Pipelines 2019
Case Study: Using a Risk-Based Model to Take the Guesswork Out of Corrosion Protection
Publication: Pipelines 2019: Planning and Design
ABSTRACT
Corrosion protection of buried metallic pipelines is not always a straightforward analysis of soil parameters as the predictive factors that influence corrosion are often interactive. This paper is a case study of a proposed watermain installation where the soil analysis showed corrosive soils with the possibility of microbiologically influenced corrosion. Also critical to the pipe material and corrosion protection method selection, was the concern over induced alternating current (AC) stray current corrosion, as the alignment paralleled overhead high voltage AC lines. The basis for the analysis of this pipeline is a newly published risk-based decision model that considers both risk factors for corrosion as well as consequence of failure analysis. The result is a framework to justify corrosion protection methodologies employed for water and wastewater piping. Additionally, this paper considers how various protection methodologies may mitigate or exacerbate corrosion from stray current sources. The corrosion protection methodologies evaluated included polyethylene film, enhanced polyethylene film, sacrificial coating, bonded coating, and bonded coating with cathodic protection.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
Appalachian Underground Corrosion Short Course (AUCSC). (2018). Basic Course Handbook. West Virginia University. Morgantown, WV.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2017). “Infrastructure Report Card on Drinking Water”. Reston, VA.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). (2009). M41 Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings. Third Edition. Denver, CO.
Baboian, R. (2005). Manual 20: Corrosion Tests and Standards: Application and Interpretation. 2nd Edition. ASTM. West Conshohocken, PA.
Bell, J., Moore, C., Solis, L., & Bell, G. (2012). Investigation of Corrosion Mechanisms and Control for Encased Ductile Iron Pipe. Materials Performance. 51. 34-38.
Blasingame, J.D. (1979). Construction of a 30” Pipeline in a Power Company R/W. ASCE Pipelines in Adverse Environments.
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). (2018). The Design Decision Model. Birmingham, AL.
DIPRA. (2017a). Corrosion Control – Stray Current Effects on Ductile Iron Pipe. Birmingham, AL.
DIPRA. (2017b). Corrosion Control – The Effect of Overhead AC Power Lines Paralleling Ductile Iron Pipelines. Birmingham, AL.
Horton, A.M., Hughes, D. Jr., (2017). Synergistic Corrosion Protection of Ductile Iron Pipe Utilizing Metallic Zinc Coating in Combination with Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement. Pipelines 2017. Planning and Design. 295-314.
Horton, A.M. (2008). Polyethylene Encasement as an Asset Preservation Method for Ductile Iron Pipe. ASCE Pipelines Conference, July 21-24, 2008. Atlanta, GA.
Kroon, D., Vincenzo, T., Lindemuth, D., & Sampson, S. (2005). Corrosion Protection of Ductile Iron Pipe. Materials performance. 44. 24-29.
Schiff, M., McCollom, B. (1993). Impressed current cathodic protection of polyethylene-encased ductile iron pipe. The NACE Annual Conference and Corrosion Show. Paper 583.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pipelines 2019: Planning and Design
Pages: 196 - 206
Editors: Jeffrey W. Heidrick, Burns & McDonnell and Mark S. Mihm, HDR
ISBN (Online): 978-0-7844-8248-3
Copyright
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Jul 18, 2019
Published in print: Jul 18, 2019
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.