Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
has conducted research on iron pipe since 1928. This research has dealt primarily with
corrosion and corrosion control of ductile- and gray-iron pipe. A statistical analysis of a large
BY RICHARD W. BONDS, LYLE
M. BARNARD, A. MICHAEL
HORTON, AND GENE L. OLIVER
database derived from these test programs and in-service inspections concluded that (1) the
10-point soil evaluation system published in the Standard for Polyethylene Encasement for
Ductile-Iron Pipe Systems (C105/A21.5; ANSI/AWWA, 1999) is an accurate and dependable
method of evaluating soils for their corrosiveness of iron pipe; (2) polyethylene encasement
is effective as a corrosion control system; and (3) damages to polyethylene encasement do
not accelerate the corrosion rate beyond that of iron pipe that is not encased.
88
TABLE 1
Pipe Type
Total
Bare Pipe
Sand-blasted Pipe
Shop-coated Pipe
Encased Pipe
Gray iron
457
225
36
103
92
Ductile iron
922
252
171
160
277
62
89
Wisconsin Rapids
Casper
Spanish Fork
Lombard
Absecon
Aurora
EVALUATION OF POLYETHYLENE
ENCASEMENT
Logandale
Marston Lake
Overton
90
Gray
Cinders
(400 cm)
Ductile
Gray
Ductile
Alkaline soil
(200 cm)
Exposure Time
91
TABLE 3
Location
Total Points
Resistivity
cm
pH
Redox
mV
Sulfides
Moisture
Wet
Absecon, N.J.
23.5
76
6.9
50
Positive
Everglades, Fla.
23.5
110
7.1
100
Positive
Wet
Logandale, Nev.
15.5
70
7.1
+100
Negative
Wet
Lombard, Ill.
15.5
2,000
7.0
+90
Trace
Wet
15.5
520
8.2
+90
Negative
Wet
Watsonville, Calif.
15.5
960
6.2
+175
Positive
Wet
14
406
7.3
+144
Trace
Wet
13
300
8.6
NA
NA
NA
Raceland, La.
13
1,000
6.7
+280
Trace
Moist
Overton, Nev.
12
68
7.7
+167
Negative
Wet
Hughes, Ark.
11
500
4.8
+200
Negative
Moist
10.5
46,000
6.0
192
Positive
Wet
10
1,600
7.6
+122
Negative
Wet
10* (cinders)
400
5.5
NA
NA
NA
10*
160
8.1
NA
NA
NA
8.5 (peat)
5,000
3.6
+300
Positive
Wet
should begin with the identification of potentially corrosive conditions in the area where pipeline construction
is planned. It is also beneficial to have a thorough understanding of corrosion and its causes in order to properly
evaluate available methods of protection.
Causes of corrosion. Common causes of corrosion on
underground pipelines include low-resistivity soils, anaerobic bacteria, dissimilar metals, differences in soil composition, differential aeration of the soil around the
pipe, and stray direct current from external sources.
Corrosive conditions can exist in every soil environment
to some degree. From a practical standpoint, however,
most environments are not considered corrosive to ductile-iron pipe. Whether corrosion will be a problem on
a given pipeline is more dependent on the rate of corrosion than on the possible existence of corrosion cells
(Stroud, 1989).
Iron pipe inherently possesses good resistance to corrosion and does not require additional protection in most
soil environments. Experience has shown, however, that
there are certain environments in which external corrosion
protection of iron pipe is generally warranted. Examples
include soils contaminated by coal mine wastes, cinders,
refuse, or salts, as well as certain naturally occurring corrosive soils such as expansive clays, alkali soils, and soils
found in swamps and peat bogs. In addition, soils in lowlying wet areas are generally more corrosive than soils
in well-drained areas.
92
The 10-point system. In cases in which the relative corrosivity of the soil environment is unknown, several soiltest evaluation procedures can be used to predict whether
corrosion is likely to be a problem. The procedure used
to evaluate corrosion potential with respect to iron pipe
in this analysis was the soil-test evaluation procedure, or
10-point system, included in appendix A of standard
C105/A21.5 (ANSI/AWWA, 1999) and A674-00 (ASTM,
2000). The 10-point system (Table 2) was originally developed and recommended by CIPRA in 1964 and has since
been used to successfully evaluate soil conditions of more
than 100 mil ft (30.48 106 m) of proposed pipeline
installations.
