MSC Project Draft Report

Department of Civil Engineering THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Engineering
Dissertation: Evaluation of Corrosion Control Methods for Chloride contaminated Reinforced concrete structure
Student: University No.: Supervisor:

April 2009
Lee Fu Pei, David 1999042754 Dr. X.Y. Li
Evaluation of Corrosion Control Methods for Chloride contaminated Reinforced concrete structure
MSc Project Draft Report
Table of Content
Acknowledgment..........................................................................................................2 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................4 1.1 Background .............................................................................................. 4 1.2 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Outline of Study....................................................................................... 5 2. Literature Review ....................................................................................................6 2.1 Background of Corrosion......................................................................... 6 2.2 The nature of reinforcing steel corrosion in concrete .............................. 7 2.2.1 Loss of Passivity by Carbonation......................................... 8 2.2.2 Loss of Passivity by Chloride .............................................. 9 2.2.3 Influence of cracking on concrete surface ............................ 11 2.3 Mitigation measure for contaminated reinforced concrete structures.... 12 2.3.1 Conventional concrete patch repair...................................... 12 2.3.2 Protective Coating/Barrier on Concrete Surface.................. 14 2.3.3 Electrochemical Treatment Cathodic Protection .............. 15 3. Implementation of Cathodic Protection System .................................................19 3.1 Design of Cathodic Protection System .................................................. 19 3.1.1 Structural assessment and field tests.................................... 19 3.1.2 Design consideration of cathodic protection system............ 20 3.1.3 Acceptance Criteria for Cathodic Protection System .......... 21 3.2 Technical Difficulties in implementation and operation........................ 21 3.2.1 Hydrogen Embrittlement of Prestressing steel .................... 21 3.2.2 Corrosion Interaction to surrounding structure.................... 23 3.2.3 Other potential side effect of cathodic protection system.... 24 3.2.4 Electrical Continuity of reinforcement ................................ 24 4. Case study of refurbishment of chloride contaminated Bridge.........................26 4.1 Background ............................................................................................ 26 4.2 Structural Investigation .......................................................................... 26 4.3 Overview of Refurbishment scheme...................................................... 29 4.4 Site Constraints ...................................................................................... 31 4.5 Selection of Repair Methods.................................................................. 32 4.6 Cathodic Protection................................................................................ 34 4.7 Monitoring of CP systems ..................................................................... 35 4.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 36 5. Evaluation of Cathodic Protection System Performance...................................37 5.1 Background ............................................................................................ 37 5.2 Investigation Data .................................................................................. 37 5.2.1 Survey Methodology.......................................................... 37 5.2.2 Testing Result .................................................................... 39 5.3 Discussions ............................................................................................ 42 5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 44 6. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................45 7. Reference ................................................................................................................46 Appendix A Plan and Photo Record for Nettlehill Railway Bridge Appendix B Breakout Window Record and Photo Record for HIT CP Investigation
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my highest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. X.Y Li. He provided me continuous encouragement, support and guidance during the process this dissertation. He is so generous that to offer her time to give me her advice. Without his advice, encouragement and support, this research would not be able to complete. It is a difficult but invaluable experience during the process of data finding. I would also like to thank to my employer company Maunsell Consultant Asia Ltd, in providing me some useful information of the previous project. Being a member of the construction industry, I am impressed by power of sharing experience and information between different professionals within our industry. This experience taught me of how importance of a teamwork and support from others of construction industry is. After the dissertation, I think I am more equipped and confident to make further advancement in my career in the construction industry.
Abstract
Reinforced concrete has become the most common materials for civil or building construction over the last hundred years; the reason for reinforced concrete being so popular are due to its mouldability / versatile, cheapness, fire-resistance and usually durable and strong, performing well throughout its service life. But sometimes it does not perform adequately as a result of poor design, poor construction, inadequate materials selection, or in a severe environment. Many types of concrete structures are exposed to aggressive environments, especially those with depassivating agents (e.g. Carbon Dioxide and Chloride), such as car parks, marine facilities and bridges, it allows the corrosion process to proceed quickly. Most of the problems with corrosion of steel in concrete are not due to loss of steel but the growth of oxide. This leads to cracking and spalling of concrete cover. Concrete damage would usually have to be well advanced before a reinforced concrete structure is at risk. In this study, a few commonly used corrosion control methods have been assessed on its technical competence, financial implication and difficulties of implementation, and aimed to find out the suitable solution for the chloride contaminated structure and thus it could maintain / extend the service life of contaminated structures. A case study on the refurbishment project of bridge structure at Scotland is assessed base on the technical competence, financial implication and difficulties of implementation for the cathodic protection system as a solution to corrosion problem in reinforced concrete structure. In addition, performance evaluation for the existing cathodic protection system installed at Hong Kong International Terminals berth 4 and 6 is presented, which included some results and discussion from the investigation tests.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Rusting became a fact of life after human being started digging ores out of the ground and refining them to produce iron or steel that we use so widely in the manufacturing and construction industries. Nature sets about reversing the process of refining, the refined iron/steel will react with non-metallic substances to form oxides, sulphates, sulphides, chlorides, etc. Reinforced concrete has become the most common materials for civil or building construction over the last hundred years; the reason for reinforced concrete being so popular are due to its mouldability / versatile, cheapness, fire-resistance and usually durable and strong, performing well throughout its service life. But sometimes it does not perform adequately as a result of poor design, poor construction, inadequate materials selection, or in a severe environment. Billions of dollars are spent every year in protecting, repairing and replacing corrosion damages. Occasionally lives are lost when steel pipes, pressure vessels or structural elements on bridges fail such as the Interstate 35W Bridge in United State collapsed August 2007. The economic loss and damage caused by the corrosion of steel makes it arguably the largest single infrastructure problem facing industrialized countries. Those infrastructures are ageing, some can be replaced, others would cause great cost and inconvenience if they were taken out of commission. It becomes crucial that the existing structures perform to their design lives and limits and are maintained effectively. The biggest causes of corrosion of steel are deicing salt on highways and the chloride ingression at splash zone of marine environment. There are two most commonly used repair strategies conventional patch concrete repair and electrochemical treatment such as cathodic protection. In choosing the repair options a number of factors including availability of budget, accessibility, degree of disruption and loss of facility, anticipated remaining life of structure, future intended use of structure etc. should be considered. In some cases, if the structure which reached its design life, has been found in a fair condition on its structural integrity through a detailed investigation, installation of cathodic protection system could be a choice to extend its service life such as the South Hook LNG Terminal, the cathodic protection system has been installed to extend the service life of the old reinforced concrete jetty built in 1960s, and the jetty has been refurbished to be the new approach way for LNG terminal. If the electrochemical treatment is further proved to be a cost effective option for refurbishment of old existing reinforced concrete structure, it could significantly reduce the production of construction waste, which is the most urgent problem faced by the government during the last two decades, and minimize the impacts to the environments. 1.2 Aims and Objectives Most of the Marine structures or other structures which are attacked by chloride induced corrosion, the service life has been significantly shortened or extensive repair work was required to maintain its structural integrity. These will produce huge amount of construction wastes and burden the capacity of current landfill. Also due to the frequency repair works, the service interruption was inevitable; citizen would require paying more for these indirect costs.
4
In this study, a few commonly used corrosion control methods have been assessed on its technical competence, financial implication and difficulties of implementation, and aimed to find out the suitable solution for the chloride contaminated structure and thus it could maintain / extend the service life of contaminated structures. 1.3 Outline of Study In this report, the literature review of corrosion mechanism and influence factors for the initiation of corrosion in reinforced concrete and the introduction of most commonly adopted mitigation methods is mentioned in section 2. In section 3, the general procedures and consideration of cathodic protection system, also its difficulties and problem during implementation is discussed. A case study on the refurbishment project of bridge structure at Scotland is included in section 4 to have a overview on the cathodic protection system as a solution to corrosion problem in reinforced concrete structure. In section 5, performance evaluation for the existing cathodic protection system installed at Hong Kong International Terminals berth 4 and 6 is presented, which included some results and discussion from the investigation tests. Finally the overall conclusion to summarized the whole study is contained in section 6
2. Literature Review
Reinforced concrete was developed in the middle of the 19th century; it was one of the major advances in the construction history. The embedment of reinforcing steel hugely improved the strength of components, and enabled slender structures with much longer spans and higher working stresses to be built. In general, reinforced concrete has proved to be a highly successful material in terms of both structural performance and durability. The alkaline environment within good quality concrete offers a high degree of protection to the embedded reinforcement against aggressive agents. However, not every reinforced concrete structures have performed well. In many cases, durability problems has been arising from the corrosion of reinforcement in concrete structures, mostly due to poor quality of concrete, inadequate cover to reinforcement, chlorides in the concrete etc. these have led to various forms of corrosion-induced damage such as cracking and spalling, and reductions in structural capacity. The marine environment is highly unfavorable for commonly used construction materials, including reinforced concrete; seawater contains corrosive ions and gases, and is home for numerous marine organisms. Most of seawater are similar with respect to the types and amount of dissolved salts (typically 3.5% by weight), and the principal ions present are Na+, Mg2+, Cl-, and SO42-. In addition to dissolved salts, the presence of certain gases (e.g. CO2, H2S) near the surface of seawater also plays an important role in the chemical and electrochemical process which influencing concrete durability, such as oxygen present in the both atmosphere and seawater has an essential role in corrosion of steel in the marine environment. Hydrostatic pressure and temperature extremes are also capable of accelerating the process of deterioration in materials. 2.1 Background of Corrosion 2.1.1 The nature of bare steel corrosion
When a metal corrodes in contact with an electrolyte neutral atoms pass into solution by forming positively charged ions and excess electrons are left in the metal. The process for iron may be express as:
Fe
Fe2+ + 2e-
Thus corrosion is accompanied by the flow of an electric current from metal to electrolyte due to the movement of positive ions into the electrolyte and of electrons into the metal. Any area to which current flows is referred to as an anodic area and the reaction is called an anodic reaction. The metallic ions may react with negative ions in the electrolyte to give insoluble corrosion products (i.e. rusting of steel). Such reaction does not materially affect the corrosion process except where insoluble corrosion products stifle further attack. For the corrosion reaction to proceed the overall electric neutrality has to be maintained. Therefore, the movement of electrons into the metal and positive ions into the electrolyte at the anodic areas has to be counterbalanced by the consumption of electrons at other areas, known as cathodic areas. Various reactions can occur at cathodic areas and these are known as cathodic reactions. The following equations show the most common reaction that occurs at cathodes:
6
O2 Oxygen 2H+ Hydrogen ions 2H2O
+ 2H2O Water + 2eElectrons + 2e-
4eElectrons H2 Hydrogen gas H2
4OHHydroxyl ions
2OH-
The first of these reactions occurs in the presence of dissolved oxygen and near-neutral conditions. The second is favored by acidity (excess of hydrogen ions) while the third is dominant at pH values greater than neutral. In aerated near neutral condition (e.g in tidal zone of marine condition), the iron ions produced at the anode react with the hydroxyl ions formed at the cathodic sites to produce ferrous hydroxide: Fe2+ + 2OHFe(OH)2 The ferrous hydroxide is readily oxidized by dissolved oxygen to form hydrated ferric oxide Fe2O3 H2O: 4 Fe(OH)2 + O2 H2O + Fe2O3 H2O Thus the overall reaction which proceeds through a series of intermediate steps may be written as: 4 Fe + 3O2 + 2 H2O Fe2O3 H2O (Hydrated ferric oxide -- rust) In practice the rate of corrosion is often determined by the rate at which the cathodic reaction can be sustained. In near neutral anaerobic waterlogged environment sulfate reducing bacteria may give rise to a further type of cathodic reaction in the corrosion of iron and steel. These microbes reduce dissolved sulfates to sulfides possibly through the reaction: SO42- + 8 H+ + 8 eS2- + 4 H2O And the corrosion is characterized by the fact that it occurs in the absence of air and sulfides are present in the corrosion products. From the composition of the actual products formed it is probable that the corrosion mechanism involves cathodic depolarization which may be represented by the simplified equation: 3Fe(OH)2 + FeS + 2OH4 Fe + 4 H2O + SO42 Stimulation of the cathodic reaction depends on the bacteria possessing an enzyme (hydrogenase) to enable them to oxidize hydrogen found at the cathodic sites. The sulfide ions produced by the reduction of sulfate can sometimes stimulate the anodic process of iron dissolution. 2.2 The nature of reinforcing steel corrosion in concrete Concrete normally provides embedded steel with a high degree of protection against corrosion. It is because the pore solution in a hydrated Portland cement system contain high concentrations of soluble calcium, sodium and potassium oxides, these oxides form hydroxides, which are strong alkaline with a pH normally exceeding 12. This means that the concrete surrounding the steel provides an alkaline environment for the steel. This leads to a passive layer forming on the steel surface by stabilizes the oxide or hydroxide (Assume that Passivation by films of Fe2O3 and Fe3O4) film. A passive layer is very dense, thin layer of oxide that leads to a very slow rate of oxidation (corrosion). Besides, surrounding concrete restrict the ingression of outside elements which are aggressive to the steel. Consequently good quality, well placed concrete with adequate cover to the steel provides a high degree of protection to the steel reinforcement. However, the duration of this protection depends on number of
7
factors including the retention of high pH and physical integrity of the cover concrete, and the efficiency of concrete acts as a barrier to aggressive species, the passivating environment is not always maintained. Two processes can deteriorate the passivity of steel in concrete. One is carbonation of concrete and other is chloride attack. 2.2.1 Loss of Passivity by Carbonation According to the pourbaix diagram for iron, the metal is passive when pH is above 9.5. Carbon dioxide, however, will diffuse into the concrete and, in the presence of moisture, react with the hydrated cement to form calcium carbonate. This will remove hydroxyl ions from the pore solution and reduce the pH of the concrete.
CO2 Gas H2CO3 Carbonic acid
+ H2O Water + Ca(OH) 2 Pore solution
H2CO3 Carbonic acid CaCO3 + Calcium carbonate 2H2O
This carbonation process will start at the surface, and then slowly move deeper and deeper into the concrete. It is not detrimental to the integrity of a concrete component until it penetrates to the embedded steel. If the object is cracked, the carbon dioxide of the air will be better able to penetrate into the concrete. The alkalinity of the concrete surrounding the embedded steel is reduced over sufficient time to point below pH 9.5 where passivation is lost and the steel will be vulnerable to corrosion if other necessary components, water and oxygen, are present. Carbonation is common in old structures, badly built structures with low cement content and very porous. The rate of carbonation depends on the permeability of the concrete to ingress of carbon dioxide, which is strongly influenced by the water/cement ratio, the moisture level of the concrete and the total alkali content of the hydration products. A carbonation front proceeds into the concrete roughly following the laws of diffusion. These are most easily defined by the statement that the rate is inversely proportional dx = D/ x to the thickness: dt
Where x is distance, t is time and D is diffusion constant. The diffusion constant D is
8
determined by the concrete quality. The resistance of carbonation of reinforced concrete is influenced by many factors. The carbonation rate / the time to carbonation induced corrosion, is a function of cover thickness, so good cover is essential to resist carbonation. As the process is one of neutralizing the alkalinity of concrete, high cement content is needed. The diffusion process is made easier at concrete with open pore structure, both good compaction and well curing concrete with small pores and lower connectivity of pores could provide good resistance to carbonation. In addition, the wet/dry cycling on the concrete surface will accelerate carbonation by allowing carbon dioxide gas in during the dry cycle and then supplying the water to dissolve it in the wet cycle that is what occurring everyday at marine concrete structures. It is generally accepted that Ficks first law of diffusion describes the depth of carbonation front as a function of time. This states that the rate of movement is inversely proportional to the distance from the surface, the result as shown in equation:
dQ = Dcb A C cb dt x
Where Q is amount of diffusing carbon dioxide, A is penetrated area, Ccb is difference between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and at the carbonation front, x is distance between carbonation front and concrete surface, t is time, Dcb is carbon dioxide diffusion coefficient. The diffusing carbon dioxide reacts with calcium, potassium and sodium hydroxides at the carbonation front. And the process is modeled by this equation: dQ = a A dx , where a is carbon dioxide binding capacity for concrete. Then after the integration of the combination of above two equation, the following equation is obtained :
xcb =
2 Dcb C cb t a
The binding capacity of carbon dioxide of concrete, which is determined by following:

