Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
database derived from these test programs and in-service inspections concluded that (1) the
M. BARNARD, A. MICHAEL
10-point soil evaluation system published in the Standard for Polyethylene Encasement for
HORTON, AND GENE L. OLIVER
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
not accelerate the corrosion rate beyond that of iron pipe that is not encased.
I
of its use in early history. Human ability to cast pipe probably developed
from or coincided with the manufacture of cannons, which occurred as
early as 1313. There is an official record of cast-iron pipe manufactured
at Siegerland, Germany, in 1455 for installation at the Dillenburg Castle.
In 1664, Louis XIV of France ordered the construction of a cast-iron main
extending 15 mi (24 km) from a pumping station at Marly-on-Seine to Versailles
to supply water for the town and its fountains. This cast-iron pipe provided con-
tinuous service for more than 330 years. Cast-iron pipe was first used in the
United States around 1816 (AWWA, 2003).
Ductile-iron pipe was cast experimentally for the first time in 1948 and was
introduced to the marketplace in 1955. Since 1965 ductile-iron pipe has been man-
ufactured in accordance with the Standard for Ductile-Iron Pipe, Centrifugally
Cast, for Water and Other Liquids (AWWA/ANSI, 2002), using centrifugal cast-
ing methods that have been commercially developed and refined since 1925.
service, and more than 20 utilities have had cast-iron pipe support corrosion activity to whatever moisture might
in continuous service for 150 years or more (DIPRA, 2002). be present in the very thin annular space between the
For decades, the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Associa- pipe and wrap. Although polyethylene encasement is not
tion (DIPRA), formerly the Cast Iron Pipe Research Asso- a watertight system, the weight of the earth backfill and
ciation (CIPRA), has researched corrosion control meth- surrounding soil after installation prevents any signifi-
ods including select backfill, bonded coatings, concrete cant exchange of groundwater between the wrap and the
coatings, sacrificial coatings, and cathodic protection. pipe. Although some groundwater typically will seep
This article focuses on corrosion control using polyeth- beneath the wrap, the water’s corrosive characteristics
ylene encasement, which has proven to be an easy, eco- are soon depleted by initial corrosion reactions—usually
nomical, and low-maintenance corrosion protection sys- oxidation.
tem for iron pipe. Protection is achieved simply by After the available dissolved oxygen in the moisture
encasing the pipe with a tube or sheet of loose polyeth- film under the wrap has been consumed, further corrosion
ylene at the trench immediately before installation. activity is effectively halted, and a uniform environment
How polyethylene encasement works. Polyethylene exists around the pipe. This in turn helps eliminate the
encasement is an engineered corrosion control system formation of localized corrosion cells that typically occurs
using specially designed material with minimum mechan- on the surface of a pipe exposed to a nonhomogeneous soil
ical requirements, e.g., strength, elongation, propagation environment. Additionally, the polyethylene film provides
tear resistance, impact resistance, and dielectric strength, an essentially impermeable barrier that restricts the access
that are specified in national and international standards. of additional oxygen to the pipe surface and the diffusion
Recycled polyethylene is not used in the manufacture of of corrosion products away from the pipe surface (Stroud,
the film. 1989). The film also has a high dielectric strength that
Once installed, polyethylene acts as an unbonded film mitigates the accumulation of stray electrical currents.
that prevents direct contact of the pipe with the corrosive Another important aspect of polyethylene encasement’s
soil. It also effectively limits the electrolytes available to corrosion protection is that research has shown the buried
Ductile
(400 ⍀cm)
internal lining was provided in order to eliminate weight
gain from moisture absorption, and the ends were capped
to prevent internal corrosion. Groups of specimens were
exhumed at timed intervals of exposure over the testing Gray
Resistivity Redox
Location Total Points ⍀cm pH mV Sulfides Moisture
NA—not measured
perform these investigations. As a matter of course, the should begin with the identification of potentially cor-
utility selects a location where it is known that polyeth- rosive conditions in the area where pipeline construction
ylene-encased iron pipe has been installed in a corrosive is planned. It is also beneficial to have a thorough under-
soil environment. standing of corrosion and its causes in order to properly
The results have shown that polyethylene encasement evaluate available methods of protection.
