaters, and manufacturers demonstrates that dielectric coatings are not a
practical or cost-eective corrosion control method for DI pipe, with or without
the use of corrosion protection currents,
for most typical and atypical applications.
The basis for this is simplethe costs for
the bonded coating are high, and there
are other more practical and eective corrosion control techniques that can be
implemented at a considerably lower total
cost of ownership. The key to determining
which lower-cost methodology to use
requires a good understanding of the likelihood and consequences of corrosion.
In addition to high costs, some of the
factors that limit the eectiveness of a
bonded coating for DI pipe include the
following factors:
The fact that abrasive blast surface
preparation negates the protective effects aorded by the asphaltic shop
coating and the annealing oxide.
The lack of capability for proper
surface preparation and coating adhesion resulting from the peen pattern
and the annealing oxide.
Pipe (substrate) damage, including
blisters and slivers during abrasive
blasting.
Limited shop coating applicators.
The lack of familiarity of many pipe

MATERIALS PERFORMANCE January 2005

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 26

12/9/04 2:43:55 PM

FIGURE 5

installation contractors and inspectors

with the proper method of handling
coated DI pipe.
Field coating procedures for joints,
restrained joint assemblies, and repairs.
Impact of the coating on joint congurations, joint tolerances, and eldcut pipe.
The concept that bonded coatings are
inappropriate for DI pipe is contrary to
the opinions and common practices of
many corrosion control practitioners who
promote the use of bonded coatings,
typically in conjunction with CP. The
only AWWA standards for coatings on DI
pipe are ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.51 for
PE encasement and the ANSI/AWWA
C151/A21.512 pipe standard, which includes the standard, asphaltic shop coat.
AWWA and SSPC standards that are
sometimes used to specify surface preparation and coatings for DI pipe were developed for steel pipe and are not appropriate
for DI pipe. Furthermore, the development of eective standards for bonded
coatings on DI pipe would be dicult at
best, and at worst would imply the acceptance of a corrosion protection soluDecision model.
tion that is not practical.
ANALYSIS OF THE
DIPRA DATABASE
Historical records of corrosion maintained by DIPRA have existed primarily
in paper format, having been collected on
a project-by-project basis. During this
collaborative eort, the data have been
entered into a computerized database
using Microsoft Access. The initial database includes 1,297 investigations. Results from 82 additional pipe inspections
have been included over the last 2 years
for a total of 1,379 records with more
than 60,000 bytes of information. Some
of the key ndings from an analysis of the
database included the observations that
the corrosion rates for gray and DI can be
considered the same and that PE encasement is valuable as a corrosion-control
method.

Trade name.

PE ENCASEMENT
The analysis of the database coupled
with documented case histories support
the value of PE encasement as a corrosion-control method. Initial tests were
performed in 1951. Since then, PE encasement has been installed on thousands
of miles of iron pipe. The use of PE encasement is both cost-eective and technically sound. Similar to other corrosion
control solutions, the decision to use PE
encasement should be based on corrosiveness factors and the consequences of corrosion failures. The use of corrosion
protection currents improves the eectiveness of PE encasement through its
protection of the pipe where the lm is
damaged or not properly applied. The
methods are not exclusive and can be
used in combination.

Work is needed to ensure that materials and installation practices are in compliance with ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5.
Industry needs to improve construction
practices and the quality of the PE-encasement installation. Specications can and
should be written to aect these improved
practices, particularly in high-risk and
high-consequence areas.

Corrosion Protection
Decision Model
Figure 5 presents the corrosion protection decision model developed over the
last 2 years by a nine-member professional
Technical Resource Team (TRT). The
TRT is composed of engineering sta
from the consultant, the association, and
DI pipe manufacturers. The decision
model is based on the extensive experiJanuary 2005 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 27

27

12/9/04 2:44:03 PM

ences of the nine individuals involved,

who have a combined professional
know-how of more than 200 years.
Common design practices, including
the use of the ANSI/AWWA C-105/
A21.5 10-point system, evaluate only
the likelihood of corrosion deterioration. The two-dimensional decision
model in Figure 5 is an extension of the
10-point system that considers the consequences of a corrosion failure as well
as the likelihood of corrosion. As utilities continue to look for processes to
maximize their return on investment
and acknowledge a decaying infrastructure with limited resources for upgrades
or replacement, this addition is considered essential to sound corrosion engineering design in todays cost-conscious
environment.
The decision model is applicable to
DI pipe transmission and distribution
design projects. The contributing likelihood factors are determined by the collection and analysis of soil samples and
can yield a likelihood point score of 50
or more points. The particular likelihood
factors include soil resistivity/conductivity, moisture content, groundwater inuence, pH, chloride ion concentration,
sulde ion concentration, redox potential, bimetallic connections, and known
corrosive environments. The contributing consequence factors that can total up
to a point score of 50 points include pipe
diameter, pipe repair considerations,
depth of cover, and the availability of
alternative water supply. The likelihood
and consequence factors collectively determine a corrosion-control strategy that
could include one or more of the following scenarios:
As manufactured, with standard
asphaltic shop coating.
PE encasement.
PE encasement with pipe joint
bonding.
Life-extension corrosion protection, with or without PE encasement.
CP.
Typically, the likelihood and consequence factors will be determined at

28

intervals of 1,000 to 1,500 ft (305 to 457

m) along a proposed pipeline route. An
engineering analysis will then be made to
determine the suitability of one or more
corrosion-control treatments for the
various sections of the project. The intent
of the decision model is to thoroughly
weigh the likelihood and consequence
considerations section by section rather
than make the most conservative recommendations for the entire project. Where
stray earth currents are expected to impact the piping, additional project-specic corrosion-control methods are to be
employed.