a = 0.75 C CaO C c h mCO2 mCaO
Where CCaO is content of calcium oxide in cement, Cc is cement content in concrete, h is degree of hydration, mco2 is molar mass of carbon dioxide, mCaO is molar mass of calcium oxide. The typical value for the rate of movement of carbonation front is around 1mm per year for poor concrete and 0.2mm per year for good quality concrete. Once the carbonation front has penetrated to the steel, and moisture present, there is risk of corrosion. The corrosion products formed in these circumstances will have a volume several times greater than the volume of steel from which they derived. The built up of corrosion product on the surface of the steel creates tensile forces in the concrete, as the result, cracks were built up on the concrete surface and these would further increase the carbonation rate and accelerate the deterioration of structures.
2.2.2
Loss of Passivity by Chloride
Chlorides in concrete can come from several sources. They can be either cast into the concrete (fixed chloride or free chloride) or diffuse in from the outside (mainly free chloride). The sources of chloride in fresh concrete include some admixtures, some
9
sources of aggregates (both inland and marine), and the cement. It is essential to identify the source for introduction of chlorides during construction, such as the use of calcium chloride as an admixture for reinforced concrete. With the current restriction on chloride contaminants constituents in concrete mix, the risk of corrosion from chlorides cast into current concrete construction is very low. However, chlorides from the environment (e.g. sea water spray or direct wetting at marine environment and deicing salts for highway) can also penetrate hardened concrete. A large portion of these will stay as free chlorides in the pore water and are particularly aggressive to embedded steel. Concrete exposed to such sources of chloride may need to be especially designed and possibly given additional protection. The depassivation mechanism for chloride attack is different from carbonation. The chloride ions attack the passive layer by acting as the catalysts to corrosion. It is generally accepted that passivity is maintained by dynamic balance between breakdown by chloride ion and repair by hydroxyl ion of the film. Passive oxide layer would be broken down when sufficient concentration of chloride reach the surface of reinforcing steel and the broken down process is dominant. During the process, chloride is not consumed. The chloride threshold for corrosion given in terms of chloride(Cl-) /hydroxyl(OH-) concentration is 0.6. This ratio is approximately equivalent to 0.4% of chloride by weight of cement content in concrete. If the ratio exceeds the threshold level, corrosion would be observed. The localized deterioration of passive layer would lead to the pitting corrosion. The pitting of steel was often observed for those damaged reinforcing steel of marine concrete structure. At some suitable site on the steel surface such as the location of insufficient cement paste, the chloride ions was attached by electrochemical potential difference, and corrosion is initiated and acids are formed (Hydrogen sulphide from the sulphide inclusion in steel and HCl from the chloride ions). The Iron dissolves and reacts with water. The process of chloride induced corrosion is illustrated in the following diagram.
As stated in previous, corrosion is proceeded by the formation of anodes and cathodes. In the case of chloride attack, anodes and cathodes are always well separated, this is known as marco-cell formation. Since the chloride attack is always accompanied with high level of water in pores which facilitate the movement of free chloride and other ions hence increased the conductivity of concrete. This high conductivity allows the separation of anodic and cathodic reactions with large cathodic areas supporting small concentrated anodic areas, thus a pit forms, rust may form over the pit, concentrating
10
the acid and excluding oxygen so that the iron stay in solution preventing the formation of a protective oxide layer and accelerating corrosion. As a result, the structural integrity of concrete structure would be significantly reduced without any apparent sign of damage in such case. Similar to carbonation, the chloride ingress rate into concrete is often approximated as a diffusion process. However, the initial mechanism appears to be capillary flow/force, the partially saturated surface zone is prone to accelerated chloride ingress due to capillary forces. Besides, cracks and heterogeneity of concrete and the condition of exposure would also affect the chloride ingress at surface zone, but it is generally accepted that diffusion is the leading transport mechanism in concrete once the chloride has passed the surface zone. Chloride ingress is more complicated as it is dealing with structures exposed to variable chloride concentrations. Also the chloride diffusion produces a concentration gradient instead of a front for carbonation case. The usual form of the diffusion equation used is Ficks second law:
C ( x, t ) 2 C ( x, t ) =D t x 2
Where C(x,t) is the chloride concentration at depth x, at time t and D is the diffusion coefficient, in atmospherically exposed concrete, it is difficult to obtain the surface concentration as the chloride at the surface can vary greatly by wetting, drying, evaporation and wash off etc. it is common to discard the first 5 mm. and in diffusion calculations must use the depth from sampling depth, not the surface. In some research, it pointed out that within defined mathematical limits the error function expression for the diffusion coefficient can be approximated to the simple parabolic function, and the solution of above equation becomes:
C ( x ,t ) = C i + (C s C i )erfc( x
4 Dt
Where Ci is the initial chloride concentration, Cs is the surface chloride concentration, erfc() is the error function complement. By using approximation erf(z)=(1 - Z/3)2 , the solution would become:
C ( x ,t ) = C i + (C s C i )[1 x
12 Dt
]2
2.2.3
Influence of cracking on concrete surface
Reinforced concrete is designed to allow several degree of cracking on surface, depending on the structure and the exposure class, the design limits the width of cracks, under normal situation, up to 0.3mm. But crack width seems to be less important to corrosion risk than crack frequency, cover depth and
11
concrete quality. Cracking will often initiate localized early corrosion under the effect of carbonation, but the corrosion is unlikely to progress significantly. Cracks coincident with a reinforcing bar will tend to expose a greater portion of reinforcing bar to moisture and oxygen; the anodic and cathodic site areas are generally equal in size, thus typical general corrosion occurs. In the case of cracks intersecting reinforcing bars, the anodic areas are likely to be considerably small, thus this leads to localized corrosion. When chloride penetrate the concrete through this crack from external source, corrosion can be very significant because of the relatively small size of the anodic zone. In this case, intensive localized corrosion of affected reinforcing bars can cause very large losses of cross-sectional area. Clearly, the loss of a large proportion of the cross-section area of adjacent reinforcing bars could seriously reduce the load carrying capacity of a structure. Many types of concrete structures are exposed to aggressive environments, especially those with depassivating agents, such as car parks, marine facilities and bridges. Most of the problems with corrosion of steel in concrete are not due to loss of steel but the growth of oxide. This leads to cracking and spalling of concrete cover. Concrete damage would usually have to be well advanced before a reinforced concrete structure is at risk.
2.3 Mitigation measure for contaminated reinforced concrete structures

