CATHODIC PROTECTION OF PIPE ENCAPSULATED IN POLYETHYLENE FILM

Dale Lindemuth, P.E. and David Kroon, P.E.

Corrpro Companies, Inc.
7000B Hollister
Houston, Texas 77040
www.Corrpro.com

ABSTRACT

Case histories are presented where polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection have been used
together to effectively control external corrosion of ductile iron pipelines in very corrosive soils. This
practical and cost effective strategy capitalizes on the synergistic effects of these two established
corrosion control techniques. Pipeline designs dating back to at least the 1970s for over 300 miles of
construction have included this corrosion control methodology. The case histories include both
impressed current and galvanic anode protection. Non-invasive surface electrical potential
measurements and record reviews were used to determine locations for excavations to inspect the
condition of the pipe and polyethylene encasement.

Keywords: Polyethylene encasement, cathodic protection, ductile iron pipe, Design Decision ModelTM
(DDMTM), life cycle cost, close interval electrical potential measurements, pipe to earth resistance.

INTRODUCTION

Experience and engineering analyses show the inherent properties of ductile iron pipe (DIP) provide
good external corrosion resistance in many soil environments (Kroon et al, 20041). Distinguishing
factors include the protective asphalt coating and the protective annealing oxide included in the standard
manufacture of DIP (ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.512). When corrosive soils are encountered, when the
consequences of corrosion failure are high, and or when an extended pipe service life is desired,
supplemental external corrosion control for DIP is often warranted. The corrosion control can be
economically provided using one or a combination of the following:

Electrical continuity via bonding of the pipe joints.

Polyethylene encasement (ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.53).
Cathodic protection.
Engineering tools for ductile iron pipe such as the risk based Design Decision ModelTM (DDMTM) can
be used to help determine the optimum corrosion control strategy which, depending on site-specific
conditions, can often vary along a given pipeline route (Kroon et al, 20041). The DDMTM is based on
extensive engineering and research. This includes approximately 1,400 inspections involving more than
300 soil conditions (Bonds et al, 20054).

This paper summarizes evaluations conducted in 2005 and 2006 for four ductile iron pipelines where
polyethylene encasement, pipe joint electrical continuity, cathodic protection and test stations were
included at the time of construction or shortly thereafter because of highly corrosive soils. These
pipelines are in Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota and California. The 27-mile long pipeline in
Colorado was constructed over a few years around 1979. The 7-mile long pipeline in Wyoming was
constructed in 1988. The 70-mile long pipeline in South Dakota was constructed over 5 years beginning
in 1984. The 8-mile long pipeline in California was constructed in 1985.

The evaluations revealed all pipes to be in very good condition. This is consistent with the operators
experience where they report no corrosion-caused leaks ever occurring on the DIP and no noteworthy
corrosion deterioration of the pipe when uncovered for valve maintenance, taps, etc.

As demonstrated by the four pipelines investigated, the synergistic use of polyethylene encasement and
cathodic protection for ductile iron pipe is not new. The authors are aware of over 300 miles of DIP
being constructed with this corrosion control strategy over the last 30+ years. Most of the projects are in
the Midwest, including several designed and constructed under the direction of the U.S. Department of
Interiors Bureau of Reclamation. Other projects over the years include those in Arizona, California,
Florida, Iowa, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, as well as other states. The 100-year life cycle cost for
a corrosion protection system for DIP that is comprised of polyethylene encasement and cathodic
protection is less than 2% of the initial construction cost (Kroon, 20055).

SYNERGISTIC CORROSION CONTROL METHODS

The combined synergistic use of polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection for ductile iron pipe
is based on two primary corrosion control methods:

Intact polyethylene encasement is an un-bonded film that provides a physical and electrically high
resistant barrier between the pipe and the surrounding soil. When properly installed, this barrier
reduces the electrolyte available to support corrosion activity. The encasement is not intended to be
watertight. Once installed, the weight of the earth backfill and surrounding soil prevents any
significant exchange of groundwater into the thin annular space between the encasement and the pipe.
Although the entrapped water initially has the corrosive characteristics of the surrounding soil, the
available dissolved oxygen supply beneath the encasement is soon depleted (DIPRA publication6).
This reduction in available oxygen further combats the corrosion process.