The 10-point system, like all such evaluation procedures, is intended to serve as a guide for identifying potentially corrosive conditions to iron pipe. It should be used
by qualified engineers or technicians experienced in soil
analysis and evaluation. In many cases, experience with
existing installations can provide the most valuable prediction of potential corrosion concerns.
The 10-point systems evaluation procedure uses information drawn from five tests and observations: soil
resistivity, pH, oxidationreduction potential, sulfides,
and moisture. For a given soil sample, each parameter is
evaluated and assigned points according to its contribution to corrosivity. The points for all five areas are
totaled, and if the sum is 10 or more, the soil is considered potentially corrosive to iron pipe and warrants taking protective measures. Table 3 shows the soil parameters with respect to the 10-point system and their
related assigned points for the test sites in the database
cited in this article.
Exposure Time
is more pronounced in ductile-iron pipe than it is in grayiron pipe. Fuller also concluded that the diminution of the
attack rate will appear earlier on ductile iron than on
gray iron (Figure 2). Ricciardiello studied corrosion rates
in 300 specimens of gray iron in liquid sulfur at temperatures between 572oF (300oC) and 752oF (400oC) and
also found that rates of corrosion tend to decrease over
time (Ricciardiello, 1974).
Ideally, corrosion rate curves would be generated from
the data obtained in this study and mathematical functions
developed to predict realistic decreasing corrosion pitting rates for extended times of exposure. However, these
functions vary not only with soil type but also with mois-
93
TABLE 4
Everglades, Fla.
Absecon, N.J.
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Pipe
Type* and
Number of
Specimens
Pipe
Type* and
Number of
Specimens
Birmingham, Ala.
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Pipe
Type* and
Number of
Specimens
Casper, Wyo.
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Pipe
Type* and
Number of
Specimens
Pipe
Type
Combined
Mean
Deepest
Pitting Rate
in. (mm)
per year
DI, 87
0.0428
(1.07)
DI, 7
0.030
(0.75)
DI, 61
0.0226
(0.565)
DI, 60
0.00922
(0.2305)
DI
0.0273
(0.6825)
GI, 61
0.0475
(1.1875)
GI, 18
0.0456
(1.4)
GI, 67
0.0261
(0.6525)
GI, 49
0.00848
(0.212)
GI
0.0302
(0.755)
TABLE 5
Watsonville, Calif.
Pipe Type*
and Number
of Specimens
Mean Pitting
Rate
in. (mm) per year
DI, 37
GI, 17
Raceland, La.
Pipe Type
and Number
of Specimens
Mean Pitting
Rate
in. (mm) per year
0.0215 (0.5375)
DI, 29
0.0180 (0.45)
DI
0.0200 (0.5)
0.0321 (0.8025)
GI, 15
0.0392 (0.98)
GI
0.0354 (0.885)
Pipe Type
Combined Mean
Deepest Pitting Rate
in. (mm) per year
corrosion rate is understated in the early years of exposure and overstated in the later years. In the following
analysis, the function was extrapolated to predict expected
pitting rates in the later years of exposure, making such
an assumption conservative.
For the analyses discussed in this article, the authors
created a corrosion rate function based on the single deepest corrosion pit observed on each specimen and divided
that measured depth by the exposure time in years. This
value, termed the deepest pit rate, was used in making
comparisons.
Each specimen provided a point on the curve of the
corrosion function; a group of specimens (whatever the
reason for the grouping) was described as having a
mean deepest pitting rate (arithmetic average of the
individual values). For example, if a particular research
project involved the burial of 15 specimens in the same
soil environment (test site) with exhumations of three
specimens every five years for a 25-year period, the
mean deepest pitting rate would be the average of the pitting rates of the deepest pit from each specimen (15
pits). For the various test conditions studied, mean values of deepest pit rates were compared using t-tests and
analysis of variance (95% confidence) as well as visually
with multiple box plots.