The detailed knowledge of the condition of structural elements and a clear understanding of the likely effectiveness of the rehabilitation options are essential for any maintenance or rehabilitation projects. A repair strategy should be developed to enable cost-effective repairs and maintenance.
2.3.1
Conventional concrete patch repair
Detailed Procedures of Convention Patch Repair
Conventional concrete patch repair was the most common mitigation method for the existing old structures in the past, but it was considered as a short term rehabilitation method especially for those marine or chloride contaminated structures, as repeat defects are likely to occur within a 3-4 year period. The conventional concrete patch repair includes three main processes concrete removal, steel and substrate preparation and concrete reinstatement. The common practice of concrete repair is shown as follows a) Pre-repair survey by visual inspection, delamination hammer taping; and mark out areas identified as defective; b) Break out defective concrete to expose the reinforcing steel and a sound concrete substrate and extending at least 25mm behind the exposed reinforcement; c) Augment deteriorated steel if section loss of steel more than 10% d) Prepare all concrete surfaces that are to receive concrete repairs by cleaning to remove loose or weak concrete, surface laitance and other contaminants; e) Prepare all exposed reinforcement to remove rust product f) Apply primer to the cleaned reinforcement g) Apply bond coat to the substrate before reinstatement; h) Apply the repair mortar to reinstate concrete when the bond was still tacky; i) Cure the repair mortar immediately following placement and surface finishing of repair
12
There are a number of methods for removing concrete; the most common techniques are by hand held pneumatic hammers, hydro-jetting and milling machines. Depending on the specification, budget and site constraints, suitable technique would be used for repairing works. Where spalling as a result of corrosion damage has occurred, preparation of the steel will be required to remove corrosion products and remaining chlorides before making good. Following surface preparation a primer or coating is applied to the bar, usually a cement:polymer slurry, zinc rich epoxy or epoxy barrier coating. In addition, supplementary steel may need to be added where there has been significant loss of section in the damaged bar. In general terms the following application guide applies: a) Corrosion arising from carbonation: this is more general over the surface of the bar and the worst of the corrosion products may be removed by mechanical means to Swedish Standard ST3. Any remaining corrosion will be re-passivated by the application of a sound, good quality, cementitious repair material. b) Corrosion damage arising from chloride contamination leads to pitting type corrosion. Chlorides can remain trapped in the pits and are difficult to remove by mechanical means as the brush or grinder cleans the surface of the steel only. Abrasive techniques using particles fired at the steel surface are more appropriate to give a finish consistent with Swedish Standard SA 2.5. These are generally limited to grit blasting or high pressure water jetting with an abrasive material (typically silica sand) drawn into the water jet. If grit blasting is used it is preferable to water wash the steel and blow dry before coating to remove any chloride salts that may be remaining. The most appropriate technique will depend on the coating to be applied. c) The use of epoxies, whether zinc rich or barrier type, requires a high standard of surface preparation. As mentioned at (b) above this is not always practical in repairs to marine structures. The preferred primer is therefore a cement:polymer slurry which re-passivates and allows residual chlorides to diffuse into the general repair material thus reducing concentrations to a level which does not lead to corrosion. Reinstatement of Breakout damaged areas may be achieved using various methods depending on the extent, orientation and geometry of the areas to be replaced. These include: Hand application of polymer modified mortars applicable to small, shallow (preferably < 50mm, maximum 75mm) repairs. Recasting using proprietary polymer modified micro-concretes applicable to larger, deep (> 50mm) repairs. Grouting using pre-packed aggregates and proprietary non-shrink grout applicable to larger, deep (> 50mm) repairs, but geometry likely to restrict the flow. Recasting using appropriate concrete applicable to complete or partial replacement of whole elements.
Limitations of Convention Patch Repair
The key limitations to conventional patch repair methods are as follows: a) Surface preparation is limited the space available behind the bar. Breakout has to be limited to minimise disruption to the structure so the most that can be expected is 20-25mm. This restricts the standards that can be achieved and it is likely that
13
the back of the bar will not, in some areas at least, meet the specified requirements. b) It is likely that areas adjacent to existing corrosion and spalling have the potential for corrosion (e.g. high chloride concentrations) but are being protected by the corrosion activity at the spall site. By patching the spall, the steel at that point is re-passivated and made cathodic, thus leading to corrosion commencing at an adjacent area. This is known as the incipient anode effect. Coating the whole structure to exclude oxygen and moisture will retard this process but some corrosion activity is likely to continue. c) In order to remove corrosion products from behind the bar, breakout around its circumference is required. For large areas of repair, propping or sequencing of the breakout, perhaps combined with closure of the structure, will be required. Depending on assessment of individual structures it may be necessary to unload the element by jacking etc. before breakout commences. Any significant concrete removal or corrosion damage must be assessed by structural engineer, since the removal of concrete cover or concrete surrounding the steel redistributes the load within the structure. d) Chlorides can enter the patch area over time, both from sea water and back migration that is diffusion of chlorides from the contaminated parent concrete into the repair material and cause the recurrence of spalling.
2.3.2
Protective Coating/Barrier on Concrete Surface
Protective coating is not usually required for reinforced concrete structures, however it can be beneficial in excluding undesirable species such as chlorides and carbon dioxide. There is a huge range of coatings and sealers can be applied to concrete such as anti-carbonation coating which should be applied after carbonation repairs to stop further carbon dioxide ingress. But it is very unlikely that the chloride induced corrosion could be stopped by coating. Protective coatings are applicable in a number of circumstances to reinforced concrete in a marine environment: a) The prevention or restriction of additional chlorides entering the concrete would be the principal use of protective coatings. Chloride resistant coatings may be applied to halt or retard the progress of the chloride ingress provided chloride concentrations have not already reached critical levels (the corrosion threshold) and/or the reservoir of chloride existing in the concrete is not predicted to cause critical concentrations at reinforcement depth during the required life of the structure (by diffusion) and any expected damage is not tolerable. These are generally film forming barrier coatings or hydrophobic impregnation materials. b) Anti-carbonation: where carbonation has not reached the majority of reinforcing steel in a structure but is predicted to do so within the required life and the
14
expected damage is not tolerable, anti-carbonation coatings may be applied to halt or retard the progress of the carbonation front. Clearly the application of such coatings would probably be confined to drier areas of a pier where moisture blockage of pores has not prevented penetration of the carbonation front. c) Exclusion of oxygen and moisture: Where carbonation and/or chlorides have reached the reinforcing steel and areas of the structure have yet to show visible signs of distress it may be appropriate to apply a coating which excludes oxygen and moisture as a means of stifling the corrosion process as part of a medium term patch, recast or sprayed concrete repair system.
Limitations of various types of coating
Generally coatings have a life less than that of the structure (typically 5-10 years) and are likely to require overcoating at some stage as an ongoing maintenance commitment. In relation to marine structures this is usually inconvenient and expensive because of the need for special access. Specifically related to the types of coating mentioned above, limitations include: a) Film forming chloride barriers can trap moisture in the concrete and therefore require high bond strength to the concrete in order to resist the consequent build up of vapour pressure during the temperature changes. This tends to limit the generic type of coating to epoxies which are expensive, not environmentally friendly and frequently have a limited colour range. These materials also require a high standard of surface preparation to achieve the necessary bond strengths. Hydrophobic impregnation materials require the substrate to be relatively dry in order that they may penetrate the concrete to a depth sufficient to achieve the desired function of excluding chlorides. This may be difficult to achieve in practice on a marine structure. b) Anti-carbonation coatings are formulated to exclude carbon dioxide but still allow water vapour to escape from the concrete, they will not usually act as a barrier to chloride ingress. c) Coatings to exclude oxygen and moisture are similar to the film forming chloride barriers and the same comments apply. In addition they are unlikely to exclude all oxygen and moisture and some corrosion may continue.
2.3.3
Electrochemical Treatment Cathodic Protection
For the reinforced concrete structure is planned to proceed with electrochemical treatment, existing spalls and loose material have to be removed, reinforcement is cleaned and damaged areas made good to original profile. There is no need to break out behind the bar. In addition to concrete repair, electrical connections are made to the reinforcement, following electrical continuity checks, and to an external anode (inert metal mesh and cementitious overlay, conductive coating or flame spray metal) applied to the concrete surface. A DC current is passed between the bar and the anode protecting the bar from further corrosion. The details of principle and limitation would be discussed in following section.
Principles of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
The electrochemical treatment works by applying external anode and passing current from it to the steel so that all of the steel is made into a cathode. The cathodic protection could further divide into impressed current type and sacrificial type
15
Impressed current Cathodic protection (ICCP) is the system commonly used for atmospherically exposed reinforced concrete structures. ICCP depends on the passage of current from an anode, through an electrolyte onto the surface of the metal to be protected. If the magnitude of the current is sufficient such that there is a net current flow to all areas of the metal surface, corrosion will not occur. The passage of current onto the metal surface causes a change in the electrochemical potential of the metal. A CP system is designed to convert the whole of the reinforcing steel surface into a cathodic area, hence the name. The anodic reaction is moved to a more durable material i.e. a specially manufactured anode. The CP system limits further corrosion of the steel by the following actions: a) A net positive ionic current flows through the concrete towards the steel suppressing the flow of positive iron ions away from the surface. b) Hydroxyl ions, which are formed at the steel surface, stimulate the formation of a passive film that protects the steel by acting as a barrier to corrosion. H2O + 1/2O2 + 2e- 2OHc) Aggressive negative ions such as chlorides are transported away from the steel surface as the result of the flow of ionic current in the concrete. d) The potential of the steel is polarised towards more negative values which inhibits the dissolution of positive iron ions. e) To support the reactions occurring at the CP anode, oxygen is consumed at the steel surface and is therefore not available to support anodic reactions occurring on the steel. The existence of effective cathodic protection can be validated by measuring the change in electrochemical potential of the metal being protected and recording the magnitude of the current required to effect this change. Cathodic protection will halt or reduce corrosion on a metal surface by restore the alkalinity and enhancing the passivity of the steel, but it cannot rehabilitate the steel or return it to its original condition. Typical components for ICCP system Anodes Anode is a critical part of the ICCP. It is usually the most expensive item. Available Anodes systems used for reinforced concrete are as follows: 1 coating applied to the concrete surface; 2 mixed metal-oxide coated titanium mesh anode embedded in a render overlayer applied to the concrete surface; 3 mixed metal-oxide coated titanium ribbon anode placed in slots cut into the concrete surface and filled with a cementitious filler; 4 zinc plates bonded to the concrete surface; 5 Nickelized carbon cementitious anode overlay on the concrete; 6 Flame sprayed anode systems; and 7 Thin, conductive, sprayed coating with primary anodes.
16
Discrete anode with cementitious or graphite backfill.
Reinforcement continuity & bonding
A basic requirement of any system passing electrical current is that the conductor, in this case the steel reinforcement, is electrically continuous. It has been found by experience that only physical contact of reinforcement may produce a high resistance or discontinuous joints. Reinforcement continuity shall be achieved by welding an additional rebar to each reinforcement in the continuity breakout chases around the structure.
Permanent reference electrodes
To determine the performance of the CP system, the potential of the reinforcing steel should be measured relative to a reference electrode. For ease of testing and for reproducibility of test data the potentials should be measured relative to permanent reference electrodes embedded in the beams as close as possible to the reinforcing steel. The reference electrode cables will be terminated inside a water-resistant junction box. The associated cables would then run from these boxes to the monitoring facilities in Transformer Rectifier units.
Transformer Rectifier
It is the DC power supply that transforms mains AC to a lower voltage and rectifies it to DC. The positive terminal is connected to anode and the negative to the cathode.
Negative return connections
To enable the current to return to the transformer rectifier and thus complete the electrical circuit, a number of connections in the form of reinforcement connectors will be connected to the electrically continuous reinforcement. Negative return cables would connect these connectors to the negative point of the transformer rectifier.
Anode feed and negative return cables
Anode feed cables from the transformer rectifier to an anode, and negative return cables will be installed.
Impressed current Cathodic protection is particularly applicable to where chloride contamination is widespread on the structure or chlorides have penetrated well beyond the cover to the reinforcing bar. Besides, at the situation that it is difficult or expensive to erect access to the structure for repeat repair operations or it is not possible for structural and/or operational reasons to have significant break out of concrete behind the bar. Also cathodic protection system is usually applied to the existing structure with remaining life greater than 10 years: Limitation of Impressed Current Cathodic protection
Cathodic protection has the following limitations: a) Cost restricts its use to applications requiring a remaining life greater than 10 years. b) It requires regular monitoring and adjustment to ensure optimum application of current (too high a current density can lead to problems, just as much as too low allowing corrosion). c) Permanent Power supply is required
17
d) It can not be used on structures with epoxy coating, injection or with poor electrical continuity.
Sacrificial Cathodic Protection is to directly connect the steel to a sacrificial or galvanic anode such as zinc without using any power supply. This anode corrodes preferentially, liberating electrons with the same effect as the impressed current system.
For example: Zn 2e-
Zn2+ +
The system is illustrated schematically in above figure. There are a number of elements and their alloys which are more active than steel in the electrochemical series. The main practical metals are zinc, aluminum and magnesium. All of these metals are used, in alloy form, as sacrificial anodes for submerged steel structures. As the power supply is not required, and this makes the system much cheaper and easier in both implementation and operation. However the main restriction on this system is that the zinc has only a small driving voltage when coupled to steel, therefore, the resistance of the electrolyte is crucial to the performance of the system. The principal advantage is the lack of power supply and this makes both implementation and maintenance cost cheaper.
18
3. Implementation of Cathodic Protection System