Cathodic protection is an electrochemical process whereby a direct electrical current is passed from
the surrounding soil to the exposed pipe surface. Depending on the applied current density, cathodic
protection can significantly reduce corrosion rates to essentially zero. Cathodic protection of DIP
entails burying electrodes called anodes near the pipe. The anodes can be active metal elements, e.g.
magnesium and zinc, which rely on the natural galvanic potential difference to generate the current.
The anodes can also be of the impressed current type, e.g. mixed metal oxide and high silicon cast
iron, which must be externally electrically driven using a transformer-rectifier, solar power, or other
reliable source of direct current. One reaction of cathodic protection is the formation of a protective
 hydrogen film on the exposed DIP surface. Depending on electrolyte (soil) characteristics and
cathodic current density, protective calcareous deposits can be formed. Both the hydrogen film and
the calcareous deposits elevate the pH at the exposed pipe surface. This greatly reduces corrosion
rates at the exposed areas.

Experience and research show that cathodic current densities as low as 0.1 milliampere per square foot
of exposed DIP surface can often reduce pipe corrosion rates to inconsequential levels (Kroon et al,
20041). This current density is a factor of 10 less than typical industry design practice for underground
metallic pipelines. Kroon indicates that for polyethylene encased DIP, effective cathodic current
densities in the range of 0.015 to 0.03 milliampere per square foot of total pipe surface can be used for
design calculations depending on the level of cathodic protection to be realized (Kroon, 20055). This is
consistent with in-service experience and data published by others.

When used in conjunction with polyethylene encasement, it is important to recognize that cathodic
protection only retards corrosion at the DIP surfaces in contact with the soil, i.e. where there is damage
to the encasement or where the encasement does not cover the pipe because of improper construction.
Corrosion control for the majority of the pipe surface is achieved through the proper installation and
maintenance of the encasement, relying on its physical barrier and oxygen reducing characteristics. The
electrically high resistant nature of the encasement can significantly reduce the total cathodic protection
current demand, which is generally proportional to the exposed pipe surface. The corrosion reducing
properties of the cathodic current are typically not expected to further reduce pipe corrosion rates under
intact areas of the encasement away from any damage.

Both polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection have been separately used to successfully control
iron pipe corrosion rates for over 50 years. Their effectiveness has been demonstrated in even extremely
corrosive soil environments such as the tidal muck in the Florida Everglades (Horton et al, 20057). As
with all corrosion control methods for underground pipelines, proper design, installation and
maintenance are essential when polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection are used collectively
or separately.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND OVERALL FINDINGS

For the four pipelines evaluated, information on pipe corrosion control performance, cathodic protection
monitoring and maintenance, soil corrosivity, and right of way accessibility for excavation/inspections
was gathered from the pipeline operator. From these data, general areas for the excavation/inspections
were determined. Within these areas, over-the-pipe close interval electrical potential measurements
were made to specifically identify representative and anomalous conditions for the
excavation/inspections.

Figure 1 shows a sample close interval potential versus distance plot. Typically, the direct current from
the cathodic protection system was momentarily interrupted on a cyclic basis as the measurements
progressed along the pipe. This technique allows for the determination of the protective effects (or lack
thereof) from the cathodic protection. The more negative the pipe to soil potential, the greater the
protective influence. Analysis of the variations in the magnitude of potential, as well as the change in
potential (upon interrupting the cathodic protection current) versus distance was used to pinpoint the
excavation/inspection locations. The specific locations were selected to determine the condition of the
pipe at possible damage to the polyethylene encasement and the condition of the pipe under intact
encasement.
At each excavation location, approximately 5 to 7 feet of pipe was completely uncovered. The condition
of the encasement and the pipe was recorded and photographed. Pipe to soil potentials were measured,
in-situ soil resistivity was measured (ASTM G57, Wenner 4-electrode technique) and soil/backfill
samples were collected for laboratory analysis of corrosivity. The results of the laboratory analysis are
presented in Table 1. The soil characteristics are very corrosive to unprotected DIP as well as
unprotected steel and concrete pipe. This confirms the good decision by the design engineers to specify
the encasement and cathodic protection.

At all excavated locations, a subtle mechanical bond was noted when removing the encasement from the
pipe. This bond between the encasement and pipe surface is consistent with investigations of other
encased DIP, with and without cathodic protection. The bond minimizes the moisture under the
encasement. It seems to be caused by a combination of the standard manufacture asphalt coating acting
as a primer between the pipe surface and the encasement, and the weight of the soil pressing the
encasement into the rough textured peen pattern on the pipe that is created by the inside surface pattern
of the casting mold at the time of manufacture. At some locations, the thin asphalt coating was observed
to have cold flowed to some degree on certain areas of the pipe, likely as a result of soil stress. This
condition is not detrimental to the pipe.