is an effective, engineered system to protect gray- and Causes of corrosion. Common causes of corrosion on
ductile-iron pipe. At the same time, however, these inves- underground pipelines include low-resistivity soils, anaer-
tigations have underscored the importance of properly obic bacteria, dissimilar metals, differences in soil com-
installing and handling polyethylene encasement. The position, differential aeration of the soil around the
database used in this study included 188 such investiga- pipe, and stray direct current from external sources.
tions (121 conducted by DIPRA and 67 by U.S. Pipe). Corrosive conditions can exist in every soil environment
An additional 96 in-service examinations of nonencased to some degree. From a practical standpoint, however,
shop-coated iron pipe were also included in the subset most environments are not considered corrosive to duc-
database for a total of 284 investigations. tile-iron pipe. Whether corrosion will be a problem on
An investigation was conducted on the first polyethylene- a given pipeline is more dependent on the rate of cor-
encasement installation in an operating system. The 4-in. rosion than on the possible existence of corrosion cells
(100-mm) gray-iron water main was installed in Louisiana’s (Stroud, 1989).
LaFourche Parish Water District Number 1 in early 1958 Iron pipe inherently possesses good resistance to cor-
and was inspected in May 2003. The soils were highly cor- rosion and does not require additional protection in most
rosive with a resistivity of 460 ⍀cm and showed the pres- soil environments. Experience has shown, however, that
ence of microbiological activity and saturated conditions. there are certain environments in which external corrosion
The investigation revealed that the polyethylene encase- protection of iron pipe is generally warranted. Examples
ment had provided excellent protection for this pipe during include soils contaminated by coal mine wastes, cinders,
45 years of service, with no evident pitting or graphitization. refuse, or salts, as well as certain naturally occurring cor-
rosive soils such as expansive clays, alkali soils, and soils
EVALUATING THE CORROSION POTENTIAL OF SOILS found in swamps and peat bogs. In addition, soils in low-
Because retrofitting for corrosion protection is costly lying wet areas are generally more corrosive than soils
and difficult, an effective corrosion prevention program in well-drained areas.
providing a barrier and limiting the rate at which fur- ture, oxygen content, and bacterial counts, all of which
ther corrosion attacks can occur. Fuller (1972) of the can fluctuate over time. Additionally, the pipes in this
British Cast Iron Research Association investigated the study’s database were subjected to numerous soils, and
corrosion rates of iron pipe from Great Britain, France, these would have their own unique corrosion function. For
Germany, and the United States. He gathered and studied this reason as well as for simplicity and conservatism, it
data from these sources and concluded that rates of cor- was decided to treat the corrosion rate as a linear straight-
rosion tend to decrease over time and that this decrease line function (Figure 3). When this assumption is used, the
Combined
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Deepest
Type* and Rate Type* and Rate Type* and Rate Type* and Rate Pitting Rate
Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Pipe in. (mm)
Specimens per year Specimens per year Specimens per year Specimens per year Type per year
TABLE 5 Mean deepest pitting rate of ductile- and gray-iron sand-blasted specimens
Pipe Type* Mean Pitting Pipe Type Mean Pitting Combined Mean
and Number Rate and Number Rate Deepest Pitting Rate
of Specimens in. (mm) per year of Specimens in. (mm) per year Pipe Type in. (mm) per year
corrosion rate is understated in the early years of expo- Corrosion pitting rates. The database was analyzed
sure and overstated in the later years. In the following regarding the corrosion pitting rate of gray-iron pipe ver-
analysis, the function was extrapolated to predict expected sus ductile-iron pipe for two main reasons. First, corro-
pitting rates in the later years of exposure, making such sion comparison studies conducted by DIPRA and others
an assumption conservative. had reported that ductile-iron pipe had a lower pitting rate
For the analyses discussed in this article, the authors than gray-iron pipe (Stroud, 1989; Fuller, 1972). DIPRA
created a corrosion rate function based on the single deep- wanted to see if the large database confirmed those find-
est corrosion pit observed on each specimen and divided ings. Second, if there was no significant difference in the
that measured depth by the exposure time in years. This deepest pit rate between gray-iron and ductile-iron pipe,
value, termed the “deepest pit rate,” was used in making the gray-iron and ductile-iron data could be combined
comparisons. to provide the benefits of an increased sample size in fur-
Each specimen provided a point on the curve of the ther analyses.