3.1 Design of Cathodic Protection System 3.1.1 Structural assessment and field tests
Apart from the general structural assessment such as its material condition, its structural integrity, some additional investigation shall be undertaken in order to confirm the suitability of cathodic protection and provide system design parameters. The investigation shall generally include are shown in the following: a)
Records: All the available records during the construction and alternation shall be retrieved and reviewed to assess the location, quantity, nature and continuity of the reinforcement, and the constituents and quality of the concrete. These information shall be further confirmed and supplemented by the site survey and laboratory tests. Visual inspection: Visual survey data shall be collected to ensure the type and causes of defect. Besides, the features of the structure or its surrounding environment, which could influence the application and effectiveness of the cathodic protection. Also all area of the structure which require to be protected shall be examined especially those area have been previously repaired and the repair methods and materials shall be identified. Chloride content analysis: Dust/Core samples shall be removed from the concrete elements at incremental levels and the chloride content can be determined by acid extraction of powdered concrete, followed by a chemical determination. The chloride concentration presents in concrete is particularly important with respect to reinforcement corrosion. The presence of chloride ions can depassivate steel reinforcement in concrete and promote corrosion. Carbonation Depth: The depth and extend of carbonation should be assessed either on site or in the laboratory. Phenolphthalein is used as an indicator to determine the depth of carbonation on freshly fractured or drilled concrete surface. Similar to the chloride content, it is used to determine the present situation of concrete. Concrete cover and rebar location: Concrete cover and reinforcement size and position measurements shall be carried out to verify the information from the construction records, or if the record was missed, to assess the anode/cathode spacing will be adequate for the particular anode system and to identify dense regions of reinforcement which may require high current density. Besides, it is used to identify any shielding to the reinforcement to be protected, such as embedded metal meshes, metal fibers or plastic sheets, also any possible short circuits site with extremely low concrete cover, which could impair the efficiency of cathodic protection. Reinforcement electrical continuity: the construction drawing s of reinforcement and other attached steel elements shall be checked for continuity. During site investigation the continuity shall then be verified on site by measuring the electrical resistance or potential difference between bars in locations across the structure. The purpose of this test is to confirm the feasibility and provide design information for cathodic protection system. The assessment shall include the electrical continuity between elements of structure, reinforcement within element and other ancillary steel items fixed on the structure. At the subsequent repair stage, reinforcement electrical continuity shall be further checked at all exposed reinforcement of concrete repair breakout.
19
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Half-cell potential survey: electro-potential measurement is used to indicate the probability of corrosion being active in reinforcement embedded in concrete. it is found that there was 95% probability of corrosion in regions where the potential was more negative than -350mV with respect to copper/copper sulphate half-cell while only 5%where potential was less negative than -200mV. It is not necessary to carry out the potential survey on entire structure, only representative areas of both damaged and apparently undamaged shall be surveyed for corrosion activity. Concrete electrical resistivity: since the corrosion is an electrochemical process, the electrical resistivity of the concrete will have a bearing on the corrosion rate of the concrete as an ionic current must pass from the anodes to the cathodes. The four probe resistivity meter was generally be used to determine the resistivity of concrete. The measurement can be used to indicate the possible corrosion activity if steel is depassivated. In general when the measured resistivity above 20 K-ohm, it is considered with low corrosion risk, whiles the measured value below 5 K-ohm, it is considered with very high corrosion risk. The impact of variation in concrete resistivity shall be considered during the cathodic protection system design.
3.1.2
Design consideration of cathodic protection system
In the design of a cathodic protection system, the most import factors for the designer is to consider the level of electrical current density on the steel and the current distribution path. Beyond these requirements, there are several secondary concerns such as cost, durability of system, life expectancy and the maintainability. Before the design of cathodic protection system, the present situation of the structure and some design parameters have to be obtained by some structural assessment and field tests.
Current Density requirement
The selection of a suitable current density output is critical for the cathodic protection system design. The current density requirement is depending on the steel corrosion state before cathodic protection is applied. According to the guidelines from British standard, a typical current density of 2 20 mA/m2 for steel reinforcement is sufficient for general aggressive environment such as the exposure to marine. For some extreme cases, such as the industrial effluent, some trial shall be performed to determine the current density requirement. In addition, for the case of cathodic prevention that is the system installed in new structure, the typical value of current density could be down to 0.2 2 mA/m2, it is because the electrochemical potential for steel is less negative, also the passive steel is more easy to be polarized.
Choosing of suitable anode system
After determined the protective current density, then the current requirement for unit area of element could be worked out. Based on the required output and on site situation of the structure, the suitable anode system could be figure out. In the marine exposure, the commonly used systems are titanium anode in overlay and titanium ribbons in slots. The slot system is used on decks or beams where increase in load is not acceptable or the required current density is too high for overlay system but provided that the concrete cover is sufficient. The slot system will only be used for site with these constraints, as it is an expensive and high difficulty option. The main restrictions on the overlay type systems are caused by the cementitious overlay. The drawbacks are the increasing of dead load on the structure, the difficulty
20
for applying in complicated geometries and the limitation on the output current of anode mesh on the concrete surface. It is essential that good quality control is maintained to get a good quality, adherent overlay. For the structure would not be exposed to wearing, conductive coating on concrete surface would be a good choice, the advantages of this system are its negligible increase in dead load, it can be applied too any geometry and it is cheap and simple to repair or replace.
Zone design of Cathodic protection system
In order to provide a efficiency cathodic protection system, individual areas where there is a significant change in the environment of the steel reinforcement should be protected by separate control circuits, that is so called zoning of cathodic protection system. These changes are normally identified during the investigation survey by large variation in the resistance of concrete and potential of steel. These can be changes in moisture content, chloride content, concrete cover or geometry of the component in a structure. Typically, zones of the order of 50-100m2 are recommended to avoid excessive power loss in the cabling. For example in the marine structure, it is common to split the structure into separate zones relative to the water level, such as splash zone, semi-submerged zone and submerged zone.
3.1.3
Acceptance Criteria for Cathodic Protection System
According to the British Standard, for any atmospherically exposed structure, any representative point shall meet any one of the following criteria a) An instant off potential (measured between 0.1s and 1s after switching the power supply off) more negative than -720 mV with respect to Silver/Silver Chloride/0.5M KCl reference electrode. b) A potential decay over a maximum of 24 hours of at least 100mV from instant off. c) A potential decay over an extended period (typically 24 hour or longer) of at least 150 mV from the instant off subject to a continuing decay and the use of reference electrodes for the measurement extended beyond 24 hours. The instant off potential are generally be used for assessment of cathodic protection, as after switching off for instantaneous off (IR free) potential measurements, sufficient time shall be allowed before measurement to avoid any transient voltage arising from switching surges, capacitance or resistance effects that would affect the measured values but this waiting period shall be sufficiently short to avoid significant depolarization. In practice, the best control criterion is based on a potential shift, which of 100 to 150 mV will reduce the corrosion rate by at least ten times. Field evaluation also had shown that there is no further signs of corrosion damage in cathodically protected structure achieved this criterion. Besides, no instant off steel/concrete potential more negative than -1100 mV with respect to Silver/Silver Chloride/0.5M KCl reference electrode shall be permitted for plain reinforcing steel or -900 mV for prestressing steel to avoid hydrogen embrittlement.
3.2 Technical Difficulties in implementation and operation 3.2.1 Hydrogen Embrittlement of Prestressing steel
The improper operation of cathodic protection to the steel in concrete may cause hydrogen generation on the steel surface resulting in hydrogen charging of the steel if the potential achieved is sufficiently negative. It is well known that hydrogen charging can cause embrittlement of high-strength steels.
21
For steel in concrete the predominant cathodic reaction at low levels of cathodic protection is oxygen reduction 1/2 O2 + H2O+2e2OHAt excessive negative potentials, that is if the cathodic polarization exceeds the hydrogen potential value, a second reaction, the reduction of water could also occurs: H2O + eHads + OHThe adsorbed hydrogen can either continue to form hydrogen gas or can dissolve on the metal, and the dissolved hydrogen in the steel can interact with the stressed steel lattice leading to brittle fracture of the steel. While it may be demonstrated that the introduction of hydrogen into low-strength steels may adversely influence some mechanical properties, such as fatigue resistance, it is apparent that the ingress of hydrogen has a significant effect in the response of higher strength steels. Hydrogen embrittlement of steels can occur without any external loading, most cases of embrittlement occur when components are stressed in excess of 75% of theft yield stress, therefore, prestressing wires maybe susceptible to embrittlement if hydrogen is evolved on the surface of the wires. The amount of the atomic hydrogen enters the steel or is discharged as gas depends upon various factors, one of which is the presence of substances that hinder the gas formation and thereby facilitating hydrogen entry into the steel; sulphur and phosphorous-containing species could take this role. Usually these substances are not present in concrete environments. The potential at which hydrogen evolution occurs is difficult to predict accurately as it will depend on a number of factors. At a pH of 12.6 to 14.6 the hydrogen evolution potential, at a hydrogen pressure of one atmospheric, varies between -0.730 and -0.840V. If over voltages due to hydrogen concentration, surface condition of the steel, current density and temperature are taken into account then hydrogen evolution probably does not occur until potential values of 200 to 300 mV more negative than the equilibrium potential are reached. Some studies have found that with stress relieved tendons in a calcium hydroxide solution there was a definite reduction in strength above -970 mV with respect to CSE at stress concentrators. As a result, recommended site practice for cathodic protection of prestressed concrete is the maximum interrupted current potential should not exceed -1000 mV CSE to avoid evolution of hydrogen and possible embrittlement of the prestressing wire. In order to reduce the risk of overprotection and any subsequent embrittlement sacrificial anode cathodic protection has been specified almost exclusively for prestressed concrete pipelines. However this is not an option for above-ground prestressed structures where impressed current remains the only viable cathodic protection technique. Therefore before cathodic protection is applied to a prestressed structure the suitability of the structure must be considered. If the prestressing steel is not highly susceptible type then its condition should be assessed. A system has been used based on an inspection of the structure: (a) If no corrosion induced concrete cracking and spalling are evident, then the structure is automatically qualified.
22
(b) If corrosion related cracking and spalling is evident then the tendon should be exposed and inspected for uniform and localized corrosion. The structure is qualified for cathodic protection if: - the remaining cross-section is at least 85% in an area of uniform corrosion; - the remaining cross-section is at least 90% in areas of localized attack (c) Measures to encourage uniform current distribution such as zoning of the anode system so that the IR drop within the anode system is less than 100mV and matching the anode system layout to the density of the steel surface area in the concrete. (d) Installing reliable and stable reference electrodes near prestressed steel cables. (e) Installing a remote control and continuous monitoring system capable of adjusting the system output and storing operating data. The system should be fitted with failsafe current limiting devices.
3.2.2
Corrosion Interaction to surrounding structure
Cathodic protection of a structure may cause accelerated corrosion of neighboring structures if that structure is in the same electrolyte. This is particularly observed for buried or immersed steel structures where the flow of cathodic protection current from the anode to the structure through the earth or water can traverse other structures in the vicinity. The corrosion rate on these neighboring structures increases where the current leaves the structure to return to the cathodically protected structure. The amount of damage likely to occur from stray current corrosion of a steel structure can be calculated using Faradays law, and for 1 A passing for one year some 9kg of steel will be corroded. In practice it is not possible to measure the amount of current being discharged from a structure and so when testing for interaction a potential shift criterion is adopted. This is done by measuring the change of potential of the unprotected structure as the cathodic protection system is energized. A change in the positive direction indicates current leaving the structure at that point gives a maximum value of +20mV for all structures apart from steel in concrete, before mitigation measures are required. The position is more complex if the secondary structure is steel in concrete because steel when immersed in a sufficiently caustic solution (around pH 11 and higher) can be made to discharge current without any apparent metal loss. This is because the current discharge leads to a loss of alkalinity in preference to the oxidation of steel and the alkalinity from the bulk of the electrolyte. In practical terms however it is often better to adopt a cautious approach and utilize the 20 mV criterion. This is because the behaviour of steel may be affected by the presence of chlorides in the concrete. In general conditions, it is unlikely that above ground cathodically protected concrete will create interaction problems with secondary structures. This is because of the dose proximity of anode and cathode and the relatively high resistivity of the concrete. The cathodic protection current will tend to flow between anode and cathode, i.e. between the anode and the rebar, and is unlikely to flow into secondary structures. However, if the anode system is some distance from the structure as could be the case with buried reinforced structures, e.g. pile caps, prestressed concrete pipe etc., then interaction is far more likely. In all cases the risk of interaction should be considered at the design stage and the design should cater for any high-risk items. Low-risk items can be tested when the cathodic protection system is commissioned. If interaction does occur, then possible remedial measures include making a resistive bond to the secondary structure to
23
alleviate the positive shift in potential.
3.2.3
Other potential side effect of cathodic protection system
During the operation of cathodic protection system, both anode and cathode are undergoing chemical reactions. At the cathode, reactions will tend to promote the formation of hydroxides, thus the alkalinity of the concrete is likely to be raised and there will be a change in the chemical morphology around the concrete/steel interface. The amount and the duration over which the current is applied will have an effect on the extent of change found at the cathode. The main concern on the changes to the concrete which are the bonds being reduced between the concrete and steel and the possibility of an alkali sifica reaction being triggered by the increased alkalinity, however, some trial has been setup and assessed the effect of cathodic protection on the steel/concrete bond strength at commercial cathodic protection current densities and could find no noticeable bond strength difference between the various specimen groups operated at differing current densities. Alkali silica reaction has been observed in certain structures for many years and is caused by a chemical reaction between active silica constituents of the aggregate and the alkalis in the cement. The reactive forms of silica are opal, chalcedony and tridymite which occur in several types of rocks. The reaction begins with the siliceous mineral being attacked by alkalis and forming an alkalisilicate gel, which then attracts water by osmosis and increases in volume. This volume increase causes an internal pressure in the concrete which will eventually lead to cracking and disruption of the mortar cover. This will mitigate the effectiveness of the mortar as an anti corrosion coating. The application of cathodic protection would tend to enhance this reaction as the increased alkalinity around the cathode may initiate the reaction. In practice cathodic protection has been applied successfully for many years to reinforced concrete structures and at the current densities typically used (between 0.1 and 20mA/m2) there has been no indication that there is a significant risk of causing additional damage to the concrete by triggering ASR unless the aggregate is already active before cathodic protection is applied.
3.2.4
Electrical Continuity of reinforcement
A basic requirement of any system passing electrical current is that the conductor, in this case the steel reinforcement, is electrically continuous. It has been found by experience that only physical contact of reinforcement may produce a high resistance or discontinuous joints. Reinforcement continuity shall be achieved by welding an additional rebar to each reinforcement in the continuity breakout chases around the structure. Besides, the rebar continuity could avoid the stray current which can accelerate corrosion. For those isolated rebar without continuity bond, when the current pass through the bar, it will anodic the steel, this will accelerate corrosion at the anodic site of isolated rebar. In addition, metallic items on the cathodically protected structure which are not connected to the rebar cage (negative connection) may be affected. Tie wires which are connected to the rebar and protrude through the concrete cover would cause short-circuit of the cathodic protection system and these must be removed prior to installation of the anode. Tie wires which are not connected to the rebar but which are lying on the surface of the concrete, particulary on soffits, will almost certainly corrode, unless they are removed, given their close proximity to the anode. On thin
24
film anode systems the resultant rust staining can be unsightly. Metallic anchors for junction boxes and cable ducts also face a similar problem.
25
4. Case study of refurbishment of chloride contaminated Bridge