Undamaged samples of the removed encasement were tested in the laboratory for minimum thickness,
tensile strength, elongation, and dielectric strength. All film samples were low-density polyethylene that
after 18+ years of service complied with the requirements of the 1972 version of ANSI/AWWA
C105/A21.5 (Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems) in effect at the time.
Technological advances in the polyethylene film industry resulted in a 1999 revision to ANSI/AWWA
C105/A21.5. This revision replaced the low-density film with a linear low-density film which is much
stronger and more damage resistant. Rugged polyethylene encasement complying with the current
version of ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 is available as a high-density cross-laminated product with a
thickness of 0.004-inch, or as a linear low density product with a thickness of 0.008-inch.

The evaluation included galvanic anode cathodic protection (Colorado and Wyoming), conventional
rectifier-powered impressed current cathodic protection (South Dakota), and pulsed rectifier-powered
impressed current cathodic protection (California). The satisfactory corrosion control realized is
independent of the method used for cathodic protection. As will be conveyed in the following section,
Pipeline-Specific Findings, this is true even when there has been little or no maintenance and monitoring
for the cathodic protection.

PIPELINE-SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Pipeline #1 Montrose, Colorado

This 27-mile long pipeline was constructed around 1979. Ductile iron pipe diameters for the project
range to 24 inches. The cathodic protection system included electrical bonding of the pipe joints and
installation of insulating fittings at tie-ins, commercial and farm services, and select in-line locations.
Magnesium anodes with a specified ingot weight of 50 pounds each were individually connected to the
DIP, typically through 2-inch diameter grade level test stations. The spacing between anodes typically
ranges between 80 feet and 200 feet, with the variations apparently determined by the designer based on
soil corrosivity and pipe diameter.

Figure 2 graphically presents in-situ soil resistivity measurements (ASTM G-57) collected along the
right of way in 1978. Without supplemental corrosion protection, the lower resistivities would typically
correspond to greater pipe corrosion rates. The very low resistivities (less than ~1,000 ohm-centimeter)
along much of the pipeline route establish a highly corrosive environment warranting the specified
corrosion protection measures.

Close interval electrical potential measurements for a total of 450 feet of pipe in 2 separate areas were
made and analyzed to select two excavation/inspection sites. The pipe to soil potentials at and near the
excavations were in the -0.55 to -0.61 volt range, with the slightly more negative potentials measured
adjacent to the magnesium anodes, as expected. (All pipe to soil potentials reported in this paper are
referenced to copper/copper sulfate.) The small variation in potential along the pipe at both locations
indicated a generally uniform condition of the encasement with little expected damage. The magnitudes
of pipe to soil potential in the evaluation areas indicate very low levels of cathodic protection for any
pipe surface in contact with the soil. This is consistent with the measured low current from the nearby
magnesium anodes as well as theoretical calculations based on data collected in 1979 shortly after
construction. The analysis indicates the anodes along most areas of the pipe have already or will soon
reach their effective useful life. Based on the data from 1979 and depending on location, the minimum
calculated anode life (beginning in 1979) is 4 years with a median value of 32 years.

The photographs in Figure 5 document the condition of the polyethylene encasement and pipe at the two
excavation locations Station No. 297+75 and Station No. 363+41, 1.2 miles apart. Clear (transparent),
8-mil thick encasement was used for this project. The clear encasement is typically not specified for
present day projects because of its increased susceptibility to ultraviolet degradation while exposed
before installation and backfilling. Gravel (rounded stone) was used for the backfill. While there were
many indentations in the encasement caused presumably by the gravel backfill, there were relatively few
actual tears, pinholes or other perforations. This was expected based on the uniformity of the pipe to
soil potential measurements.

Referencing Figure 5, Photographs a and c, the exposed pipe at Station No. 297+75 was in excellent
condition with virtually no surface rusting. While slightly faded, the painted stenciling with the
manufacturers name that is provided at the mill was evident (left side of pipe, Photograph c).

Although the surface rusting at Station No. 363+41 (Photographs b and d) is visually more apparent, the
actual maximum corrosion deterioration of the pipe wall at this location is estimated at less than 0.005-
inch with no widespread or concentrated pitting. The minimum thickness for 24-inch diameter DIP is
0.33-inch (pressure class 200), with the specified minimum wall thickness for this particular pipe likely
being greater. The more evident but still inconsequential corrosion observed is attributed to a visually
obvious higher elevation of groundwater at this location (when compared to Station No. 297+75). Also,
the polyethylene tape used to tighten the encasement around the pipe appears to have been only installed
at the ends of each pipe length. ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 requires securing the polyethylene tube
with tape every 3 feet. Complete circumferential wraps of the tape or tie-straps are specified when wet
trench conditions are encountered, such as was likely the case at the time of installation at Station No.
363+41.