corrosion function; a group of specimens (whatever the Specimens in the database included sand-blasted, bare,
reason for the grouping) was described as having a and asphaltic shop-coated pipe. Comparisons of the mean
“mean deepest pitting rate” (arithmetic average of the deepest pitting rate for ductile- and gray-iron bare (with-
individual values). For example, if a particular research out a shop coat) and sand-blasted pipes are shown in
project involved the burial of 15 specimens in the same Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Four of the DIPRA test sites
soil environment (test site) with exhumations of three included both bare gray-iron and bare ductile-iron spec-
specimens every five years for a 25-year period, the imens, and two included both sand-blasted gray-iron and
mean deepest pitting rate would be the average of the pit- sand-blasted ductile-iron specimens for comparison. Shop-
ting rates of the deepest pit from each specimen (15 coated specimens were not compared because of possible
pits). For the various test conditions studied, mean val- variations in thickness and type of the asphaltic shop-
ues of deepest pit rates were compared using t-tests and coat. The bare specimens were more representative of
analysis of variance (95% confidence) as well as visually production pipe than were the sand-blasted specimens.
with multiple box plots. Although the thickness of the specimens varied, it did
Combined
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Pipe Pitting Deepest
Type* and Rate Type and Rate Type and Rate Type and Rate Type and Rate Pitting Rate
Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Number of in. (mm) Pipe in. (mm)
Specimens per year Specimens per year Specimens per year Specimens per year Specimens per year Type per year
DPE, 38 0.0121 DPE, 3 0.0045 DPE, 10 0.0206 DPE, 3 0.0058 DPE, 8 0.0000 DPE 0.0112
(0.3025) (0.1125) (0.515) (0.145) (0.0000) (0.28)
ASC, 54 0.0320 ASC, 5 0.0205 ASC, 12 0.0268 ASC, 12 0.0041 ASC, 6 0.0000 ASC 0.0247
(0.8) (0.5125) (0.67) (0.1025) (0.0000) (0.6175)
not affect the calculated pitting rates, which were deter- For this reason, the ductile- and gray-iron pipe data were
mined by dividing the depth of the single deepest pit by combined to obtain the benefits of an increased sample
the time of exposure. size in subsequent analyses. Given that gray-iron pres-
The mean deepest pitting rates of the bare ductile-iron sure pipe has not been commercially available in North
specimens were less than those of bare gray-iron specimens America for more than 25 years, the combined gray- and
in three of the four test sites. Specific results were as fol- ductile-iron data would result in conservative observa-
lows: 10% or 0.0047 in. (0.1175 mm) per year less at the tions regarding currently available ductile-iron pipe.
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 POLYETHYLENE ENCASEMENT DATA
in. (0.0875 mm) per year less at the Birmingham, Ala., test Effect of damaged polyethylene encasement on corrosion
site. At the Casper, Wyo., test site, however, the bare duc- rate. This study used data on manufactured asphaltic
tile specimens’ mean deepest pitting rate was 9% or shop-coated pipe to investigate the effect that damaged
0.0007 in. (0.0175 mm) per year greater than that of the polyethylene encasement has on the corrosion rate. Of
gray-iron specimens. the 369 asphaltic shop-coated polyethylene-encased spec-
The mean deepest pitting rates for the sand-blasted imens in the database, 63 were subjected to intentional
ductile-iron specimens were 33% or 0.0106 in. (0.265 damage at the time of installation. Normally, the inten-
mm) per year less than those of sand-blasted gray-iron tional damage was in the form of a 2-in. (50-mm) equi-
specimens at the Watsonville, Calif., test site and 54% lateral triangle, a 0.125-in. (3.125-mm) diameter hole,
or 0.0212 in. (0.53 mm) per year less than those at the and a 3-in. (75-mm) slit in the polyethylene at the six
Raceland, La., test site. and three o’clock positions as the pipe lay in the trench.