4.1 Background
The repair of corrosion damaged reinforced concrete structures is a problem facing many owners of infrastructure in the United Kingdom. The Nettlehill Railway Bridge is situated in the Knightsridge area of Livingston and carries the A899 Livingston Road over the Bathgate to Edinburgh railway line and a pedestrian footpath. This is the main route into Livingston from the M8 Motorway and is one of the busiest roads in West Lothian. The bridge was built in 1967. It has two spans and consists of 2 decks, one for each traffic direction. The decks are constructed with pre-cast, prestressed concrete inverted T-beams with an in-situ reinforced concrete filling. Each deck is simply supported on reinforced concrete abutments and central reinforced concrete piers. The overall span of the bridge is 24.84m and its width 35.13m.Routine inspections noted damage to the structure and detailed concrete investigations found extensive chloride contamination. In order to ensure the continued safe operation of the structure for and beyond the design life repair and protection measures were necessary. The procurement and delivery of such a project involves many parties; and in this instance required specific attention to the constraints of a live railway, including carrying out work during night time railway possessions.
4.2 Structural Investigation

Routine Inspections of the structure alerted the Council to the problems with the structure and in 1999 an extensive concrete investigation was undertaken. The investigation comprised: - Visual examination - Hammer tapping survey - Covermeter survey - Half cell testing - Depth of carbonation - Chloride content - Reinforcement inspection - Cement / Alkali The investigation showed damage to the concrete abutments and piers mainly relating to water ingress through the deck joints. As a result, in 2001 refurbishment works to the deck were undertaken. The deck was waterproofed and the joints replaced. This work was the minimum required to ensure that the deterioration of the sub-structure was halted. Funding constraints did not permit sub-structure repairs to follow on immediately. In 2004 West Lothian Council provided an additional 7.5M to be spent on clearing the backlog of repairs to council bridges. This increase in funds allowed the refurbishment of Nettlehill Railway Bridge to be completed. A principal inspection undertaken by the councils consultant, URS Corporation, identified the extent of the work required. It found that the main composite deck was in fair condition and confirmed that the abutments and central piers were in poor
26
condition with significant areas of delamination, cracking, spalling concrete and rust staining. A further concrete investigation was undertaken to accurately identify the extent of the repair work prior to any repair contract being undertaken.
Problems Identified by 1999 Concrete Investigation
The visual and hammer tapping survey found large areas of delamination, spalling and exposed reinforcement on both abutments and the piers. Some of the areas extended from the abutment shelf down to ground level. It was later found that these areas extended to the top of the foundations and double delamination was found in some areas. When plotted out the shape of the delaminated areas appeared to coincide with the pattern of water ingress from the joints.
Approximate surface area spalling and delaminated (%) North Abutments 20 East Pier (south face) 2 West Pier (south face) 5 East Pier (north face) 1 West Pier (north face) 20 South Abutments 20 Location
This survey accurately identified the extent of the repair work prior to any contract being undertaken. However, a full concrete investigation was required to accurately identify the cause of the deterioration and any other potential problems. The covermeter survey recorded the readings below and in general showed that the cover is adequate:
Location
North Abutment East Pier West Pier South Abutments
Mm. average cover in test area (mm) 26 52 53 36
Max average cover in test area (mm) 56 61 78 55
The half-cell potential survey found a large number of areas where reading indicated an increased risk of corrosion. Readings more negative than -350mV with respect to copper sulphate electrode (CSE) suggest a 95% risk of corrosion. These areas mostly coincided with the areas where deterioration was already visible. Higher than expected results were also recorded due to leakage at some locations. The following results are typical of what was found:
Location
North West Abutment North East Abutment East Pier West Pier South West Abutment South East Abutments
Test Area
5/6 1 / 3 / (4) 17 19/20/21 40 / 42 37 / 39 / 38
27
% of readings more negative than -350mV.CSE Or Comments on corrosion risk 81/20 33 / 67 / (ok) Increased risk but majority ok Increased risk on north face 84 / 12 High / high / low risk
Depth of Carbonation measurements were carried out at 25 locations and the majority of the test results were not greater than 5mm. Carbonation was limited to the surface only and was not contributing to the deterioration of the structure. Chloride content testing found that there was extensive contamination across the whole structure. 0.4% weight of chloride to weight of cement is considered to represent a high risk of corrosion. The figures below are often well above this particularly in areas where water had been leaking through the deck joints. On all parts of the structure samples taken from higher levels had higher concentrations. The depth range clearly shows that reinforcement is well inside the contaminated concrete. Reinforcement inspections were carried out at 16 locations. Moderate to severe pitting corrosion was found at nine of the inspection locations with the remainder showing slight to moderate general corrosion. All the pitting corrosion locations were situated within areas of leakage and/or high chloride content on the abutments and the north face of the pier.
Location
North West Abutment North East Abutment
Test Area
General 3 (high level)
Low level East Pier West Pier South West Abutment South East Abutments General
Chloride Content (%) 1.82 2.05 0.27 0.49 0.72 0.16 0.45 0.56 0.1 0.83 0.08 0.4 0.05 0.84 4.58 0.2
1.01 -3.1 0.58 - 3.1
Depth Range (mm) 5-30 120 -150 5 30 90 120 120 150 5 30 90 120 Surface Reinforcement Reinforcement 120 150
Surface Reinforcement
Cement and alkali content testing concluded that the alkali contents of the eight concrete samples are within normal limits. In summary it was clear from the above testing that the substructure of Nettlehill Railway Bridge needed urgent action to correct the defects before the structure became unstable. The cause of the defects could clearly be traced to the leakage through the movement joints. The defects were worse at the top of the abutments and where the most water ingress was noted. Frost damage, high half cell potentials and high chloride content are all indicative of damage due to the ingress of water containing de-icing salts. The other important factor revealed by the testing was that the problems are more than superficial. There was deep penetration of chlorides, which if not treated would cause further damage to the structure after repair.
28
4.3 Overview of Refurbishment scheme

Resource constraints, meant that the project could not be handled in-house and URS Corporation was appointed as the councils consultants for the Refurbishment. Right from the start this proved valuable as URS had recent experience of dealing with Network Rail and First Engineering. First Engineering were brought in early in the design process to advise on what requirements and restrictions Network Rail would put on the works. Careful consideration was given to work required to be undertaken during railway possessions. Their first task was to carefully consider and cost out all the available repair options. Various options were considered: Option A Do nothing. Carry out regular inspections and allow deterioration to continue. With the structure a long way from reaching its design life and serious deterioration already evident this option was taken no further. Option B Patch repairs. Breakout and repair the damaged and delaminated concrete identified. This is no more than a cosmetic solution and would only provide a short term solution. Known areas of chloride contaminated concrete would be left in the structures and would cause further deterioration to the structure. Option C Cathodic protection. The installation of CP allows the chloride contaminated concrete to remain in place and will halt the corrosion of steel reinforcement. Only the damaged and delaminated concrete would be broken out and replaced. Option D Concrete replacement. Breakout and repair all areas of defective concrete including those areas identified as chloride contaminated. Up to 150mm of concrete would have to be removed in many locations and ongoing testing would be required to identify all the contaminated concrete. Accurate costing would be impossible at tender stage. Option E Demolish and Rebuild. This option is extremely expensive and unacceptably disruptive.
Estimated Repair Costs The identified options were costed. This showed that breakout and repair in conjunction with CP provided best value, the estimates of each option are shown as follows
Option A B C D E
Estimated Cost N/A 699 606 879 606 1 230 590 3.5M - 4.5M
Corrosion Protection A drawback with patch repair (option B) is that if any chloride contaminated concrete is left in place it will continue to cause corrosion. In some cases it can even accelerate corrosion in the steel adjacent to the repairs. This process is known as the incipient anode effect. The only guarantee that corrosion will be stopped is to remove all the contaminated concrete. This could be difficult to achieve and expensive.
Cathodic protection can prevent the above and has a number of benefits:
29
One off treatment with a design life of up to 60 years. Well varified technique Cost effective Potential cost saving Only damaged concrete is removed Contaminated concrete can remain Avoids extensive temporary propping / closures Reduce the time taken for the repairs Prevent corrosion from reoccurring even if deck joints fail in future
In West Lothian four bridges had already been given cathodic protection. All of them had suffered from similar problems to Nettlehill Railway Bridge. In each case CP was adopted for its economic benefits.
Chosen Repair Scheme
The cathodic protection option was selected for Nettlehill Railway Bridge. It is the option that provided Best Value, was the most cost effective solution and provided the best long term solution for the structure. More importantly all the work could be done without disrupting traffic on the A899 and the trains. As a Local Authority this final issue is often as important as the engineering issues that are considered.
Proiect Procurement and Tendering
Having undertaken additional site investigation we were confident that the quantity of concrete repair required was relatively accurate so an NEC contract with an activity schedule was used. Tenderers were provided with a specification, drawings of the structure including reinforced concrete details and drawings showing the extent of the work required. The CP was to be a contractor designed element along with any necessary propping and temporary access. Also included in the tender were a set of Railway Possessions that were pre-booked. The tenderers were permitted to use all of these possessions and book further possession at their own expense. The activity schedule form of contract allows the contractor to select the repair techniques, materials and construction programme that they are most comfortable working with. They are best placed to consider this having been involved with work like this before. From the clients perspective there is some assurance that tenderers are giving proper consideration to the work required when they compile their tender return. The local authority cannot specify specific products and sub-contractors. Tenderers are free to use any product or supplier provided they fully comply with the specification. The interface with the railway was always going to be critical for the success of the refurbishment scheme. The tenderers selected to bid for the work all had experience working on railways and were registered on Constructionline. The tendering process followed West Lothian Councils standard procedures and was won by Freyssinet Ltd. They in turn appointed Corrosion Control Services as their specialist sub-contractor for the CP. The tender price was within budget and the
30
contract was awarded in July 2005. The work started on site on 25 July 2005 and was complete by Christmas.
4.4 Site Constraints