While the proper installation of polyethylene encasement is by no means difficult and requires only
limited training and inspection, it is important that the basic common-sense provisions of ANSI/AWWA
C105/A21.5 be followed. One of the best ways to achieve this is by having a sufficiently detailed and
enforceable specification as part of the contract documents rather than simply referencing the related
ANSI/AWWA standard. Specification writers, contractors and inspectors should be cognizant of the
great value added by only a slight increase in awareness and attention to detail.
Pipe to soil potentials in 1979 measured at some 2,100 locations along the entire pipeline were typically
in the -0.8 to -1.3 volt range with an average of -1.1 volt. These values indicate a more than adequate
level of cathodic protection at that time. No cathodic protection data has been collected since 1979 other
than the limited assessment during the 2005 evaluation. Many of the approximate 500 test stations have
been covered over with several inches of wind blown dirt and sediment. Recommendations have been
made to more thoroughly update the operational status of the cathodic protection to determine what if
any action is warranted to continue to maintain pipe reliability.

Pipeline #2 Hanna, Wyoming

This 7-mile long, 12-inch and 14-inch diameter ductile iron water pipeline was constructed in 1988. It is
the primary water supply to the Town of Hanna and was designed by the same engineering firm (Black
and Veatch) that designed the pipeline in Montrose, Colorado (Pipeline #1). As with the Montrose
pipeline, this pipeline was encased with clear, 8-mil thick polyethylene. The galvanic current cathodic
protection system consisted of electrical bonding of the pipe joints and magnesium anodes connected to
the pipe through grade level test stations. The typical spacing between test stations is 600 feet. No
construction specifications or details were available that provided information on anode size and
quantity, or other cathodic protection particulars.

Figure 3 includes a graph of pipe to soil potential measurements made in 1993 at the corrosion control
monitoring test stations. The potentials with all magnesium anodes connected to the pipe ranged from -
1.2 to -1.6 volts, with an average of -1.5 volts for the 55 test stations evaluated. These magnitudes of
potential indicate a more than ample degree of cathodic protection in 1993 and reflect the quality in-
service performance of the polyethylene encasement.

One 582-feet long section of DIP between adjacent test stations was selected for the close interval
potential evaluation to determine an excavation/inspection location. The general area selected was near
the tie-in between the DIP and an earlier installed asbestos cement pipe, approximately Station No.
340+14 to Station No. 334+32. This area was chosen because of topographical conditions suggesting
standing water on the ground surface during part of the year. Relative to overall corrosion control
performance, it is considered representative of the remainder of the pipeline based on the 1993 pipe to
soil potential data.

The soil corrosivity data from the excavation at Station No. 336+36 (Table 1) includes saturated
resistivities as low as 260 ohm-centimeters and high chloride ion concentrations in the 300 ppm to 590
ppm range. These data equate to a DDMTM likelihood of corrosion point count of 37, indicating a highly
corrosive environment. Referencing the bottom row in Table 1, of the 4 pipeline projects evaluated, the
Hanna, Wyoming excavation site has the highest DDMTM likelihood of corrosion point count and is
considered the most corrosive.

The pipe to soil potentials measured at 5-feet intervals in the 582-feet long test area were very uniform
and ranged from -1.21 to -1.29 volts, all indicating adequate cathodic protection. Only two anomalous
sections were identified from the potential measurements suggesting possible damage to the
polyethylene encasement. These were each less than 10 feet in length, around Station No. 338+76 and
Station No. 336+36. The pipe was excavated for inspection at Station No. 336+36. The pipe at Station
No. 338+76 was too deep for safe excavation with the equipment available.

Figure 6, Photographs a, b, and c, show the condition of the excavated pipe at Station No. 336+36. The
encasement and pipe were in excellent condition. Photographs a and c illustrate the presence of a very
slight moisture film under the wrap. While the moisture found is inconsequential to pipe service life, it
likely could have been reduced even further if the excess wrap (flap) had been positioned properly on
the top of the pipe and secured with tape at 3 foot intervals in accordance with ANSI/AWWA
C105/A21.5. Placement of the flap on the top of the pipe provides two additional layers of encasement
in this area and helps avoid backfill damage to the encasement in direct contact with the pipe.