94
TABLE 6
Mean deepest pitting rate of intentionally damaged polyethylene encasement and asphaltic shop-coated
specimens
Everglades, Fla.
Pipe
Type* and
Number of
Specimens
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Overton, Nev.
Pipe
Type and
Number of
Specimens
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Logandale, Nev.
Pipe
Type and
Number of
Specimens
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Hughes, Ark.
Pipe
Type and
Number of
Specimens
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Aurora, Colo.
Pipe
Type and
Number of
Specimens
Mean
Pitting
Rate
in. (mm)
per year
Pipe
Type
Combined
Mean
Deepest
Pitting Rate
in. (mm)
per year
DPE, 38
0.0121
(0.3025)
DPE, 3
0.0045
(0.1125)
DPE, 10
0.0206
(0.515)
DPE, 3
0.0058
(0.145)
DPE, 8
0.0000
(0.0000)
DPE
0.0112
(0.28)
ASC, 54
0.0320
(0.8)
ASC, 5
0.0205
(0.5125)
ASC, 12
0.0268
(0.67)
ASC, 12
0.0041
(0.1025)
ASC, 6
0.0000
(0.0000)
ASC
0.0247
(0.6175)
not affect the calculated pitting rates, which were determined by dividing the depth of the single deepest pit by
the time of exposure.
The mean deepest pitting rates of the bare ductile-iron
specimens were less than those of bare gray-iron specimens
in three of the four test sites. Specific results were as follows: 10% or 0.0047 in. (0.1175 mm) per year less at the
Everglades test site, 34% or 0.0156 in. (0.39 mm) per
year less at the Absecon, N.J., test site, and 13% or 0.0035
in. (0.0875 mm) per year less at the Birmingham, Ala., test
site. At the Casper, Wyo., test site, however, the bare ductile specimens mean deepest pitting rate was 9% or
0.0007 in. (0.0175 mm) per year greater than that of the
gray-iron specimens.
The mean deepest pitting rates for the sand-blasted
ductile-iron specimens were 33% or 0.0106 in. (0.265
mm) per year less than those of sand-blasted gray-iron
For this reason, the ductile- and gray-iron pipe data were
combined to obtain the benefits of an increased sample
size in subsequent analyses. Given that gray-iron pressure pipe has not been commercially available in North
America for more than 25 years, the combined gray- and
ductile-iron data would result in conservative observations regarding currently available ductile-iron pipe.
95
TABLE 7
Number of
Specimens
Mean Deepest
Pitting Rate
in. (mm) per year
Asphaltic shop-coated
43
0.000667 (0.0167)
375
12
0.0000 (0.0000)
Infinity
Pipe Condition
Years to
Penetration*
*Years to penetration are based on the single deepest pit in each specimen, a linear pitting rate, and a
pipe wall thickness of 0.25 in. (6.25 mm), the thinnest ductile-iron pipe wall available.
96
97
FOOTNOTES
1Design
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, Birmingham,
Ala., and its member companiesAmerican Cast Iron
Pipe Co., Birmingham; Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co.,
Phillipsburg, N.J.; Canada Pipe Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.;
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/ AWWA, 2002. C151/A21.51. American National Standard for Ductile-Iron
Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, for Water or
Other Liquids. Catalog No. 43151. AWWA,
Denver.
ANSI/AWWA, 1999. C105/A21.5. American
National Standard for Polyethylene
Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe Systems. Catalog No. 43105. AWWA, Denver.
ASTM (American Standards for Testing and
Materials), 2000. A674-00. Standard
Practice for Polyethylene Encasement
for Ductile Iron Pipe for Water and Other
Liquids. ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
AWWA, 2003. Manual M41, Ductile-Iron Pipe
and Fittings. AWWA, Denver.
British Standards Institution (BSI), 1996.
BS6076. Specification for Polymeric Film
Ricciardiello, F., 1974. Corrosion Rate Determination on Some Cast Irons in Liquid Sulfur. Corrosion, 30:7:248.
DIPRA (Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association), 2002. Century Club. Ductile Iron
Pipe News, Fall/Winter, Birmingham, Ala.
98