Railway (Possessions)
The Bathgate to Edinburgh branch line passes below the Nettlehill Railway Bridge and it is an important commuter route into the city. This means that the bulk of the land below the bridge belongs to Network Rail and any work undertaken is subject to approval and oversight by Network Rail. The north abutment and the piers are all in this area. The railway was the main constraint to the scheme that would govern how the works would be undertaken and programmed so the consultant made early contract with Network Rail and their contractor First Engineering. A site meeting was held, all the practical issues were discussed and suitable working practises were agreed at the design stage. No disruption to train services on the line was permitted by Network Rail and possessions were only permitted for short periods during the night or longer durations at the weekend. The line could be closed from 00:15 to 09:Oohrs on Saturday night and 00:15 to 06:15 on Sunday night. These times include the time it takes Network Rail to close the track and can be subject to late cancellation. West Lothian Council had to sign and agreement with Network Rail before the works could commence. It is a standard document that indemnifies Network Rail against any accidents or disruption caused by works being undertaken on their land by outside parties. A couple of factors worked in our favour, there is only a single track and it is not electrified. In consultation it was agreed at the design stage which areas of the structure could be worked on during the day and which could only be done during possession working. These were as follows: As there was enough space between the track and the north abutment, a safe working zone was permitted. This area had to be fenced in to prevent operatives straying onto the live railway and was established during the first overnight possession. Once in place all the work was able to proceed within the zone at any time of day. The south face of the piers was also designated a safe working zone. Fences were built at either side of the bridge and full height containment was provided between the two piers. Network Rail also permitted the creation of a temporary access through their boundary fence for site access. The north face of the piers was too close to the track and all work had to be undertaken during possessions. It was agreed that props could remain in place, as it was impractical to remove them after each possession. In addition to the working zones Network Rail also required all the scaffolding to be fully contained and all debris to be removed from the site. Their ballast was not to be contaminated with any waste from the site. Network Rail required their contractor to be on site whenever work was being undertaken. Their supervisor gave every operative and visitor a briefing before entering the site and inspected the works at regular intervals. Unfortunately the cost of this supervision had to be met by West Lothian Council.
31
The good working relationship established by the consultant with Network Rail and First Engineering carried on with the contractor, Freyssinet. They were able to reorganise possessions to better suit their programme and were able to source specialist plant from First Engineering. It was fortunate that none of the possessions were cancelled. Network Rails involvement with the scheme was to approve the CP installation. They were concerned at the possibility of stray currents affecting their signaling equipment. It was agreed that some inter-action testing should be carried out prior to the system being switched on and fully energized.
Public Access
Pedestrians had to be given free access along the footpath beside the south abutment. Closing the footpath was not considered practical, as the only safe alternative route was a long diversion to a footbridge further down the A899. Inevitably people would be tempted to try crossing the busy dual carriageway instead. The contractor was required to undertake the repair work and guarantee the safety of pedestrians. With properties close to the site, people were always going to have an interest in what was going on. To comply with West Lothians Considerate Contractor Scheme, adjacent houses were letter dropped and advance warning signs were posted giving relevant information. Unauthorised public access was also an issue that needed careful consideration, as vandalism is now a widespread a problem. The site compound needed to be secure, as did the working areas, particularly scaffolding when operatives were not on site.
Traffic & Traffic Loadings
The A899 is one of West Lothians busiest roads and is classed as traffic sensitive. This means that no traffic Management is permitted on the road during the rush hours, between 07:00 and 09:30hrs and 15:30 and 19:30. No closure of the bridge was permitted as the knock on effect on adjacent roads and given its proximity to the M8 any closure would have had severe consequences and was not acceptable. With the bulk of the repair work being on the substructure this was not a big issue on this contract. However, there is always a risk when breaking out concrete close to the bearing shelves that areas of the bridge could become unstable, In this instance a bridge closure would have had a serious impact on traffic and trains and was an unacceptable risk. The contractor was therefore required to provide props with enough capacity to support the deck whenever work was to be undertaken in the area of the bearing shelves.
4.5 Selection of Repair Methods

Concrete Repair
The areas of the piers and abutments that required repair were relatively extensive, in particular on the abutments. However, generally the corrosion was limited to the outer layer of reinforcement and the amount of reinforcement that required replacement was small. A particular concern in todays concrete repair industry is the health of workers, and
32
in particular the risks of vibration white finger associated with traditional methods of concrete demolition such as the use of pneumatic breakers. Therefore, due to the amount of cover concrete to be removed hydro-demolition was selected. Dry mix sprayed concrete was chosen for the reinstatement of the parent concrete (and for use as an overlay with the titanium mesh anode system described below). As this process relies for bond strength on the compaction of concrete particulates into the parent structure by the force of the larger aggregates in the mix during application the repair concrete bond strength does not rely upon the inclusion of reinforcement in the repair. In addition, as cathodic protection was applied it was not necessary to break out chloride contaminated, but otherwise sound concrete. Therefore, concrete breakout behind reinforcement was not necessary unless reinforcement repair was required. A pre-bagged product, Sikacem 133 was selected for the repair and CP overlay. This product is compatible with impressed current cathodic protection and has a good track record for projects of this nature. This was an important consideration, given the constraints on future access due to the live railway.
Corrosion Protection
The pre-contract investigations had determined an extensive contamination of the concrete sub-structures with chlorides. It had also been determined that the most cost effective manner to extend the life of the structure was to install a cathodic protection system in order that contaminated, but otherwise sound concrete did not require removal. Impressed current cathodic protection was selected, with two different anode types used for protection of the buried and atmospherically exposed surfaces. A titanium mesh and sprayed concrete overlay system was used above ground level and titanium based buried anodes used underground. For structures with the degree of chloride contamination at Nettlehill Railway Bridge other forms of corrosion protection could not offer the same extent of security as a long-term solution. Impressed current cathodic protection has an extensive world-wide track record as a corrosion prevention technique, with a conservative estimate of treatment now exceeding 1,000,000m2 and a UK track record in excess of 20 years. As an established engineering technique it now has a European standard (BS EN12696:2000 Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete) which forms the basis of design and installation procedures. There is a design process, which enables third-party verification, and the installed systems can be monitored to provide an auditable record that corrosion is being prevented.
Overcoming Site Constraints
The selection and design of the repair and protection systems had to take into account the main constraints on working on the structure; the live railway line, the need to allow public access and the need to maintain traffic flow. Where necessary the concrete repairs were designed to be undertaken in phases and propping was carried out to ensure no live traffic load restrictions were required. The selection of sprayed concrete, over other forms of concrete repair, reduced the programme periods as the requirements for falsework and formwork were reduced.
33
The CP system was designed to reduce, as far as practicable, the need for anode systems, cabling, cable management or monitoring devices to be installed on the track face of the North Pier, where the greatest restriction on working was imposed (work could be undertaken during the weekend night time possessions only). Whilst this required some additional installation activities to be undertaken; for example, drilling through the piers from the opposite face to install reference electrodes; it reduced the work scope to be completed in the critical possession times.
4.6 Cathodic Protection

The cathodic protection element of the works was contractor designed, to the clients performance standard. This approach ensured that the requirements of the system to provide full corrosion protection in accordance with published performance criteria over the 20 year design life would be met, but at the same time allowed the contractor flexibility to design a system that could be installed given the site and programme constraints.
Design The system was designed to meet the performance requirements of BS12696: 2000. As built drawings of the reinforcement layouts were made available, and the area of reinforcement to be protected calculated from these. A cathode current density of 20mA/m2 was used for all reinforcement to be protected, which is now considered to be a conservative design figure for in-land structures. The structures (abutments and two central piers) were divided into 8 independently controllable anode zones. Zones were divided such that different exposure conditions were separate as shown on Figure 6. The zonal design currents ranged from l Amp - 4 Amps.
Each anode zone was provided with a minimum of 2 negative cable connections to the reinforcement, and all cables were run in a ring to provide additional redundancy. To monitor the performance of the systems reference electrodes were installed. Within each zone a total of 6 electrodes were installed, 4 Ag/AgCI/O.5M KCI and 2 pseudo electrodes of mixed metal oxide (MMO) coated titanium. Whilst the pseudo electrodes cannot be used to measure absolute potentials they are suitable as potential decay sensors and have the advantage that their design life is in excess of the 25 years normally quoted for silver chloride type electrodes. Two types of anode system were included in the design. A MMO coated titanium mesh was used above ground, embedded within a sprayed concrete overlay. The anode design current density was 110mA/m2, in keeping with the manufacturers recommendations. At this output density the design life of the anode mesh has been shown through accelerated testing to be in excess of 50 years. Cabling was designed to be embedded within the overlay, thus the susceptibility to damage by vandalism was greatly reduced. Below ground level at the abutments a MMO coated wire anode was used, embedded in a trench of carbonaceous backfill. Use of this anode type reduced the requirements for excavation to the face of the structures underground. As a result the cost of the system to the client was reduced. The cabling for each zone was run back to a zonal junction box (as shown in figure 7) and a single multi-core cable for each zone was installed to connect the junction box with the power supply and monitoring enclosure. A single enclosure housed this equipment, which consisted of combined power supply and monitoring equipment.
34
Installation
Wherever possible the installation of the CP system was integrated into the concrete repair works. For example, negative connections were installed within areas of designated concrete breakout. Reference electrodes were installed such that they were a minimum of 0.5m from concrete repair sites, to ensure data are representative of the contaminated parent concrete. In all areas of concrete repair and in between the connection locations the reinforcement electrical continuity was tested. Fortunately, this was generally found to be good with resistance data less than 1 ohm between any two points, thus continuity bonding measures were not required. After completion of the repairs the concrete surface was prepared by dry grit blast cleaning to establish an exposed aggregate finish. The anode mesh and all associated cabling were fixed to the concrete substrate using plastic hammer fixings. Following this all circuitry was tested and a thorough inspection of the installation undertaken prior to the overlay application. Sprayed concrete overlay was applied using the dry spray technique, with water added at the nozzle, to a nominal thickness of 25mm. Where works were undertaken in the weekend railway possessions the grit blast & mesh fit and spayed concrete were undertaken on subsequent nights, such that the surface was not exposed long enough for contaminants to form or for damage to the part complete installations to occur from third parties.
Monitoring and Control System
Impressed current CP requires a permanent dc power supply. The power supply equipment was rated to provide 125% of the maximum design current at a voltage of 12 volts, which was determined by calculation. Various monitoring and control systems are commercially available, from manually adjustable to automatic control. The system selected was manufactured by Remco, to ensure compatibility with the other systems operated by the Council. This system enables data to be collected either on site with a laptop computer or remote from site via a modem link. Routine monitoring, such as Function Checks or Performance Verifications can be instigated using pre-set software.
4.7 Monitoring of CP systems