As shown in Figure 6, Photograph b, no corrosion pitting or other corrosion deterioration of the pipe was
detected. The manufacturers painted stenciling is clearly evident. The pipe was constructed using sand
backfill. The prudent design and construction procedures used for this pipeline illustrate the long-term
effectiveness of polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection under even extremely corrosive soil
conditions.

Figure 6, Photograph d, shows a section of scrap circa-1890 cast iron pipe found in a field along the
project right of way. This cast iron pipe was in service for 90+ years prior to construction of the DIP in
1988. The extent of corrosion deterioration of the old cast iron pipe is consistent with the very corrosive
soils and the extended years of service.

Pipeline #3 Aberdeen, South Dakota

This 140-mile long rural water transmission pipeline was constructed between 1984 and 1989 with DIP
sizes ranging to 30-inch diameter. It was one of the first DIP regional water systems built under the
direction of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Because of the very corrosive soils, 70 miles of the mainline pipe installation included polyethylene
encasement, electrical continuity bonds across the pipe joints, and corrosion control monitoring test
stations. An impressed current cathodic protection system was designed and constructed shortly after
completion of the pipe installation and included 18 rectifiers and anode groundbeds.

To assist in determining locations for excavation and inspection, electrical current distribution and pipe
to soil potential measurements were made for a total of 3.5 miles of pipe in 2 separate areas several
miles apart. These data allow for calculation of pipe to earth resistances on a pipe section by pipe
section basis. Typically, the greater the pipe to earth resistance, the better the quality of the installed
encasement and the lower the cathodic current demand.

Figure 4 shows the pipe to earth resistances normalized on a per-square-foot of pipe surface basis. An
average pipe to earth resistance of 4,532 ohm square feet is calculated. Pipe to earth resistances in
excess of 30,000 ohm square feet have been measured for other DIP projects where polyethylene
encasement was used. Based on the data collected, the lower pipe to earth resistances for the Aberdeen
pipeline may be associated with the number of valves in the test sections. When polyethylene sheet is
used to wrap the valves, there can be some pipe surface left uncovered unless reasonable care is taken.
The pipe to earth resistances in excess of 30,000 ohm square feet were for pipe sections without
valves. Localized areas of unwrapped pipe such as at valves can significantly lower the apparent pipe to
earth resistance determined between test stations considerable distances apart.

Close interval potential measurements were made in two separate areas for a total pipe length of 600
feet. In addition to valves and fittings within these areas, the data suggested a few particular sections
where a relatively greater amount of exposed pipe was suspected. Excavations were made at two of the
more pronounced locations - Station No. 145+08 (Contract No. 1-4) and Station No. 429+85 (Contract
No. 4-1A). The photographs in Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the observed conditions. At both locations,
there was backfill damage to the polyethylene encasement, particularly along the top portion of the pipe
at Station No. 429+85. No corrosion of the pipe was observed at the damage in the encasement. While
superficial rust staining was observed under the encasement, particularly at Station No. 429+85, there
was no measurable corrosion pitting. The 20+ year old pipe at both locations was in very good
condition.

Photograph d in Figure 7 shows the copper bond strips used for much of this project to establish
electrical continuity across the bell and spigot pipe joints. There are two uncoated strips per joint; each
is bolted together at 2 locations. This arrangement has been quite problematic over the years relative to
maintaining adequate electrical continuity for cathodic protection. The pipeline operator has a proactive
corrosion control program underway that includes replacing the electrically high resistant bond strips
with 2 exothermically welded, insulated copper cables.

When the DIP has been uncovered to install bond cables across the joints and for other reasons, the pipe
has been observed by the owner to be in very good condition. To date, the operator has excavated at
over 50 locations, none of which exhibited corrosion deterioration of the DIP. In written
communication about the corrosion control performance of this pipeline, the utilitys general manager
states the ductile iron pipe that makes up the system has been in operation 24 hours per day 365 days a
year and we have never found corrosion or failure of any kind9. The general manager has been
employed since before construction of the DIP.

This rural water system is planning an additional 10 miles of mainline transmission pipe to increase
water flow for expanding industrial use in the area. This includes ethanol plants, a beef processing
plant, a soybean plant, and a commercial dairy, among other customers. The exemplary performance of
the ductile iron pipe is such that it is expected to be included in the design.