Conclusions

DIPRA and the consultant have

jointly developed a program consisting
of an improved protocol for testing the
soil and determining the likelihood of
corrosion, as well as a corrosion protection decision model for DI pipe.
The program consists of:
Compilation and analysis of
DIPRAs and the consultants pipeinspection databases.
Laboratory testing to evaluate
properties of standard, asphaltic
shop coat, and cathodic polarization characteristics.
Field inspections of DI pipe.
Field testing of corrosion rates,
corrosion protection current requirements, and cathodic polarization characteristics.
Joint eld investigation for the
design of new pipeline projects.
Soil test procedure comparison.
Analysis of DIPRAs and the
consultants test results on soil
sample splits.
Shared corrosion experience and
technical know-how.
The standard, asphaltic shop coating
and typical annealing oxide provide
some degree of corrosion protection
for DI pipe.
The measured resistance to earth of
shop-coated pipe is 1.4 to 1.5 times
greater than that of uncoated pipe.
Bonded, dielectric coatings are not
a cost-eective solution for the corro-

sion protection of DI pipe and are

excluded from the design decision
model.
PE encasement is a cost-eective
and technically sound method for
the corrosion protection of DI pipe
and has an important place in the
program.
Cathodic currents improve the effectiveness of PE encasement. The
methods are not exclusive and can be
used in combination.
An important element of the program is enhanced quality assurance
and quality control in PE-encasement
materials and construction practices.
A 75% reduction in the corrosion
rate or four times the life extension of
DI pipe can often be realized with 0.07
V or less of polarization.
In many soil environments, 0.07 V
of polarization can be achieved at a CD
of 0.1 A/cm2 (100 A/ft2).
The objective of the program is to
control corrosion to rates that achieve
a useful life of 75 to 100 years.
The program comprehensively addresses the external corrosion of DI
pipe.
When the program is followed, no
external corrosion allowance is required when determining pipe class.
Unlike some other strategies, this
program addresses the consequences of
corrosion failure as well as the likelihood of corrosion.
Use of the program can yield considerable corrosion-control cost savings when compared to many existing
procedures.

References
1. ANSI/AWWA C 105/A 21.5, Polyethylene
Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems (Washington, DC/Denver, CO: ANSI/AWWA, 1993).
2. ANSI/AWWA C 151/A 21.51, Ductile-Iron
Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, for Water (Washington,
DC/Denver, CO: ANSI/AWWA, 1996).

This article is based on CORROSION/2004

paper no. 46, presented in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

MATERIALS PERFORMANCE January 2005

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 28

12/9/04 2:44:12 PM

DAVID H. KROON is Executive Vice President

and Chief Engineer at Corrpro Companies,
Inc., 7000 B Hollister, Houston, TX 77040. He
has a B.S. in chemistry from Yale University
and is a registered professional engineer in
eight states. He has more than 30 years of
experience in corrosion prevention, including
materials performance, protective coatings,
pipeline integrity, CP, and AC/DC interference
mitigation. A 33-year member of NACE, Kroon
has been actively engaged in solving corrosion
problems for the water and wastewater industry
throughout his entire career.
DALE LINDEMUTH is Principal Engineer at
Corrpro Companies, Inc., 610 Brandywine
Pkwy., West Chester, PA 19380. He has a
B.S. degree in electrical engineering, is a
professional engineer, and is a NACE-certified
Cathodic Protection Specialist and Corrosion Specialist. He has 25 years of corrosion
control experience, with heavy emphasis on the
water/wastewater industry, including advancing
cost-effective corrosion control solutions for DI
pipe. He is a 25-year member of NACE.

SHERI SAMPSON is an engineer with Corrpro

Companies, Inc., 50 Tennessee Ave., Ocean
City, NJ 08226. She works in the companys
Federal Coating Services division, where she
conducts various research, testing, and field
corrosion studies for the federal and private
sectors. Her work has included characterization of the environment for bridge maintenance
coatings, evaluation of corrosion protection,
techniques for DI pipe, and various coating
studies for the U.S. Navy. She is currently
working with the U.S. Marine Corps CPAC
Program to evaluate and implement CPC application strategies for various tactile assets
through mobile Corrosion Service Teams. She
has a B.S. degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Delware and is a NACE
member.
TERRY VINCENZO is a Project Engineer at
Corrpro Companies, Inc., 610 Brandywine
Pkwy., West Chester, PA 19380. She has a B.S.
degree in materials engineering and is a NACE
member.

January 2005 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE

JAN 2005 MP pp 1-51.indd 29

29

12/17/04 11:06:19 AM