All CP systems, regardless of the type or nature of the anode system require monitoring to ensure proper performance. The extent and interval of monitoring may vary dependent on the system type and age. The Nettlehill Railway Bridge system was first monitored as part of the commissioning procedures. The commissioning process included approval testing of all ac and do circuitry, energisation of each zone to 50% of design maximum in constant current mode, proof testing of the remote monitoring system and communications link and, specific to this project interaction testing in association with Network Rail. This was required to demonstrate that the do currents designed to protect the reinforcement did not interfere with the signaling or train identification systems in use. The tests were satisfactory.
35
At 28 days after energisation a 24-hour decay test was undertaken and the data were assessed against the performance requirements of the specification. Where required current outputs to each zone were adjusted. The following performance checks are recommended for Nettlehill Railway Bridge. A monthly function check to ensure the systems are switched on and operational, via the remote monitoring system; a quarterly performance verification test and adjustment (if required) of output currents and an annual inspection of the bridge. After the first year of operation the verification tests can be carried out at 6- monthly intervals. Whilst the monitoring regime of a CP system can sometimes seem like a maintenance burden, the costs are insignificant in comparison with the alternative remedial solutions discussed earlier. In addition, the owner has an auditable record of his structure and data to demonstrate the corrosion control measures are effective.
4.8 Conclusion
Nettlehill Railway Bridge was a typical structure suffering from chloride contamination by road salts and the resulting corrosion damage of reinforcement had caused spalling and damage to the concrete. The repair process was complicated by site specific constraints in the bridge loading, public access and a live railway line. West Lothian Council, their consultant URS Corporation and the winning tenderer Freyssinet Limited successfully delivered the repair scheme, working within these constraints, and working within the councils budget and timescale. The use of cathodic protection will extend the life of the structure, and greatly reduced the requirement to break out contaminated, but otherwise undamaged concrete.
36
5. Evaluation of Cathodic Protection System Performance

5.1 Background
Hongkong International Terminals Limited (HIT) have carried out an evaluation to the performance of the existing cathodic protection (CP) system for Kwai Chung Container Terminal 4 Berths 4 and 6 by investigating the conditions of the beam sides, soffit and reinforcement within the representative locations. Two investigation locations were selected locations within Bay 11 (Berth 4) and Bay 17 (Berth 6) respectively. The beam CP system was energised in 1993 for Berth 4 and in 1995 for Berth 6. The investigation was carried out from 10 October 2001 to 26 October 2001. The investigation includes the site investigation, laboratory testing and the evaluation on the CP system performance. The scope of investigation at each selected location included the following tests: a) Visual inspection of exterior cathodic protection overlay (CPO); b) Delamination survey of exterior CPO; c) Electrochemical potential measurements; d) Chloride content determination; e) Bond adhesion strength test; and f) Breakout inspection of beam CP system.
5.2 Investigation Data 5.2.1 Survey Methodology
Visual Survey A visual survey of the elements investigated was completed by eye. The aim is to find out any visible defects or deteriorated areas such as concrete cracking, spalling, rust staining, etc. on the CPO. Delamination Survey The accessible beam CP surfaces were tested by mechanical hammer tapping from provided access to identify delamination. The delaminated area sounded hollow when tapped. The dimensions and positions of delamination were recorded and mapped onto site records. Electrochemical Potential Survey The micro half cells were installed at debonded and bonded areas to assess the CP performance by measuring and analyzing the potentials of the reinforcement in the concrete structure. Holes were drilled at the selected areas for the installation of the micro half cells. As per the annual audit potential decay test, the instant-off potentials and the depolarized potentials for 362 hours (Approximate 15 days) were then measured simultaneously with the annual audit potential decay test.
37
When the TR was switched on, the potentials of the micro half cells were measured. A set of instant-off readings was then taken before the system was switched off for the potential decay test. After 362 hour potential decay, the potential readings were recorded. Intermediate readings during the potential decay were also recorded for establishing the decay profile. Potential decay is another accepted means of verifying the performance of a CP installation. The commonly adopted potential decay criterion is a 100 mV potential decay over a minimum period of depolarization of four hours (Concrete Society 1989; NACE 1990; Manning 1990 [Ontario Ministry of Transportation]; Draft CEN Standard 1994; SHRP-S-359 Technical Alert 1994). The period of depolarization may be weeks as the rate of depolarization is dependent on many factors, predominantly corrosion rate and activity, the rate of oxygen transport to the reinforcement surface and the period of polarization of the CP system.
Chloride Content Determination
The chloride concentration presents in concrete is particularly important with respect to reinforcement corrosion. The presence of chloride ions can depassivate steel reinforcement in concrete and promote corrosion (together with carbonation, this is the most common mechanism of initiating reinforcement corrosion). Chloride contamination may originate from the mix constituents (e.g. mix water, sea sand, curing water or accelerating agents) or it may be associated with ingress from external sources (e.g. seawater, flushing waters, exposure to chemicals). The chloride ion content of the concrete is therefore particularly important to reinforcement corrosion. Although the action of free chloride ions at the surface of steel in concrete is not fully understood, the presence of chloride ions can depassivate the steel and promote corrosion. Chloride levels as low as 0.03% by weight of sample are enough to activate steel in concrete. For modern concrete this figure is equivalent to about 0.2% chloride ion by weight of cement assuming an aggregate/cement ratio of about 6:1. However, the most widely accepted reinforcement corrosion threshold is 0.4% chloride by weight of cement (i.e. approximately 0.06% by weight of concrete sample). Three dust samples were taken from three different drilled holes in the beam soffit within each representative location. For each depth, the dust samples from the three drilled holes were mixed together before testing in order to eliminate statistical error. Chloride content analysis was completed at increments from the soffit of 0-10mm, 10-30mm, 30-50mm, 50-70mm, 70-90mm, 90-110mm and 110-130mm. Before obtaining the dust samples by drilling, the first 5mm of the CPO at the selected locations was removed. The samples were tested in accordance with BS1881: Part 124:1988 Method for Analysis of Hardened Concrete.
Bond Adhesion Strength Testing
Four bond adhesion strength tests were performed at the selected beam side within each representative location. The coring was done through the CPO and 10 to 20mm into the concrete substrate. Coring machine was used to make the coring samples with diameter of 45mm before the bond adhesion strength testing was carried out. The in-situ adhesion strength tests were then conducted with a Proceq pull-off tester.
38
The required bond strength of 0.6N/mm2 was used to assess the bond strength between the CPO and the concrete, or the bond strength between the CPO and the repair mortar.
Beam CP System Breakout Inspection
At each representative location, two areas at the beam sides and two areas at the beam soffit were selected for the breakout inspection of anode mesh, repair mortar and reinforcement. A covermeter was used to estimate the depth of the beam reinforcement and to locate the beam reinforcement. After the selection of the breakout window, about 200 x 200mm of the CPO was removed by sawcut and breakout to observe and assess the conditions of bonding between the anode mesh and the CPO. The anode mesh and CPO were then removed to expose the repair mortar and the reinforcement. Further breakout was required to expose the beam reinforcement. The condition of the bonding between repair mortar and other materials (Concrete or CPO), and the bonding between reinforcement and the repair materials was noted. The assessment on the integrity of each material (CPO, repair mortar or concrete) was also observed during the breakout. The degree of reinforcement corrosion was recorded onto proformas.
5.2.2
Testing Result
Visual Inspection of Exterior CPO
The visual inspection of the exterior CPO installed at the beam soffit and beam sides was carried out within the two representative locations. The results of the inspection showed that no visual defect was found on the exterior CPO.
Delamination Survey of Exterior CPO
The results of the exterior CPO delamination survey revealed that no major delamination was found at the representative location within Bay 11. Five minor delaminated areas were found in the exterior CPO within the representative location at Bay 17. The location and size of delaminated areas are recorded in Appendix C of this report. The percentage of the delaminated CPO on the surveyed beams is shown in following Table: Percentage of delamination in exterior CPO Bay Beam location Surveyed Delaminated Percentage of CPO Area Area in CPO Delamination (cm2) (cm2) (%) 11 Gridline: SCB/T7 T8 69080 0 0 LB1/T7 T8 146530 0 0 SCB LB1/T7 98370 0 0 SCB LB1/T8 98370 0 0 Total 412350 0 0
39
17
Gridline: SCB/T64 T65 LB1/T64 T65 SCB LB1/T64 SCB LB1/T65 Total
69080 146530 98370 98370 412350
1980 0 2100 2880 6960
3 0 2 3 1.7
Electrochemical Potential Measurements
Based on the results of delamination survey, a bonded area and a debonded CPO area were selected at Bay 17 for the installation of micro half cells. Five micro half cells (Nos.: 6 to 10) were installed in the debonded area. The remaining five micro half cells (Nos.: 1 to 5) were installed in the bonded area. Since no debonded CPO was found at the representative location within Bay 11, five micro half cells were installed at the selected bonded area only. The positions of the cells installed are recorded in Appendix C of this report. The results of the electrochemical potential measurements and the adopted potential decay criteria are respectively included in Appendix D and Appendix B (Section B.3) of this report. The results are summarized as follows: Bay 11-bonded area The 100mV potential decay was achieved at four micro half cells after four hours and at all the micro half cells after 24 hours. The potential decay of all micro half cells after 362 (Approximate 15 days) hours also achieved this potential decay criteria. Bay 17-bonded area The 100mV potential decay was achieved at two micro half cells after four hours and at all micro half cells after 24 hours. The potential decay of all micro half cells after 362 hours achieved this potential decay criteria. Bay 17-debonded area The 100mV potential decay was achieved at one micro half cells after four hours, three micro half cells after 24 hours and at all the micro half cells after 362 hours.
Chloride Content Determination Three drilling concrete dust samples were taken at the beam soffit within each representative location for determining the chloride content in the beam soffit. The locations for the dust samplings are recorded in Appendix C of this report.
40
The Certificates of Test is included in Appendix E of this report. The results of chloride content analysis for Sample 1 (Bay 11) and Sample 2 (Bay 17) are recorded in Table below.
Table of Summary of chloride content in beam soffit Concrete Chloride content in beam soffit (% by depth (mm) weight of sample) Sample 1 (Bay 11) Sample 2 (Bay 17) 0-10 0.99 0.66 10-30 0.94 0.33 30-50 0.12 0.10 50-70 0.14 0.06 70-90 0.16 0.08 90-110 0.15 0.05 110-130 0.20 0.04
The above results indicated that the chloride content of Sample 1 exceeded the critical level at all concrete depths (0.4% by weight of cement or 0.06% by sample weight). The chloride content of Sample 2 generally dropped below the critical level beyond 70mm deep. The chloride profiles for these two samples are similar. The chloride content at the depth of 30mm is relatively high. The chloride contents of Sample 1 at the depths of 0-10mm and 10-30mm were 0.99% and 0.94%. The chloride contents of Sample 2 at these depths were 0.66% and 0.33%. Beyond the depth of 30mm, the chloride content of both samples was below or equal to 0.2%.
Bond Adhesion Strength Test
Four bond adhesion strength tests were carried out at the beam side in each representative location. These testing locations are shown in Appendix C of this report. The results of the bond adhesion strength test are shown below:
Table of results of bond adhesion strength test Bay Core Failure Failure position sample load CPO/repa In repair In no. (N/mm2) ir mortar mortar concrete interface 11 C1 1.1 100% C2 1.9 100% C3 0.7 100% C4 1.5 100% 17 C1 2.8 100% C2 2.3 100% C3 5.6 100% C4 5.6 100% The testing results show that the minimum adhesion strength obtained at Bay 11 is 0.7N/mm2 (Sample C3). The minimum adhesion strength for the samples obtained at Bay 17 is 2.3N/mm2 (Sample C2).
41
The failure positions of all the samples at Bay 11 were in concrete. For Bay 17, all samples failed in the repair mortar except Sample C1 which failed at CPO/repair mortar interface.
Beam CP System Breakout Inspection
Four breakouts were made at each representative location for the inspection of anodes, repair mortar and beam reinforcement. The size of each breakout was about 200mm x 200mm. At each representative location, two locations at the beam sides and two locations at the beam soffit were selected for the breakout inspection. The results of breakout inspection are detailed in Appendix F of this report and the general observations from the inspection are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The anode mesh securely bonded to the CPO. The broken pieces of CPO, repair mortar and concrete were of small pieces. This was an indication of intact materials. The bonding between the reinforcement and the repair mortar was strong. No debonding between the various layers of cementitious materials was observed. No inherent defect within each type of cementitious material was observed. No or minor corrosion was observed on the original reinforcement.
Visible ribs and minor rust stain were found on the replacement reinforcement. It is likely that this minor surface rust was originally present on the steel surface at the time of placement.
5.3 Discussions Visual Survey