Pipeline #4 - Orange, California

This 8-mile long, 42-inch diameter ductile iron pipeline was constructed in 1985. It conveys treated
secondary effluent. While the alignment is mainly open country, the pipeline also crosses under a major
watercourse, Interstate Highway 5, a combined freight and commuter rail corridor, and two cross-county
gasoline pipelines that have cathodic protection.

The ductile iron pipeline construction included polyethylene encasement, pipe joint electrical bonding
similar to that for Pipeline #3, and corrosion monitoring test stations. Crushed rock was used for
backfill in the pipe zone.

One year after installation, a pipe-to-soil potential survey was performed as were tests to determine
electrical continuity. Several electrical discontinuities were detected, excavated and repaired. Original
construction backfill damage to the polyethylene encasement was observed during the excavations. The
condition of the polyethylene encasement in conjunction with the pipe-to-soil potential data and the
corrosivity of the soil prompted the owner to proceed with the design and installation of an impressed
current cathodic protection system.

Consistent with many other designs by the owners corrosion control consultant in this area, pulsed-type
impressed current rectifiers were selected for the cathodic protection system. Six rectifiers with deep
anode groundbeds were designed for the 8 miles of pipeline. Rather than a rectified sine wave output of
a conventional single phase rectifier, pulsed rectifiers provide a periodic high-amplitude, very short
duration voltage pulse as illustrated in Figure 9. This technology was first patented in 1971. It has been
and continues to be used by some water/wastewater pipeline operators and some oil and natural gas well
operators with reported success, most notably in Southern California. Basic cathodic protection
evaluation procedures for pulsed rectifier cathodic protection systems are identical to conventional sine
wave rectifiers, e.g. DC potentials and currents can be measured using true-RMS digital voltmeters and
the rectifier current can be switched on and off by conventional current interrupters. Figure 10 shows
one of the pulsed rectifiers evaluated. Because of the high voltage equipment, electrical safety is
paramount.

Excavation access was limited to one area near a road. Figure 11 shows the close interval potential data
across a 200-feet long span of pipe in this area. One very blatant anomaly was detected near Station No.
0+25. This location was selected for the excavation/inspection. Prior to excavating, the pipe to soil
potential anomaly was further documented and pinpointed using over-the-pipe and lateral direct current
voltage gradient (DCVG) procedures.

Pipe to soil potentials are periodically measured along the entire pipeline by the utilitys corrosion
control engineer. Consistent with the data collected during this evaluation for 200 feet (Figure 11), on
potentials have typically been in the -1.1 to -1.2 volt range and polarized instant-off potentials have
typically been in the -0.8 to -0.9 volt range. Based on this, the excavation/inspection location is
considered generally representative of the remaining pipeline.

Figure 12 is a close-up of the polyethylene encasement removed from the excavation at Station No.
0+25 and illustrates the subtle damage caused by the crushed stone backfill. Figures 13 and 14 show the
pipe prior to and after removal of the encasement. Figure 15 shows a pipe plug from an earlier nearby
tap to install a valve. In all instances, the pipe was found to be in excellent condition. Based on the
pipe to soil potential data (Figure 11), Station 0+25 would be expected to have the most damage to the
polyethylene encasement in the test area. This worst case is considered minor and as expected given
the crushed stone backfill material and the backfill procedures used. The satisfactory corrosion control
performance of polyethylene encasement, with or without cathodic protection, is not predicated on the
wrap being damage free.

Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) measurements on the pipe surface at damage in the encasement and
under intact encasement were in the neutral to alkaline range.

Fifteen engineering representatives from the pipeline owner, the pipeline design firm, the Bureau of
Reclamation, corrosion control control consulting firms, and the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association
(DIPRA) participated in this evaluation. The general consensus was that the observed pipe was in very
good condition. At face value, the performance of the pulsed cathodic protection seems comparable to
conventional cathodic protection.

SUMMARY

The evaluations presented herein as well as the experience of other corrosion control practitioners
(Schiff and McCollom, 19939; Barnes, 199510; Bell and Romer11, 2004; Schramuk and Rash, 200512)
illustrate the corrosion control value realized by the combined use of polyethylene encasement and
cathodic protection. While there will always be exceptions, the real proof of the adequacy of this
corrosion control approach is in the success stories of the designers and operators that have embraced
the cost effective methodology. The 100-year life cycle cost of a corrosion prevention strategy based on
the synergistic use of polyethylene encasement and cathodic protection is less than 2% of the initial DIP
construction cost.
As with implementation of any successful corrosion control program, due diligence is required during
design, construction, and maintenance and operation. Suitable material and construction specifications
along with reasonable inspection are essential. This includes requirements for experienced installers and
material specification compliance for both the encasement and the cathodic protection. Specification
writers, contractors, inspectors and operators should be cognizant of the great value added by only a
slight increase in awareness and attention to detail.