This study showed that the mean deepest pitting rates The controls for these studies were standard production
of the more representative bare ductile-iron specimens asphaltic shop-coated specimens buried side by side with
were on average lower than those of gray iron (with the the intentionally damaged polyethylene-encased speci-
exception of the Casper test site). Overall results indi- mens. Sets of specimens were exhumed after exposure
cated that the corrosion pitting rates of ductile- versus periods of 1–12 years at five of the DIPRA test sites. The
gray-iron pipe were soil-specific to an extent but were maximum exposure times in the test sites for this com-
essentially the same statistically (t-tests, 95% confidence). parison were 12 years at Logandale, Nev.; 11 years at
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, Birmingham,
Ala., and its member companies—American Cast Iron If you have a comment about this article,
Pipe Co., Birmingham; Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., please contact us at journal@awwa.org.
Phillipsburg, N.J.; Canada Pipe Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.;
REFERENCES for Use as a Protective Sleeving for Ricciardiello, F., 1974. Corrosion Rate Determi-
Buried Iron Pipes and Fittings (for Site nation on Some Cast Irons in Liquid Sul-
American National Standards Institute
and Factory Applicaton). BSI, London, UK. fur. Corrosion, 30:7:248.
(ANSI)/ AWWA, 2002. C151/A21.51. Amer-
ican National Standard for Ductile-Iron DIPRA (Ductile Iron Pipe Research Associa- Standards Australia, 2003. AS3680-2003. Poly-
Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, for Water or tion), 2002. Century Club. Ductile Iron ethylene Sleeving for Ductile Iron
Other Liquids. Catalog No. 43151. AWWA, Pipe News, Fall/Winter, Birmingham, Ala. Pipelines. Standards Australia, New
Denver. South Wales.
Fuller, A.G., 1972. Soil Corrosion Resistance of
ANSI/AWWA, 1999. C105/A21.5. American Gray and Ductile Iron Pipe—A Review of Stroud, T.F., 1989. Corrosion Control Measures
National Standard for Polyethylene Available Information. British Cast Iron for Ductile Iron Pipe. Natl. Assn. of Cor-
Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe Sys- Research Assn. Rpt. 1073, Alvechurch, rosion Engineers Ann. Conf. Houston.
tems. Catalog No. 43105. AWWA, Denver. Great Britain.
Whitchurch, D.R. & Hayton, J.G., 1968. Loose
Japanese Standards Assn., 2005. JDPAZ2005. Polyethylene Sleeving for the Protection
ASTM (American Standards for Testing and
Polyethylene Sleeves for Corrosion Pro- of Buried Cast Iron Pipelines. European
Materials), 2000. A674-00. Standard
tection of Ductile Iron Pipes. Japanese Fed. of Corrosion Conf. on the Corrosion
Practice for Polyethylene Encasement
Standards Association, Tokyo. Protection of Pipes and Pipelines,
for Ductile Iron Pipe for Water and Other
Liquids. ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa. Kroon, D.H, 2004. Corrosion Protection of Duc- Vienna.
tile Iron Pipe. Natl. Assn. of Corrosion Wolf, W.D., 1971. Use of Polyethylene Sleeves
AWWA, 2003. Manual M41, Ductile-Iron Pipe Engineers Ann. Conf. Houston. for the Corrosion Protection of Cast-Iron
and Fittings. AWWA, Denver.
Potter, E.C., 1968. Closing Commentary. Euro- Pressure Pipes in Special Cases.
British Standards Institution (BSI), 1996. pean Fed. of Corrosion Conf., Vienna, Fachgemeinshaft Gusseiserne Rohre,
BS6076. Specification for Polymeric Film Austria. Vol. 6.