The installation of CP systems for Berth 4 and Berth 6 was completed in October 1993 and in May 1995 respectively. The findings included in Section 5.2.2 showed that the CPO is still resistant to the physical attack caused by seawater after more than 5 years of operation.
Delamination Survey
1) The findings in Section 5.2.2 showed that, generally, no further CPO delamination has developed. Minor CPO delamination was observed in the selected location of Bay 17. The percentage of delamination was about 1.7% of the total surveyed area. The minor CPO delamination, in general, will not lower the cathodic protection level to the reinforcement due to sharing and the built-in redundancy of the system. However, regular site inspection should be conducted to monitor the rate of delamination extension.
2)
3)
Electrochemical Potential Measurements

42
1) 2) 3)
The readings of all micro half cells installed at the representative area of Bay 11 reflected that the cathodic protection to the reinforcement was adequate. The results in Section 5.2.2 showed that the potential decay of all micro half cells for Bay 11 achieved 100mV after 362 hours. The findings in Section 5.2.2 also reflected that adequate protection to the reinforcement in the bonded and debonded areas was provided and the CP performance at both areas was comparable. This showed the importance of including redundancy in the system design. The readings of the 10 micro half cells installed at Bay 17 showed that the potential decay achieved 100mV after 362 hours.
4)
CP Performance Evaluation
1) The chloride content analysis stated in Section 5.2.2 shows that the chloride levels in the beam soffits of Bay 11 exceeded the corrosion threshold level by three times at the reinforcement depth. The beam reinforcement, therefore, is subjected to high corrosion risk when CP is not in operation. The chloride levels of Bay 17 generally are found to be close to the corrosion threshold level at the reinforcement depth. 2) The inspection results showed that in breakout windows of Bay 11, ribs were still clearly visible on the replacement beam reinforcement. Minor rust stain was also found on the surface of the replacement reinforcement. It is likely that this minor surface rust was originally present on the steel surface at the time of placement. No further corrosion was found on the original reinforcement from breakout window of Bay 11 and all breakout windows of Bay 17. Minor rust stains present on the original reinforcement are not considered to have developed following installation of CP. These rust stains rather were likely to be present prior to installation of CP. No crack is observed in the respective cementitious layer and the bonding between the reinforcement and the substrate material was found intact during the breakout process. The above observation and analyses concluded that the cathodic protection is effectively preventing reinforcement corrosion at high chloride level in a marine environment. The Chloride profiles of Sample 1 and Sample 2 also reflect that the chloride contents of the concrete at the depth of approximate 30mm were higher than those beyond 30mm. Since the location of the anode mesh is approximately 30 to 40mm below the CPO surface and the chloride content dropped significantly beyond the anode, it is proved that the anode mesh can effectively hinder the penetration of chloride ions into the beam soffit by ionic attraction.
3)
4)
5)
6)
43
Bond Adhesion Strength Test of the CPO to Concrete

The results of the bond adhesion strength tests indicate that the bond strengths between layers of materials and within a homogeneous material exceeded required bond strength of 0.6N/mm2.
5.4 Conclusion
(a) The investigation, which was conducted at the two representative locations, proved that the cathodic protection to the beam reinforcement is adequate and is effectively protecting the reinforcement against corrosion in an adverse marine environment. This conclusion is supported by the following. (b) No visual defect was found on the exterior CPO at the inspected areas. Minor and localized delamination was found in the CPO at three minor areas of Bay 17. This delaminated CPO will not likely to cause significant effect to the CP performance due to the built-in redundancy of the system. However, some future site inspection is recommended to monitor the rate of delamination extension. (c) The assessment of the CP performance based on the 100mV potential decay criterion showed that the protection to the reinforcement in the bonded or debonded areas was adequate. (d) The average chloride content of the two dust samples collected in beam soffit exceeded the critical level of 0.06% by weight of sample at the reinforcement depths. It is concluded that the reinforcement in the beam soffits will be subjected to high corrosion risk if CP is not in operation. (e) The breakout inspection carried out at the two representative locations proved that no further corrosion deterioration was found on the original reinforcement. Minor rust stain was found on the surface of the replacement reinforcement but the ribs were still clearly visible. It is likely that this minor surface rust was originally present on the steel surface at the time of placement. The bonding between the reinforcement and the surrounding repair mortar was found to be intact during the breaking out. In addition, bonds between various cementitious layers and within each individual layer were found to be intact during the breakout inspection. (f) The results of the bond adhesion strength tests showed that the bond strength between the CPO and the substrate was adequate based on the required bond strength of 0.6N/mm2.
44
6. Conclusion
Many types of concrete structures are exposed to aggressive environments, especially those with depassivating agents (e.g. Carbon Dioxide and Chloride), such as car parks, marine facilities and bridges, it allows the corrosion process to proceed quickly. Most of the problems with corrosion of steel in concrete are not due to loss of steel but the growth of oxide. This leads to cracking and spalling of concrete cover. Concrete damage would usually have to be well advanced before a reinforced concrete structure is at risk. In the design of cathodic protection system, some additional investigation shall be undertaken in order to confirm the suitability of cathodic protection and provide system design parameters for determining the required current density, suitable anode types, and design of zoning for the system. In the case of Nettlehill Railway Bridge, it was a typical structure suffering from chloride contamination by road salts and the resulting corrosion damage of reinforcement had caused spalling and damage to the concrete. The repair process was complicated by site specific constraints in the bridge loading, public access and a live railway line. West Lothian Council, their consultant and contractor have successfully delivered the repair scheme, working within these constraints, and working within the councils budget and timescale. The use of cathodic protection will extend the life of the structure, and greatly reduced the requirement to break out contaminated, but otherwise undamaged concrete. In the investigation of cathodic protection system performance at Hong Kong International Terminal, which was conducted at the two representative locations, it proved that the cathodic protection to the beam reinforcement is adequate and is effectively protecting the reinforcement against corrosion in an adverse marine environment. The breakout inspection carried out at the two representative locations have further indicated that no corrosion deterioration was found on the original reinforcement. Minor rust stain was found on the surface of the replacement reinforcement but the ribs were still clearly visible All in All, the technical competence, financial implication and difficulties of implementation for the cathodic protection system has been assessed, and found out that it is the option provided Best Value, the most cost effective solution and the best long term solution for the chloride contaminated structure, if the system is designed, constructed and maintained properly.
45
7. Reference
[1] C.L. Page, Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete, Society of Chemical Industry [2] G.C.M. Gaal, Prediction of Deterioration of Concrete Bridges, Delft University Press [3] K.G.C. Berkeley, Cathodic Protection of Reinforcement Steel in Concrete, Butterworths [4] W. Von Baeckmann, Handbook of Cathodic Corrosion Protection, Theory and Practice of Electrochemical Protection Processess, Gulf Professional Publishing [5] P. Kumar Methta, Concrete in the Marine Environment, Elsevier Applied Science [6] John P. Broomfield, Corrosion of steel in Concrete, Understanding, Investigation and Repair, E & FN SPON [7] Taywood Engineering Limited, HIT Terminal 4 Berth 4 and Berth 6 Cathodic Protection System Special Evaluation of CP Performance [8] Jim Preston, Corrosion Control Services Limited, Concrete Repair and Cathodic Protection: A Scottish Case Study [9] BS EN 12696:2000, British Standard Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete
46
Appendix A Plan and Photo Record for Nettlehill Railway Bridge
South Abutment Cabling 001.jpg
South Abutment Mesh Installation 006.jpg
South Abutment repair areas prior to concrete spraying 001.j...
South Abutment repair areas prior to concrete spraying 002.j...South Abutment repair areas prior to concrete spraying 003.j...
South Abutment repair areas prior to concrete spraying 012.j...
South Abutment West Overlay 001.jpg
Appendix B Breakout Window Record and Photo Record for HIT CP Investigation
Chloride profiles for Sample 1 and Sample 2

Depth of beam reinforcement inspected (50 - 130mm)
Approximate depth of anode mesh (35mm)
1.2
0.8
Sample 1 (Bay 11) Sample 2 (Bay 17) Critical level 35mm 50mm 130mm
0.6
Chloride Content (% Sample Weight)
0.4
0.2
Critical level (0.06% by weight of sample)
0 60 80 100 120 140 160
20
40
Mean Concrete Depth (mm)
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD
Page No. B/1 B/1 B/2 B/2 B/3 B/3 B/4 B/4 B/5 B/5 Photo No. 3025-1 3041-9 3041-16 3041-21 3040-21 3040-33 3039-32 3025-28 3025-16 3025-6 Description Repair mortor / concrete interface at breakout window B/O4 of Bay 17 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O4 of Bay11 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O3 of Bay 11 Close-up view of reinforcement in breakout window B/O4 of Bay 11 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O1 of Bay 11 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O2 of Bay 11 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O1 of Bay 17 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O2 of Bay 17 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O3 of Bay 17 Reinforcement inspection at breakout window B/O4 of Bay 17
B/1
B/2
B/3
B/4
B/5

MSC Project Draft Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC Project Draft Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC Project Draft Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Civil Engineering THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Student: University No.: Supervisor:

Lee Fu Pei, David 1999042754 Dr. X.Y. Li

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

O2 Oxygen 2H+ Hydrogen ions 2H2O

+ 2H2O Water + 2eElectrons + 2e-

4eElectrons H2 Hydrogen gas H2

MSc Project Draft Report

CO2 Gas H2CO3 Carbonic acid

+ H2O Water + Ca(OH) 2 Pore solution

H2CO3 Carbonic acid CaCO3 + Calcium carbonate 2H2O

MSc Project Draft Report

The binding capacity of carbon dioxide of concrete, which is determined by following:

Loss of Passivity by Chloride

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

Influence of cracking on concrete surface

MSc Project Draft Report

2.3 Mitigation measure for contaminated reinforced concrete structures

Conventional concrete patch repair

Detailed Procedures of Convention Patch Repair

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

Protective Coating/Barrier on Concrete Surface

MSc Project Draft Report

Electrochemical Treatment Cathodic Protection

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

Discrete anode with cementitious or graphite backfill.

Reinforcement continuity & bonding

MSc Project Draft Report

For example: Zn 2e-

MSc Project Draft Report

3. Implementation of Cathodic Protection System

MSc Project Draft Report

Design consideration of cathodic protection system

MSc Project Draft Report

Acceptance Criteria for Cathodic Protection System

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

Corrosion Interaction to surrounding structure

MSc Project Draft Report

alleviate the positive shift in potential.

Other potential side effect of cathodic protection system

Electrical Continuity of reinforcement

MSc Project Draft Report

MSc Project Draft Report

4. Case study of refurbishment of chloride contaminated Bridge

4.2 Structural Investigation

MSc Project Draft Report

Mm. average cover in test area (mm) 26 52 53 36

Max average cover in test area (mm) 56 61 78 55

MSc Project Draft Report