Regarding polyethylene encasement, ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 in and of itself is not a construction

specification, but rather an industry standard. Similar to any cathodic protection system, project-specific
construction specifications should be developed for the encasement that include requirements such as
personnel training, material certification, and quality assurance. Also, maintenance procedures should
be developed for the detection and repair of any damage to the encasement and or cathodic protection
after pipeline operations commence. Damage can be caused by third-party excavations, directional
drilling, service taps, and pipe maintenance/repairs. Undoubtedly, the best solution is to establish and
follow procedures that are directed toward avoiding the damage in the first place.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the following utilities for allowing us to evaluate their pipelines and for
providing the necessary support personnel and excavation equipment:

Project 7 Water Authority, Montrose, Colorado.

Town of Hanna, Wyoming.
W.E.B. Water Development Association, Aberdeen, South Dakota.
Santa Margarita Water District, Orange, California.

We would also like to recognize the designers of these projects for their practical, cost effective, and
perhaps forward thinking (at the time) approach to corrosion protection for ductile iron pipe.

REFERENCES

1. D. Kroon, D. Lindemuth, S. Sampson, T. Vincenzo. Corrosion Protection of Ductile Iron Pipe.

CORROSION 2004, paper no. 04046. (New Orleans, LA: NACE International, 2004)

2. American Water Works Association, Ductile Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, For Water or Other
Liquids, ANSI/AWWA C151/A21.51, AWWA, Denver CO.

3. American Water Works Association. Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems,
ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5, AWWA, Denver CO.

4. R. Bonds, L. Barnard, M. Horton, G. Oliver. Corrosion and Corrosion Control of Iron Pipe: 75
Years of Research. AWWA Journal, June 2005, Volume 97, Number 6. American Water Works
Association, Denver CO.

5. D. Kroon. Life Cycle Cost Comparisons of Corrosion Protection Methods for Ductile Iron Pipe.
CORROSION 2005, paper no. 05037. (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2005)
6. DIPRA Publication. Polyethylene Encasement Effective, Economical Protection for Ductile Iron
Pipe in Corrosive Environments. Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, Birmingham, AL,
www.dipra.org.

7. M. Horton, D. Lindemuth, G. Ash. Ductile Iron Pipe Case Study: Corrosion Control Performance
Monitoring In A Severely Corrosive Tidal Muck. CORROSION 2005, paper no. 05038.
(Houston, TX: NACE International, 2005)

8. C. Hohn, W.E.B. General Manager. Written communication, July 12, 2006.

9. M. Schiff, B. McCollum. Impressed Current Cathodic Protection of Polyethylene Encased Ductile

Iron Pipe. CORROSION/93 paper no. 583. (Houston, TX: NACE International, 1993)

10. J. Barnes. Cathodically Protecting a Large Diameter Ductile Iron Pipeline A Case Study. 1996.

11. G. Bell, A. Romer. Making Baggies Work for Ductile Iron Pipe. ASCE Pipelines-2004
Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston VA.

12. J. Schramuk, V. Rash. Case History: Cathodic Protection for a New Ductile Iron Water
Transmission Main. Materials Performance, October 2005, Volume 44, Number 10. NACE
International, Houston TX.

Project #1 - Montrose CO Project #2 - Hanna WY Project #3 - Aberdeen SD Project #4 - Orange CA

Sample No. 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3
430+15 (4- 430+15 (4- 145+16 (1- 145+16 (1-
Pipe Station No. 297+75 363+41 363+41 336+37 336+37 336+37 0+25 0+25 0+25
1A) 1A) 4) 4)
Soil or Backfill Soil Soil Backfill Soil Soil Backfill Soil Backfill Soil Backfill Soil Soil Soil
Sandy loam & Silt & fine Silty clay Silty clay Silty clay Silty clay
Type Sand & rocks Clay-loam
rocks sand loam
Fine sand Silty clay Sandy clay Silty clay Sandy clay
loam loam loam
Light gray- Light gray- Yellow & Yellowish Yellowish Yellowish
Color brown brown
Gray Light Brown Gray Light Gray
gray gray gray gray
Gray Gray Gray

Resistivity - As Received (ohm-cm) 2200 140 2800 1000 1200 4000 140 360 270 300 1600 840 760

Resistivity - Saturated (ohm-cm) 74 140 350 290 260 400 140 350 230 290 1500 840 760

Moisture Content (% dry weight) 10 30 7 14 10 8 19 15 28 20 21 32 30

pH 8.2 7.8 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 7.8 8.4 8.1 7.9

Chlorides (ppm) 56 32 9 480 590 300 36 16 6 8 16 29 30

Sulfates (ppm) 96 210 250 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Sulfides (ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Redox Potential (millivolts) 330 290 260 240 240 250 290 310 310 290 320 340 360

TM (1)
DDM Likelihood of Corrosion Points 34 35 33 37 37 37 35 33 35 35 27 30 30

(1) The higher the points, the greater the likelihood of corrosion. Based on a maximum of 50 points.

Table 1 Soil Sample Corrosivity Analysis

 -1.2
"On" Potential
"Instant Off" Potential
PIPE TO SOIL POTENTIAL (VOLTS)

-1.1

VALVE
-1.0

-0.9

-0.8
429+00 429+50 430+00 430+50 431+00
STATION NUMBER (PIPELINE #3 - ABERDEEN, SD)

Figure 1 Close Interval Pipe To Soil Potential Survey

100000
SOIL RESISTIVITY (OHM-CM)

10000

1000

100
0+00 200+00 400+00 600+00 800+00 1000+00 1200+00
STATION NUMBER

Figure 2 Soil Resistivity Data, 1978 Pipeline #1 Montrose, CO

 -1.6
PIPE TO SOIL POTENTIAL (VOLT)

-1.4
Jun-93
Oct-05

-1.2

-1.0
0+00 100+00 200+00 300+00
STATION NUMBER
Figure 3 Pipe To Soil Potential Pipeline #2 Hanna, WY
PIPE TO EARTH RESISTANCE (OHMS - SQUARE FEET)

6208
6000

4396 4532

4000 3794 3732

2000

0
#1 - Contract 1-4 - 144+53 #2 - Contract 4-1A - #3 - Contract 4-1A - #4 - Contract 4-1A - AVERAGE
to 170+25 - 2572 feet - 24- 319+87 to 373+53 - 5366 373+53 to 430+80 - 5727 473+98 to 523+98 - 5000
inch feet - 20-inch feet - 20-inch feet - 20-inch

Figure 4 Pipe To Earth Resistance Pipeline #3 Aberdeen, SD

a) Station No. 297+75 b) Station No. 363+41

c) Station No. 297+75 - Dry

d) Station No. 363+41 High Water Table

Figure 5: Pipeline #1 Montrose, CO Installed ~1979

 a) Flap on bottom Should be on top

b) 17-year old ductile iron pipe in excellent condition

c) Thin layer of moisture under wrap d) 1890s Cast Iron Pipe

Figure 6: Pipeline #2 Hanna, WY Station No. 336+36, Installed ~1988

 a)

b)

c) No corrosion at damage in wrap d) Problematic copper bonding strips

Figure 7: Pipeline #3 Aberdeen, SD Station No. 145+08 (Contract No. 1-4)

Installed ~1984
 a)

b)

c) d) Pipe re-wrapped with

polyethylene sheet
Figure 8: Pipeline #3 Aberdeen, SD Station No. 429+85 (Contract No. 4-1A)
Installed ~1988
 270

RECTIFIER OUTPUT VOLTAGE (VOLTS) 250

2.1 Ohm Load, Highest Frequency Setting 230

190 Oscilloscope Trace

DC Reading, True RMS Digital Voltmeter

150
133

110

70

30

-10 -5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
TIME (MILLISECONDS)

Figure 9: Pulsed Rectifier Voltage

Figure 10: Pulsed Rectifier Pipeline #4 Orange, CA

 -1.4
ON
INSTANT-OFF
PIPE TO SOIL POTENTIAL (VOLTS)

-1.2

-1.0
0+25

-0.8

-0.6
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
STATION NUMBER

Figure 11: Pipe To Soil Potential Pipeline #4 Orange, CA

Figure 12: Polyethylene Encasement Pipeline #4 Orange, CA

 a)

b) Before cleaning pipe surface

Figure 13: Pipeline #4 Orange, CA

 a)

b) Underside of pipe Manufacturers painted stencil clearly visible

Figure 14: Pipeline #4 Orange, CA After cleaning pipe surface

 a) Internal Surface, Coated

b) Cross-section, External Surface

Figure 15: Pipeline #4 Orange, CA Tap Plug